Write a COM object and have it impersonate another NT account. Have it talk to the database....
BTw, I agree that the stupid passwords shouldn't be sent clear, but DON'T USE IT! ---
Hey, I said at the time of the Red Hat thing that I thought it was overblown.
I also agree that software installs SHOULD ask for an admin password. In the case of SQL server, doing so is not that big of a deal. The install should say
1: What do you want for the sa password.
2: Pick an NT account/group for admin rights. AND make them pick at least one.
That way, SOMEONE is an admin and can change the sa password ---
I guess this does vary by region. My roadrunner lets you have three machines (with real IP's). And it's WAY faster than the DSL. For instance, at a place with plenty of bandwidth, like, say, Microsoft, If I get less than 200K for the average of a file transfer, the 'nets having a bad day. ---
marketing SHOULD set the *look* of the product. That's their job (along with some help of UI experts hopefully). They will, of course, change their mind 20 times. That is also their job. None of your business logic should be in the UI anyway, so that shouldn't matter much. ---
I've tried to explain my position before (I like Linux, btw). From the article: Open Source simply replaces one pre-approval process (focus groups) with another, more inclusive, pre-approval process. In order to add a feature to an Open Source product, you must be able to write code.
This is how I interpret the above line: Only features that serious, hardcore programmers deem valuable will ever be written into the software. By definition, things like the Office Paper Clip will never make it. GREAT! I can hear thousands of Linux hackers going crazy. Listen, everytime I sit down at some computer neophytes' desk to show them how to do something in Word/Excel/Outlook, that little dude pops up, I hide him and say "I hate that &*($!," they say "you're kidding. I love it." ---
From the article:(I use Oracle here as an example, as they press release implicate that they are using Oracle for testing; If not, they are not testing against the proprietary database leaders).
Did anyone read my comments here? If not, check out the tpc.org site. Look at the top ten results by price/performance and the top ten results by database vendor. Gosh -- MS SQL hands down. So why is it taken as an article of faith by many on sladhot that Oracle is the best? (what happened to "the best tool for the job?") Oracle is a fine database, but I can't in good faith reccommend it to a client when MS SQL is SO MUCH cheaper and faster. ---
I read the article. I was asking rhetorically. My point is, they were running the TCP benchmark without the benefit of TPC's expertise. I'll wait until the TPC itself runs it.
Also, the price/performance thing is hardware/software. Theoretically, that should give free(beer) databases an edge, right? hmmmmm, wonder why the top ten is MS SQL? could it be it's the best product for the money? Nah..... ---
Actually there is. I can't remember how long it is, but they have to either refuse (and state why) or comply within a set period. (I know it's less than six months.) ---
Not for the messages at least (it can't do all the other desktop tasks), but it can do exactly what you describe. Company I'm going to work for this week: www.com2001.com ---
I agree that it could have been fixed a lot eaiser. There should have been a common API for these things. It follows some of a pattern for Microsoft, which is coming up with something and not thinking through the implications and building safegaurds. Unlike others, I think Microsoft does do some (minor) innovations, but usually just extending other's work in minor ways. Like dynamic linking. They made it pervasive to the OS and easy to use. But they should have realized it would be abused and needed safegaurds like the API thing you suggested. Instead, we have this hack to protect system.dlls in Windows 2000. ---
The problem is, companies (and shareware authors!) don't want to deal with install problems so they say "I KNOW my software works fine if X,Y,Z versions of X,Y, & Z.dlls are installed. So I'll put those in my package and set "always overwrite." Even worse, they'll up the dates and version numbers so later installers that DO version and date check fail to overwrite because they'll say "oh, that's a newer version!". I've personally verified a program (commercial!) that wrote a data access.dll with a fraudulent date and version on it, I can tell you it does happen. Having spent three weeks dealing with installer problems for a 200-seat rollout of a program that only took two weeks to write, I can sympathize. As I said, I don't think Win2k's approach is perfect, but it's better than relying on the ethics and knowledge of every joe schmoe who uses tyhe P&D wizard in VS and uploads that freeware program somewhere! I know Win2k is a LOT more stable, and I attribute the system.dll protection. ---
I have a pretty simple solution for this: a few times, I've swapped cards with someone! I just approach them as we exit the store if they are in line in front of me and I notice them use the card. I just explain "hey, do you know they use this to track buying habits? I'm kind of a privacy freak and don't like it, let's swap cards to confuse 'em. This isn't even my card, I have no idea whose it is!" The first time, I did it with a guy I knew. Since then, I've swapped it three more times. I also have two people I swap doubleclick cookies and the like with occasionally.
I think the best way to protest this crap is not to stop shopping there. If you complain to the manager and say "I won't shop here anymore, they just look at you like you are nuts and say "fine" and since the VAST majority of folks don't care, your boycott has no effect. Instead, do things like this to undermine the effectiveness of the data, so the fabulous things these companies are selling don't really come to pass. ---
actually, win2k does do things different. That's why it's so much more stable. You can read about it, search MSDN for the "end of DLL hell" article (I don't have it handy). This protection causes other problems, but solves that one. And it allows a program to put an older DLL in it's app directory and load that if it needs it. ---
I run 98 because 2000 is at least 10 times as stable as 98, in my experience. I have run it at work and at home for about 4 months now. Not a single crash. Period. Not one. The only problem I've had is with the ATI *&($# driver messing with the boot-time defrag with Diskeeper.
On my work machine, that uptime is particularly impressive. Your're talking a DEVELOPMENT machine. I've probably installed 200 things on it (and removed half). Under 95/98 and even nt 4 workstation (not as bad), I expected a development machine to get flaky after 3 months and require a rebuild every 6. I realize many slashdotians run Linux and don't care, but the system.dll protection under 2K is worth the upgrade. Of course, that's easy for me to say, I work for an MCSP and don't pay for the license, my employer does:)
anyway, that's what fires me up about ATI. They said they would support it (win 2k). They said "beta in march, for now use the AIW 128 drivers. Their not really SUPPORTED but they'll work." Then, in April, they said "oh, beta in July" what they didn't say was "don't bother downloading the latest AIW128 drivers, because will do a hardware detect and won't install", instead they let me figure it out.
Bottom line -- this card is not that old, I bought it in February 1999 when it was the top of their line. They should do what they said it will do. I'm still waiting for my damn drivers! ---
I'm sure it wouldn't have something to do with the fact that they sell the best-selling OS and they have the greatest marketing department on the face of the earth... ---
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Here's a link to an online version
---
Write a COM object and have it impersonate another NT account. Have it talk to the database.... BTw, I agree that the stupid passwords shouldn't be sent clear, but DON'T USE IT!
---
Hey, I said at the time of the Red Hat thing that I thought it was overblown.
I also agree that software installs SHOULD ask for an admin password. In the case of SQL server, doing so is not that big of a deal. The install should say
1: What do you want for the sa password.
2: Pick an NT account/group for admin rights. AND make them pick at least one.
That way, SOMEONE is an admin and can change the sa password
---
Ummm, that's why you use integrated security and shouldn't use the named login/password mode.
---
Ummmm, can't you get a new job? Jeez, that's really sad...
---
I guess this does vary by region. My roadrunner lets you have three machines (with real IP's). And it's WAY faster than the DSL. For instance, at a place with plenty of bandwidth, like, say, Microsoft, If I get less than 200K for the average of a file transfer, the 'nets having a bad day.
---
My (ex) users are dumber than your users! PHHHTTTTT!
---
marketing SHOULD set the *look* of the product. That's their job (along with some help of UI experts hopefully). They will, of course, change their mind 20 times. That is also their job. None of your business logic should be in the UI anyway, so that shouldn't matter much.
---
I've tried to explain my position before (I like Linux, btw). From the article:
Open Source simply replaces one pre-approval process (focus groups) with another, more inclusive, pre-approval process. In order to add a feature to an Open Source product, you must be able to write code.
This is how I interpret the above line: Only features that serious, hardcore programmers deem valuable will ever be written into the software. By definition, things like the Office Paper Clip will never make it. GREAT! I can hear thousands of Linux hackers going crazy. Listen, everytime I sit down at some computer neophytes' desk to show them how to do something in Word/Excel/Outlook, that little dude pops up, I hide him and say "I hate that &*($!," they say "you're kidding. I love it."
---
Hey, where can I get one anyway?
---
Ummm, maybe you could read my post above that the price includes hardware, thus free(beer) databases should have an edge?
---
From the article:(I use Oracle here as an example, as they press release implicate that they are using Oracle for testing; If not, they are not testing against the proprietary database leaders).
Did anyone read my comments here? If not, check out the tpc.org site. Look at the top ten results by price/performance and the top ten results by database vendor. Gosh -- MS SQL hands down. So why is it taken as an article of faith by many on sladhot that Oracle is the best? (what happened to "the best tool for the job?") Oracle is a fine database, but I can't in good faith reccommend it to a client when MS SQL is SO MUCH cheaper and faster.
---
I read the article. I was asking rhetorically. My point is, they were running the TCP benchmark without the benefit of TPC's expertise. I'll wait until the TPC itself runs it. Also, the price/performance thing is hardware/software. Theoretically, that should give free(beer) databases an edge, right? hmmmmm, wonder why the top ten is MS SQL? could it be it's the best product for the money? Nah.....
---
Was it not www.tpc.org that ran these tests? In that case, I don't put much stock in them. Take a look at the top ten results by price/performance or even the complete results by database vendor shows no mention of Postgres. I'll believe it when I see these results ratified by the TPC.
---
Wow! Early binding and all the advantages that brings... just like VB.
---
Actually there is. I can't remember how long it is, but they have to either refuse (and state why) or comply within a set period. (I know it's less than six months.)
---
Not for the messages at least (it can't do all the other desktop tasks), but it can do exactly what you describe. Company I'm going to work for this week: www.com2001.com
---
where we're supposed to pretend this is interesting?
---
I agree that it could have been fixed a lot eaiser. There should have been a common API for these things. It follows some of a pattern for Microsoft, which is coming up with something and not thinking through the implications and building safegaurds. Unlike others, I think Microsoft does do some (minor) innovations, but usually just extending other's work in minor ways. Like dynamic linking. They made it pervasive to the OS and easy to use. But they should have realized it would be abused and needed safegaurds like the API thing you suggested. Instead, we have this hack to protect system .dlls in Windows 2000.
---
The problem is, companies (and shareware authors!) don't want to deal with install problems so they say "I KNOW my software works fine if X,Y,Z versions of X,Y, & Z .dlls are installed. So I'll put those in my package and set "always overwrite." Even worse, they'll up the dates and version numbers so later installers that DO version and date check fail to overwrite because they'll say "oh, that's a newer version!". I've personally verified a program (commercial!) that wrote a data access .dll with a fraudulent date and version on it, I can tell you it does happen. Having spent three weeks dealing with installer problems for a 200-seat rollout of a program that only took two weeks to write, I can sympathize. As I said, I don't think Win2k's approach is perfect, but it's better than relying on the ethics and knowledge of every joe schmoe who uses tyhe P&D wizard in VS and uploads that freeware program somewhere! I know Win2k is a LOT more stable, and I attribute the system .dll protection.
---
I have a pretty simple solution for this: a few times, I've swapped cards with someone! I just approach them as we exit the store if they are in line in front of me and I notice them use the card. I just explain "hey, do you know they use this to track buying habits? I'm kind of a privacy freak and don't like it, let's swap cards to confuse 'em. This isn't even my card, I have no idea whose it is!" The first time, I did it with a guy I knew. Since then, I've swapped it three more times. I also have two people I swap doubleclick cookies and the like with occasionally.
I think the best way to protest this crap is not to stop shopping there. If you complain to the manager and say "I won't shop here anymore, they just look at you like you are nuts and say "fine" and since the VAST majority of folks don't care, your boycott has no effect. Instead, do things like this to undermine the effectiveness of the data, so the fabulous things these companies are selling don't really come to pass.
---
actually, win2k does do things different. That's why it's so much more stable. You can read about it, search MSDN for the "end of DLL hell" article (I don't have it handy). This protection causes other problems, but solves that one. And it allows a program to put an older DLL in it's app directory and load that if it needs it.
---
My ASCI interepretation: beuwwahhhhwahhweewummwummm.... bummmmwwahhwahhhweewummwuummwummm... Thank you, I'll be here all week!
---
WARNING! Anecdotal evidence ahead:
.dll protection under 2K is worth the upgrade. Of course, that's easy for me to say, I work for an MCSP and don't pay for the license, my employer does :)
I run 98 because 2000 is at least 10 times as stable as 98, in my experience. I have run it at work and at home for about 4 months now. Not a single crash. Period. Not one. The only problem I've had is with the ATI *&($# driver messing with the boot-time defrag with Diskeeper.
On my work machine, that uptime is particularly impressive. Your're talking a DEVELOPMENT machine. I've probably installed 200 things on it (and removed half). Under 95/98 and even nt 4 workstation (not as bad), I expected a development machine to get flaky after 3 months and require a rebuild every 6. I realize many slashdotians run Linux and don't care, but the system
anyway, that's what fires me up about ATI. They said they would support it (win 2k). They said "beta in march, for now use the AIW 128 drivers. Their not really SUPPORTED but they'll work." Then, in April, they said "oh, beta in July" what they didn't say was "don't bother downloading the latest AIW128 drivers, because will do a hardware detect and won't install", instead they let me figure it out.
Bottom line -- this card is not that old, I bought it in February 1999 when it was the top of their line. They should do what they said it will do. I'm still waiting for my damn drivers!
---
I'm sure it wouldn't have something to do with the fact that they sell the best-selling OS and they have the greatest marketing department on the face of the earth ...
---