Really? sure more sites run on Apache, but I thoughtthe Netcraft survey didn't count SSL sites at first, and then only counted them for their paid-for survey. So it does not follow that most visits to SSL sites were to Apache SSL sites. Don't try your spurious logic with me Mr red clearance!:-)
By 'serious', I meant sites where the organisation running them cared about the security of it because they had something behind it to secure. In these cases it will be some form of application server (forget your PHP shops that have sql embedded into them, they are inherently insecure, you should always put a protective layer between your data and your website). These applications will be written in the system the organisation is most familiar with - and for most organisations, that will be Windows, therefore IIS.
CEOs too have a better clue than you give them credit for - only they don't care what particular system is running the business, only that it does. Cost doesn't factor into it - the cost of the admins, devs, software, hardware, skills training, support are all considered well before choosing whether Apache or IIS!
It has nothing to do with some salesman saying 'you must use ours', and Microsoft having better salesmen. More down to the market share of Windows in general (which they have due to historical circumstances).
In relation to admins, you don't want 'bright' admins. You want methodical ones. The kind that enjoy the boring job of keeping something running and unchanged. the ones who don't have the urge to fiddle, and will be happiest doing what the documented system configuration says the system is setup to do. You can have very good Windows admins who do this, its a good thing they do not want any risk - risk is the last thing you want if your customer's credit card numbers are stored on a system connected to the web!
It has been mentioned, just that the figures were not available for the SSL survey unless you coughed up cash for the report.
Its the response that, despite Apache's strength in overall websites, IIS was used for more 'serious' sites. The OSS people who read these comments (usually in another Apache has more/is better/etc than IIS stories) just ignore them.
that made me think.. and I think the idea of security as an immune system response is quite a good analogy.
In an immune system, once you catch a virus, your body will produce antibodies to fight it off, and then remember the virus so it'll be easily taken care of if it re-appears (hence we innoculate ourselves with a harmless attack).
In security system, once an attack is noticed, the system is fixed/patched/configured to prevent the attack, and what you (as a sysadmin) remembers what you did so next time that attack is tried it won't get anywhere. Similarly, if you want to follow tried and tested methods, you should 'innoculate' yourself by attacking your systems yourself (ie. a harmless attack).
The extinction of the species is the ones whose immune systems cannot cope with the attack, or have a poor initial response - ie. sysadmins who don't know what they are doing. In a perfect world, we'd get to the point where servers are configured correctly and maintained only by people who know what they'd about (I refer in particular to sysadmins who post to webhosting forums saying 'Ive been hnacked, what do I do', or 'how do I configure x y or z to be secure'.)
And yes, just like real life, we're constantly attacked, and constantly defending ourselves.
Lol. and the interviewer's response: "Perl... you should have stuck to backstabbing, arse-licking and undermining me to get my job. Perl regular expressions! You're so not hired"
Welcome to Slashdot 'kir', where in Microsoft Russia, all your Portmans are gritted by joo, but you missed a interspersed diacritic mark between the conjunctive pronoun in the second sentence.
(If you've been around a while, you'll recognise that:-)
Personally, I think OpenVZ is fantastic - I've heard very good things about Virtuozzo, even that its worth the price, so I'm going to try it out. The only thing that concerns me is the kernel versions, I'd be far happier if a more recent version was available (eg 2.6.16) and kept more up to date. I don't know how much effort is required for this though. Good luck with getting at least parts included in the kernel.
Will managers look at the differences? Yes, I think they do - this is why Netcraft sells their SSL server survey. First they educate their potential customers by telling them how vague the main survey is, and how they can get a much more accurate version if they only hand over some lucre.
The managers have been told that there is a big difference already, any of them that are serious about the statistics (ie, who havn't already made up their minds based on marketing) will pay for the SSL survey.
Well, I went to www.kernels.org to get the latest, and found that I could get a great deal on popcorn machines, bitter apricot kernels and home cinema?!?!?
the worse case is that Microsoft sees itself being unfairly affected by these patents (could they file an anti-competitive suit against Eolas for not fighting their patent case against Microsoft's competitors like Mozilla and Apple?) and decides to level the playing field by enforcing some of their patents..
Microsoft has thousands so its very likely that all other companies could be affected by some obscure and stupid patent idea - using toolbars as user input shortcuts for example (I'm guessing there, but it's the kind of thing they'd have patented)
The Eolas patent is just bad for the entire industry, based on bad patent arguments and idiotic legal concept of suing everyone for immense amounts of money. Just because they went after Microsoft only and left other companies alone doesn't mean they are your friend., it means they are setting a bad precedent for the next patent troll that pops up.
The thing is, how do they tell what is spam and what isn't?
Private companies do not have the absolute right to do whatever they want with your mail. If you sign up to receive mail from someone, and they send you an e-mail, then that e-mail is your property; if your ISP knows that the sender is almost certainly not a spammer, then they are violating the sender's and receiver's rights if they block the message
I have signed up for things (and bought items from online shops) and have forgotten to check the "no spam" checkbox, so the spammer company will then have the right to send me stuff (as we have a business relationship, no matter how poor) and AOL or anyone else has no right to prevent that email getting to me - after all, the ISP doesn't know I didn't *want* the spam emails.
Now, unfortunately, the real spammers who send all kinds of unsolicited crap have broken the email internet for the rest of us, so these kinds of limiting features are becoming necessary, and for them to work, everyone must sign up to the rules on how they work. You cannot have this system working where someone doesn't want to play by the rules, and also be recognised as a non-spammer ('cos the spammers will sure as hell play that card too).
So the OP comes along and complains that he has to pay to be treated as a special non-spammer, how do we (and the ISP) know he's not? I mean, he could easily have a nice newsletter today... and in a month's time, use the ratified email address he sends it from to spam the planet with viagra posts. Bypassing the anti-spam system, for free.
There are other ways of 'paying' to send emails that will stop spam, but these newsletter-senders will still complain. I do not think there is any easy way of stopping bulk-spam email and bulk-newsletter email unless we stick with the tools we have today. (eg. if the tax was in CPU cycles, the newsletter poster would just complain he needed a better server, and the spammer would only use someone else's open relay).
So, if we want to stamp out spam completely, we have to implement real measures to stop the rogue freeloaders of the email infrastructure, and that isn't going to happen without some (small) pain for every legitimate email sender.
(now, if they want to create a pull system for emails, that'd be different...)
I am not a filesystem developer but... as pretty much all filesystems are configured to use 4k blocks, when you write a 1 byte file, it takes up 4k in the filesystem. When the filesystem writes the block to disk, it takes up 4k which translates to 8 drive blocks.
I think that's it. You will not lose space on the disk when the change happens because the filesystem block sizes are still 4k. I suppose you could use whatever compression system your FS offers to pack the data into less blocks, then you'd gain a ton of extra space.
And, at the end of the day, how many files do you ave that are less than 4k in size. Would you really care if they suddenly becamne 4k in size? I doubt it, your drive is taken up with movies, binaries and images. The little files take up no space whatsoever in comparison.
The new SendmailX which is a complete rewrite of the venerable sendmail codebase is a step in the right direction
no its not. Its already been done - it is called Postfix. That was the original design spec of Postfix, to create a sendmail replacement that looked like Sendmail, yet didn't break. They have extended it over the years to included additional (read optional) configuration options for stuff that sendmail doesn't do well but otherwise it is simply a better-sendmail. Use it.
Others have mentioned Dovecot as a good replacement POP/IMAP+SMTP server. They're correct that it is very good and designed to be secure (the author has a cash reward for you if you find a flaw!). I thoroughly recommend it.
Am I the only one who thinks the idea of running sendmail on windows is downright strange? I've used postfix for years...
Running sendmail on unix is strange frankly. How many security issues have been found in it? When there are more secure alternatives like Postfix (apparently a drop-in replacement), or Qmail (zero flaws found to date), or Exim, there's really no need to keep installing the old timer.
This is because Godaddy has chosen to make liberal use of "Safe Mode" and "OpenDir" restrictions on the Windows boxes, presumably to protect them. Should NOT be necessary, but they feel it is.
I would be more confident with PHP on Windows than on linux - at least with Windows you will be running PHP as a user (cgi style) so you can implement per-user security on it. With apache, and mod_php, you run all php scripts as a single user which has access to *all* files that are accessible by the webserver. ie. every other vhost's directory on the server... The way to fix it is to implement open_basedir. Obviously GoDaddy's linux offerings are not secured properly. Alternatively, they have implemented PHP as cgi and secure the directories with user permissions.. which in the end, is the same effect as restricting access with open_basedir - you only get to play with the directories your domain is allowed to access.
The same could be said about Linux/Apache. Strip out all the 1-page personal websites where you have a thousand hosted on 1 server by the huge hosting companies (eg 1&1) and you'd have a pitiful number left.
At least one good thing can be said for the Windows-based sites, they do actually do something. No-one uses windows to host pictures of their cat, most of the windows-hosted sites are ecommerce (as you admit yourself, people like Dell, anyone who sells PCs or software).
It is a pity Netcraft don't release their SSL site survey as I think that would be a lot closer to a 50/50 split.
Lure away some of the best people in OSS with big paychecks and then put them in a corner until they are so frustrated they quit.... until they quit and go back to working on OSS software?
You probably have kernel* in your yum.conf's exclude directive. CentOS 4.3 ships with a later kernel (2.6.9.29) which hopefully fixes the iowait bug in 2.6.9.22 that shipped with 4.2
Except that, in the world of games and graphics, the programmers are writing efficient apps. The demands they (ie we) make of graphics nowadays mean that the hardware has to be faster and faster too.
Look a few years back and see what the cutting edge of graphics was, and look to the kind of things we get today. Go forward a few years and we will be having realistic computer-generated images.
Now, if they can only work on making websites more scalable for a slashdotting, I could read the article!
Re:Don't take medical advice from me...
on
Preventing RSI?
·
· Score: 1
You're quite right there - you get RSI because people get lazy with today's lghtweight, no-effort required input devices and start using the least amount of effort to use them.
eg. a mouse, do you move it about by keeping your arm fixed and only moving your hand (ie pivoting at the wrist)? If so.. you'll get RSI. If you move the entire arm and keep your wrist fixed then you'll have no problems. (pretty much).
The same goes for typing, lift your arms off the table and move the entire arm, you'll be fine. If you move your fingers over the keyboard by moving your wrist only, you'll be in trouble.
In old days when people used typewriters there was never any RSI - they needed to hit the keys hard so the gentle twist and tap we use today to type wasn't an option. Also, posture helps for back issues - in old days they looked down at the paper, which helped them to keep upright and not slough. Today, if your monitor is not high enough, you will tend to slough to bring your eyes into line with it. Put a couple of reams of paper underneath it and you'll be happier. (or buy a 42" LCD monitor to bring it up to you:-) )
You're aware that Quake II was ported to.NET and runs just fine?
Yes, I am aware of that - it was a great article. However. the 80-90% performance you see with the.net version is almost entire with an unchanged codebase. They just recompiled it with the new compiler and the/clr setting (and fixed the few compile issues there were). They didn't change the code to suddenly start using the managed heap insead of an unmanaged one, so the 85% performance compared to the native app is almost entirely due to the clr overhead. If they added in.net features (or coded it using.net techniques for memory and other API Calls) then you would see the performance drop much further. (yes, the added OHD isn't exactly a major performance hog)
Yes, I'm sure you love VB.NET compared to Perl.:-) MS does do good development tools.
Imagine I have a C/win32 app that takes 8 hours to perform an intensive batch task (import data into a DB, or export data from a DB to a warehousing app, etc etc - we have several of these already where I work). Now, I re-write it in C#/.NET and it takes 10 hours... suddenly people come into work at 9am and find the overnight batch app is still running... sayng "get a coffee guys, it'll finish in an hour" is not an option.
Simlarly, I had to consolidate some data in a DB recently, and a little app was ideal for the task (itr was a one-off task, so a throwaway bit of code was ok). I decided to write it in.net, did the coding, ran it on my test database.. ran in seconds. all looked good. Copied the app to the real database with half a million rows and set it going.... and it ran, and ran, and ran... So I killed it and set about improving the performance, and re-ran it. We figured it would have taken several hours to complete. So I junked it and rewrote it as a plain c++/ole-db/win32 app, and the half a million rows were updated in 12 minutes. The time it took me to write it was not really a factor, it was better for me to re-write it than it was for us to run the slow version of the app.
Similarly, its not about the speed an app runs at. I'm currently working on changing the UI of an app to prevent users selecting a particular option. My work will save the FM team a heap of time, and will help the operators complete their jobs quicker and correctly. The result is that I could even spend weeks on this (yes, instead of reading/.:-) ) and it would be worth it for the business.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? sure more sites run on Apache, but I thoughtthe Netcraft survey didn't count SSL sites at first, and then only counted them for their paid-for survey. So it does not follow that most visits to SSL sites were to Apache SSL sites. Don't try your spurious logic with me Mr red clearance! :-)
By 'serious', I meant sites where the organisation running them cared about the security of it because they had something behind it to secure. In these cases it will be some form of application server (forget your PHP shops that have sql embedded into them, they are inherently insecure, you should always put a protective layer between your data and your website). These applications will be written in the system the organisation is most familiar with - and for most organisations, that will be Windows, therefore IIS.
CEOs too have a better clue than you give them credit for - only they don't care what particular system is running the business, only that it does. Cost doesn't factor into it - the cost of the admins, devs, software, hardware, skills training, support are all considered well before choosing whether Apache or IIS!
It has nothing to do with some salesman saying 'you must use ours', and Microsoft having better salesmen. More down to the market share of Windows in general (which they have due to historical circumstances).
In relation to admins, you don't want 'bright' admins. You want methodical ones. The kind that enjoy the boring job of keeping something running and unchanged. the ones who don't have the urge to fiddle, and will be happiest doing what the documented system configuration says the system is setup to do. You can have very good Windows admins who do this, its a good thing they do not want any risk - risk is the last thing you want if your customer's credit card numbers are stored on a system connected to the web!
It has been mentioned, just that the figures were not available for the SSL survey unless you coughed up cash for the report.
Its the response that, despite Apache's strength in overall websites, IIS was used for more 'serious' sites. The OSS people who read these comments (usually in another Apache has more/is better/etc than IIS stories) just ignore them.
As if they'd use that!
Here's my version, its MUCH better to a banking person.
000100 IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
000200 PROGRAM-ID. LOVEBANKS.
000300 DATE-WRITTEN. 27/04/06 16:57.
000400* AUTHOR GBJBAANB
000500 ENVIRONMENT DIVISION.
000600 CONFIGURATION SECTION.
000700 SOURCE-COMPUTER. RM-COBOL.
000800 OBJECT-COMPUTER. RM-COBOL.
000900
001000 DATA DIVISION.
001100 FILE SECTION.
001200
100000 PROCEDURE DIVISION.
100100
100200 MAIN-LOGIC SECTION.
100300 BEGIN.
100400 DISPLAY " " LINE 1 POSITION 1 ERASE EOS.
100500 PERFORM UNTIL 0
100500 DISPLAY "I LOVE BANKS." POSITION 10.
100600 END-PERFORM
100700 STOP RUN.
100800 MAIN-LOGIC-EXIT.
100900 EXIT.
that made me think.. and I think the idea of security as an immune system response is quite a good analogy.
In an immune system, once you catch a virus, your body will produce antibodies to fight it off, and then remember the virus so it'll be easily taken care of if it re-appears (hence we innoculate ourselves with a harmless attack).
In security system, once an attack is noticed, the system is fixed/patched/configured to prevent the attack, and what you (as a sysadmin) remembers what you did so next time that attack is tried it won't get anywhere. Similarly, if you want to follow tried and tested methods, you should 'innoculate' yourself by attacking your systems yourself (ie. a harmless attack).
The extinction of the species is the ones whose immune systems cannot cope with the attack, or have a poor initial response - ie. sysadmins who don't know what they are doing. In a perfect world, we'd get to the point where servers are configured correctly and maintained only by people who know what they'd about (I refer in particular to sysadmins who post to webhosting forums saying 'Ive been hnacked, what do I do', or 'how do I configure x y or z to be secure'.)
And yes, just like real life, we're constantly attacked, and constantly defending ourselves.
How does this compare to Keepass?
Lol. and the interviewer's response: "Perl... you should have stuck to backstabbing, arse-licking and undermining me to get my job. Perl regular expressions! You're so not hired"
I guess you'll have no problems whatsoever with the other damned question, "where do you see yourself in 5 years time?" :-)
Have you actually read the interview?
:-)
Welcome to Slashdot 'kir', where in Microsoft Russia, all your Portmans are gritted by joo, but you missed a interspersed diacritic mark between the conjunctive pronoun in the second sentence.
(If you've been around a while, you'll recognise that
Personally, I think OpenVZ is fantastic - I've heard very good things about Virtuozzo, even that its worth the price, so I'm going to try it out. The only thing that concerns me is the kernel versions, I'd be far happier if a more recent version was available (eg 2.6.16) and kept more up to date. I don't know how much effort is required for this though. Good luck with getting at least parts included in the kernel.
Will managers look at the differences? Yes, I think they do - this is why Netcraft sells their SSL server survey. First they educate their potential customers by telling them how vague the main survey is, and how they can get a much more accurate version if they only hand over some lucre.
The managers have been told that there is a big difference already, any of them that are serious about the statistics (ie, who havn't already made up their minds based on marketing) will pay for the SSL survey.
So apple-option-power is the Mac equivalent
Is it me, but does that just sound like a catchphrase uttered by some saturday morning kids anime healthy-eating superhero?
Well, I went to www.kernels.org to get the latest, and found that I could get a great deal on popcorn machines, bitter apricot kernels and home cinema?!?!?
the worse case is that Microsoft sees itself being unfairly affected by these patents (could they file an anti-competitive suit against Eolas for not fighting their patent case against Microsoft's competitors like Mozilla and Apple?) and decides to level the playing field by enforcing some of their patents..
Microsoft has thousands so its very likely that all other companies could be affected by some obscure and stupid patent idea - using toolbars as user input shortcuts for example (I'm guessing there, but it's the kind of thing they'd have patented)
The Eolas patent is just bad for the entire industry, based on bad patent arguments and idiotic legal concept of suing everyone for immense amounts of money. Just because they went after Microsoft only and left other companies alone doesn't mean they are your friend., it means they are setting a bad precedent for the next patent troll that pops up.
The thing is, how do they tell what is spam and what isn't?
Private companies do not have the absolute right to do whatever they want with your mail. If you sign up to receive mail from someone, and they send you an e-mail, then that e-mail is your property; if your ISP knows that the sender is almost certainly not a spammer, then they are violating the sender's and receiver's rights if they block the message
I have signed up for things (and bought items from online shops) and have forgotten to check the "no spam" checkbox, so the spammer company will then have the right to send me stuff (as we have a business relationship, no matter how poor) and AOL or anyone else has no right to prevent that email getting to me - after all, the ISP doesn't know I didn't *want* the spam emails.
Now, unfortunately, the real spammers who send all kinds of unsolicited crap have broken the email internet for the rest of us, so these kinds of limiting features are becoming necessary, and for them to work, everyone must sign up to the rules on how they work. You cannot have this system working where someone doesn't want to play by the rules, and also be recognised as a non-spammer ('cos the spammers will sure as hell play that card too).
So the OP comes along and complains that he has to pay to be treated as a special non-spammer, how do we (and the ISP) know he's not? I mean, he could easily have a nice newsletter today... and in a month's time, use the ratified email address he sends it from to spam the planet with viagra posts. Bypassing the anti-spam system, for free.
There are other ways of 'paying' to send emails that will stop spam, but these newsletter-senders will still complain. I do not think there is any easy way of stopping bulk-spam email and bulk-newsletter email unless we stick with the tools we have today. (eg. if the tax was in CPU cycles, the newsletter poster would just complain he needed a better server, and the spammer would only use someone else's open relay).
So, if we want to stamp out spam completely, we have to implement real measures to stop the rogue freeloaders of the email infrastructure, and that isn't going to happen without some (small) pain for every legitimate email sender.
(now, if they want to create a pull system for emails, that'd be different...)
I am not a filesystem developer but... as pretty much all filesystems are configured to use 4k blocks, when you write a 1 byte file, it takes up 4k in the filesystem. When the filesystem writes the block to disk, it takes up 4k which translates to 8 drive blocks.
I think that's it. You will not lose space on the disk when the change happens because the filesystem block sizes are still 4k. I suppose you could use whatever compression system your FS offers to pack the data into less blocks, then you'd gain a ton of extra space.
And, at the end of the day, how many files do you ave that are less than 4k in size. Would you really care if they suddenly becamne 4k in size? I doubt it, your drive is taken up with movies, binaries and images. The little files take up no space whatsoever in comparison.
The new SendmailX which is a complete rewrite of the venerable sendmail codebase is a step in the right direction
no its not. Its already been done - it is called Postfix. That was the original design spec of Postfix, to create a sendmail replacement that looked like Sendmail, yet didn't break. They have extended it over the years to included additional (read optional) configuration options for stuff that sendmail doesn't do well but otherwise it is simply a better-sendmail. Use it.
Others have mentioned Dovecot as a good replacement POP/IMAP+SMTP server. They're correct that it is very good and designed to be secure (the author has a cash reward for you if you find a flaw!). I thoroughly recommend it.
Am I the only one who thinks the idea of running sendmail on windows is downright strange? I've used postfix for years...
Running sendmail on unix is strange frankly. How many security issues have been found in it? When there are more secure alternatives like Postfix (apparently a drop-in replacement), or Qmail (zero flaws found to date), or Exim, there's really no need to keep installing the old timer.
This is because Godaddy has chosen to make liberal use of "Safe Mode" and "OpenDir" restrictions on the Windows boxes, presumably to protect them. Should NOT be necessary, but they feel it is.
I would be more confident with PHP on Windows than on linux - at least with Windows you will be running PHP as a user (cgi style) so you can implement per-user security on it. With apache, and mod_php, you run all php scripts as a single user which has access to *all* files that are accessible by the webserver. ie. every other vhost's directory on the server... The way to fix it is to implement open_basedir. Obviously GoDaddy's linux offerings are not secured properly. Alternatively, they have implemented PHP as cgi and secure the directories with user permissions.. which in the end, is the same effect as restricting access with open_basedir - you only get to play with the directories your domain is allowed to access.
The same could be said about Linux/Apache. Strip out all the 1-page personal websites where you have a thousand hosted on 1 server by the huge hosting companies (eg 1&1) and you'd have a pitiful number left.
At least one good thing can be said for the Windows-based sites, they do actually do something. No-one uses windows to host pictures of their cat, most of the windows-hosted sites are ecommerce (as you admit yourself, people like Dell, anyone who sells PCs or software).
It is a pity Netcraft don't release their SSL site survey as I think that would be a lot closer to a 50/50 split.
Lure away some of the best people in OSS with big paychecks and then put them in a corner until they are so frustrated they quit. ... until they quit and go back to working on OSS software?
nd unless the kernel was updated (mine wasn't)
You probably have kernel* in your yum.conf's exclude directive. CentOS 4.3 ships with a later kernel (2.6.9.29) which hopefully fixes the iowait bug in 2.6.9.22 that shipped with 4.2
Except that, in the world of games and graphics, the programmers are writing efficient apps. The demands they (ie we) make of graphics nowadays mean that the hardware has to be faster and faster too.
Look a few years back and see what the cutting edge of graphics was, and look to the kind of things we get today. Go forward a few years and we will be having realistic computer-generated images.
Now, if they can only work on making websites more scalable for a slashdotting, I could read the article!
You're quite right there - you get RSI because people get lazy with today's lghtweight, no-effort required input devices and start using the least amount of effort to use them.
:-) )
eg. a mouse, do you move it about by keeping your arm fixed and only moving your hand (ie pivoting at the wrist)? If so.. you'll get RSI. If you move the entire arm and keep your wrist fixed then you'll have no problems. (pretty much).
The same goes for typing, lift your arms off the table and move the entire arm, you'll be fine. If you move your fingers over the keyboard by moving your wrist only, you'll be in trouble.
In old days when people used typewriters there was never any RSI - they needed to hit the keys hard so the gentle twist and tap we use today to type wasn't an option. Also, posture helps for back issues - in old days they looked down at the paper, which helped them to keep upright and not slough. Today, if your monitor is not high enough, you will tend to slough to bring your eyes into line with it. Put a couple of reams of paper underneath it and you'll be happier. (or buy a 42" LCD monitor to bring it up to you
You're aware that Quake II was ported to .NET and runs just fine?
.net version is almost entire with an unchanged codebase. They just recompiled it with the new compiler and the /clr setting (and fixed the few compile issues there were). They didn't change the code to suddenly start using the managed heap insead of an unmanaged one, so the 85% performance compared to the native app is almost entirely due to the clr overhead. If they added in .net features (or coded it using .net techniques for memory and other API Calls) then you would see the performance drop much further. (yes, the added OHD isn't exactly a major performance hog)
:-) MS does do good development tools.
Yes, I am aware of that - it was a great article. However. the 80-90% performance you see with the
Yes, I'm sure you love VB.NET compared to Perl.
MFC is probably fine if you follow one specific template, but for me it was frustrating to no end.
...
The phrase about workmen and tools comes to mind
Lets rephrase the problem he was trying to make.
.net, did the coding, ran it on my test database.. ran in seconds. all looked good. Copied the app to the real database with half a million rows and set it going.... and it ran, and ran, and ran... So I killed it and set about improving the performance, and re-ran it. We figured it would have taken several hours to complete. So I junked it and rewrote it as a plain c++/ole-db/win32 app, and the half a million rows were updated in 12 minutes. The time it took me to write it was not really a factor, it was better for me to re-write it than it was for us to run the slow version of the app.
/. :-) ) and it would be worth it for the business.
Imagine I have a C/win32 app that takes 8 hours to perform an intensive batch task (import data into a DB, or export data from a DB to a warehousing app, etc etc - we have several of these already where I work). Now, I re-write it in C#/.NET and it takes 10 hours... suddenly people come into work at 9am and find the overnight batch app is still running... sayng "get a coffee guys, it'll finish in an hour" is not an option.
Simlarly, I had to consolidate some data in a DB recently, and a little app was ideal for the task (itr was a one-off task, so a throwaway bit of code was ok). I decided to write it in
Similarly, its not about the speed an app runs at. I'm currently working on changing the UI of an app to prevent users selecting a particular option. My work will save the FM team a heap of time, and will help the operators complete their jobs quicker and correctly. The result is that I could even spend weeks on this (yes, instead of reading