118	   linuxnewbie.org.gif 
   119	   
   120	                                      Wednesday, 05-Jan-2000 11:06:49 EST
   121	   Why I chose Windows NT over Linux
   122	   Written By: Skippy
   123	   
   124	   This issue is nicely avoided in a Windows NT domain. "One account, one
   125	   password" is the method for domain security - if a user can log on,
   126	   they can get their mail (or rather, they aren't likely to be denied
   127	   mail access due to password discrepancies). NT domain user accounts
   128	   have only one network password for authentication, network browsing,
   129	   email, etc. Occam's Razor dictates that we avoid the unnecessary
   130	   complexity of the potential Linux solution for this.
   131	   
   132	   Another concern is the fact that I have about a dozen users at a
   133	   remote facility. Windows NT's domain model allows me to drop a Backup
   134	   Domain Controller at this site. This will allow me to locate the
   135	   users' home directories on this server, as well as allow this server
   136	   to handle domain logon authentication; both of which help minimize WAN
   137	   traffic across the connecting T-1 link.
   138	   
   139	   Linux requires that I either set up NIS/NIS+, or duplicate the
   140	   /etc/passwd file somehow in an effort to ensure that users from both
   141	   facilities can log on from either and still access the network
   142	   resources they need. Again, this is comparatively more complex than
   143	   the Windows NT solution.
   144	   
   145	   MESSAGING
   146	   I'd been running sendmail on my personal mail server for some time.
   147	   It's complex, cumbersome, and sometimes just plain weird. Recently I
   148	   replaced sendmail with Postfix, which is far easier to configure and
   149	   supposedly less vulnerable. I have very little experience with
   150	   Microsoft Exchange, so any messaging system I choose to implement will
   151	   require a fair bit of effort on my part.
   152	   
   153	   My first matter of business was to decide whether or not I wanted to
   154	   be responsible for client email. Should it be backed up? If so, what
   155	   makes the most sense - keeping all mail on the server, or configuring
   156	   a backup system to include workstations? I'd rather have the
   157	   workstations be fairly modular: all user data should be kept in their
   158	   network home drive, so a desktop failure can be quickly remedied by
   159	   dropping a spare machine on the user's desk. Local email presents a
   160	   hurdle to this.
   161	   
   162	   So I planned on configuring my client workstations to use IMAP. Again,
   163	   a lot of research followed as I familiarized myself with IMAP. I'd
   164	   previously only ever used POP3. Outlook 2000 doesn't support IMAP, but
   165	   Outlook Express does. So I began fiddling around. It was about this
   166	   time that the password issues discussed above began to surface. It
   167	   then came to my attention that Outlook Express was caching the IMAP
   168	   folders and messages locally on the workstation. While this wasn't an
   169	   issue in regards to my backup strategy, it did present some security
   170	   concerns. If one user were to use someone else's desktop just to check
   171	   their email (not an unlikely thing to happen at all), the possibility
   172	   exists that an enterprising (and malicious) individual could read
   173	   their email from the locally cached copy of the IMAP information.
   174	   
   175	   I haven't found any evidence that Outlook 2000 caches the information
   176	   stored on an Exchange server (as long as you're _not_ using personal
   177	   folders). So again, Microsoft comes out on top.
   178	   
   179	   Exchange also provides me with Public Folder support. This allows me
   180	   to easily store (and make available) departmental communications,
   181	   memos, etc. I'm sure this same functionality is available from a Linux
   182	   solution, but I'm not aware of it; nor am I aware of whether or not it
   183	   is compatible with Outlook 2000 as the client component.
   184	   
   185	   SUMMARY
   186	   I had quite hoped that I would be able to implement a Linux solution
   187	   for our information technology needs. Linux has a lot of things going
   188	   for it: stability, customization, low-cost. It's more secure, and
   189	   requires less hardware to function. I will almost certainly have a
   190	   Linux box in my office, to run an internal web server, use nmap, and
   191	   generally just fiddle.
   192	   
   193	   I've been detailing why Microsoft Windows NT is earning my business.
   194	   But I have many complaints against it. I don't _want_ to have an
   195	   internet browser> installing NT.
   196	   
   197	   I don't like the security vulnerabilities in NT. I don't like how
   198	   inflexible it is in regards to its function. I don't like having to
   199	   navigate what feels like countless nested windows in order to close
   200	   down my open TCP and UDP ports, only to be told that I need to reboot.
   201	   I don't like the Blue Screen of Death.
   202	   
   203	   But the proof is in the pudding. We're not software developers, so
   204	   development tools aren't important to us. We're not running an
   205	   e-commerce site, so uptimes and internet security aren't key concerns.
   206	   We have modest requirements, and Windows NT fulfills them quite well.
   207	   Better, in fact, than Linux.
   208	   
   209	   Linux is a great operating system, with a lot of power, and potential.
   210	   I truly regret the fact that I am not more skilled in it. But I don't
   211	   regret using a tried and true network operating system that will
   212	   fulfill my needs, and the needs of my users.
   213