I particularly like the integrated encryption and spam-reporting tools. These are widely asked for by those in the business, and yet no mainstream e-mail client seems to provide them.
Outlook has supported integrated encryption and digital signing since at least version 2000. It's really quite easy to use and administer, as you can automate the creation and delivery of users private keys, etc.
I don't know about the spam thing... I think if that went mainstream it'd cause a lot of problems.
"Actually, the language prohibits the GPL and LGPL only, AFAIK."
No, that's why I highlighted the part that says "or any". Yes, they name the GPL specifically, but they refer to any language that has requirements like the GPL.
"Finally, RMS didn't create the GPL to be incompatible with the BSD license. "
RMS created the GPL specifically to be incompatible with a lot of existing licenses. He admits this, it's part of his entire manifesto. Not sure why you are arguing that point because it's obvious.
"Microsoft seems to have just banned any open source or even free (as in beer) CIFS implementations."
Since when? The license does not prohibit development of a open source CIFS implementation using the BSD license, or many other licenses. Just the GPL.
This is clarified by the most important part of the text you quoted: any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license...[notice emphasis on the word requires]
The GPL requires you do all those things, and Microsoft is simply stating that their software is incompatible with those provisions and reminding you not to use it in that context. Just as the GPL license was incompatible with the old BSD license that required you to give credit to the University... Why is it Evil for Microsoft to do this, but not for Richard Stallman? Do I smell hypocrisy?
Netrek clients had expiration times embedded in them back about 8 years ago. The theory was similar, that there were probably bugs and the developers wanted to force people to update periodically.
It didn't make much sense because clients were also digitally signed with RSA keys, and those could have been revoked and new keys issued, but anyway.
The problem came along around 1997 or so when people stopped maintaining and creating new clients. Once a year the bloody client would expire and you'd get a series of posts to the usenet group and mailing lists whining about it. Someone would then have to go recompile the client(usually with no additional changes in the source tree) and put it up on an ftp site.
I remember rejecting this expiration idea back when it first happened and forked my own client versions which didn't do this. If I want to eliminate the use of a version, I revoke the RSA key.
But the stories that the Linux zealots are quoting come from April, 98 issues of Network News.
TechEd didn't happen until April. So how could the MS rep say they were GOING to convert it, and the Zealots say they already tried and failed... both in the same month? Keep in mind that the purchase of hotmail occured in December of 1997, so you can see the very short timeframe for this supposed deployment of millions of users. I honestly don't think they could even have ordered the new hardware required in that timeframe.
It is no secret that after the purchase Microsoft did publicly state that they were going to convert the service to using Windows software. Many believe they did the hotmail purchase solely so they would have experience handling such high volumes of users and could then build server software to scale to that capacity.
Having access to hotmail.com they could easily study the usage patterns, and develop load tests using products like Mercury Loadrunner which would recreate similar activity in their development environments. So it does not appear to be unreasonable at all that the Windows 2000 server product and the Exchange 2000 server product were designed in part around scalability requirements demanded by the existence of hotmail.com.
We already know that the front end web servers are running Windows 2000. It was also mentioned at the Office XP launch event last year that the backend servers were using Exchange to handle the email delivery and mailboxes.
So at this point what do we know? We know for certain that Microsoft was very successful in deploying hotmail to Windows. We also know from their white papers describing the migration that the Windows servers were able to handle something like twice the capacity of the existing FreeBSD servers.
Since it is such a success, the Linux zealots appear to be caught in a trap of continuing to spread the previous lie for no other purpose than to assuage their emotional arguments against Windows. I say emotional, because they are unable to come up with valid technical reasons against the product.
But Philly... That never happened. Why can't you Linux zealots come up with useful experiences and not rely upon myths and misinterpretations? Like that stupid Navy ship article that keeps getting misinterpreted.
The stories of hotmail switching over to NT came out only 2 months after the purchase of the website was announced. Anybody remotely familiar with corporate buyouts and software development knows that wasn't enough time. Furthermore, a search on deja.com reveals that there were no major outages of hotmail.com during that time frame, whereas nearly every other major outage of the service is easily found in the archives.
What we do know, from Microsoft articles, is that hotmail.com development switched over to Windows NT. In an effort to get higher performance, the CGI was rewritten in C++ and highly tuned on Windows NT development boxes. It was then recompiled for FreeBSD and deployed. They did this because NT offers better development/debug tools than what was available on FreeBSD.
We also know that hotmail.com eventually switched over to Windows 2000 on their web servers. I would have thought that conversion would have finally put an end to the myth, but apparently Linux zealots just can't get enough of revisiting the past.
BTW, I'm a GM employee who doesn't drive a GM car. There are actually quite a few of us, although I work in the GMAC financial side, not the auto manufacturing.
P.S. www.linux64.com runs on IIS5, so I guess that means Linux sucks, right?
Anybody who has been forced to attend a Franklin Covey "Seven Habits" course will realize you are violating Habit 1 of a Successful person.
Instead of being proactive and thinking about the future you want, and doing something about that... you are focused on whining about the past or present situation.
Wall St does not give a shit about your little anti-Microsoft rants, they are going to use tools which serve the purpose for what they need. And right now Windows happens to make the best platform for user interfaces, as well as the best platform for web application servers. So they get used in those roles frequently.
Unix and the Mainframes also have roles that they are well suited towards. The great thing is, you can interconnect all of these machines together and get best of many worlds.
"Ah, as opposed to an actual financial services/trading company where you actually implemented something..."
Oh sorry... Software Developers at financial services companies.
I didn't realize I was talking to a lead brick.
"No, I was busy maintaining systems that worked. You know, Sun/Solaris, Sybase, Oracle. Not making pretty GUI clients for IIS/Microsoft SQL servers."
You mean you were maintaining the systems that we were using to build client/server apps? You did realize that Powerbuilder is a Sybase product? Never heard of Oracle Forms?
"Well, every commercial PC put out right now are running 32 bit processors, but I have yet to see one working.NET service available over the Internet. Or a functioning workgroup that actually is used in a production environment. You know what those are, right?"
Yeah, tell O'Reilly the DMCA is an evil bill created by the Democrats to appease the liberals in Hollywood, and he's sure to have a 4 hour special on the issue.
Better yet, tell jim Jesse Jackson supports it! That'll get his attention!
"I don't work in the financial industry but I know alot of people who do."
Yeah, that's what I figured. This of course makes you an "expert."
"But that's just front end the real work that goes on behind the scenes usually use unix."
No, most of the back end resides on mainframes.
"I mean this is just shit I'm pulling up from google mind you. "
I thought you had friends?
"So unless everyone is lying.. thats what they run."
Press releases don't tell the full story.
"As for OS/2 you should go to your local bank and look at the tellers screen. You'll either see OS/2 or NT with an open connection with them running Unix to check your accounts. "
Banks don't use Unix, they use Mainframes. Those systems were built 30-40 years ago, and the cost of migrating is more than simply maintaining them. That, and the Unix systems just don't have the I/O capacity to handle the transaction volume.
But as I said, yes OS/2 is used in banks, but primarily as a smart 3270 terminal. It allows them to easily pull the data with a screen scrape and print out a customized form for the customer.
"However for instance Chase Manhattan Bank has NT with these little terminals open using a Unix system."
Again, I'd be surprised if they used Unix in that capacity.
"ATM's use OS/2 etc etc the list goes on."
Again because of the easy connection into the Mainframe systems that run the ATM networks. I also happen to have a friend who used to work for the Shazam network, so I'm familiar with that. I also have a friend who worked for an ATM manufacturer out of Omaha.
Not all ATM's use OS/2, most are actually moving away from that now towards embedded Windows, etc.
I can use google.com as well: http://special.northernlight.com/banking/fr ontiers.htm
...According to Jerry Silva, a senior analyst with the Needham, MA- based TowerGroup, IBM OS/2 operating systems are phased out in the next few years, Windows NT and especially Windows 2000 will enter the forefront, giving banks a chance to ask, "'OK, what can we do with the ATMs now to make them more effective?"...
Today I happen to work in the mortgage industry, and we're heavily reliant upon Windows and Unix. But that's primarily because mortgages is a fairly new industry just spun up over the past 20 years.
Nasdaq's backend systems at the trading partners are Suns. They use Windows NT as the front end user interface devices. I don't know what they use at NASDAQ itself, but my guess would be Mainframes of some sort due to the trading volume.
But that doesn't matter, the front end systems are just as mission critical as the back end systems. The traders would frequently slam their fists into the keyboard if the backend systems didn't respond immediately. Keyboards were our #1 repair item on the Windows clients.
"As most people know, Microsoft has decided to open it's extention to Kerberos. So, no, it is no longer proprietary or undocumented. But they used to be."
I see.
So it's ok for me to say RedHat Linux doesn't do SMP because it used to be that way?
"And don't ask me for other specific examples. "
Or rather, you really don't know what you are talking about...
"The reality is that most financial applications running off a database backend will be processed using UNIX (or mainframe). Its a hell of lot easier to display those remote windows to UNIX platforms than M$ platforms."
Weird, we moved away from that paradigm about 8-10 years ago when we started doing client/server. For the past 4 years we've been doing n-tier web apps.
"What is driving this actually Microsoft.NET and its licensing costs. "
Really?
I'm curious, since you are about 10 years behind the times in terms of understanding software architecture, how is it you know so much about.NET?
"You won't find NT in operation anywhere the word "vital" is important on Wall St. "
For a short time I got stuck on an assignment supporting a trading floor at a large brokerage of one of the big 5 banks. Windows was everywhere. The NASDAQ systems, Bloomberg, Instinet, Bridge, etc. on and on and on. If you don't think any of this was mission critical, I would have loved to hand you the phone when a trader called wondering why our Bridge feed was not updating.
We were also heavily dependent upon Mainframe and Sun components. I don't recall ever seeing OS/2 there. In fact, the only time I've ever seen OS/2 used in a banking environment is as a smart 3270 emulator to connect to a mainframe.
I am curious, if you've never worked in the financial industry why do you purport to provide answers to this guys questions?
Yeah, that would probably explain why Merrill Lynch also announced they were moving one of their web applications to ASP.NET. I seem to recall they had been using J2EE for it previously.
"To sum it up...dont fret, in time, linux _will_ dominate"
In any large company you are going to have a large variety of technologies.
Notice how Mr. Vielehr is identified as CTO, but there is the phrase "private client technology" behind that... That's probably a separate division of the company and they do things differently than other divisions.
The way this Linux article is worded, they are replacing some of their systems with Linux... most likely existing Sun systems from the sound of it. But that doesn't preclude that they also have a great many Windows systems, both desktop and server.
Slashdot Mirror
Outlook has supported integrated encryption and digital signing since at least version 2000. It's really quite easy to use and administer, as you can automate the creation and delivery of users private keys, etc.
I don't know about the spam thing... I think if that went mainstream it'd cause a lot of problems.
"Actually, the language prohibits the GPL and LGPL only, AFAIK."
No, that's why I highlighted the part that says "or any". Yes, they name the GPL specifically, but they refer to any language that has requirements like the GPL.
"Finally, RMS didn't create the GPL to be incompatible with the BSD license. "
RMS created the GPL specifically to be incompatible with a lot of existing licenses. He admits this, it's part of his entire manifesto. Not sure why you are arguing that point because it's obvious.
Since when? The license does not prohibit development of a open source CIFS implementation using the BSD license, or many other licenses. Just the GPL.
This is clarified by the most important part of the text you quoted: any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license...[notice emphasis on the word requires]
The GPL requires you do all those things, and Microsoft is simply stating that their software is incompatible with those provisions and reminding you not to use it in that context. Just as the GPL license was incompatible with the old BSD license that required you to give credit to the University... Why is it Evil for Microsoft to do this, but not for Richard Stallman? Do I smell hypocrisy?
Netrek clients had expiration times embedded in them back about 8 years ago. The theory was similar, that there were probably bugs and the developers wanted to force people to update periodically.
It didn't make much sense because clients were also digitally signed with RSA keys, and those could have been revoked and new keys issued, but anyway.
The problem came along around 1997 or so when people stopped maintaining and creating new clients. Once a year the bloody client would expire and you'd get a series of posts to the usenet group and mailing lists whining about it. Someone would then have to go recompile the client(usually with no additional changes in the source tree) and put it up on an ftp site.
I remember rejecting this expiration idea back when it first happened and forked my own client versions which didn't do this. If I want to eliminate the use of a version, I revoke the RSA key.
But the stories that the Linux zealots are quoting come from April, 98 issues of Network News.
TechEd didn't happen until April. So how could the MS rep say they were GOING to convert it, and the Zealots say they already tried and failed... both in the same month? Keep in mind that the purchase of hotmail occured in December of 1997, so you can see the very short timeframe for this supposed deployment of millions of users. I honestly don't think they could even have ordered the new hardware required in that timeframe.
It is no secret that after the purchase Microsoft did publicly state that they were going to convert the service to using Windows software. Many believe they did the hotmail purchase solely so they would have experience handling such high volumes of users and could then build server software to scale to that capacity.
Having access to hotmail.com they could easily study the usage patterns, and develop load tests using products like Mercury Loadrunner which would recreate similar activity in their development environments. So it does not appear to be unreasonable at all that the Windows 2000 server product and the Exchange 2000 server product were designed in part around scalability requirements demanded by the existence of hotmail.com.
We already know that the front end web servers are running Windows 2000. It was also mentioned at the Office XP launch event last year that the backend servers were using Exchange to handle the email delivery and mailboxes.
So at this point what do we know? We know for certain that Microsoft was very successful in deploying hotmail to Windows. We also know from their white papers describing the migration that the Windows servers were able to handle something like twice the capacity of the existing FreeBSD servers.
Since it is such a success, the Linux zealots appear to be caught in a trap of continuing to spread the previous lie for no other purpose than to assuage their emotional arguments against Windows. I say emotional, because they are unable to come up with valid technical reasons against the product.
Heh. Apparently a Linux sheep couldn't handle the truth and modded me down.
Here's another opportunity, goatsex boy.
"Hotmail's original failed NT conversion"
But Philly... That never happened. Why can't you Linux zealots come up with useful experiences and not rely upon myths and misinterpretations? Like that stupid Navy ship article that keeps getting misinterpreted.
The stories of hotmail switching over to NT came out only 2 months after the purchase of the website was announced. Anybody remotely familiar with corporate buyouts and software development knows that wasn't enough time. Furthermore, a search on deja.com reveals that there were no major outages of hotmail.com during that time frame, whereas nearly every other major outage of the service is easily found in the archives.
What we do know, from Microsoft articles, is that hotmail.com development switched over to Windows NT. In an effort to get higher performance, the CGI was rewritten in C++ and highly tuned on Windows NT development boxes. It was then recompiled for FreeBSD and deployed. They did this because NT offers better development/debug tools than what was available on FreeBSD.
We also know that hotmail.com eventually switched over to Windows 2000 on their web servers. I would have thought that conversion would have finally put an end to the myth, but apparently Linux zealots just can't get enough of revisiting the past.
BTW, I'm a GM employee who doesn't drive a GM car. There are actually quite a few of us, although I work in the GMAC financial side, not the auto manufacturing.
P.S. www.linux64.com runs on IIS5, so I guess that means Linux sucks, right?
Why on earth would you be running Win98 on a Pentium 4 when WinXP is available?
Christ, you complain about stability, and yet still use that Win98 crap?
What made me curious about that statement was not the indictment against Windows XP. That's to be expected since this is a Sun FUD article...
What's curious is that Gosling is rejecting Sun's workstations in favor of ones built by Apple.
Anybody who has been forced to attend a Franklin Covey "Seven Habits" course will realize you are violating Habit 1 of a Successful person.
Instead of being proactive and thinking about the future you want, and doing something about that... you are focused on whining about the past or present situation.
I'm sorry, but your post really didn't make any sense.
Were you trying to say something? Accuse me of something? Obviously it must have been important or you would have spewed vitriol like you did.
"Just because a 15 year old kid could administer your machines for Mountain Dew and Pizza doesn't mean you should run your business like that."
So... I take it you aren't advocating the use of Linux then?
Look, computers are a tool not a religion.
Wall St does not give a shit about your little anti-Microsoft rants, they are going to use tools which serve the purpose for what they need. And right now Windows happens to make the best platform for user interfaces, as well as the best platform for web application servers. So they get used in those roles frequently.
Unix and the Mainframes also have roles that they are well suited towards. The great thing is, you can interconnect all of these machines together and get best of many worlds.
"Ah, as opposed to an actual financial services/trading company where you actually implemented something..."
.NET service available over the Internet. Or a functioning workgroup that actually is used in a production environment. You know what those are, right?"
Oh sorry... Software Developers at financial services companies.
I didn't realize I was talking to a lead brick.
"No, I was busy maintaining systems that worked. You know, Sun/Solaris, Sybase, Oracle. Not making pretty GUI clients for IIS/Microsoft SQL servers."
You mean you were maintaining the systems that we were using to build client/server apps? You did realize that Powerbuilder is a Sybase product? Never heard of Oracle Forms?
"Well, every commercial PC put out right now are running 32 bit processors, but I have yet to see one working
I can't help it if you are deaf, blind and dumb.
Yeah, tell O'Reilly the DMCA is an evil bill created by the Democrats to appease the liberals in Hollywood, and he's sure to have a 4 hour special on the issue.
Better yet, tell jim Jesse Jackson supports it! That'll get his attention!
#insert "drippingsarcasm.h"
"And who's we ?"
.NET as a nebulous vaporware."
Software developers.
"And what were you using 4-6 years ago before your "n-tier web apps"?"
That was the client/server push. You know, Powerbuilder, Uniface, etc. It was quite a big thing, I'm surprised you didn't hear about it.
"Its that same 10yr backlog in software architecture comprehension that allows me to recognize
Yeah... so are 32 bit processors.
"I don't work in the financial industry but I know alot of people who do."
r ontiers .htm
...
Yeah, that's what I figured. This of course makes you an "expert."
"But that's just front end the real work that goes on behind the scenes usually use unix."
No, most of the back end resides on mainframes.
"I mean this is just shit I'm pulling up from google mind you. "
I thought you had friends?
"So unless everyone is lying.. thats what they run."
Press releases don't tell the full story.
"As for OS/2 you should go to your local bank and look at the tellers screen. You'll either see OS/2 or NT with an open connection with them running Unix to check your accounts. "
Banks don't use Unix, they use Mainframes. Those systems were built 30-40 years ago, and the cost of migrating is more than simply maintaining them. That, and the Unix systems just don't have the I/O capacity to handle the transaction volume.
But as I said, yes OS/2 is used in banks, but primarily as a smart 3270 terminal. It allows them to easily pull the data with a screen scrape and print out a customized form for the customer.
"However for instance Chase Manhattan Bank has NT with these little terminals open using a Unix system."
Again, I'd be surprised if they used Unix in that capacity.
"ATM's use OS/2 etc etc the list goes on."
Again because of the easy connection into the Mainframe systems that run the ATM networks. I also happen to have a friend who used to work for the Shazam network, so I'm familiar with that. I also have a friend who worked for an ATM manufacturer out of Omaha.
Not all ATM's use OS/2, most are actually moving away from that now towards embedded Windows, etc.
I can use google.com as well:
http://special.northernlight.com/banking/f
...According to Jerry Silva, a senior analyst with the Needham, MA- based TowerGroup, IBM OS/2 operating systems are phased out in the next few years, Windows NT and especially Windows 2000 will enter the forefront, giving banks a chance to ask, "'OK, what can we do with the ATMs now to make them more effective?"
Today I happen to work in the mortgage industry, and we're heavily reliant upon Windows and Unix. But that's primarily because mortgages is a fairly new industry just spun up over the past 20 years.
Ohwell.
Nasdaq's backend systems at the trading partners are Suns. They use Windows NT as the front end user interface devices. I don't know what they use at NASDAQ itself, but my guess would be Mainframes of some sort due to the trading volume.
But that doesn't matter, the front end systems are just as mission critical as the back end systems. The traders would frequently slam their fists into the keyboard if the backend systems didn't respond immediately. Keyboards were our #1 repair item on the Windows clients.
"As most people know, Microsoft has decided to open it's extention to Kerberos. So, no, it is no longer proprietary or undocumented. But they used to be."
I see.
So it's ok for me to say RedHat Linux doesn't do SMP because it used to be that way?
"And don't ask me for other specific examples. "
Or rather, you really don't know what you are talking about...
"The reality is that most financial applications running off a database backend will be processed using UNIX (or mainframe). Its a hell of lot easier to display those remote windows to UNIX platforms than M$ platforms."
.NET and its licensing costs. "
.NET?
Weird, we moved away from that paradigm about 8-10 years ago when we started doing client/server. For the past 4 years we've been doing n-tier web apps.
"What is driving this actually Microsoft
Really?
I'm curious, since you are about 10 years behind the times in terms of understanding software architecture, how is it you know so much about
"You won't find NT in operation anywhere the word "vital" is important on Wall St. "
For a short time I got stuck on an assignment supporting a trading floor at a large brokerage of one of the big 5 banks. Windows was everywhere. The NASDAQ systems, Bloomberg, Instinet, Bridge, etc. on and on and on. If you don't think any of this was mission critical, I would have loved to hand you the phone when a trader called wondering why our Bridge feed was not updating.
We were also heavily dependent upon Mainframe and Sun components. I don't recall ever seeing OS/2 there. In fact, the only time I've ever seen OS/2 used in a banking environment is as a smart 3270 emulator to connect to a mainframe.
I am curious, if you've never worked in the financial industry why do you purport to provide answers to this guys questions?
Yeah, that would probably explain why Merrill Lynch also announced they were moving one of their web applications to ASP.NET. I seem to recall they had been using J2EE for it previously.
"To sum it up...dont fret, in time, linux _will_ dominate"
Why do you desire domination?
In any large company you are going to have a large variety of technologies.
Notice how Mr. Vielehr is identified as CTO, but there is the phrase "private client technology" behind that... That's probably a separate division of the company and they do things differently than other divisions.
The way this Linux article is worded, they are replacing some of their systems with Linux... most likely existing Sun systems from the sound of it. But that doesn't preclude that they also have a great many Windows systems, both desktop and server.
I'm curious, but do you have evidence that the extensions to Kerberos are proprietary and undocumented?
Give me your list of the 5% of Word features you use. I will give you my list, and we will see if they are identical.