Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ? - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ? - Microsoft Windows ; Hi all, a friend told me that the MS Hotmail platform is hosted on unix boxes. I can't believe it ! Can someone out there provide more infos about it ? Thanks J....

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

  1. Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    Hi all,

    a friend told me that the MS Hotmail platform is hosted on unix boxes. I
    can't believe it ! Can someone out there provide more infos about it ?

    Thanks

    J.




  2. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    "ponfux" wrote:

    > Hi all,
    >
    > a friend told me that the MS Hotmail platform is hosted on unix
    > boxes. I can't believe it ! Can someone out there provide more
    > infos about it ?
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > J.
    >


    The Internet runs on Unix servers and routers (99%). Windows
    is a **** Operating System that is a bad hack on a poor (and
    dishonestly un-attributed) Unix clone called 'DOS'.

    No one with any knowledge of computers that was in
    their right mind would trust the Internet (or anything
    else) to it.

    Which is why the Pentagon uses Unix too.

    During the last worm/virus storm, what did M$ do to stay
    on the Internet? Ran to the cover of Unix servers.

    Linux is an _excellent_ Unix clone.

    Here are the HTTP headers from a download from
    http://www.hotmail.com:

    Cache-Control: no-cache
    Pragma: no-cache
    Content-Length: 962
    Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
    Expires: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:19:05 GMT
    Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
    PPServer: PPV: 30 H: BAYPPLOGN2B01 V: 0
    P3P: CP="DSP CUR OTPi IND OTRi ONL FIN"
    Set-Cookie: MSPRequ=lt=1118658005&co=1&id=2
    Set-Cookie: MSPBack=0; domain=.passport.com;path=/;version=1
    Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:20:04 GMT
    Connection: close

    It _says_ it is a M$ server, but that's just a line of text
    in a server's configuration files.

    When I tried retrieving the file that header came with,
    with wget, the operation was rejected. I simply changed
    the User-Agent string to MSIE, and had no problems...

    (I could do a portmapping probe that would tell for sure
    what OS was in use, but it isn't worth the hassle.)

    You can bet that, at the very least, apache (a Linux web server)
    is waiting in the background to be used if some crackers unleash
    another worm/virus plague on the Internet.

    It's probably used a lot more often than that, actually, now that
    I recall how often Windows crashed for no apparent reason, back
    when I used that pathetic OS.

    Linux NEVER crashes unless you are testing various applications
    in the early stages of development.

    (Or doing some serious and careless messing around as root...:-)

    And even then, all you have to do, usually, is reboot
    and you are up and running again.

    Joe Linux


  3. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    Joe Linux wrote:
    > "ponfux" wrote:
    >
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > a friend told me that the MS Hotmail platform is hosted on unix
    > > boxes. I can't believe it ! Can someone out there provide more
    > > infos about it ?


    Yes, Hotmail back-end servers are actually BSD servers running
    Sendmail.
    Keep in mind that before Microsoft purchased hotmail, all of the
    servers were running BSD.

    When Microsoft purchased Hotmail, they tried to convert everything to
    Windows NT 4.0, and it was a disaster. A wintroll COLA poster using
    the moniker "Drestin Black" was working on the project, and was quite
    brazen in his boasts that Hotmail would be running on Windows NT 4.0
    and Exchange within a year. The project failed, and Hotmail was still
    on FreeBSD and Solaris.

    When Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft tried again, and again, our
    friend Drestin Black was happy to boast about how Windows 2000 would
    blow UNIX out of the water. About all Micrososft was able to do was
    replace the front-end web server machines with IIS. Even then hotmail
    got hit by Nimda and some other viruses, but Microsoft has tried to
    keep as many of the public facing http servers as possible configured
    as Windows/IIS machines. Originally, it took 4 times as many Windows
    machines as UNIX machines to maintain stable and redundant
    connectivity.

    Microsoft has upgraded the Windows 2000 servers with Windows 2003, but
    they have made no announcement indicating that Windows 2003 and
    Exchange are now providing the back-end servers for Hotmail.

    Microsoft likes having Hotmail, because it gives them the ability to
    "wire-tap" millions of e-mail users. They can monitor attachments and
    identify piracy as well as maintaining statistics on incoming messages
    and their origins. The SMTP header can often provide clues as to the
    e-mail client used, the relay software used, and the operating systems
    and mail engines used along the path.

    > > Thanks
    > > J.

    >
    > The Internet runs on Unix servers and routers (99%). Windows
    > is a **** Operating System that is a bad hack on a poor (and
    > dishonestly un-attributed) Unix clone called 'DOS'.


    MS-DOS was based on QDOS which was a knock-off of CP/M which was
    originally published in a ham radio magazine back in the late 1970s.
    The author of the article did document exactly what he did and did not
    take from CP/M. Microsoft and IBM made numerous enhancements in the
    transition from QDOS to MS-DOS, and numerous enhancements from MS-DOS
    1.0 to MS-DOS 4.0. MS-DOS 5.0 was used with Windows, but also
    specially modified to make sure that Windows would not run under
    DR-DOS. MS-DOS 6.0 added file compression and trashed hard drives
    compressed with Stacker.

    Windows NT 3.x used a modified version of the BSD TCP/IP and driver
    stack, but had to be modified to comply with Winsock where errno was
    passed as an argument, because the thread-dependent NT operating system
    could not coordinate calls between the threads.

    Windows NT 4.0 used more BSD UNIX code, but still provided attribution
    for the pieces that were permitted. Microsoft was still limited in
    it's ability to use UNIX code due to an agreement with SCO which
    limited Microsoft's ability to re-enter the UNIX market after selling
    Xenix to SCO.

    Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 were able to use many of the techniques
    used in Linux and FreeBSD while avoiding direct copyright violations.
    In effect, a "clean room clone" using a team familiar with Linux to
    break down kernel functions and design, then passing down functional
    discriptions of the code and test procedures to a team who developed
    the kernel.

    About 6 months ago, Microsoft purchased full rights to UNIX from SCO
    for about $7 million dollars and other undisclosed terms (possibly
    including the $38 million in funding from Bay Star capital). This
    means that Longhorn could contain not only BSD code and reverse
    engineered Linux code, but AT&T System V code as well. There is a very
    good chance that Longhorn will be a UNIX kernel with the Windows API.

    > No one with any knowledge of computers that was in
    > their right mind would trust the Internet (or anything
    > else) to it.


    Unfortunately, there are many people who THINK they know computers.
    They know how to program a few lines in BASIC, how to write an HTML
    page,
    how to do VB macros in Excel and Word, and write some simple SQL and
    create some forms and reports in Access. They then think that this
    makes them a Programmer, DBA, WebMaster, and IT Manager.

    The fact that they have little experience with UNIX, Mainframes (other
    than perhaps some COBOL application programming for CICS), and how
    operating systems work, doesn't seem to phase them. The fact that they
    are unwilling to listen to those who do have experience with UNIX and
    other platforms seems to be missed by their managers.

    Of course, Microsoft is more than happy to provide lots of summaries of
    benchmarks and other "research" that "proves" the superiority of
    Windows over Linux, UNIX, Solaris, and pretty much everything else.
    These ignorant managers don't know that these tests are rigged, based
    on misleading assumptions, and using rigged hardware configurations as
    well as a carefully selected set of samples designed to create the
    illusion of Microsoft superiority. For example:

    When doing TCO analysis, Microsoft compared their Windows NT 4.0
    server, which handn't even been officially released, to a mid-range
    Solaris server AND a Novell Server. Microsoft made no mention of the
    fact that Solaris could run SMB in the form of SAMBA. Of course, they
    also only used test parameters up to the capacity of Windows NT 4.0
    running on a single processor machine, and never bothered to explore
    the capacity of the Solaris server which was full SMP.

    > Which is why the Pentagon uses Unix too.


    The Pentagon also uses Windows, for desktop machines, laptops, and
    other non-critical systems. Most of the critical systems run UNIX, and
    the really critical stuff uses ADA based technology.

    > During the last worm/virus storm, what did M$ do to stay
    > on the Internet? Ran to the cover of Unix servers.


    Actually, Microsoft has been using Linux machines as front-ends for
    most of their servers, including MSN, MSNBC, Microsoft.com, and most
    others. These servers do not alter the http signature, but they
    provide load balancing and routing for hundreds of servers, avoiding
    the ones that crash.

    > Linux is an _excellent_ Unix clone.


    You should be careful about making statements like this. Legally,
    Linux is not a Unix clone, it's a Unix Work-alike which provides
    compliance with published APIs and has been tuned to run applications
    originally designed to run under UNIX. Linux does not contain any code
    originally copyrighted by AT&T that was published under the Unix
    trademark prior to Novell's release of that trademark to X/Open in the
    mid 1990s.

    > Here are the HTTP headers from a download from
    > http://www.hotmail.com:
    >
    > Cache-Control: no-cache
    > Pragma: no-cache
    > Content-Length: 962
    > Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
    > Expires: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:19:05 GMT
    > Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
    > PPServer: PPV: 30 H: BAYPPLOGN2B01 V: 0
    > P3P: CP="DSP CUR OTPi IND OTRi ONL FIN"
    > Set-Cookie: MSPRequ=lt=1118658005&co=1&id=2
    > Set-Cookie: MSPBack=0; domain=.passport.com;path=/;version=1
    > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:20:04 GMT
    > Connection: close
    >
    > It _says_ it is a M$ server, but that's just a line of text
    > in a server's configuration files.


    Microsoft uses trivial IIS HTTP servers which essentially i-frame the
    code generated by the BSD systems. The BSD servers provide the smtp,
    sendmail, pop, and imap functions. Even the html/cgi to e-mail
    interface was originally Open Source code with some really nice
    trademark decorations.

    > Joe Linux


    Rex Ballard


  4. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    "r.e.ballard@usa.net" wrote:

    > Joe Linux wrote:
    >
    >> "ponfux" wrote:
    >>
    >> > Hi all,
    >> >
    >> > a friend told me that the MS Hotmail platform is hosted
    >> > on unix boxes. I can't believe it ! Can someone out there
    >> > provide more infos about it ?

    >
    > Yes, Hotmail back-end servers are actually BSD servers running
    > Sendmail. Keep in mind that before Microsoft purchased
    > hotmail, all of the servers were running BSD.
    >
    > When Microsoft purchased Hotmail, they tried to convert
    > everything to Windows NT 4.0, and it was a disaster. A
    > wintroll COLA poster using the moniker "Drestin Black" was
    > working on the project, and was quite brazen in his boasts that
    > Hotmail would be running on Windows NT 4.0 and Exchange within
    > a year. The project failed, and Hotmail was still on FreeBSD
    > and Solaris.
    >
    > When Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft tried again, and again,
    > our friend Drestin Black was happy to boast about how Windows
    > 2000 would blow UNIX out of the water. About all Micrososft
    > was able to do was replace the front-end web server machines
    > with IIS. Even then hotmail got hit by Nimda and some other
    > viruses, but Microsoft has tried to keep as many of the public
    > facing http servers as possible configured as Windows/IIS
    > machines. Originally, it took 4 times as many Windows machines
    > as UNIX machines to maintain stable and redundant connectivity.
    >
    > Microsoft has upgraded the Windows 2000 servers with Windows
    > 2003, but they have made no announcement indicating that
    > Windows 2003 and Exchange are now providing the back-end
    > servers for Hotmail.
    >
    > Microsoft likes having Hotmail, because it gives them the
    > ability to "wire-tap" millions of e-mail users. They can
    > monitor attachments and identify piracy as well as maintaining
    > statistics on incoming messages and their origins. The SMTP
    > header can often provide clues as to the e-mail client used,
    > the relay software used, and the operating systems and mail
    > engines used along the path.
    >
    >> > Thanks J.

    >>
    >> The Internet runs on Unix servers and routers (99%). Windows
    >> is a **** Operating System that is a bad hack on a poor (and
    >> dishonestly un-attributed) Unix clone called 'DOS'.

    >
    > MS-DOS was based on QDOS which was a knock-off of CP/M which
    > was originally published in a ham radio magazine back in the
    > late 1970s. The author of the article did document exactly
    > what he did and did not take from CP/M. Microsoft and IBM
    > made numerous enhancements in the transition from QDOS to
    > MS-DOS, and numerous enhancements from MS-DOS 1.0 to MS-DOS
    > 4.0. MS-DOS 5.0 was used with Windows, but also specially
    > modified to make sure that Windows would not run under DR-DOS.
    > MS-DOS 6.0 added file compression and trashed hard drives
    > compressed with Stacker.
    >
    > Windows NT 3.x used a modified version of the BSD TCP/IP
    > and driver stack, but had to be modified to comply with
    > Winsock where errno was passed as an argument, because the
    > thread-dependent NT operating system could not coordinate calls
    > between the threads.
    >
    > Windows NT 4.0 used more BSD UNIX code, but still provided
    > attribution for the pieces that were permitted. Microsoft
    > was still limited in it's ability to use UNIX code due to
    > an agreement with SCO which limited Microsoft's ability to
    > re-enter the UNIX market after selling Xenix to SCO.
    >
    > Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 were able to use many of the
    > techniques used in Linux and FreeBSD while avoiding direct
    > copyright violations. In effect, a "clean room clone" using
    > a team familiar with Linux to break down kernel functions and
    > design, then passing down functional discriptions of the code
    > and test procedures to a team who developed the kernel.
    >
    > About 6 months ago, Microsoft purchased full rights to UNIX
    > from SCO for about $7 million dollars and other undisclosed
    > terms (possibly including the $38 million in funding from Bay
    > Star capital). This means that Longhorn could contain not only
    > BSD code and reverse engineered Linux code, but AT&T System V
    > code as well. There is a very good chance that Longhorn will
    > be a UNIX kernel with the Windows API.
    >
    >> No one with any knowledge of computers that was in their right
    >> mind would trust the Internet (or anything else) to it.

    >
    > Unfortunately, there are many people who THINK they know
    > computers. They know how to program a few lines in BASIC, how
    > to write an HTML page, how to do VB macros in Excel and Word,
    > and write some simple SQL and create some forms and reports in
    > Access. They then think that this makes them a Programmer,
    > DBA, WebMaster, and IT Manager.
    >
    > The fact that they have little experience with UNIX, Mainframes
    > (other than perhaps some COBOL application programming for
    > CICS), and how operating systems work, doesn't seem to phase
    > them. The fact that they are unwilling to listen to those who
    > do have experience with UNIX and other platforms seems to be
    > missed by their managers.
    >
    > Of course, Microsoft is more than happy to provide lots of
    > summaries of benchmarks and other "research" that "proves" the
    > superiority of Windows over Linux, UNIX, Solaris, and pretty
    > much everything else. These ignorant managers don't know that
    > these tests are rigged, based on misleading assumptions, and
    > using rigged hardware configurations as well as a carefully
    > selected set of samples designed to create the illusion of
    > Microsoft superiority. For example:
    >
    > When doing TCO analysis, Microsoft compared their Windows NT
    > 4.0 server, which handn't even been officially released, to a
    > mid-range Solaris server AND a Novell Server. Microsoft made
    > no mention of the fact that Solaris could run SMB in the form
    > of SAMBA. Of course, they also only used test parameters up to
    > the capacity of Windows NT 4.0 running on a single processor
    > machine, and never bothered to explore the capacity of the
    > Solaris server which was full SMP.
    >
    >> Which is why the Pentagon uses Unix too.

    >
    > The Pentagon also uses Windows, for desktop machines, laptops,
    > and other non-critical systems. Most of the critical systems
    > run UNIX, and the really critical stuff uses ADA based
    > technology.
    >
    >> During the last worm/virus storm, what did M$ do to stay on
    >> the Internet? Ran to the cover of Unix servers.

    >
    > Actually, Microsoft has been using Linux machines as front-ends
    > for most of their servers, including MSN, MSNBC, Microsoft.com,
    > and most others. These servers do not alter the http
    > signature, but they provide load balancing and routing for
    > hundreds of servers, avoiding the ones that crash.
    >
    >> Linux is an _excellent_ Unix clone.

    >
    > You should be careful about making statements like this.
    > Legally, Linux is not a Unix clone, it's a Unix Work-alike
    > which provides compliance with published APIs and has been
    > tuned to run applications originally designed to run under
    > UNIX. Linux does not contain any code originally copyrighted
    > by AT&T that was published under the Unix trademark prior to
    > Novell's release of that trademark to X/Open in the mid 1990s.


    It is my understanding that a clone does not contain any of
    the original code of the software it is based on.

    >
    >> Here are the HTTP headers from a download from
    >> http://www.hotmail.com:
    >>
    >> Cache-Control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache Content-Length: 962
    >> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Expires: Mon,
    >> 13 Jun 2005 10:19:05 GMT Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
    >> PPServer: PPV: 30 H: BAYPPLOGN2B01 V: 0 P3P: CP="DSP CUR OTPi
    >> IND OTRi ONL FIN" Set-Cookie: MSPRequ=lt=1118658005&co=1&id=2
    >> Set-Cookie: MSPBack=0; domain=.passport.com;path=/;version=1
    >> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:20:04 GMT Connection: close
    >>
    >> It _says_ it is a M$ server, but that's just a line of text in
    >> a server's configuration files.

    >
    > Microsoft uses trivial IIS HTTP servers which essentially
    > i-frame the code generated by the BSD systems. The BSD servers
    > provide the smtp, sendmail, pop, and imap functions. Even the
    > html/cgi to e-mail interface was originally Open Source code
    > with some really nice trademark decorations.
    >
    >> Joe Linux

    >
    > Rex Ballard
    >


    Good post, Rex.

    If you had URLs for footnotes, documenting everything you've
    said above, it would be a GREAT post.

    Joe Linux


  5. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    Thanks to Rex and Joe for the answers.

    Yes, Rex made a really a good post. This kind of infos are never published
    on the web...

    Talking about messaging services architecture I am wondering about the
    scalability of MS Exchange product suite compared to other (commercial)
    messaging products (eg: Openwave, Critical Path, IPswitch, Mirapoint...).

    Messaging for me means: mail, webmail, instant messaging (--> presence
    server), address book, calendar and so on...

    Some years ago (1998) I used to manage a MS Exchange server with 5K
    mailboxes and it was a real nightmare.

    Now I'm facing the choice to go with MS Exchange and 2 millions (or more) of
    mailboxes but is difficult to trust a product that is not used (even fron
    the vendor) at this level.

    bye

    J.




    "Joe Linux" ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:n8mre.3824$jX6.3417@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
    > "r.e.ballard@usa.net" wrote:
    >
    >> Joe Linux wrote:
    >>
    >>> "ponfux" wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > Hi all,
    >>> >
    >>> > a friend told me that the MS Hotmail platform is hosted
    >>> > on unix boxes. I can't believe it ! Can someone out there
    >>> > provide more infos about it ?

    >>
    >> Yes, Hotmail back-end servers are actually BSD servers running
    >> Sendmail. Keep in mind that before Microsoft purchased
    >> hotmail, all of the servers were running BSD.
    >>
    >> When Microsoft purchased Hotmail, they tried to convert
    >> everything to Windows NT 4.0, and it was a disaster. A
    >> wintroll COLA poster using the moniker "Drestin Black" was
    >> working on the project, and was quite brazen in his boasts that
    >> Hotmail would be running on Windows NT 4.0 and Exchange within
    >> a year. The project failed, and Hotmail was still on FreeBSD
    >> and Solaris.
    >>
    >> When Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft tried again, and again,
    >> our friend Drestin Black was happy to boast about how Windows
    >> 2000 would blow UNIX out of the water. About all Micrososft
    >> was able to do was replace the front-end web server machines
    >> with IIS. Even then hotmail got hit by Nimda and some other
    >> viruses, but Microsoft has tried to keep as many of the public
    >> facing http servers as possible configured as Windows/IIS
    >> machines. Originally, it took 4 times as many Windows machines
    >> as UNIX machines to maintain stable and redundant connectivity.
    >>
    >> Microsoft has upgraded the Windows 2000 servers with Windows
    >> 2003, but they have made no announcement indicating that
    >> Windows 2003 and Exchange are now providing the back-end
    >> servers for Hotmail.
    >>
    >> Microsoft likes having Hotmail, because it gives them the
    >> ability to "wire-tap" millions of e-mail users. They can
    >> monitor attachments and identify piracy as well as maintaining
    >> statistics on incoming messages and their origins. The SMTP
    >> header can often provide clues as to the e-mail client used,
    >> the relay software used, and the operating systems and mail
    >> engines used along the path.
    >>
    >>> > Thanks J.
    >>>
    >>> The Internet runs on Unix servers and routers (99%). Windows
    >>> is a **** Operating System that is a bad hack on a poor (and
    >>> dishonestly un-attributed) Unix clone called 'DOS'.

    >>
    >> MS-DOS was based on QDOS which was a knock-off of CP/M which
    >> was originally published in a ham radio magazine back in the
    >> late 1970s. The author of the article did document exactly
    >> what he did and did not take from CP/M. Microsoft and IBM
    >> made numerous enhancements in the transition from QDOS to
    >> MS-DOS, and numerous enhancements from MS-DOS 1.0 to MS-DOS
    >> 4.0. MS-DOS 5.0 was used with Windows, but also specially
    >> modified to make sure that Windows would not run under DR-DOS.
    >> MS-DOS 6.0 added file compression and trashed hard drives
    >> compressed with Stacker.
    >>
    >> Windows NT 3.x used a modified version of the BSD TCP/IP
    >> and driver stack, but had to be modified to comply with
    >> Winsock where errno was passed as an argument, because the
    >> thread-dependent NT operating system could not coordinate calls
    >> between the threads.
    >>
    >> Windows NT 4.0 used more BSD UNIX code, but still provided
    >> attribution for the pieces that were permitted. Microsoft
    >> was still limited in it's ability to use UNIX code due to
    >> an agreement with SCO which limited Microsoft's ability to
    >> re-enter the UNIX market after selling Xenix to SCO.
    >>
    >> Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 were able to use many of the
    >> techniques used in Linux and FreeBSD while avoiding direct
    >> copyright violations. In effect, a "clean room clone" using
    >> a team familiar with Linux to break down kernel functions and
    >> design, then passing down functional discriptions of the code
    >> and test procedures to a team who developed the kernel.
    >>
    >> About 6 months ago, Microsoft purchased full rights to UNIX
    >> from SCO for about $7 million dollars and other undisclosed
    >> terms (possibly including the $38 million in funding from Bay
    >> Star capital). This means that Longhorn could contain not only
    >> BSD code and reverse engineered Linux code, but AT&T System V
    >> code as well. There is a very good chance that Longhorn will
    >> be a UNIX kernel with the Windows API.
    >>
    >>> No one with any knowledge of computers that was in their right
    >>> mind would trust the Internet (or anything else) to it.

    >>
    >> Unfortunately, there are many people who THINK they know
    >> computers. They know how to program a few lines in BASIC, how
    >> to write an HTML page, how to do VB macros in Excel and Word,
    >> and write some simple SQL and create some forms and reports in
    >> Access. They then think that this makes them a Programmer,
    >> DBA, WebMaster, and IT Manager.
    >>
    >> The fact that they have little experience with UNIX, Mainframes
    >> (other than perhaps some COBOL application programming for
    >> CICS), and how operating systems work, doesn't seem to phase
    >> them. The fact that they are unwilling to listen to those who
    >> do have experience with UNIX and other platforms seems to be
    >> missed by their managers.
    >>
    >> Of course, Microsoft is more than happy to provide lots of
    >> summaries of benchmarks and other "research" that "proves" the
    >> superiority of Windows over Linux, UNIX, Solaris, and pretty
    >> much everything else. These ignorant managers don't know that
    >> these tests are rigged, based on misleading assumptions, and
    >> using rigged hardware configurations as well as a carefully
    >> selected set of samples designed to create the illusion of
    >> Microsoft superiority. For example:
    >>
    >> When doing TCO analysis, Microsoft compared their Windows NT
    >> 4.0 server, which handn't even been officially released, to a
    >> mid-range Solaris server AND a Novell Server. Microsoft made
    >> no mention of the fact that Solaris could run SMB in the form
    >> of SAMBA. Of course, they also only used test parameters up to
    >> the capacity of Windows NT 4.0 running on a single processor
    >> machine, and never bothered to explore the capacity of the
    >> Solaris server which was full SMP.
    >>
    >>> Which is why the Pentagon uses Unix too.

    >>
    >> The Pentagon also uses Windows, for desktop machines, laptops,
    >> and other non-critical systems. Most of the critical systems
    >> run UNIX, and the really critical stuff uses ADA based
    >> technology.
    >>
    >>> During the last worm/virus storm, what did M$ do to stay on
    >>> the Internet? Ran to the cover of Unix servers.

    >>
    >> Actually, Microsoft has been using Linux machines as front-ends
    >> for most of their servers, including MSN, MSNBC, Microsoft.com,
    >> and most others. These servers do not alter the http
    >> signature, but they provide load balancing and routing for
    >> hundreds of servers, avoiding the ones that crash.
    >>
    >>> Linux is an _excellent_ Unix clone.

    >>
    >> You should be careful about making statements like this.
    >> Legally, Linux is not a Unix clone, it's a Unix Work-alike
    >> which provides compliance with published APIs and has been
    >> tuned to run applications originally designed to run under
    >> UNIX. Linux does not contain any code originally copyrighted
    >> by AT&T that was published under the Unix trademark prior to
    >> Novell's release of that trademark to X/Open in the mid 1990s.

    >
    > It is my understanding that a clone does not contain any of
    > the original code of the software it is based on.
    >
    >>
    >>> Here are the HTTP headers from a download from
    >>> http://www.hotmail.com:
    >>>
    >>> Cache-Control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache Content-Length: 962
    >>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Expires: Mon,
    >>> 13 Jun 2005 10:19:05 GMT Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
    >>> PPServer: PPV: 30 H: BAYPPLOGN2B01 V: 0 P3P: CP="DSP CUR OTPi
    >>> IND OTRi ONL FIN" Set-Cookie: MSPRequ=lt=1118658005&co=1&id=2
    >>> Set-Cookie: MSPBack=0; domain=.passport.com;path=/;version=1
    >>> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:20:04 GMT Connection: close
    >>>
    >>> It _says_ it is a M$ server, but that's just a line of text in
    >>> a server's configuration files.

    >>
    >> Microsoft uses trivial IIS HTTP servers which essentially
    >> i-frame the code generated by the BSD systems. The BSD servers
    >> provide the smtp, sendmail, pop, and imap functions. Even the
    >> html/cgi to e-mail interface was originally Open Source code
    >> with some really nice trademark decorations.
    >>
    >>> Joe Linux

    >>
    >> Rex Ballard
    >>

    >
    > Good post, Rex.
    >
    > If you had URLs for footnotes, documenting everything you've
    > said above, it would be a GREAT post.
    >
    > Joe Linux
    >




  6. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    On 13 Jun 2005 07:14:40 -0700, r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:

    Oh goody, more Rex-no-babble.

    > Yes, Hotmail back-end servers are actually BSD servers running
    > Sendmail.


    At least part of this statement is a fabrication, if not the entire thing.
    While I don't know what OS they're running their MTA on, it is definately
    not running Sendmail. While the current SMTP agent claims to be Microsoft
    SMTPSVC (the same tag used by Exchange) it used to use Qmail, as was
    evident by the message id's.

    > Keep in mind that before Microsoft purchased hotmail, all of the
    > servers were running BSD.


    And Qmail, not Sendmail.

    > When Microsoft purchased Hotmail, they tried to convert everything to
    > Windows NT 4.0, and it was a disaster. A wintroll COLA poster using
    > the moniker "Drestin Black" was working on the project, and was quite
    > brazen in his boasts that Hotmail would be running on Windows NT 4.0
    > and Exchange within a year. The project failed, and Hotmail was still
    > on FreeBSD and Solaris.


    Drestin never claimed to be working on any such project that I'm aware of.
    In fact, the supposed "failed NT conversion" was claimed to have happened
    years before Drestin even posted in this newsgroup. In fact, according to
    google, Drestin never posted before October 30th 1999, 2 years afer the
    supposed "failed conversion".

    The only source of this claim is an article written by someone claiming to
    be working as a contractor for MS to do this, but unfortunately the article
    was written only a few months after MS acquired Hotmail, making it highly
    unlikely that MS even attempted such a task (something they claimed they
    never did)

    This article claims MS replaced the outgoing SMTP server ("a standard unix
    mail server") with the Microsoft SMTP service, which might indicate
    Sendmail, but I know for a fact the headers used to have Qmail references
    in them.

    http://www.securityoffice.net/mssecrets/hotmail.html

    Afaict from the headers, it appears that emails are now being sent from the
    server the messages are composed on rather than from a central source as
    they used to be. The signatures match the MS SMTP service that ship with
    Windows.

    > When Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft tried again, and again, our
    > friend Drestin Black was happy to boast about how Windows 2000 would
    > blow UNIX out of the water. About all Micrososft was able to do was
    > replace the front-end web server machines with IIS. Even then hotmail
    > got hit by Nimda and some other viruses, but Microsoft has tried to
    > keep as many of the public facing http servers as possible configured
    > as Windows/IIS machines. Originally, it took 4 times as many Windows
    > machines as UNIX machines to maintain stable and redundant
    > connectivity.


    Assuming what you say is true about the number of machines, and of course
    you have no statistics to prove it, it ignores that Hotmail's user load
    probably increased by at least that amount.

    > Microsoft has upgraded the Windows 2000 servers with Windows 2003, but
    > they have made no announcement indicating that Windows 2003 and
    > Exchange are now providing the back-end servers for Hotmail.


    Why should they make such an announcement? Hotmail doesn't run exchange.
    It makes *ZERO* sense to carry the RPC baed overhead of Exchange and it's
    full groupmail functionality when all you're providing is SMTP based email.

    Hotmail was and still is a custom application, and it makes no sense to
    change that.

    > About 6 months ago, Microsoft purchased full rights to UNIX from SCO
    > for about $7 million dollars and other undisclosed terms (possibly
    > including the $38 million in funding from Bay Star capital). This
    > means that Longhorn could contain not only BSD code and reverse
    > engineered Linux code, but AT&T System V code as well. There is a very
    > good chance that Longhorn will be a UNIX kernel with the Windows API.


    There is ZERO chance, Rex. Unless you've forgotten, MS sends out beta's of
    longhorn, and as of the most recent beta (from a few weeks ago's PDC
    conference) it's still the NT kernel, nor is anyone expecting this to
    change (other than you, of course).

    > The fact that they have little experience with UNIX, Mainframes (other
    > than perhaps some COBOL application programming for CICS), and how
    > operating systems work, doesn't seem to phase them. The fact that they
    > are unwilling to listen to those who do have experience with UNIX and
    > other platforms seems to be missed by their managers.


    Wow, you sound bitter, Rex. Tired of being ignored by your bosses and
    co-workers? Maybe you shouldn't invent history and "facts" like so many of
    your articles (and even your own website) do.

    > When doing TCO analysis, Microsoft compared their Windows NT 4.0
    > server, which handn't even been officially released, to a mid-range
    > Solaris server AND a Novell Server. Microsoft made no mention of the
    > fact that Solaris could run SMB in the form of SAMBA. Of course, they
    > also only used test parameters up to the capacity of Windows NT 4.0
    > running on a single processor machine, and never bothered to explore
    > the capacity of the Solaris server which was full SMP.


    Hmm.. prior to Windows NT 4, Samba was barely functional.

    > Actually, Microsoft has been using Linux machines as front-ends for
    > most of their servers, including MSN, MSNBC, Microsoft.com, and most
    > others. These servers do not alter the http signature, but they
    > provide load balancing and routing for hundreds of servers, avoiding
    > the ones that crash.


    AFAICT the load balanacers are BSD based, not Linux based. Most likely
    they're Cisco devices. nmap fingerprints them as BSD derived. So, once
    again you're just making this **** up as you go along.

    > Microsoft uses trivial IIS HTTP servers which essentially i-frame the
    > code generated by the BSD systems. The BSD servers provide the smtp,
    > sendmail, pop, and imap functions. Even the html/cgi to e-mail
    > interface was originally Open Source code with some really nice
    > trademark decorations.


    It's relatively simple to prove your comments wrong. IFrames exist in the
    source code of the HTML, and anyone can look at the source of those IFrames
    to find out where they point. Your proof of this is what?

  7. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    > Now I'm facing the choice to go with
    > MS Exchange and 2 millions (or more) of
    > mailboxes but is difficult to trust a product
    > that is not used (even fron the vendor) at this level.


    I'd be a bit reluctant to use Exchange Server with 2-million users. Out
    of curiousity... where is this going to be used? I'm having a difficult
    time envisioning a company/organization that would need this many
    mailboxes at one location. Employees and distributed across locations,
    as should the services be.


  8. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    In article ,
    Joe Linux wrote:
    > (I could do a portmapping probe that would tell for sure
    > what OS was in use, but it isn't worth the hassle.)


    It would take a couple seconds to type the command, and it would not
    take long to run. Where is this hassle you speak of?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  9. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    on June 14 09:18 pm Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    On 13 Jun 2005 07:14:40 -0700, r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:

    > Drestin never claimed to be working on any such project that I'm
    > aware of. In fact, the supposed "failed NT conversion" was claimed to
    > have happened years before Drestin even posted in this newsgroup. In
    > fact, according to google, Drestin never posted before October 30th
    > 1999, 2 years afer the supposed "failed conversion".


    I don't follow, is there a special rule for this group that says people
    are not allowed to comment on something that happened in the past.

    According to this Drestin does claim to know two people who did work on
    an attempted NT conversion, but it was the applications fault. And if we
    are to believe him they had to wait until W2k and two attempts to
    finally complete the conversion.

    `But I believe they tried to make it run on NT, and couldn't.'
    Peter Ammon

    `No, their first attempt at porting the APPLICATION failed - true. It
    was not an OS fault or server fault - so, they are recoding the
    application and will have it back up under W2K and IIS5.'
    Drestin Black

    `Hotmail will be running under W2K before March - I can almost guarentee
    this. it's the port of the application that failed, not the OS.'
    Drestin Black

    `Their first attempt to port the massive application was not successful
    (you ever tried that?) So now they have to rewrite all that terrible
    code (I know two people on the project doing that - they tell me that
    it's taking this long because the code used on the *nix side is so
    horribly hacked that they are spending the time to get it right instead
    of doing a simple port like the first time).' Drestin Black Sep 17 1999

    `Army dumps NT, citing security'
    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en

    > The only source of this claim is an article written by someone
    > claiming to be working as a contractor for MS to do this, but
    > unfortunately the article was written only a few months after MS
    > acquired Hotmail, making it highly unlikely that MS even attempted
    > such a task (something they claimed they never did)


    The article states that it was written in Aug 2000 that is three whole
    years after Microsoft acquired Hotmail. Has Microsoft ever denied its
    validity ?

    `Microsoft acquires Hotmail' December 31, 1997
    http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...29/daily7.html

    snip ...

    >> When Windows 2000 came out, Microsoft tried again, and again, our
    >> friend Drestin Black was happy to boast about how Windows 2000
    >> would blow UNIX out of the water. About all Micrososft was able to
    >> do was replace the front-end web server machines with IIS. Even
    >> then hotmail got hit by Nimda and some other viruses, but Microsoft
    >> has tried to keep as many of the public facing http servers as
    >> possible configured as Windows/IIS machines. Originally, it took 4
    >> times as many Windows machines as UNIX machines to maintain stable
    >> and redundant connectivity.


    > Assuming what you say is true about the number of machines, and of
    > course you have no statistics to prove it, it ignores that Hotmail's
    > user load probably increased by at least that amount.


    As far as I can make out from reading that document you referred to, the
    team ended up duplicating most of the Unix processes under ISAPI or
    Services for UNIX.

    `They reluctantly used Services for UNIX and Interix, to get access to
    features that were not adequately provided in Windows'

    snip ...

  10. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:54:59 +0100, mallloc wrote:

    > on June 14 09:18 pm Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On 13 Jun 2005 07:14:40 -0700, r.e.ballard@usa.net wrote:
    >
    >> Drestin never claimed to be working on any such project that I'm
    >> aware of. In fact, the supposed "failed NT conversion" was claimed to
    >> have happened years before Drestin even posted in this newsgroup. In
    >> fact, according to google, Drestin never posted before October 30th
    >> 1999, 2 years afer the supposed "failed conversion".

    >
    > I don't follow, is there a special rule for this group that says people
    > are not allowed to comment on something that happened in the past.


    Lets reread what rex wrote:

    > A wintroll COLA poster using
    > the moniker "Drestin Black" was working on the project, and was quite
    > brazen in his boasts that Hotmail would be running on Windows NT 4.0
    > and Exchange within a year.


    This is clearly not a statement about someone making a claim after the
    fact. It's a statement about someone making a claim about the future, that
    would mean that Drestin would have had to have made the claim prior to the
    first claimed "failure".

    That's simply not the case.

    > According to this Drestin does claim to know two people who did work on
    > an attempted NT conversion, but it was the applications fault. And if we
    > are to believe him they had to wait until W2k and two attempts to
    > finally complete the conversion.


    I don't particularly believe drestin in this regard (or much of any
    really). He may have talked to someone once, but I doubt he really knew
    anyone at all. Microsoft claims to have never tried to port the
    application, but rather to have converted certain front-end servers.

    > `Hotmail will be running under W2K before March - I can almost guarentee
    > this. it's the port of the application that failed, not the OS.'
    > Drestin Black


    Right, that was around the 2000 or so. Microsoft was waiting for the
    conversion to run on Win2k.

    > `Army dumps NT, citing security'
    > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en
    >
    >> The only source of this claim is an article written by someone
    >> claiming to be working as a contractor for MS to do this, but
    >> unfortunately the article was written only a few months after MS
    >> acquired Hotmail, making it highly unlikely that MS even attempted
    >> such a task (something they claimed they never did)

    >
    > The article states that it was written in Aug 2000 that is three whole
    > years after Microsoft acquired Hotmail. Has Microsoft ever denied its
    > validity ?


    I'm not sure what article you're talking about, but i'm talking about the
    one published by (IIRC) vnunet in 1998 on the subject.

    Ah yes, here it is:
    http://www.vnunet.com/networkitweek/...hots-microsoft

    > `Microsoft acquires Hotmail' December 31, 1997
    > http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...29/daily7.html


    Dated April 1998

    >> Assuming what you say is true about the number of machines, and of
    >> course you have no statistics to prove it, it ignores that Hotmail's
    >> user load probably increased by at least that amount.

    >
    > As far as I can make out from reading that document you referred to, the
    > team ended up duplicating most of the Unix processes under ISAPI or
    > Services for UNIX.
    >
    > `They reluctantly used Services for UNIX and Interix, to get access to
    > features that were not adequately provided in Windows'
    >
    > snip ...


    Mostly Fork I think. It should be noted that SFU isn't an emulation layer,
    it's a "personality module" of the NT Kernel that runs beside Windows, so
    it has the same overhead the Windows itself has.

  11. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    On 14 Jun 2005 14:10:56 -0700, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

    >> Now I'm facing the choice to go with
    >> MS Exchange and 2 millions (or more) of
    >> mailboxes but is difficult to trust a product
    >> that is not used (even fron the vendor) at this level.

    >
    > I'd be a bit reluctant to use Exchange Server with 2-million users. Out
    > of curiousity... where is this going to be used? I'm having a difficult
    > time envisioning a company/organization that would need this many
    > mailboxes at one location. Employees and distributed across locations,
    > as should the services be.


    I wouldn't use exchange with 2 million susers anyways (2 million? That's
    larger than some countries.. I find that hard to believe) unless they
    needed all of Exchanges features.

    It's pointless to run a groupware server strictly for email.

  12. Re: Hotmail Platform is Hosted on Unix ?

    "ponfux" wrote:
    >Hi all,
    >
    >a friend told me that the MS Hotmail platform is hosted on unix
    >boxes. I
    >can't believe it ! Can someone out there provide more infos about it
    >?


    I have read somewhere that microsoft tried to change the hotmail
    systems to windows based systems but they had so many problems they
    undid the change.

    Says volumes about windows OS quality.

    Best regards,
    Pedro Miguel Carvalho


+ Reply to Thread