[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 10:32, Tom Potts wrote: > re mssql - I have a fully up to date development version - I have to keep > it switched off as it has the slammer virus - the fix offered is to > 'upgrade'! that's OK cos I can run any number of OS databases - even > thought they don't integrate with Visual Studio - the one decent product > Microsoft have. But that's probably because its based around .NET which is > also fantastic - but that's probably because its an open standard - > something Microsoft try and avoid. And even with that I'd have to upgrade > to Server status for a couple of facilities that would be useful. So, why did you spend your money on MSSQL? you know you can trial it first before buying it, right? (Infact, you can have a free devleopers license last time i looked iirc). there are 2 other products: Oracle and PostgreSQL. You do relase that oracly is considered the leader in it's class, yes? So now you're complaining about microsoft products that you have to use, that you were given the ability to trial for as long as you want first, that there is another major player in the same market. tell me - what has this got to do with microsoft being evil? > MSExchange - you obviously haven't had to support it in a real environment. > I had to spend 3 weeks continuously assisting 3 £500 a day MCSE engineers > attempt to fix our Exchange 5 set-up that had gone pear shaped when the > database became corrupted. Maybe you should have paid a more decent microsoft engineer. I can think of a number of "linux engineers" i've met over the years who have taken DAYS to do something that should not have taken mroe than a couple of hours. Now you are blaming microsoft for the fact there are stupid people in the world that are trying to make money? sorry, but if you pay someone for 3 weeks that can't sort out a problem, then that is your own stupid fault, not microsoft's. > They gave up recommending full reinstall - > loosing some 2Gig of messages and details of 5000 users. I wrote a few > simple bits to crack and fix the database and had it working in two days. > That would probably be illegal today! You think a database being corrupt should be illegal? > And I could read every message ever sent - secure - NOT! Could you think of any other statement that makes yourself look more uneducated in the way of basic security? > £50000 pounds of software and servers and licences and > support that could have been replaced by any number of free solutions but > microsoft lied and said it was a working product. It might be now but at > what cost to the users? again, a product you were more than welcome to evaluate for free. Which brings us back to why you are even discussing exchange. I know plenty of large corperates (and one very large UK ISP) that are using it quiet happily. As i mentioned before, i prefer exim. But exchange does NOT fall under: appalling software If it did, there wouldn't be millions of people using it, as there ARE other choices. > Office is a great product - well maybe if you don't know any better. Right. > I don't live in little hole preaching - I have 32 years > computing experience. If you want to cripple your organisation using office > go ahead. I wouldn't use MS office or Open Office for that matter if I > wanted my organisation to USE computers and not pointlessly imitate paper. > Follow the herd into that wilderness if you must but when you finally > realise that fourteen thousand fonts and formats does not make the data in > that document any more computer friendly you too will realise you've been > sold a pup. It was another corporate evil Sun that wrote most of Open > Office in hatred for M$ - if they'd hadn't wasted their time with that a > written a web based version we'd all be a lot better off. No, not a lot, a > massive amount! Wow, now we're really on to something here. Sun are evil too. Wheyhey. I'm having a field day. so, why are sun evil? Is it because they write great kernels, then open source them? Let me guess, Sun only open sourced Solaris it out of ... "Public Humiliation"? So - jsut to reiterate: Office is evil, as is Sun, AND Open Office. Anyone who uses any office application is "Follow the herd into that wilderness", dispite the fact that Excel, Powerpoint, and Visio regularly save me hours of work. I must remember next time i do a presentation at a conference to use a pen and paper rather than powerpoint. I'll document FSM implementations, UML diagrams etc using a pen and paper, and then send them to customers. > Have a read of 'A computer called Leo' . Then ask yourself how most > organisations today who use a million times more computing power per desk > are more poorly integrated than a company using one valve computer was in > the early 1960's. Because M$ have been telling them that their product is > good for them. Alas too many people do not realise that all that glisters > is not gold and have bought all the pretty bells and whistles without > looking at the bottom line. Schools teach microsoft word processing and how > to produce bloated HTML documents from the same. Computing, however, is > 'data with semantics' not 'data with formatting'. We have a whole > generation of people under the illusion that 1+1=4 is fine so long as you > use the corporate style manual and can segue it from blue to red in > powerpoint. Yes of course. All us youngsters these days are just so stupid. > I've watched computing hurtle forwards until the early nineties when, to > my mind, M$ deliberately tried to stifle the internet but fortunately it > was too resilient. Since then its moved like treacle. ok: "to your mind". that's absolutly fine. i don't care what you think. I don't care if you think bill gates is the devil himself (i've actually _seriously_ met someone who thought that!), as long as you don't force it down other peoples throats, and bash on about it in what is a LINUX users group. Or preferably even in public - because you're giving linux users a bad name. > Mainly because > Microsoft have abused their monopoly position and tried to shut out all > competition. Reality check: Microsoft are a business. And report to their shareholders. and a very sucessfull one at that. Infact, THE most sucessfull. > Microsoft may not be evil but if they're not they're either in denial or > criminally ignorant. RIGHT. Finally! some progress. "microsoft may not be evil". Or maybe they're just a very large company. i don't think i even need to justify that statement with a explanation. > They have sold the idea that computing is easy - > that's their big lie. Its not and your going to have to live with that and > learn how to safely, securely and efficiently manipulate data - not its > appearance! Microsoft don't appear to have the tools for this thought they > do have some tools that will allow you to do some pretty things. To my mind > usability is about what a product does for me and not how easy it is for > me to do the wrong thing. Having to 'upgrade' all my software every now and > then is not usable. The 486 with RH6.1 that allowed me to browse the web, > and acted as a firewall for 6 years and was NEVER compromised is usable - > or it was until I found I couldn't fit it in my new house! Ok. I remember sitting in the pub many years ago (~RH6.2 iirc), discussing redhats shocking requirement of having to reboot after updates, and how to work around it. Yes, that's right, you used to have to reboot after security updates! (if you want to argue this one, start another thread please). there is a very good reason for it, too. Of course, if you have as much clue as you seem to think you do, then you'd be able to tell me why that is. As also mentioned before, if you were to install a default redhat 6.1 install today, it would be exploited within minutes. also, remember that upgrades between redhat versions was at best, risky. Most the time it just plain failed. Debian was the first binary linux dist that handled upgrades between releases properly. So, what you've established so far is what i already knew: Linux is great for firewalls that never need touching apart from the very, very occassional security update. how does this make microsoft evil? > Emo Phillips had a wonderful sketch about how there was a special door in > his house that he was not allowed through. When he got to eighteen his dad > finally opened the door. Through that door he saw amazing things he'd > never dreamed of: like the sky, birds, trees and other people. Microsoft is > that closed door. MCSE is the padlock on that door. Kick it down. i much prefer this sketch: http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.11.26.101258.24.html you have STILL failed to answer my original question: Out of interest, which "same mistakes" do you refer to? I seem to have answered that question more than you have (see previous post just now). Although we are making so progress now ... you've finally admited microsoft MAY not be evil (although on the way decided instead that Sun are now evil!), and it's only in YOUR mind that they did these things on purpose. Maybe you'll stop bashing them now? 'cause fear not, i'll keep bashing your lack of facts every time you bash microsoft without justified reason. So far, you have not been able to provide me with a single argument backed up with fact. just pure speculation. The same goes for all of you who do it: DON'T BASH MICROSOFT. it makes linux users look like spoilt children, and gives us a really bad name. ~ Theo -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html