Linux-Advocacy Digest #48, Volume #30 Sun, 5 Nov 00 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar (sfcybear)
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar (sfcybear)
Linux and Mac instead of Windows. (mlw)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I think I'm in love..... ("Weevil")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Goldhammer)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Goldhammer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:02:34 GMT
In article <8c1N5.123098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:51:22 GMT,
> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:33:10 GMT,
> > >> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >Particularly the ones where Red Hat was compromised and trojan
code
> was
> > >allowed
> > >> >to be inserted and was released as final product by Red Hat
> themselves.
> > >>
> > >> As usual, you are a blatent liar.
>
> How about this one:
>
> It lets remote users shut down a workstation on RedHat 6.0, 6.1, and
6.2.
>
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000-044-02.html
>
> Or this one that allows root access:
>
> A security bug in wu-ftpd can permit remote users, even without
> an account, to gain root access.
>
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000-039-02.html
>
> Etc etc.
>
> Too many to list.
>
> Just read through the RedHat security advisories. You'll find dozens
... or
> hundreds.
>
> It appears every package on RedHat is -- at some time or another --
some
> kind of trojan that allows root access.
Do you know the differance between trojan code and a bug in the
software? ???? There is a big differance! Can you tell me what it is???
Hint: think trojan horse. Then think trojan horse code. You should now
have an image of code that has something hidden in side. The items that
you have posted are indeed bugs, but they are NOT trojan code. Get it?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:04:44 GMT
But what you have posted are NOT trojan code. They are bugs, yes, but
not trojan code. Do you know the differance? Didn't think so.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:12:06 -0500
I had a conversation with a woman at a Verizon store today. To make the
details concise, suffice to say, she had just bought a Compaq (Windows)
and is having no end of problems.
I am thinking to myself, that if she is having problems, out of the box,
with a pre configured computer, then she will have problems using any
sort of computer. She asked me what she should have bought. I thought
about it, and it was obvious. She should have bought a Mac.
Now, I know a lot of people that would simply not be able to deal with
the straight jacket that a Mac represents (I am one), but, I think it is
appropriate for some users.
So, if you want the hand-holding of an "idiot-box" (Idiot, as in the
slang name for indicator lights in a car.) then, I think Mac is the way
to go. If you want to do serious work, where things like data integrity
and "uptime" are important, then use Linux for FreeBSD.
So, where does Windows fit in? It (in any of its incarnations) is not as
stable as Linux, and not as easy to use as the Mac, so what's the point?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:15:50 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> For someone that uses 2000, why don't you know that 2000 comes with a disk
> defragmenter?
I haven't used Windows 2000 all that much. Shortly after I bought the
upgrade and got cable modem, I also figured out how to get Linux up and
running, and it is so much more pleasant to use. And I don't need
to defrag the disk with it.
> I have 2000 running here on a P166 with 64MB (laptop). It runs quite well
> actually, so long as you disable the redundant services that you don't need
> (like file indexing services and such). Hell, on my desktop system Win2k is
> only using 56MB of memory out of 128 (not counting system cache).
Good for you. I'm glad you trust Windows memory statistics. You have more
patience than do I. I like Win NT 4 without Active Drecktop on my
96Mb K6-380MHz laptop, but it is still slower for me than Windows on
the same laptop.
> > True. But Perl ain't Windoze software. Oh well, I'm drained of
> > aggression for now. Time to walk the doggy.
>
> Perl does in fact run under Windows. In fact, there's a WSH perl plug-in.
Oh, I understand that. I meant that it wasn't written under windows and
ported to other systems. It was written with portability in mind; I'm
guessing, but it is probably a descendant of UNIX shell scripts.
Man, I need to sleep instead of writing defending Linux and dissing
Windows.
Chris
--
Microsoft -- We know how to make money off of software.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:16:35 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Bruce Schuck wrote:
> How about this one:
>
> It lets remote users shut down a workstation on RedHat 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2.
>
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000-044-02.html
>
> Or this one that allows root access:
>
> A security bug in wu-ftpd can permit remote users, even without
> an account, to gain root access.
>
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000-039-02.html
>
> Etc etc.
>
> Too many to list.
>
> Just read through the RedHat security advisories. You'll find dozens ... or
> hundreds.
>
> It appears every package on RedHat is -- at some time or another -- some
> kind of trojan that allows root access.
How does this contradict Perry or confirm what Chad said? Here is what Chad
said:
> Particularly the ones where Red Hat was compromised and trojan code was
allowed
> to be inserted and was released as final product by Red Hat themselves.
He said nothing about possible holes in security of code released by Redhat.
He said the code released as final product by Redhat had trojan code inserted
in it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:21:56 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 23:54:26 GMT, Goldhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:09:32 +1300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Personally, I hate vi. =)
> >
> >
> >Oh come now. It pains me to hear you say that, even
> >in jest.
> Yeah me too.
> (I love VI)
>
Me too. I first tried in on a PC XT with 640 Kb RAM and
a 10 Mb hard drive. I couldn't figure it out. I went back
to WordStar for awhile. After a suitable incubation period,
I tried vi again, grokked it, and have generally preferred
it over other editors.
vi + make + gcc + STLport = C++ heaven.
Borland C++ Builder = nice apps, but frustrating crashes.
Visual C++ 6.0 = nice apps, and good debugging, but lousy ANSI C++.
Visual Studio .NET = who knows at this time? Lots of promise...
which is often all you get from Gates.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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 23:21:49 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > > You create a .VBS or .JS files, and write the instructions that you want
> to
> > > them.
> > > Very simply, very powerful, especially since VB & JS can call to other
> > > stuff. (Email, Word, Excel, ODBC, OLE, Graphics, and so on)
> >
> > Oh, you're talking MIME types, then. Yeah, Windohs will ShellExecute()
> > nicely. Sometimes too nicely, but then, every system has holes that
> > you need to close yourself.
>
> What does MIME types has to do with VBS/JS?
The fact that the former default action when clicking a *.vbs file was to
send the file to the interpreter. Convenient for getting unwary users to
run unknown programs on their computers.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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 23:23:42 -0500
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> It's really unfair to compare word with vi(m), since word is only a word
> processor, it can't handle the more complex tasks like inserting the results of
> an arbitrary command into the document, etc. The mere thought of editing source
> code in word is enough to cause spontaneous migraines.
>
Isn't compelling enemy prisoners of war to write source code in Word a
violation of the Geneva Convention :-).
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I'm in love.....
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:30:26 -0600
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6KZM5.1201$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
> > Eww, nasty, sounds like something Windows would do :(
>
> And yet KDE 2.0 did it.
>
> > This is not the prob it may seem, as most Linux boxes are on 24/24.
>
> I don't leave my machine on for that long.
>
> > "Works" is a interesting phrase when used by our Wintroll comunity.
>
> Well, "works" according to the Linux community is stuck with one font?
> Stuck with no antialiasing (by default)? Stuck with no driver for my sound
> card? Stuck with no driver for my scanner? And until recently (i.e. LM
> 7.2), no working USB ZIP and Voodoo 5500 driver?
>
> This is your concept of "works" is it?
>
> Ah yes, but Windows 98 SE is unstable. That's enough to condemn it, is it?
> I'd rather have a marginally unstable system than one that _doesn't_ do
> what I want.
So what is your real purpose here, Pete? You're clearly not here for help
with a Linux system. This is the Linux advocacy group, and this thread is
not cross-posted anywhere else.
You are here to bash Linux and praise Windows, and that is the only reason
you're here. You're just another Wintroll trying to disguise himself as a
concerned newbie Linux user.
If you want help with Linux, go to a newsgroup that addresses your problem.
If you want to bash Linux, go to alt.os.linux.die.die.die or something.
What is UP with all you Microsoft fanatics, anyway? This is a serious
question. Why the hell are you in here? Do you fear Linux so much? Linux
has zero market share. You have nothing to be afraid of, right? Microsoft
has ninety some-odd percent of the desktop market. Obviously nothing to
fear there.
So, since the OS you worship is a towering giant, and Linux is the size of a
gnat, then the only explanation for the Wintrolls sitting here day in and
day out bashing Linux in every way they can come up with is this: they're
just low, cruel human beings.
Linux has zero chance of displacing Windows on the desktop, right? This
newsgroup is for the few people who do use Linux to talk about it, to
discuss what we like about it and how we think it might be improved. And,
of course, to recommend it to other people who might wander in here out of
curiosity.
But you can't leave it alone, can you? The lot of you come swaggering in
here, imagining you have the power of a giant corporation behind you, and
crap all over the floor.
Do you see Linux users in windows advocacy groups doing what you do here?
Or Mac users, or OS/2 users? No, you don't. Take an honest moment and try
to figure out what that says about you.
If ever there was a bunch that this phrase was meant for, it is the
Wintrolls in this and other advocacy groups:
Grow up and get a life.
jwb
------------------------------
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 04:31:39 GMT
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:09:40 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"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.
I am glad that you admit the truth about
Access.
>> Many experienced individuals would agree with you.
>
>>
>> So Access is a toy,
>
>Never said that.
I am saying it.
>In fact, it is a great tool for small to medium databases,
No, it isn't. Access does not even meet the
challenge of medium sized databases.
> as a front end to
>SQL Server and Oracle, and as a tool to learn about RDBMS.
Schuck, do you remember when I mentioned ODBC? Do
you understand why I mentioned it? Do you recall the context
of our conversation? Let me remind you. Some moron
said that there does not exist software on *nix which has
the functionality of Access. I disputed this. You cited
this feature of Access, that you can connect, as a front end, to
other databases. Well, as you know, so can many products.
This feature is by no means unique to Access.
But now you want to argue that the true strength of
Access is as a pedagogical tool. A learning aid, courtesy
of Microsoft. So now, when you pay money to MS, they
will supply you not with robust products, but with learning aids.
You pay them for the training wheels. Is that what Chad Myers
meant when he began this argument about Access? Did
he mean that Access cannot be matched in functionality
as a pedagogical tool?
Am I to understand that Microsoft is marketing
Access as a learning instrument? If that is the case, then
they are charging quite a bit for it. Someone who wants to
learn about database management using recognised standards
like SQL can do so for $0.00 by downloading MySQL or Postgres.
>Linux has nothing like that.
Like what? IIRC, you can even download Oracle for linux
if you are interested in just learning. And let's not
forget IBM's DB2.
You've opened up quite a can of worms here. A student
of database theory doesn't have to shell out bucks for
crappy non-robust garbage like Access, when he can
to choose from Oracle, DB2, Postgres, MySQL.
>> 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 --
That's debatable.
>and as an extra bonus, works great as a front end to any ODBC database. It
>has great report writer too.
For some reason, you think that ODBC is some great feature of
Access, even though you yourself pointed out that Excel supports it.
And so do many, many applications.
>> write off the money you spent
>> on Access
>
>Why. It works great as a front end to SQL Server.
No it doesn't.
And a better question is: why are we supposed to pay
money for a "front end to an SQL server" when we can
get both the front end to the server and the server
itself for free?
> And there are Microsoft
>tools to upsize the database to SQL Server without major changes to your
>front-end.
I do not need any MS tools to migrate my data to larger
environments.
>Develop your app inexpensively in Access. If you need more
> horsepower
But, you and Myers are trying to convince me that Access has
all the functionality (and more) than any *nix product. Why
then would you need more horsepower? Do you consider
"horsepower" and performance to be a kind of functionality,
or are these two concepts separate in MS-speak?
> on the
>backend, upsize the RDBMS part o SQL Server. What a deal!
The deal is that I can just use a free SQL server/client system
to begin with. I don't need to pay MS for some training wheels.
>Come now. Nobody in their right mind would put something like mySQL in the
>class of SQL Server or Oracle.
I get the impression, Bruce, that you are mostly clueless about
database management, but this comment of yours is actually kind
of interesting. Any database professionals want to comment on
this before I continue?
>Now I know Oracle runs on Linux.
>
>What Penguinista is going to trust Oracle -- the epitome of closed source --
>on their open source machines????????????
Dunno. You'll have to ask a Penguinista.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:40:32 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> And thus, you touch upon the ENTIRE problem of the windows paradigm...
> that each type of file is ONLY to be used by one specific executable,
> and no other.
>
Only one default program, but one can add other actions. For example, if
I right-click a *.tex file, I can apply emacs (the default), tex, or latex.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 20:44:27 -0800
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u2m4o$g5g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8c1N5.123098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:51:22 GMT,
> > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:33:10 GMT,
> > > >> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Particularly the ones where Red Hat was compromised and trojan
> code
> > was
> > > >allowed
> > > >> >to be inserted and was released as final product by Red Hat
> > themselves.
> > > >>
> > > >> As usual, you are a blatent liar.
> >
> > How about this one:
> >
> > It lets remote users shut down a workstation on RedHat 6.0, 6.1, and
> 6.2.
> >
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000-044-02.html
> >
> > Or this one that allows root access:
> >
> > A security bug in wu-ftpd can permit remote users, even without
> > an account, to gain root access.
> >
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2000-039-02.html
> >
> > Etc etc.
> >
> > Too many to list.
> >
> > Just read through the RedHat security advisories. You'll find dozens
> ... or
> > hundreds.
> >
> > It appears every package on RedHat is -- at some time or another --
> some
> > kind of trojan that allows root access.
>
> Do you know the differance between trojan code and a bug in the
> software? ???? There is a big differance! Can you tell me what it is???
>
> Hint: think trojan horse. Then think trojan horse code. You should now
> have an image of code that has something hidden in side. The items that
> you have posted are indeed bugs, but they are NOT trojan code. Get it?
If it lets you break root so easily -- and I can't believe how many such
exploits are possible on Linux -- it is a trojan.
Now, if it propagated itself, it would be a worm.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 20:48:26 -0800
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Jl4N5.21408$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Zf%M5.122784$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:NlZM5.13020$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:VyXM5.122687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, your notion of Linux involvement comes strictly from your
> > > > > overactive imagination. English speakers or not, everyone
> > > > > knows there are ego problems among the *bsd's (hence the
> > > > > plural form) and thus that their counter claims of superiority are
> > > > > questionable.
> > > >
> > > > I've seen the long long list of Linux security advisories on various
> > > distro
> > > > makers.
> > > >
> > > > I'll stand by what I said. Linux is insecure.
> > >
> > > Note that those bugs are all fixed. Where is the current problem
> > > that can be exploited with anywhere near the ease of sending
> > > a trojan to some outlook users? You are also trying to confuse
> > > raw numbers with real statistics. A Microsoft distribution would
> > > have to include about $10,000 worth of add-on third party programs
> > > (which, in fact, most offices have installed...) to match the number
> > > of applications that come up in a Linux distribution. Most of the
> > > warnings you see are about applications that happen to be included
> > > in the distributions, not the Linux kernel itself.
> >
> > I'm sure the NT kernel is just as secure as the Linux kernel. Neither of
> > them are too vulnerable without any services connecting them to a
network.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > > To be fair you
> > > would have to include all the warnings about all the apps you
> > > might run under windows (like exchange being an open relay
> > > if you expose it to the internet).
> >
> > Not with 5.5 and up.
> >
> > > The fact that a distribution
> > > does not include a needed service doesn't make it a bit more
> > > secure after you add what you need to run.
> >
> > I really like this testimonial from the OpenBSD site:
> >
> > few] years ago I was just getting into system administration. I learned
> > Linux first. Then one of our old (I mean *really* old) BSDi servers
> crashed,
> > and it was up to me to rebuild the system.
> > I looked at FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Linux. In the end, it came down
> to
> > "secure and stable" that took the prize. OpenBSD 2.1 was installed.
> >
> > Since then, I've run 2.1-2.5 on everything from production servers to
> > laptops. We've never (repeat: NEVER) had a break-in.
> >
> > A coworker setup a RedHat based box to test his skills at setting up SSL
> and
> > a secure web site. It was hacked literally overnight, and by the next
> > morning was attacking other sites.
> >
>
> You like testimonials? Here's another
There are many more on the OpenBSD site trashing Linux.
So many Penguinistas claimed OpenBSD did not mention Linux by name. They
called me a liar over and over. They were the liars.
Here is another testimonial from the OpenBSD site trashing the security both
RedHat and SuSE:
Grant Bayley, an IT Manager from Australia, writes:
By way of success stories, since a few of us at 2600 Australia started using
OpenBSD about 12 months ago now in some form or another, we've seen...
friends load it onto their machines and been simply amazed at the quality of
it, in particular the forethought that goes into securing things out of the
box.
We've also had one of our guys working at an ISP go head-to-head with an
in-house SuSE zealot of sorts on a compatibility, stability and security
test in advance of them selecting an operating system for their servers
(which, while using RedHat, had been rooted at least once). OpenBSD passed
with flying colors and as of today, they're beginning a roll-out of 2.6 onto
their servers, mostly using stock components and software from the ports
tree (qmail, cucipop etc
------------------------------
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 20:51:08 -0800
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:TN4N5.36070$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:56:15 -0800,
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"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.
>
>
> Then why is Schuck reccommending a migration path from
> Access to MS SQL server?
You know why. Access is both a great database development tool for small to
medium applications, and a very good front end for Oracle, SQL Server and
other RDBMS designed for thousands of users.
There is no such equivalent tool for Linux.
Plus, you can design a small database using Access, and then migrate the
database part to SQL Server with little or no changes to the forms or
reports.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 05:07:14 GMT
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:08:15 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Now, that is pure bullshit, in my experience. IDE editors are
>the weakest, lamest programmer's editors you could ever use
That is so fscking true, man.
Programmers have a tradition. It works like this:
1. editor
2. Makefile
Nothing beats this combo.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
