Linux-Advocacy Digest #46, Volume #30 Sat, 4 Nov 00 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Goldhammer)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food) (Patrick Farrell)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Goldhammer)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Goldhammer)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Bruce Schuck")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:09:29 -0800
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fD1N5.21327$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:lCXM5.122690$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > I'm more than willing to look at some benchmarks. Do you have any?
> >
> > > and whether you have to write thread-safe
> > > code in a thread-safe language (which in my experience takes
> > > about 15 years longer than when you don't) to make it work.
> >
> > IIS works just fine. And fast too. Kicks Linux and Solaris ass
> >
>
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
SpecWeb99 has nothing to do with serving up dynamic data from a database or
doing ecommerce transactions. Thats where IIS and Win2K shine.
>From the FAQ http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/docs/faq.html#what_is_metric :
The SPECweb99 workload simulates the accesses to a web service provider,
where the server supports the home page for a number of different
organizations. Each home page is a collection of files ranging in size from
small icons to large documents or images. As in the real world, certain
files within the home page are more popular than others. The dynamic GETs
simulate the common practice of "rotating" advertisements on a web page. The
POSTs simulate entry of user data into a log file on the server, such as
might happen during a user registration sequence.
>
> Everywhere there is a direct comparison between Linux/TUX and Win2K/IIS5.0
> on identical hardware, the Linux/TUX combo wins by a wide margin.
Who cares?
Serving up home pages is not the primary market for IIS 5.0 and Win2K.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 21:12:46 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>FTP & Telnet are hard to find on a non 2000 windows machine, very easy if
>you've them.
<*Chuckle*> So I suppose this means that amongst your limited
experience with Unix, you've often run into the problem that such
utilities may not be in the default path?
I've never had less trouble using ftp or telnet than on any Unix in
comparison to Windows, though it has occasionally been a bit harder to
find, or purposefully inaccessible.
>Scripting support? Vbscript, JScript, WSH, batch files (why doesn't they
>count?)
Because batch files are batch files, not scripts. ;-)
>Automation? Scheduled tasks, you can get that in 95 if you install IE 4.
>In win2000 you get this as weel as AT, which is a cli tool that gives you
>even more power.
>The lack of command line tools is not because most people like GUI much
>better.
Well, that last remark might have been a typo, but I think it is true as
stated. The lack of command line tools is not because most people like
GUIs much better; it is because most people don't know how to use a
computer without a GUI, so they're unaware of how much more efficient a
cli is once you learn it. That some people have more trouble learning
it than others indicates they have a primitive mind less able to grasp
abstracts is an ingenuous theory and little more than bigotry.
[...]
>If it's customization that you want, you can make windows look like anything
>that you want with a little work.
The number of people to take advantage of this entirely theoretical
capability is not because most people don't want to change how windows
looks, but because they don't know how to, and probably subconsciously
realize that to make any massive changes to monopoly bloatware is wasted
effort, ultimately, without a lot of work. It only takes once or twice
of turning something off because it might be causing a problem before
you don't bother changing the defaults anymore.
>If you don't know how to change the windows colors then you really need some
>lessons in windows.
I think the 'customization' being referred to might extend a bit beyond
changing the window colors.
[...]
>Oh, really?
>The best GUI for linux that I've found was the one that came with Corel
>Linux 1.2, it was KDE, and felt very much like windows.
Without prejudice, then, I'll suggest that you define "best GUI" as
"closest to what I'm used to, which is Microsoft Windows".
>As for GUI consistency, it goes against OSS principals, isn't it?
<*Grin*>
>KDE, Gnome, Heliz, Enlightment, AfterStep - on the top of my head, GUI for
>linux.
>I can find you people that will swear in the names of either of them.
>How do you make them choose a standard?
Why would you make them choose a standard? When talking about
computer/human interfaces, 'consistency' means it works as a consistent
abstraction, not that it looks the same as all other examples, but that
it acts the same at all times. In this regard, as well, the
inconsistency of Linux is a plus; one can run multiple windows managers,
integrated in combinations in many cases. As long as all GUIs support
all applications, they're "consistent" in the way that is necessary. To
say that having them not be any different is missing the point: there is
no reason for them to be the same, unless you are of the opinion that
all computers should work the way you want them to, no matter how anyone
else might want. As long as all Gnome is consistent with its own GUI
abstraction, it is necessarily and sufficiently consistent.
The Windows abstraction is a metaphor which is inconsistent with itself.
Considering consistency only in terms of how much like Windows other
GUIs are is missing the point of the matter.
>When programming for windows, I can make my own GUI, which is tiresome task
>most often, or can use windows own GUI, giving the user familiar feel.
>Pick up any programming book and read the part about UI, you will find
>consistency mentioned time and time again. OSS never head about it.
When programming for a real operating system, you should not be
second-guessing how the end-user wants his GUI to work. The number of
different GUIs that you can support from the list above is the extent of
your market opportunity. Don't you think it would be worth your while
to write your software so that it works with any of them?
It is the OSS people who understood the books you are referring to.
Those uses of the term "consistency" in the parts about a UI is not
accurate the way you are applying it. A UI being consistent means it is
consistent with itself, not that it is consistent with all others. It
also needs to be consistent with the user's expectations of how a UI
should work. Now, when you have a criminal monopoly forcing every PC
user to be familiar with however it has its outrageously inconsistent UI
to work, the expectations for "consistency" which you present don't
match up at all with the urge for consistency in those programming
books, except by coincidence.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:12:25 +1000
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:10:52 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >ILOVEYOU
> >
> >Need user confirmation in order to active itself.
>
> None of my Unix mailers will run a shell script at all, period. I have
> to save it to a file and set the "x" bit. I count this as a good
> thing, since I can't think of any _good_ reason why I'd want scripts to
> run when I simply "open" them. This makes it a lot harder to fool
> people.
You don't have Pine on any of your systems ? It *is* a rather popular mail
client for *nixes.
> >teardrop
> >
> >Don't know this one, what is this?
>
> A way to crash NT remotely by sending malformed packets to it over the
> Internet. Long since fixed.
And it's not like such things are unheard of in other OSes.
> >Back Orifice
> >
> >Trojan, can write the same on any OS.
>
> Sure, but Windows makes it easy to fool the user into running it.
> There are also a number of nifty buffer overflows in IIS and other
> Windows services that allow remote attackers to install BO.
And other OSes don't have buffer overflows ?
> >Word macro attacks
> >
> >Require user confirmation in order to be activated.
>
> Only if you have that setting turned on (in Word97).
Which it is by default.
> Why have macros
> embedded in the document to begin with?
So when you move your document with it's cool macros to some other system,
they're there as well.
> Why not make a distinction?
Because it's easier and more convenient.
> You don't see any Emacs macro viruses going around, even though it has
> a very powerful macro language.
Has anyone actually tried ?
> The whole point here is that Windows has it's share of security
> problems. It is not notably different from Linux in this regard. If
> Linux is "insecure", then NT is too.
Undoubtedly. No OS can be assumed to be secure.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:12:53 GMT
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:34:26 -0800,
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm sure the NT kernel is just as secure as the Linux kernel.
Prove it. Show us the source code and let us
judge for ourselves.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:14:46 -0800
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:57:16 -0800,
> Bruce Schuck, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 08:09:36 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >> >
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > When Linux starts supplying drivers for even 1/100th of the
> >hardware
> >> >> windows
> >> >> > > supports I'll be amazed.
> >>
> >> In what area exactly does Linux support only one device out of
> >> 100 when compared to WinDOS. Please provide actual details.
> >
> >You are right. I may have overestimated.
>
> "May" have?
Yes. And I was talking peripherals.
> Tell me, does windows run on powerpc?
It used to.
> Mips?
Don't know.
>StrongARM?
Yes. The IPAQ/WindowsCE combo is doing great on StrongArm.
>motorola M68K series?
Who cares?
> howabout HP-PA? or Sparc? what about S390?
>
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:15:26 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:e0XM5.12997$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8u14od$u9m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Will (future tense). I want and have had them for the past 2 years.
> >
> > Is, Active Perl allow you to run perl scripts.
>
> Is that included in win2k?
Its free to download.
>What would be involved in converting
> an apache/mod_perl page to use it?
Ask them.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 21:22:37 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>I haven't seen wsh, but I'd guess up front that it's a half-assed
>implementation, unless a third-party wrote it.
I suspect you read "WSH" as "Win shell", rather than "Windows Scripting
Host". WSH is that oh-so-convenient service in Windows which runs
scripts for you from, say, email attachments. This, along with the
access to the operating system which VB gives you (and anyone else), as
you mentioned, is what makes it possible to so easily say ILOVEYOU to
all your friends (and everyone else in your address book) and delete
files randomly from your hard drive at the same time.
How convenient.
I'd prefer batch files. ;-\
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 5 Nov 2000 02:23:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: It's still my opinion that the board of directors of EVERY company
: in the world needs to set a mandate to their presidents today,
: EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY WE ARE SEEKING ALTERNATIVES
: TO THE MICROSOFT WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM, ANY
: DEVIATIONS FROM THIS POLICY ARE GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE
: TERMINATION OF YOUR COMMAND.
: This is what needs to be said.
One thing that definitely would help is education. Even now, many
companies don't know that good, free, cross-platform alternatives
exist for most of the Microsoft and other proprietary products they
use today.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Patrick Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 20:28:31 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote:
>
> In article <A9KM5.12881$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Les
> Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Actually putting in any 10/100 switch can shake out cable problems
> >in systems that ran fine at 10M. You really want cat 5 everywhere,
> >including the jumpers from the wall to PC. Apparently some
> >noise that would be ignored by 10M equipment confuses them.
>
> In my experience, a common cabling mistake that gets caught by this is the
> one where the cables were made assuming that the mapping between twisted
> pairs and RJ45 pins is (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) (7,8) instead of the correct
> (1,2) (3,6) (4,5) (7,8). 10M will sort of run on such cables if they're
> short enough, 100M will fall flat on its face.
>
> -- Tim
> To mail me unsolicited advertisements: Move to Siberia. Wait until I
> say it's OK to send. Everybody else, remove "noUCE." from my address.
That's because wires 1 2 3 and 6 are used in the connector (why not 1,2,3,4 I
have no idea :), and if you wire them without splitting the pairs, you no longer
have the positive signal twisted around the negative signal and thus you lose
the "shielding" effect achieved by the positive and negative signals canceling
each others noise out. Or so I understand it.
Patrick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:42:03 GMT
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:27:15 -0800,
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Access is a great starting point. If you get busy you can upgrade later to
>something robust like SQL Server.
Are you trying to suggest that Access isn't robust?
Many experienced individuals would agree with you.
So Access is a toy, and when the chips are down and you
have serious work to do, write off the money you spent
on Access and move up to MS SQL server, where you finally
see a semblance of functionality which was available under
*nix workalikes for free in the first place.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:47:32 -0800
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:10:44 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> What has Access got to do with a web server.
> >
> >Access databases are used as to serve up dynamic content on IIS.
>
> Only on really small sites.
Yes. Of which there are millions.
I never argued Access is a replacment for a full blown RDBMS. But it is a
great tool for developing small to medium systems and a great tool for
learning an RDBMS for very little money.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:54:40 -0800
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:48:18 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> What part of 'dynamic' don't you understand?
> >
> >Transactions. Writing to a database. I understand those concepts. Do you?
>
> We understand that you want to define things so you can cite tpc
> benchmarks. Database transactions, however, are only a part of what
> people mean by the term "dynamic content".
>
> Most of us would consider things like text searching (google, deja) and
> online forums (sourceforge, slashdot) to be "dynamic content".
I understand that deja has terminated searching for anything over a year old
with the message:
Notice: Archive searches for postings prior to May 15, 1999, are
temporarily unavailable
Could it be they tired of adding servers for little or no return.
I understand what you are saying. But eCommerce and transactional processing
and database lookups and writes are the strength of IIS and Win2K.
>In
> fact, I daresay that there is more of that kind of dynamic content on
> the web than "transactional" stuff.
Yes. But it doesn't make anyone much money.
>
> You also seem to want to pretend that ASP on IIS and Perl on Apache are
> comparable technologies. They aren't. One is handled in the server
> process, the other launches a separate interpreter for each use. The
> latter, however, is not inherent in Apache, which supports loadable
> modules for in-process scripting just fine. If you want to compare
> in-process scripting, then compare ASP to PHP4 or mod_perl. If you
> want to compare CGI, then compare plain Perl on both.
I'd be glad to compare benchmarks of comparable systems do comparable
transactional processing.
>
> The thing is, if you do this fairly you will find that there isn't a
> whole lot of difference.
I think there is large difference in cost per transaction as the TPC-C
benchmarks show.
> Each system will be able to shine in some
> contrived benchmark, but in the real world they will perform close
> enough that nobody but benchmarketers will notice a diffrence. The
> difference is that you have a lot more flexibility with Apache, what
> with having the source code and all.
Writing ISAPI plugins for the extremely fast IIS 5.0 is relatively easy too.
And you get your own source code.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:56:15 -0800
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%N3N5.35894$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:27:15 -0800,
> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Access is a great starting point. If you get busy you can upgrade later
to
> >something robust like SQL Server.
>
>
> Are you trying to suggest that Access isn't robust?
> Many experienced individuals would agree with you.
>
> So Access is a toy, and when the chips are down and you
> have serious work to do, write off the money you spent
> on Access and move up to MS SQL server, where you finally
> see a semblance of functionality which was available under
> *nix workalikes for free in the first place.
No; it's not designed for server applications. For low-user counts or
single-user work, it's great. It's also much faster than most SQL
implementations.
It also binds to MSDE (free download), which lets you use a cut down version
of MS SQL Server for testing.
Not to mention that it'll also connect to any ODBC database.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 03:04:36 GMT
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:47:32 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I never argued Access is a replacment for a full blown RDBMS.
Actually, you did:
Goldhammer: "Surely you can't be serious. Access vs.
MySQL or Postgres?"
Schuck: "MySQL is a RDBMS"
Goldhammer: "And what do you think Access pretends to be?"
Schuck: "if you read all the documentation, you
would see it is so much more."
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:09:40 -0800
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%N3N5.35894$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:27:15 -0800,
> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Access is a great starting point. If you get busy you can upgrade later
to
> >something robust like SQL Server.
>
>
> Are you trying to suggest that Access isn't robust?
Not for 1000's of users.
> Many experienced individuals would agree with you.
>
> So Access is a toy,
Never said that.
In fact, it is a great tool for small to medium databases, as a front end to
SQL Server and Oracle, and as a tool to learn about RDBMS.
Linux has nothing like that.
> and when the chips are down and you
> have serious work to do,
Serious big work to do. Access is great on small to medium applications --
and as an extra bonus, works great as a front end to any ODBC database. It
has great report writer too.
> write off the money you spent
> on Access
Why. It works great as a front end to SQL Server. And there are Microsoft
tools to upsize the database to SQL Server without major changes to your
front-end.
Develop your app inexpensively in Access. If you need more horsepower on the
backend, upsize the RDBMS part o SQL Server. What a deal!
Linux has nothing like it.
> and move up to MS SQL server, where you finally
> see a semblance of functionality which was available under
> *nix workalikes for free in the first place.
Come now. Nobody in their right mind would put something like mySQL in the
class of SQL Server or Oracle.
Now I know Oracle runs on Linux.
What Penguinista is going to trust Oracle -- the epitome of closed source --
on their open source machines????????????
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
