well, take a look al/etc/inetd.conf. you can see there things like telnet, ftp,..., echo, chargen, imap,... if you are running web server you do not want this stuff so you disable it. and if you disable it, then inetd is running but doing nothing. so you disable inetd too.
why port apps you mentioned to linux? i think "fixing" your company information system is far better solution if you want to use alternative OSes too.
why i'm that hard? because i think that using computers like your company is ineficient, cruel, bad,... such practises (IE specific code, Outlook only, MS Word only,...) just makes people stop evolving and after that cease to exist (in global).
try imagine company, which do not dictates you which e-mail client use, which browser to use, where you have to place particular icon, etc. it's maybe harder to setup such system but it benefits all users thus making them better (and work better).
also try imagine pub which you can't enter just because you are wearing for example white T-shirt (and there is almost no other pub you can enter). or imagine a city/state/country/... you can't visit just because you are left-handed (and there is almost no other country you can visit). i can mention a lot of examples here. what they have in common is somethink we can call discrimination.
that's why i do not like so called "pure solutions" and that's why i'm not employing people just because they know this particular piece of software.
in case of proprietary software the end of manufacturer almost automaticaly means this software cease to exist. on the other hand open-source software can be used very long time even after original (second, third, fourth,...,..,...,...) creator/maintainer stoped support. why? if you got functional system which fully satisfies your needs everything you want are bug fixes (security, performance,...). and it is far easier to get them if you got sources.
IMHO even highly used proprietary system can't outlive theire manufacturer for long (can you imagine windows software still used for example 5 years after MS death?).
if you think about today situation deep enought you realize that this buy&upgrade merry-go-round is mostly nonsense which existense is supported by 100% pure PR (in case of COMMON users of course). importance of support of original manufacturer is lower if you caunt this in.
so i agree with smithdog that free code outlives his creator (of course only when it is good and usefull:) and if it is only usefull, then it is made good so at the end it is good and usefull and outlives it's creators:) it can be ilustrated by HW too, the only bad think is that HW depends on matter
i think there are even examples of this with open-source software: original mainainer stopped development so someone other stepped out and continues to maintain the application i would like to see someone post concrete names here while i'm bad in remembering things. also proprietary-software-cease-to-exist examples are welcome.
here i wanted to adress the support thing you mentioned but KillRaven and two ACs (on Friday) did it sufficiently
now i just get curious about how the world would looks like if bread (or water, air, beer, sex,...) would be under some patent, copyright or some monopoly.
this FREE ideas (bread recipe, sex HOWTO,...) and free things (air, water,... in some sense) are basics of our lives and perfectly supports smithdog's post (and for example RMS' free software ideas too:) and a lot of other ideas too)
i did not see there any comment which claims Linux is the only one which is good. but lets concentrate on the topic of the post you answered:
bug as a result of ignoring API: when you write something in the wey "yes, it is here - shit, it is undocumented/not public - i use it 'cause i'm lazy" then it's your fault when your app broke after library upgrade
if library is broken and you write your code correctly, then library fix fixes your app; if you found bug in library, the best think you can do is report the author and if you have source (and courage and knowledge), fix the library for yourself and post just patch
if big API change is planed there is still a lot of time either to change your app or just to keep it and still use old library; nobody is forcing you to upgrade for features (at least in linux); and do not forget that changing API is alway done with great care (again i'm talking about important linux parts)
so we should rather makes bypass, than bypass over thst bypass, then bypass previous bypass, then bypass previous bypass, bypass previous bypass, bypass previous bypass, bypass previous bypass,...,..,...???
i do have some programing experiences and i'm sure breaking some app with some fix is the best solution.
ISV should push M$ to fix the bugs so they do not have to fix 3rd party apps to bypass bugs in OS thus risking that after OS upgrade (i.e. VEEEEEERY late bug fix) theire apps wont run.
no, M$ will not be far more popular (at least for me) if they completely open-source their products. why? because same big bill will be still at the CEO (or whatever) position!
yes, linux is succesfull because of open-source model but it's not the only think which makes linux "the best" for us.
and i agree with Omar Djabji that being "anti-M$" (or not content with M$ or being annoyed by M$) is not enought to switch to alternative solution. at leat for masses. ask users of M$ software whether they are content with it. especialy ask people which's work HIGHLY DEPENDS on mentioned products (i.e. people which are making theire bisinesses on such products, etc.)
i'm using 2.0.36 on our most important server (it is 2.0.36+glibc2.0 - something near redhat 5.1). everything else i've upgraded to 2.2.X and glibc2.1 . but i have ONE big problem: JDK. jdk1.1.7 do not runs with glibc2.1 (blackdown knows about that for quite a long time but jdk1.1.7-2 is still not there - i thik they are busy with jdk1.2 - which will be running on glibc2.1 - they said so). so because of JDK i'm keeping running one box with glibc2.0 and just because i'm curious with 2.0.36 too so i can compare with 2.2.0 - and also check (it runs with 2.0.36/glibc2.0; do it runs on 2.2.X/glibc2.1?:) now somebody can point out that i just need to recompile. yeah, that's right. i'm doing that (i'm using RPMs but for important/for me/ stuff i'm using SRPMs and i'm recompiling them;... i'm talking long now
what i want to say: 2.0.X will be there as long as people do not fully trust 2.2.X as STABLE kernel; i'm not one of unbelievaber:)...
... and maybe even longer. why? if someone is running linux box for a long time and it works, why is he supposed to take a "painly" upgrade? such a man will still be content with 2.0.X patches and do not care about 2.2.X
or someone is just lazy...
wildflower mentions good point about drivers: that linux drivers will be there as long as there are people wich wants them. i say same thing with kernel: if there are people which use it and some developers which tinker with it, there will be another releases of 2.0.X series
i agree with not involving government into problem. instead handle it by ourselves (as users thus recipients of spam) in cooperation with ISP as we are theire customers and are paying them for services.
on the other hand, numbers you mentioned are too low for me (not wery often, but it happens:) but those are subject to discusion and agreement between user and ISP, between ISPs,... so we should not argue about those numbers right here:)
here, in slovakia, internet is still at the begining, so spammers are at the begining too. but they are apearing quickly. a lot of them still using amateur methods but they are spaming. for now we (in our company) use some sendmail capabilities against such entities (there are alredy 12 blocking records in our/etc/mail/access for past one year).
it's diferent here in slovakia with spam. we're not in EU, we're just discovering internet,... and law are bad in more important areas than privacy protection, etc.
1) "are we prepared...?" - i personaly am (after reading posts here:).
2) "how many have it...?" - do not know. and i would like to know. and i would be even happier when enought devlopers have such.
few days ago my friend forwarded me some article from www.winntmag.com (can't read it whole, IP is unreachable) and we take little argument about whether NT is better in "enterprice". as i'm taking word "enterprice" as compromited (main stram media use it without thinking, what does it mean and are using it with word "linux" too) i argue with him, that linux is better in enterprice. my friend told me, that in enterprice NT with well written app + enterprise HW is realy better (he uses arguments from author of article at winntmag which published some disadvantages in linux kernel too). he told me something like "NT is fairly good kernel with very buggy and shitty shell". after clearing what "enterprise" mean i agreed with my friend. linux (for now) is not designed and tested for enterprise projects (enterprice - BIG load, BIG server, BIG hardware,...) so NT acts better in such environments (for now).
if there was some certification, this (USS Yorktown dead in the water because of division by zero) wont happen! imagine what could happen in real battle. or in another appliance (hospital, nuclear plant,...) when same systems used.
but i say that we have to certify software, not people!
while i think i understand what's the meaning of question i think that such certification should be good. BUT it requires certification to be done correct way.
i agree with AArthur's statements "Really, certifing programmers is a bad thing, certfing software is good.", "Reguluation is serious pain in the ass for programers, who are often free willed and libral.".
some folks here compared programmers to some other branches (building trade,...) but i see one big problem here: i do not know what's the official definition of pragrammer but some people say it's like art too. and we can't compare pure technical branches with art. so that's why i do not agree with strict programmer' certification.
Big Red said it fine: let's certify software (i.e result of the programmer's work)... ... and do not forget to teach little programmers basic principles of software not the latest technology gadgets. only after doing so we can receive more good/working/correct/stable/... software.
i do not like arguments like "what it would be if..."; there is always counterargument to that (exactly oposite) and both are speculative and both can be near the truth or far away from truth (an maybe both)
wouldn't be IT world better without MS? i do not know, i do not want to speculate so i do not think about "amount of consumers using the web now - wouldn't be anywhere near what it is right now without microsoft"
once upon a time i think that at least MS-DOS is original invention made by MS. i was shocked when i get information, that even that poor DOS was bought from someone else.
since then i fail to name just ONE MS' invention (like mr. gates himself:) if i'm counting only technology, not marketing (as i'm better in IT than economy)
and just to add: did you know that those famous MS marketing practises like FUD are not theire inventions too? i heard IBM used that back in 70s:)
so there remain question: how can be someone that unproductive still exist in business? it's sick, isn't it?
yes, some tips would be nice. i'm going to setup my first web server for customer which will be used in real Internet (for now, i just made some LAN servers for 10 clients:) .
Slashdot Mirror
well, take a look al /etc/inetd.conf. you can see there things like telnet, ftp, ..., echo, chargen, imap, ...
if you are running web server you do not want this stuff so you disable it. and if you disable it, then inetd is running but doing nothing. so you disable inetd too.
why you want ONLY outlook? after all, ask MS to port outlook to linux. they said that their users do not need linux port of theire apps. :)
why i'm that hard? because i think that using computers like your company is ineficient, cruel, bad, ... such practises (IE specific code, Outlook only, MS Word only, ...) just makes people stop evolving and after that cease to exist (in global).
try imagine company, which do not dictates you which e-mail client use, which browser to use, where you have to place particular icon, etc.
it's maybe harder to setup such system but it benefits all users thus making them better (and work better).
also try imagine pub which you can't enter just because you are wearing for example white T-shirt (and there is almost no other pub you can enter). or imagine a city/state/country/... you can't visit just because you are left-handed (and there is almost no other country you can visit). i can mention a lot of examples here. what they have in common is somethink we can call discrimination.
that's why i do not like so called "pure solutions" and that's why i'm not employing people just because they know this particular piece of software.
better post some facts not curses!
i'm just going to ask you to think about why is somebody risking his/her career just for some "piece of crap" (i.e. linux).
it's not only about "think about this particular product". it's also about "think about this society" too.
why?
if you got functional system which fully satisfies your needs everything you want are bug fixes (security, performance,
IMHO even highly used proprietary system can't outlive theire manufacturer for long (can you imagine windows software still used for example 5 years after MS death?).
if you think about today situation deep enought you realize that this buy&upgrade merry-go-round is mostly nonsense which existense is supported by 100% pure PR (in case of COMMON users of course). importance of support of original manufacturer is lower if you caunt this in.
so i agree with smithdog that free code outlives his creator (of course only when it is good and usefull :) and if it is only usefull, then it is made good so at the end it is good and usefull and outlives it's creators :) it can be ilustrated by HW too, the only bad think is that HW depends on matter
i think there are even examples of this with open-source software: original mainainer stopped development so someone other stepped out and continues to maintain the application
i would like to see someone post concrete names here while i'm bad in remembering things. also proprietary-software-cease-to-exist examples are welcome.
here i wanted to adress the support thing you mentioned but KillRaven and two ACs (on Friday) did it sufficiently
now i just get curious about how the world would looks like if bread (or water, air, beer, sex, ...) would be under some patent, copyright or some monopoly.
this FREE ideas (bread recipe, sex HOWTO, ...) and free things (air, water, ... in some sense) are basics of our lives and perfectly supports smithdog's post (and for example RMS' free software ideas too :) and a lot of other ideas too)
i do have some programing experiences and i'm sure breaking some app with some fix is the best solution.
ISV should push M$ to fix the bugs so they do not have to fix 3rd party apps to bypass bugs in OS thus risking that after OS upgrade (i.e. VEEEEEERY late bug fix) theire apps wont run.
yes, linux is succesfull because of open-source model but it's not the only think which makes linux "the best" for us.
and i agree with Omar Djabji that being "anti-M$" (or not content with M$ or being annoyed by M$) is not enought to switch to alternative solution. at leat for masses.
ask users of M$ software whether they are content with it. especialy ask people which's work HIGHLY DEPENDS on mentioned products (i.e. people which are making theire bisinesses on such products, etc.)
those test are like measuring ocean depth in ONE POINT and taken value proclaim as depth of whole ocean!
i wonder WHEN people realize they are cheated and that money are being stolen from them!
i wonder, whether HP choose some UNIX as opposing step (MS cant make comaradeship with both Xerox and HP, can it?).
but we shall spread wisdom!
what i want to say: 2.0.X will be there as long as people do not fully trust 2.2.X as STABLE kernel; i'm not one of unbelievaber :) ...
... and maybe even longer. why? if someone is running linux box for a long time and it works, why is he supposed to take a "painly" upgrade? such a man will still be content with 2.0.X patches and do not care about 2.2.X
or someone is just lazy ...
wildflower mentions good point about drivers: that linux drivers will be there as long as there are people wich wants them. i say same thing with kernel: if there are people which use it and some developers which tinker with it, there will be another releases of 2.0.X series
we're running some machines with 2.0.36 too :)
check out http://maps.vix.com/. using this database is not limited just to sendmail...
on the other hand, numbers you mentioned are too low for me (not wery often, but it happens :) but those are subject to discusion and agreement between user and ISP, between ISPs, ... so we should not argue about those numbers right here :)
i agree
it's diferent here in slovakia with spam. we're not in EU, we're just discovering internet, ... and law are bad in more important areas than privacy protection, etc.
1) "are we prepared ...?" - i personaly am (after reading posts here :).
2) "how many have it ...?" - do not know. and i would like to know. and i would be even happier when enought devlopers have such.
few days ago my friend forwarded me some article from www.winntmag.com (can't read it whole, IP is unreachable) and we take little argument about whether NT is better in "enterprice". as i'm taking word "enterprice" as compromited (main stram media use it without thinking, what does it mean and are using it with word "linux" too) i argue with him, that linux is better in enterprice. my friend told me, that in enterprice NT with well written app + enterprise HW is realy better (he uses arguments from author of article at winntmag which published some disadvantages in linux kernel too). he told me something like "NT is fairly good kernel with very buggy and shitty shell". after clearing what "enterprise" mean i agreed with my friend. linux (for now) is not designed and tested for enterprise projects (enterprice - BIG load, BIG server, BIG hardware, ...) so NT acts better in such environments (for now).
but i say that we have to certify software, not people!
i agree with AArthur's statements "Really, certifing programmers is a bad thing, certfing software is good.", "Reguluation is serious pain in the ass for programers, who are often free willed and libral.".
some folks here compared programmers to some other branches (building trade, ...) but i see one big problem here: i do not know what's the official definition of pragrammer but some people say it's like art too. and we can't compare pure technical branches with art. so that's why i do not agree with strict programmer' certification.
Big Red said it fine: let's certify software (i.e result of the programmer's work) ...
... and do not forget to teach little programmers basic principles of software not the latest technology gadgets.
only after doing so we can receive more good/working/correct/stable/... software.
wouldn't be IT world better without MS? i do not know, i do not want to speculate so i do not think about "amount of consumers using the web now - wouldn't be anywhere near what it is right now without microsoft"
since then i fail to name just ONE MS' invention (like mr. gates himself :) if i'm counting only technology, not marketing (as i'm better in IT than economy)
and just to add: did you know that those famous MS marketing practises like FUD are not theire inventions too? i heard IBM used that back in 70s :)
so there remain question: how can be someone that unproductive still exist in business? it's sick, isn't it?
yes, some tips would be nice. i'm going to setup my first web server for customer which will be used in real Internet (for now, i just made some LAN servers for 10 clients :) .