Anyone know a good way to address a SQL Server database from an application using the mySQL API?
That is, is there any type of library available that would let my Unix C program talk ODBC to a SQL server system?
I know about ODBCSOCKETSERVER, and it's what I use now, but it's not robust enough for some of the things I want to start doing, and I'd really like to have a system that directly talks ODBC under Unix instead of having to go through a Windows box with ODBC installed. (I don't want to run the bridge on the computer that actually contains the SQL server interface).
I've gone through a similar path, but for me mySQL has done everything I've thrown at it. I have 50 people banging at it continuously every day, and what they do is mission-critical.
The truth is that many of us have been with mySQL for years. When Postgres was first created, it was slow, very difficult to install, and used some kind of non-standard version of SQL. mySQL was fast, easy to install, and easy to upgrade from the mSQL database I used before. So I have been using mySQL ever since, with no need to switch.
I might well use Postgres if I was starting database programming for Unix/Linux now, because the feature set is in fact better. But it looks like mySQL is going to gain the missing features quickly, so it doesn't seem like switching would be worth the effort.
I don't think he was saying that you shouldn't do presentations, just that PowerPoint is lame software.
I have never used PowerPoint, but I can certainly say it is responsible for incredible numbers of terrifyingly bad presentations, so I think there are ample good reasons behind the prejudice.
I used Macromedia Flash for my last presentation - as cross-platform as it gets, and I was amazed at how flexible it was and how (comparatively) gentle the learning curve. It's well worth checking out in my view.
These macros were written for Visual Basic for Applications (VBA), which I think was introduced in the 1997 versions of the products. If you could dig up an earlier version, they used a macro language that was almost entirely incompatible with current scripts. (I know because this caused me enormous pain in trying to make a macro package compatible with both versions - it was all but impossible).
So if you have that ancient version lying around, you may want to use it. Or use programs with Word or Excel import filters instead of the real thing.
Anyone know if StarOffice is affected? When I checked it a few years back, it looked like it had a pretty complete emulation of VBA.
I ran a socially oriented system called David's Amazing BBS. In its most successful incarnation (1987-1991), it ran on Microport Unix (lousy Unix, crashed all the time, or was that my hardware?) and had 5-6 phone lines.
I dated 4-5 women off that system; I've never had more success with the opposite sex before or since, which depresses the heck out of me now. The geographically diverse nature of Internet use really does hurt the dating scene. I'm sure being the big cheese of the system is something that helped my prospects, too, and now I'm relatively insignificant as these things go.
I've played around with running other dating systems, but none of them have worked nearly as well as the old one, most likely because the local nature of the BBS made promotion within my geographical area a lot easier. Now most of the people I get for my dating system (now not running) have been scattered all over the world, and so there isn't much coherence to the thing.
I miss BBSs a lot for that reason; in the sense of get-togethers and socializing, those really were the good old days.
When Rhythms went bust, I knew my UUNET DSL connection was going to disappear pretty soon. So I got a DSL connection with Pacific Bell aka SBC, with some interesting results.
First, the raw service is actually better than UUNET+Rhythms or UUNET+Covad(*) was. For some strange reason, Rhythms and Covad could only get my iDSL (144/144) while I can get regular DSL (344/128) from the telco. I don't know if this is the SBC monopoly abusing me, or the DSL providers being clueless.
But in terms of getting any kind of support, SBC is truly dismal. They force you go through a lengthly touch tone tree to try and diagnose the problem without an operator. You even have to select one of their invalid "solutions" before the system will let you "press 8 for an operator". And even though they sold me a router as part of my connection, they refused to support it. A more cooperative rep I talked to later told me that I should have insisted on the case escalating to a higher level, but the front line folks don't offer to do that; they just say it can't be done.
Even though I'm paying less for SBC and getting better raw service, I'm still upset at the monopoly situation. I just wish Rhythms had hung on because I liked 'em. But I'm not going to quit SBC and go back with UUNET due to the better raw service I've gotten. It's a close-run thing, though.
D
(*) After months of trying, Covad was unable to get me a connection that would stay up for more than 24 consecutive hours. As a result, UUNET switched me to Rhythms.
I don't remember the name of the product, but at least one ASP emulator for Linux is available. I don't think it was open source, but it was definitely there.
But it's not, in web server market share. Last time I looked, Microsoft had under a third of the market.
The basic problem is that it's a very complex task to make things look and feel simple to the end user. Because of that, the Microsoft server is a great deal more complex than Apache. And it exposes more services, which to an Apache user would be installed on a case by case basis. Note that the problems we've seen in IIS are generally caused by auxillary stuff like the Index Server. That exists to make things easy, yes. But it also increases complexity, and whenever complexity goes up, the possibility of there being holes goes up even more.
In the olden days where men were men, women were women, and people generally didn't engage in tiresome obnoxious behaviour, there was really no need to deal with these issues. It's worth noting that the Morris worm used the 'debug' command of sendmail. This command allowed anyone a root shell by just typing 'debug' at the sendmail prompt easily accessible from outside the system. Life went on just fine, because few people knew of the hole, and those who knew about it didn't bother to use it.
Sadly, nowadays things are different and we must deal with tiresome security problems all the time. But it was easy to get into the habit of programming in a non-security conscious way, because for many years it really wasn't a problem at all.
The C programming language was very much a part of that ethos. It was simply not designed to consider the buffer overflow problem. The size of buffers was almost never checked in early C programs.
And there are many cases other than the input of text where buffer overflows can occur. For instance, sprintf is a common function used to build up a string from smaller pieces. You use it by saying:
sprintf(destination_string, format, args);
The format determines the way the arguments are put together to create the string. If you have a destination string of 1,000 characters, and the string being built up contains 1,200 characters, you have an overflow.
The solution is to use snprintf, which is the same but includes a limit on the number of characters that are added to the string. But that means that every time you want to build up a string, you have to remember to use snprintf and add the count. If you've been programming "the old way" for a long period of time, it's easy to forget to do this.
The way I work around this problem is by building my own sprintf(), which automatically uses snprintf to build up a string with the maximum buffer size I normally use. So I can program "carelessly" but be protected at the same time.
As you can see, it's not just the size of the input string, it's how it is combined with other strings using functions like sprintf() that's the problem. And because it's a big pain to calculate all this out, it's no wonder programmers tended not to do it - until they got persuaded by tiresome security issues, that is.
I wouldn't worry too much, though; Apple has an incredibly strong cash position that can push it forward until this announcement.
And don't forget this kind of quantum leap means that they'll really clean up in January. If they had a cash crunch, I'd worry, but the reality is very far from that.
I would guess now that Steve Jobs is now going to speak at Seybold?
CN Tower is traditionally not included in these lists because it's an antenna tower with a rotating restaurant, not a habitable building with a large number of floors.
Much as I hate to say it, these resources seem every bit as one-sided as President Bush's declaration of war against the terrorists.
Does anyone know of any balanced articles, that talk about Palastinian outrages against Israelis as well as (note: not instead of) Israeli and American outrages?
Yes, I would have to agree that the terrorists practiced perhaps the ultimate act of self-sacrifice.
This is probably why I don't think much of self-sacrifice, whether on my behalf or others.
By referring to Iraq as a starving country, we ignore that Saddam Hussein is a brutal man who has knifed many of his friends and opponents over the years. He has also exacerbated his country's own situation by dragging his feet on humanitarian aid negotiations. I really need not remind you that this situation has in no way affected his lifestyle or that of his cronies.
I agree that this kind of act is not terribly surprising considering the ease with which it can be done and the notorious passions seething within the middle east. But I don't think we can prevent future attacks by lying down, putting our heads in the sand and listening to "peace activists". Negotiation works far better from strength; ask anyone on a job interview.
D
Re:Pilots were trained at Huffman
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Looks like it would have been pretty basic training - there were no jets of any size in that menu.
I'm convinced the people involved had some kind of large jet training.
It sounds like they found fanatics and trained them to fly instead of finding fanatics who were already trained. That would certainly increase the cost of the operation, but it probably helps make it more secure.
D
Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Unless they hide terrorists in the packages, I don't think this will be much of a threat.
D
Re:What can be done? Nothing.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
I have some sympathy for this view, but if we kill terrorists, at least those we kill won't be able to do anything like this again.
And since they are not afraid of death, surely this wouldn't matter for them either?
The way to win is to make sure everyone knows that terrorists inevitably lose. Look at McVeigh; he wanted to sabotage the Clinton administration through his attacks, but people immediately rallied behind their President and he would up at least doubling in the polls. Surely not what McVeigh was seeking?
It's all that blasted JavaScript and images. http://www.freerepublic.com/ kept running throughout the disaster.
Not that I'm in perfect agreement with all Free Republic stands for, mind, but their image-free "no fancy toys just the news" model works real well in a crisis.
The Internet, though, seems to have held up well - I don't see any slowdowns, just news sites slowed to unusability.
I don't quite get this; what would happen if Lego's product was used to create something that had sex with your cat?
I would think Lego would not be liable, since they only created the tool. Otherwise, DeWalt would be liable any time someone accidentally used their product to saw through a support post, causing the house being worked on to collapse.
Slashdot Mirror
He may be greedy, but at least he's good entertainment, not dull like ol' Bill here.
And he certainly has some fun with his money.
Not that I'm about to buy a 32-processor license from him, mind.
D
Anyone know a good way to address a SQL Server database from an application using the mySQL API?
That is, is there any type of library available that would let my Unix C program talk ODBC to a SQL server system?
I know about ODBCSOCKETSERVER, and it's what I use now, but it's not robust enough for some of the things I want to start doing, and I'd really like to have a system that directly talks ODBC under Unix instead of having to go through a Windows box with ODBC installed. (I don't want to run the bridge on the computer that actually contains the SQL server interface).
Thanks for any thoughts.
D
I've gone through a similar path, but for me mySQL has done everything I've thrown at it. I have 50 people banging at it continuously every day, and what they do is mission-critical.
The truth is that many of us have been with mySQL for years. When Postgres was first created, it was slow, very difficult to install, and used some kind of non-standard version of SQL. mySQL was fast, easy to install, and easy to upgrade from the mSQL database I used before. So I have been using mySQL ever since, with no need to switch.
I might well use Postgres if I was starting database programming for Unix/Linux now, because the feature set is in fact better. But it looks like mySQL is going to gain the missing features quickly, so it doesn't seem like switching would be worth the effort.
D
I don't think he was saying that you shouldn't do presentations, just that PowerPoint is lame software.
I have never used PowerPoint, but I can certainly say it is responsible for incredible numbers of terrifyingly bad presentations, so I think there are ample good reasons behind the prejudice.
I used Macromedia Flash for my last presentation - as cross-platform as it gets, and I was amazed at how flexible it was and how (comparatively) gentle the learning curve. It's well worth checking out in my view.
D
These macros were written for Visual Basic for Applications (VBA), which I think was introduced in the 1997 versions of the products. If you could dig up an earlier version, they used a macro language that was almost entirely incompatible with current scripts. (I know because this caused me enormous pain in trying to make a macro package compatible with both versions - it was all but impossible).
So if you have that ancient version lying around, you may want to use it. Or use programs with Word or Excel import filters instead of the real thing.
Anyone know if StarOffice is affected? When I checked it a few years back, it looked like it had a pretty complete emulation of VBA.
D
I ran a socially oriented system called David's Amazing BBS. In its most successful incarnation (1987-1991), it ran on Microport Unix (lousy Unix, crashed all the time, or was that my hardware?) and had 5-6 phone lines.
I dated 4-5 women off that system; I've never had more success with the opposite sex before or since, which depresses the heck out of me now. The geographically diverse nature of Internet use really does hurt the dating scene. I'm sure being the big cheese of the system is something that helped my prospects, too, and now I'm relatively insignificant as these things go.
I've played around with running other dating systems, but none of them have worked nearly as well as the old one, most likely because the local nature of the BBS made promotion within my geographical area a lot easier. Now most of the people I get for my dating system (now not running) have been scattered all over the world, and so there isn't much coherence to the thing.
I miss BBSs a lot for that reason; in the sense of get-togethers and socializing, those really were the good old days.
D
I believe that was invented by the Omni folks for OmniWeb, which was developed especially for MacOS X and is, therefore, entirely Aqua compliant :-).
:-(.
I just wish its JavaScript worked well; I have to use IE (for MacOS X) to see JavaScript-crazy sites, of which there are all too many in the world
D
When Rhythms went bust, I knew my UUNET DSL connection was going to disappear pretty soon. So I got a DSL connection with Pacific Bell aka SBC, with some interesting results.
First, the raw service is actually better than UUNET+Rhythms or UUNET+Covad(*) was. For some strange reason, Rhythms and Covad could only get my iDSL (144/144) while I can get regular DSL (344/128) from the telco. I don't know if this is the SBC monopoly abusing me, or the DSL providers being clueless.
But in terms of getting any kind of support, SBC is truly dismal. They force you go through a lengthly touch tone tree to try and diagnose the problem without an operator. You even have to select one of their invalid "solutions" before the system will let you "press 8 for an operator". And even though they sold me a router as part of my connection, they refused to support it. A more cooperative rep I talked to later told me that I should have insisted on the case escalating to a higher level, but the front line folks don't offer to do that; they just say it can't be done.
Even though I'm paying less for SBC and getting better raw service, I'm still upset at the monopoly situation. I just wish Rhythms had hung on because I liked 'em. But I'm not going to quit SBC and go back with UUNET due to the better raw service I've gotten. It's a close-run thing, though.
D
(*) After months of trying, Covad was unable to get me a connection that would stay up for more than 24 consecutive hours. As a result, UUNET switched me to Rhythms.
Yes, that sounds right - Thanks.
D
I don't remember the name of the product, but at least one ASP emulator for Linux is available. I don't think it was open source, but it was definitely there.
D
But it's not, in web server market share. Last time I looked, Microsoft had under a third of the market.
The basic problem is that it's a very complex task to make things look and feel simple to the end user. Because of that, the Microsoft server is a great deal more complex than Apache. And it exposes more services, which to an Apache user would be installed on a case by case basis. Note that the problems we've seen in IIS are generally caused by auxillary stuff like the Index Server. That exists to make things easy, yes. But it also increases complexity, and whenever complexity goes up, the possibility of there being holes goes up even more.
Hope that helps.
D
In the olden days where men were men, women were women, and people generally didn't engage in tiresome obnoxious behaviour, there was really no need to deal with these issues. It's worth noting that the Morris worm used the 'debug' command of sendmail. This command allowed anyone a root shell by just typing 'debug' at the sendmail prompt easily accessible from outside the system. Life went on just fine, because few people knew of the hole, and those who knew about it didn't bother to use it.
Sadly, nowadays things are different and we must deal with tiresome security problems all the time. But it was easy to get into the habit of programming in a non-security conscious way, because for many years it really wasn't a problem at all.
The C programming language was very much a part of that ethos. It was simply not designed to consider the buffer overflow problem. The size of buffers was almost never checked in early C programs.
And there are many cases other than the input of text where buffer overflows can occur. For instance, sprintf is a common function used to build up a string from smaller pieces. You use it by saying:
sprintf(destination_string, format, args);
The format determines the way the arguments are put together to create the string. If you have a destination string of 1,000 characters, and the string being built up contains 1,200 characters, you have an overflow.
The solution is to use snprintf, which is the same but includes a limit on the number of characters that are added to the string. But that means that every time you want to build up a string, you have to remember to use snprintf and add the count. If you've been programming "the old way" for a long period of time, it's easy to forget to do this.
The way I work around this problem is by building my own sprintf(), which automatically uses snprintf to build up a string with the maximum buffer size I normally use. So I can program "carelessly" but be protected at the same time.
As you can see, it's not just the size of the input string, it's how it is combined with other strings using functions like sprintf() that's the problem. And because it's a big pain to calculate all this out, it's no wonder programmers tended not to do it - until they got persuaded by tiresome security issues, that is.
Hope that helps.
D
What is the penalty if Microsoft FrontPage is used to create a porn site?
I'm pretty sure I've seen a few created that way, so in theory people are violating the EULA, most likely without even knowing it.
How are those people to be punished?
D
This isn't about him; he has a Gulfstream V he would have used to fly to the expo.
I predict a lot of large corporations are going to consider following his lead in the very near future.
D
I wouldn't worry too much, though; Apple has an incredibly strong cash position that can push it forward until this announcement.
And don't forget this kind of quantum leap means that they'll really clean up in January. If they had a cash crunch, I'd worry, but the reality is very far from that.
I would guess now that Steve Jobs is now going to speak at Seybold?
D
CN Tower is traditionally not included in these lists because it's an antenna tower with a rotating restaurant, not a habitable building with a large number of floors.
Hope that helps.
D
Much as I hate to say it, these resources seem every bit as one-sided as President Bush's declaration of war against the terrorists.
Does anyone know of any balanced articles, that talk about Palastinian outrages against Israelis as well as (note: not instead of) Israeli and American outrages?
D
Yes, I would have to agree that the terrorists practiced perhaps the ultimate act of self-sacrifice.
This is probably why I don't think much of self-sacrifice, whether on my behalf or others.
By referring to Iraq as a starving country, we ignore that Saddam Hussein is a brutal man who has knifed many of his friends and opponents over the years. He has also exacerbated his country's own situation by dragging his feet on humanitarian aid negotiations. I really need not remind you that this situation has in no way affected his lifestyle or that of his cronies.
I agree that this kind of act is not terribly surprising considering the ease with which it can be done and the notorious passions seething within the middle east. But I don't think we can prevent future attacks by lying down, putting our heads in the sand and listening to "peace activists". Negotiation works far better from strength; ask anyone on a job interview.
D
Looks like it would have been pretty basic training - there were no jets of any size in that menu.
I'm convinced the people involved had some kind of large jet training.
It sounds like they found fanatics and trained them to fly instead of finding fanatics who were already trained. That would certainly increase the cost of the operation, but it probably helps make it more secure.
D
Unless they hide terrorists in the packages, I don't think this will be much of a threat.
D
I have some sympathy for this view, but if we kill terrorists, at least those we kill won't be able to do anything like this again.
And since they are not afraid of death, surely this wouldn't matter for them either?
The way to win is to make sure everyone knows that terrorists inevitably lose. Look at McVeigh; he wanted to sabotage the Clinton administration through his attacks, but people immediately rallied behind their President and he would up at least doubling in the polls. Surely not what McVeigh was seeking?
D
Why amazing?
In all honesty, what's scary about these attacks is how easy it must have been to pull them off.
D
And people are bidding on it!
D
It's all that blasted JavaScript and images. http://www.freerepublic.com/ kept running throughout the disaster.
Not that I'm in perfect agreement with all Free Republic stands for, mind, but their image-free "no fancy toys just the news" model works real well in a crisis.
The Internet, though, seems to have held up well - I don't see any slowdowns, just news sites slowed to unusability.
D
I don't quite get this; what would happen if Lego's product was used to create something that had sex with your cat?
I would think Lego would not be liable, since they only created the tool. Otherwise, DeWalt would be liable any time someone accidentally used their product to saw through a support post, causing the house being worked on to collapse.
D