> > 10. SQLite runs on almost ever operating systems. SQL Server runs > > on MS Windows exclusively. > > > yep, but again who cares, 99% of the world is on windows
About half of the web servers on the internet are not windows based: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html > > 11. By using SQLite you eliminate a possible source of virus > > infection. SQL server has been targeted in at least one major > virus > > outbreak. > not always true, microsoft had a bug in their network strnsport > distributed layer "slammer" but they patched it, SQlite does not even > have a distributed network layer, comparison is not valid here. and >> 11. By using SQLite you eliminate a possible source of virus >> infection. SQL server has been targeted in at least one major virus >> outbreak. > >Completely and totally false. Applications that use SQLite can be > corrupted and infected by viruses just like any other executable > file on the file system. If you install MS SQL server you run a network based service that is vulnerable to attack. If you run Sqlite you don't run any service and thus are invulnerable (to network service based infections). Yes, any executable can be infected, but that's a meaningless statement since you can't have any database without executable code. > > 12. Changes can be made to the source code for SQLite by the end > > user. In this way, any bugs in SQLite can be fixed quickly. If > > something was wrong with SQL Server 7, Microsoft is unlikely to > address > > it as quickly. Microsoft has been known to sit on patches for > years > > because it's inconvenient or costly to roll them out. > yeah, but Microsoft also backs their products with millions of > testing hours. I have to admit I used to work in Redmon on VC++. I > saw all of it first hand. I work for a large organization that services government contracts. I know first hand about how the right thing isn't always done for "business" reasons. If MS won't roll out patches because it's costly, embarrassing, or inconvenient then all the testing in the world is worthless. MS's design decisions are made for business reasons. They benefit MS's bottom line, not their customers. > > > > 13. Open source and Free Software such as SQLite has proven to be > > more robust and more secure than proprietary software due to open, > > intense, and ongoing peer reviews by the user community. "Security > > through Obscurity" is regarded a fallacy in the cryptographic > community > > at large. > > > Not true at all. In fact, from experience, the Linux OS is much more > full of holes than Windows. It appears most hate Microsoft so thier > OS gets the most virus and hackers. All I can say is we > independently did a test with Linux and Windows we isntalled a > default OS and put it on the net without a firewall. Windows was > never hacked, but Linux was hacked in a day and they took root access > to the point where we could not get back in. I don't know who did your test, but their results do not match others results at all. Other independent testers have shown the average time to get infected for a windows box is 20 minutes: http://isc.sans.org/survivalhistory.php __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
