VB is a very powerful language that many people use to build enterprise class applications
Oh my gosh, my side is splitting from laughing so hard. You have no clue what enterprise class means. I am a developer for a fortune 500 company with 110,000+ employees. VB does not scale. VB does not even do true threads. It only supports apartment threading. VB does not support one ounce of object oriented programming. A class in VB is NOT a real class. It does not support polymorphism, inheritence, etc. Try to write an large enterprise class application with many developers in VB and then you will know what I am talking about. Once an applications gets to so many thousands of lines of code, OO techniques become invaluable. VB is procedural and just doesn't cut it. VB is for kiddies or as Billy boy would say, "hobby" programmers. Can I create a class and inherit from it? No. Writting an application with a few thousand lines of code with maybe five developers does not make it enterprise class. The file handling is a joke. The syntax is joke. VB came in handy for a quick way to plan out a GUI. Plain and simple. Please tell us what "Enterprise" grade applications you have made with VB? Hell, name one "enterprise" grade application available in VB? Is SQL Server written in VB? Is Oracle?
and don't even think about reminding people here at Slashdot that Perl has been dead for a few years.
Are you even a developer? Comments like this make me doubt it. Look at the URL when you are in/. See that nice.pl on the end? That is perl. It is pretty funny that/. running perl can handle the load that many other sites out there just crock on, hence the term./ing. There are still tons of perl sites out there. Perl is also indespensible when it comes to text processing or admin related tasks. Just because you don't have the ability to learn any language other then VB, doesn't me the rest of the world can't.
But show off something better and easier? Sacrilege.
Thats part of the problem right there. If you dumb down a language too much such as VB, you loose all the power features that comes with a language such as C, C++. It also contributes to all the headaches in the world of IT when you have tons of piss poor code written by sup-par "programmers" that cannont grasp anything harder then VB. Trusting a VB-only developer to write an Enterprise class application is like having the "tire change boy" be your machanic. It is a stupid choice to make.
Here in the lab we have a cluster of windows machines that regularly have uptimes of over two weeks
Wow! Two hole weeks? I think you are trolling, the newer versions of MS Windows should be able to stay up longer then that. Granted, they start to slow down and need a reboot, but they should be able to stay up.
Our Linux machines have slightly longer uptimes, but they often require (admittedly infrequent) kernel rebuilds which can leave them out of action for up to a day
What kind of boxes are you using? 486's? I can compile my kernel in about 6 minutes. On SMP boxes, that number gets much lower. Why not just use a distro that uses binary packages such as Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, etc? All these will provide you with a binary compiled for you that you just install.
I am not saying that the Linux patching process is cumbersome, but we gotta admit that the average users (not sysadmins) just can't begin to understand how to patch their Linux boxes.
What? Have you ever used Red Hat's up2date tool? It is easier then windows update. It is just a GUI app that you click Next in about 3 times, wait for the new packages to download and your done. What in the world could be hard about that? Red Hat even has a little icon that sits in the notification area and turns a bright red with an exclamation point when there are updates available. Clicking on that brings up the uber-newbie friendly GUI to download them. No terminal (command line) involved. No rebooting involved (unless you upgrade the kernel). You can install ALL the updates at once with NO reboot between them, unlike many MS updates, especially service packs that require a reboot. Please don't mention chain loader, no average Joe is going to be able to use that.
You have some logic problems. How does some bone head condoning a virus/worm writer, connect to Linux or OSS? All the viruses for MS Windows are written ON MS WINDOWS! All the people stealing music are MS Windows users. Those 4 or 5 million Kazza users are MS Windows users! If you or forbes should be anti-anything, it should be anti-MS users. Linux, *BSD and Mac users are busy writing software to SHARE with the world or busy rendering stuff on thier Mac's. It is the MS Widnows users that are writing and spreading viruses/worms and stealing music.
That is not the point. The point is that the version of MS Office for MS Windows DOES support right to left. MS Does not want the Mac version to have this feature to force users to use MS Windows over Mac if they want right to left Hebrew in MS Office. So again, it is a monopoly doing what they do best.
Do you smoke crack? Or are you just in love with Billy boy? Did you even *read* the patent?
instructions for obtaining HTML document customization information from the user of the client computer, the HTML document customization information indicating user preferences for an HTML document available to the user over the network; and
instructions for obtaining HTML document customization information from the user of the client computer during a first accessing of the network by the user client computer, the HTML document customization information indicating user preferences for an HTML document available to the user over the network
Do you really think MS "invented" this? These are techniques used by an INDUSTRY for YEARS.
Oh, and what abou this claim
The method of claim 1 in which the user identifier is returned to the client computer as persistent client state information.
Can you say COOKIE?
Or This one
The method of claim 1 in which the user identifier includes a globally unique identifier.
Umm, sounds like a SESSION ID?
MS can take this patent and basically shut down ANY web site out there. You get a cookie from/., you get cookies and sessions for any web commerce site. This is just sick. MS has enough money to shut anyone down with this patent they do not like. Do you think any small or medium sized site/company could withstand a cour battle with MS? You sound like the only Zealot here. Backing up any unethical, monopolistic action of MS.
It is even less then that. With GPL you can build your outhouse anywhere on the GPL property and use all of the GPL facilities free of charge. Linksys moved on to the GPL property and built an addition to the GPL mansion and is now trying to say that, "while I can use all of the GPL facilities, no one can use the addition that I build on your foundation". Linksys could have easily built on the GPL property, used all of the GPL facilities, but not have built any additon and been fine. They could still take down their addition and move it to some other part of the property not directly attached to the GPL mansion and be fine. Or they can keep the addition and allow others to enoy it.
As a result he said, "We have developed a relationship with security researchers to avoid public disclosure of security holes."
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
I don't know if I believe it or not. However, it did state that those numbers were for CORPORATE desktops. A much different thing then the average home user desktop. In a corporate environment you would have admins to set everything up all purrty for the end usesr. Plus Linux has a much bigger percentage of servers in the corporate environment then 1%. So positive experiences there could make some corps look at replacing some desktops. Only time will tell.
How many court cases have you heard of that have challenged them? Also, do you think that someone wants to waste the money to go to court over it, especially for a benchmark? I would assume that most people don't want to take the chance.
The thing is, how can anyone trust your newsletter now? The solution that would sound better to me would have been to KEEP the exploits there until you verify that MS has indeed patched them. Then as MS patched them, update the site to show that the vuln has been fixed while NOT removing it. Your approach seems to be to sweep these problems under the carpet which would make many assume that MS has cooked up some kind of a deal with you. Even if MS *has* fixed these particular vulns, do you think there won't be more? With PivX out of the picture for IE vulns, MS is hoping for "security through obscurity" for future ones that show up.
Are you denying that MS has paid you any money to take down that information or have given you any contracts with an "unofficial" plea to take down that information?
Also, why not point people to a browser that has a MUCH better security track record such as Mozilla or MozillaFirebird? You stated that we *depend* on IE. How in the world do we depend on it? I have not used it for about 2 years. Sure it is the most used browser but that is mostly because that is what is there on the home users system. IE could *easily* be replaced on all of these systems. That statement also seems a little insulting to the great efforts of all the developers of browsers like Moz, Opera, Konq, etc. Moz runs on many platforms and has a lot more features then plain IE.
There are plenty of other sites out there with exploits to MS and other OSes, do you think that all the attacks agains IE will just stop now? It also sounds as if PivX Solutions now subscribes to "security through obscurity" which IMO is a VERY bad attitude to take for security. IMO, when there is a security problem with ANY OS or software, it needs to be public so people can protect themselves against it.
I do hope you and your company the best though and hope that you made the correct choice. I guess only time will tell.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
Time to configure? Your kidding right? MS was NEVER designed to be a server OS. That is why it takes so many admins to maintain them. I am a programmer at a fortune 500 company. One of our data centers has 57 Unix and 4 Linux servers. There is ONE *nix admin for all of those boxes, yes that is right just one. Yes he is over worked and they are going to hire a second *nix admin. So he is able to handle at least 60 servers which happen to run our most critical functions. A more sane number would be about 30 or so servers for a *nix admin. In that same data center there are 200 various MS Windows 2k servers running with at least 25 MS admins that are pretty much overworked and often need to stay late. That is only about 8 servers per admin, pretty sad if you ask me. MS Windows being a desktoop OS, has little to no scriptablity. The OS was designed from day one to be a desktop OS.
As far as features goes, you have all the features you could want in *nix server. Certainly as many if not more then an MS desktop passing as a server.
As far as usabilty, again, you have to be kidding me. As Ronco would say, *nix is almost a "set it and forget it OS".
Are mission critical payroll system on Solaris is rock solid and just doesn't go down. Our Oracle DB's on Linux are rock solid and never go do. Now on the other hand, the damn Exchange 2003 server has been down far too many times for 15 minutes here, 60 minutes there. The damn thing reboted itself once!
Um, where are the major problems with bind? bind runs just about all of the top level domains. Also, what does bind or sendmail have to do with *nix? Are they a part of the OS. Should the quality of any *nix be based on applications that are not even developed by the same vendor? I hardly think so. The days of needing a BS in CS for *nix are gone, at least with Linux. I have gotten a lot of non-techies using Linux with no problems. Sure to run a server you *should* have a BS in CS or a releated field. I wouldn't want some guy with just a bunch of certificates admining mission critical servers for me. I have taken MS's MCP exams and they were a walk in the park, just a bunch of resume fluff. As always, you get what you pay for.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
I actaully read some analyst that estimated 20% of all corporate desktops world wide by 2008. Also, think about all the great improvements in Linux on the desktop over the next three years. The good thing about Linux improvements is that you don't have to wait for a 3-5 year release cycle to see anything, you can upgrade incrementally as you go to new apps as new features come out that you want. This is possible because things are not over-integrated. With MS you use the current stuff, patch and reboot for 3 years or so and then get one big blob update for the next OS. If you are "lucky" you get some intermediate release such as ME, and we all know how great and stable that was.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
A slight correction:
Win2k3 server is the best OS yet seen.
yet seen from Microsoft. MS can't hold a candle to *nix as a server and Mac OS X as a desktop makes MS look silly.
The base SMB or Server Message Block protocol is not the problem. It is as usual, all the MS extensions and divergences from this that are NOT documented publicly or published that make reverse engineering needed.
You think that is bad. What until MS tries to "audit" you to make sure that you are not a theif and tryint to rip them off a few licenses here or there. What a great way to treat your customers that made you the largest software company in the world. Ofcourse, MS often makes deals with people who are about to be audited. "If you upgrade now at this price, we won't audit you."
Sadly the MS Empire does not allow you to release benchmark stats for their products. You agree to this when you use their products through their EULA. I am sure IT Labs doesn't want to get crap over it. Then agian, maybe they will find a way to post the numbers.
Not that long ago, MS hyped a "benchmark" using some old version of GNU/Linux and some old version of samba on a poorly configured Linux box and put it up against a tuned MS Windows 2003 server to show "how much faster" MS Windows 2003 is. Of course, the "benchmark" was funded by MS. Now a non-biased benchmark comes along and makes MS look just silly. Were not talking 5% - 10% faster, but 2.5 times faster! That is a big difference.
Mozilla 1.4 and Mozilla 1.4.1 are far from being the latest builds. There is the 1.5 builds in which it seems to be fixed and there are also nightly builds. It also didn't do anything for MozillaFirebird 0.6.1.
I think you hit the "nail on the head". Their blurb sounds just like someone who was paid. I bet MS even wrote it.
From their blurb:
As the ubiquitous browser that is utilized to access the internet, we all depend on IE too much to have crooks, social deviants, malcontents and crackers from messing with our lifestyles and our livelihoods. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!'"
This doesn't sound like it came from a security specialist. Usaully security guys want to find EVERY hole to make the system better. It is also funny how they put in the part about crackers, crooks and deviants. I guess anyone that wants to find security holes fall into this category? That part of the blurb is what makes me think some MS drone had a part in writing it. Oh, and "we all depend on IE too much"? What is up with that? Like MS didn't put that in there? I guess there are not a bunch of better browsers out there like Mozilla, MozillaFirebird, Opera, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You have some logic problems. How does some bone head condoning a virus/worm writer, connect to Linux or OSS? All the viruses for MS Windows are written ON MS WINDOWS! All the people stealing music are MS Windows users. Those 4 or 5 million Kazza users are MS Windows users! If you or forbes should be anti-anything, it should be anti-MS users. Linux, *BSD and Mac users are busy writing software to SHARE with the world or busy rendering stuff on thier Mac's. It is the MS Widnows users that are writing and spreading viruses/worms and stealing music.
That is not the point. The point is that the version of MS Office for MS Windows DOES support right to left. MS Does not want the Mac version to have this feature to force users to use MS Windows over Mac if they want right to left Hebrew in MS Office. So again, it is a monopoly doing what they do best.
I am pretty sure it was Netscape that invented the use of Cookies.
Oh, and what abou this claim
Can you say COOKIE?
Or This one Umm, sounds like a SESSION ID?
MS can take this patent and basically shut down ANY web site out there. You get a cookie from
Noooo, the Chinese like rats while the vietnamese eat dogs
It is even less then that. With GPL you can build your outhouse anywhere on the GPL property and use all of the GPL facilities free of charge. Linksys moved on to the GPL property and built an addition to the GPL mansion and is now trying to say that, "while I can use all of the GPL facilities, no one can use the addition that I build on your foundation". Linksys could have easily built on the GPL property, used all of the GPL facilities, but not have built any additon and been fine. They could still take down their addition and move it to some other part of the property not directly attached to the GPL mansion and be fine. Or they can keep the addition and allow others to enoy it.
Does this have anythig to do with Microsoft unveils fundamental security shift?
Most importantly the part about:
I don't know if I believe it or not. However, it did state that those numbers were for CORPORATE desktops. A much different thing then the average home user desktop. In a corporate environment you would have admins to set everything up all purrty for the end usesr. Plus Linux has a much bigger percentage of servers in the corporate environment then 1%. So positive experiences there could make some corps look at replacing some desktops. Only time will tell.
How many court cases have you heard of that have challenged them? Also, do you think that someone wants to waste the money to go to court over it, especially for a benchmark? I would assume that most people don't want to take the chance.
The thing is, how can anyone trust your newsletter now? The solution that would sound better to me would have been to KEEP the exploits there until you verify that MS has indeed patched them. Then as MS patched them, update the site to show that the vuln has been fixed while NOT removing it. Your approach seems to be to sweep these problems under the carpet which would make many assume that MS has cooked up some kind of a deal with you. Even if MS *has* fixed these particular vulns, do you think there won't be more? With PivX out of the picture for IE vulns, MS is hoping for "security through obscurity" for future ones that show up.
Are you denying that MS has paid you any money to take down that information or have given you any contracts with an "unofficial" plea to take down that information?
Also, why not point people to a browser that has a MUCH better security track record such as Mozilla or MozillaFirebird? You stated that we *depend* on IE. How in the world do we depend on it? I have not used it for about 2 years. Sure it is the most used browser but that is mostly because that is what is there on the home users system. IE could *easily* be replaced on all of these systems. That statement also seems a little insulting to the great efforts of all the developers of browsers like Moz, Opera, Konq, etc. Moz runs on many platforms and has a lot more features then plain IE.
There are plenty of other sites out there with exploits to MS and other OSes, do you think that all the attacks agains IE will just stop now? It also sounds as if PivX Solutions now subscribes to "security through obscurity" which IMO is a VERY bad attitude to take for security. IMO, when there is a security problem with ANY OS or software, it needs to be public so people can protect themselves against it.
I do hope you and your company the best though and hope that you made the correct choice. I guess only time will tell.
Time to configure? Your kidding right? MS was NEVER designed to be a server OS. That is why it takes so many admins to maintain them. I am a programmer at a fortune 500 company. One of our data centers has 57 Unix and 4 Linux servers. There is ONE *nix admin for all of those boxes, yes that is right just one. Yes he is over worked and they are going to hire a second *nix admin. So he is able to handle at least 60 servers which happen to run our most critical functions. A more sane number would be about 30 or so servers for a *nix admin. In that same data center there are 200 various MS Windows 2k servers running with at least 25 MS admins that are pretty much overworked and often need to stay late. That is only about 8 servers per admin, pretty sad if you ask me. MS Windows being a desktoop OS, has little to no scriptablity. The OS was designed from day one to be a desktop OS.
As far as features goes, you have all the features you could want in *nix server. Certainly as many if not more then an MS desktop passing as a server.
As far as usabilty, again, you have to be kidding me. As Ronco would say, *nix is almost a "set it and forget it OS". Are mission critical payroll system on Solaris is rock solid and just doesn't go down. Our Oracle DB's on Linux are rock solid and never go do. Now on the other hand, the damn Exchange 2003 server has been down far too many times for 15 minutes here, 60 minutes there. The damn thing reboted itself once!
Um, where are the major problems with bind? bind runs just about all of the top level domains. Also, what does bind or sendmail have to do with *nix? Are they a part of the OS. Should the quality of any *nix be based on applications that are not even developed by the same vendor? I hardly think so. The days of needing a BS in CS for *nix are gone, at least with Linux. I have gotten a lot of non-techies using Linux with no problems. Sure to run a server you *should* have a BS in CS or a releated field. I wouldn't want some guy with just a bunch of certificates admining mission critical servers for me. I have taken MS's MCP exams and they were a walk in the park, just a bunch of resume fluff. As always, you get what you pay for.
I actaully read some analyst that estimated 20% of all corporate desktops world wide by 2008. Also, think about all the great improvements in Linux on the desktop over the next three years. The good thing about Linux improvements is that you don't have to wait for a 3-5 year release cycle to see anything, you can upgrade incrementally as you go to new apps as new features come out that you want. This is possible because things are not over-integrated. With MS you use the current stuff, patch and reboot for 3 years or so and then get one big blob update for the next OS. If you are "lucky" you get some intermediate release such as ME, and we all know how great and stable that was.
The base SMB or Server Message Block protocol is not the problem. It is as usual, all the MS extensions and divergences from this that are NOT documented publicly or published that make reverse engineering needed.
You think that is bad. What until MS tries to "audit" you to make sure that you are not a theif and tryint to rip them off a few licenses here or there. What a great way to treat your customers that made you the largest software company in the world. Ofcourse, MS often makes deals with people who are about to be audited. "If you upgrade now at this price, we won't audit you."
Sadly the MS Empire does not allow you to release benchmark stats for their products. You agree to this when you use their products through their EULA. I am sure IT Labs doesn't want to get crap over it. Then agian, maybe they will find a way to post the numbers.
Not that long ago, MS hyped a "benchmark" using some old version of GNU/Linux and some old version of samba on a poorly configured Linux box and put it up against a tuned MS Windows 2003 server to show "how much faster" MS Windows 2003 is. Of course, the "benchmark" was funded by MS. Now a non-biased benchmark comes along and makes MS look just silly. Were not talking 5% - 10% faster, but 2.5 times faster! That is a big difference.
It must be a Java bug. Remove your java plugin and then try it.
Mozilla 1.4 and Mozilla 1.4.1 are far from being the latest builds. There is the 1.5 builds in which it seems to be fixed and there are also nightly builds. It also didn't do anything for MozillaFirebird 0.6.1.
Was that supposed to crash Mozilla? Id didn't do squat with MozillaFirebird 0.6.1. Maybe that only worked on some old 0.x version of Mozilla?
Nautilus is an official part of gnome. Not all parts of Gnome need SVG support. For example, gnome-settings-daemon, gnome-session, etc.