 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> OK, well here we have a question of facts. One Internet source asserts
> that Microsoft licenced a browser from Spyglass and then released it for
> free in violation of the licence terms, and it put Spyglass out of
> business before they could sue.
Care to quote the source?
> Another Internet source asserts that this was not in fact a violation of
> the licence terms, and that it didn't kill Spyglass. At this point, I'm
> not sure who to believe.
Try this official document from the US government archives:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/945256/0000950137-97-004112.txt
"On January 21, 1997, the Company amended its license arrangement with
Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") to convert Microsoft's existing license
for
the Spyglass Mosaic browser technology into a fully paid-up license in
consideration of an additional $8,000,000 payment from Microsoft."
Also I don't see how OpenTV were able to buy Spyglass for $2.5b in 2000 if
they had gone bankrupt :-S
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/327661
> Unless you're Microsoft, at least...
If MS suddenly released a product that nobody wanted to buy they would go
out of business quite quickly. The only way they can survive is by
convincing people that they want the next version of windows, and the
previous version is going to be outdated soon blah blah blah. It's the same
with phones, cars, computer hardware etc.
> Well, all I'm saying is that lots of other large companies seem to get by
> without having to resort to cheating to stay in business...
And all I'm saying is the, let's be honest here, pretty minor bad things MS
has done in its lifetime are not at all unusual in big business. That's why
I said that if you give me the name of a large company, I bet it has done
some similar minor bad thing too. The company I work for is currently in a
patent battle about some technology used in its displays, and it also got a
fine from the EU competition place for talking too much with competitors
about prices. Things like that just happen to big companies, it's normal,
and why every single big company has a sizeable legal department.
If you want to start to talk about *real* unfair and illegal business
practices then you need to look outside of the software industry. How about
pharma companies and pseudo-doctors pushing drugs that don't really do
anything (or worse cause negative effects), what about companies knowingly
selling products that will be smuggled into high-tax countries, or selling
cigarettes to children, or using toxic chemicals in children's toys?
Stealing some GPL code to put in a DVD player suddenly doesn't seem so bad.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/10/09 08:24, Invisible wrote:
> OK, well here we have a question of facts. One Internet source asserts
> that Microsoft licenced a browser from Spyglass and then released it for
> free in violation of the licence terms, and it put Spyglass out of
> business before they could sue. Another Internet source asserts that
> this was not in fact a violation of the licence terms, and that it
> didn't kill Spyglass. At this point, I'm not sure who to believe.
"Thou shall not take all sources to be of equal value"
--
"Class, please! If you don't learn Roman numerals, you'll never know the
dates certain motion pictures were copyrighted." -- Mrs. Krabappel in
The Simpsons.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> It's an IDE. It edits text files. How hard should that be?
It does a LOT more than just edit text files.
Code folding.
Syntax highlighting.
Auto-formatting (it works for me, sorry)
IntelliSense (the autocomplete thing you mentioned... again, it works
great for me)
Debugging
That's just the stuff I use on a regular basis. It's loaded with
features that I never even touch, as well.
>>> Who knows? Perhaps in the 7 years since then, VS has become actually
>>> useful in some way. But I doubt it...
Funny, I first used it back in the days of VC++ 6, and even then it was
considered better than the competition.
> Well, I'm sure if they've spent money on licences for something, people
> are going to use it, no matter how lame it is. (Where I work, people use
> Word...)
>
> I'm just saying. Word hasn't changed noticably since 1995 or so. I see
> no particular reason to except VS to have changed drastically. (It
> probably supports quite a few languages that it didn't back then, mind
> you...)
Actually, I really like the new version of Word (2007) as well. I've
never had any problems with it being unstable, OR with it not doing what
I wanted.
Maybe the problem is user error? ;)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Before Internet Explorer, web browsers used to cost money. After IE, it
> was basically impossible to sell them for money. Why would anyone pay
> money for something that they can get for free anyway?
I don't recall ever paying for Lynx or Netscape, before IE. And wasn't
there an NTSC Browser that was free, too?
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It's an IDE. It edits text files. How hard should that be?
>
> It does a LOT more than just edit text files.
>
> Code folding.
Yeah, I guess that's vaguely useful...
> Syntax highlighting.
True. I'm used to using a text editor which does this for me.
> Auto-formatting (it works for me, sorry)
Apparently your coding style matches the hard-coded assumptions of the
software then. :-P
> IntelliSense
Could be useful - if it actually worked right.
> Debugging
Sometimes quite useful. Depends what the bug is.
>> I'm just saying. Word hasn't changed noticably since 1995 or so. I see
>> no particular reason to except VS to have changed drastically. (It
>> probably supports quite a few languages that it didn't back then, mind
>> you...)
>
> Actually, I really like the new version of Word (2007) as well. I've
> never had any problems with it being unstable, OR with it not doing what
> I wanted.
I haven't seen Word 2007 yet. Still using Word 2003 here.
> Maybe the problem is user error? ;)
You know what? The Internet abounds with people complaining about Word
not working right, yet nobody ever seems to complain about Excel or
Access or PowerPoint or Outlook... Wanna take a guess why that is?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> If I wanted to be cynical, I could point out that I've never met anybody
> who owns a copy of 3D Studio or Paintshop *legally*. ;-)
Criminal! Criminal!
;)
I've met plenty of people who owned licences. Well, not 3DS, but
Photoshop (which isn't the same, I know, but pretty close for the
purposes of this discussion).
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> A similar story happened at the beginning of the Microsoft story, but
> since I don't recall the precise facts right now I'll leave that one.
IIRC, IBM wanted an OS and a BASIC interpreter. They went to MS for
MS-BASIC, and said, "By the way, do you have an OS?" MS purchased QDOS
from some other guy, then licensed it to IBM.
The other guy started b*tching because he only got the one flat fee
instead of all those licensing fees, but hey, he's the one who signed
the deal.
> Sure, nobody forces web developers to use IE-specific extensions. Yet
> 90% of all websites work properly only if you use IE.
Have you surfed the Web recently? I haven't used IE in years. I've
been using Firefox and, more recently, Chrome, and I can't remember the
last time I had a page display incorrectly.
Granted, there are pages that check the useragent string, and then give
you a *message* saying they might not work properly... but then they
proceed to work properly.
> The way I heard it, it was more like "you will agree to these terms or
> you can't have our product".
Yeah, that's called a "license."
> Yeah, well, when car manufacturers lobby the government saying "people
> aren't buying as many cars as they used to; I think we should get
> government subsidies", people just laugh and say "no". When Microsoft
> lobbies for something, people seem to think they have a point.
I don't know if you read the news or not, but when the automakers in the
US complain about people not buying cars, the USG falls all over itself
trying to placate them.
They do the same thing for corn growers, too.
> Microsoft made their money from Windows. They can afford to give
> products away with it for free. People who's entire business is selling
> those other products can't do this. It's using sales from one product to
> pay for another product; last time I checked, that's not legal.
Walmart and BestBuy do that every day... research "loss leader." (To be
fair, I think the practice could be illegal in the UK, but it's popular
throughout the rest of the world).
>> Nobody's forcing you to use it.
>
> I'm sure this one has been argued to death. While *technically* this is
> true, the reality is that M$ has carefully engineered a situation where
> little viable alternative actually exists. (Let's face it, if somebody
> else was producing decent software, M$ would go under fairly quickly.)
So, first you complain that MS sucks, then you admit that everyone else
sucks worse.
Maybe you just don't want to admit that making software is hard, and MS
is doing they best they can given current market conditions and user
requirements?
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> >> But they should call it Linux if they really base it on Linux
> >
> > I don't think using the linux kernel requires for the OS to have the
> > word "linux" in its name.
> As far as I can tell, if you want to be technical about it, "Linux" is
> the tiny bit of code that runs tasks, handles interrupts, manages memory
> and has a few device drivers.
In other words, the kernel.
> When you install "Linux", 90% of the stuff
> you're installing isn't actually "Linux" at all; it's mostly the GNU
> toolchain, GNOME or KDE, Firefox and half a million other 3rd party items.
You don't install "Linux". You install, for example, OpenSUSE, or Ubuntu.
or Debian, or...
Those are the kernel + gnu tools + extra distro-specific stuff, which
in conjunction form the OS.
> Whatever happened to HURD?
Linux ate it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> You know what? The Internet abounds with people complaining about Word
> not working right, yet nobody ever seems to complain about Excel or
> Access or PowerPoint or Outlook... Wanna take a guess why that is?
Because more people use Word than the others, so more people complain
about it.
Like I said, I use it all the time, and I never have problems.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> You can't be general like that, most of those things generally lose you
> customers and profit, but you can use your judgment in certain
> situations. (eg if MS had told the people they were buying DOS from that
> they were planning to license it to IBM, they likely wouldn't have been
> able to buy it or been charged 100x more, and then MS probably wouldn't
> have existed today).
They would exist, but they would be in their original business of compilers.
We'd probably all be running a variant of OS/4 or something.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Well, fortunately not everybody thinks like that. Otherwise nobody
>>> would bother making any actual *products* at all, they'd all just
>>> find ways to screw customers out of their money without providing
>>> anything in return.
>>
>> Generally you go bankrupt pretty quickly if you try to do that.
>
> Unless you're Microsoft, at least...
Umm... MS DOES provide a product in return. You might not like the
product, but it's there, and a lot of other people DO like it.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> IIRC, IBM wanted an OS and a BASIC interpreter. They went to MS for
> MS-BASIC, and said, "By the way, do you have an OS?" MS purchased QDOS
> from some other guy, then licensed it to IBM.
>
> The other guy started b*tching because he only got the one flat fee
> instead of all those licensing fees, but hey, he's the one who signed
> the deal.
The way I heard it was that Gates got some code off a mate and then
decided to sell it for money, pretending it was his own. And the other
guy was naturally a little upset that somebody was selling his product
without his permission.
The facts of the story you present are significantly different.
>> Sure, nobody forces web developers to use IE-specific extensions. Yet
>> 90% of all websites work properly only if you use IE.
>
> Have you surfed the Web recently? I haven't used IE in years. I've
> been using Firefox and, more recently, Chrome, and I can't remember the
> last time I had a page display incorrectly.
>
> Granted, there are pages that check the useragent string, and then give
> you a *message* saying they might not work properly... but then they
> proceed to work properly.
At work, I use two web-based applications which actually don't work
without IE. (And work correctly only with certain versions of it, for
that matter.) In general, most sites out there do now work with Firefox,
although it definitely depends on which kind of sites you visit. I'm not
sure if more sites work with Firefox because the web is becomming more
standards-compliant, or because Firefox is getting better at emulating
the brokeness of IE...
>>> Nobody's forcing you to use it.
>>
>> I'm sure this one has been argued to death. While *technically* this
>> is true, the reality is that M$ has carefully engineered a situation
>> where little viable alternative actually exists. (Let's face it, if
>> somebody else was producing decent software, M$ would go under fairly
>> quickly.)
>
> So, first you complain that MS sucks, then you admit that everyone else
> sucks worse.
No, I said M$ has carefully arranged it so that you don't have much
choice. They deliberately stop people from making better products. Or if
better products get made, they make it as hard as possible for regular
users to be able to use them.
I wouldn't mind if M$ was top dog because they actually made the best
products, but that's simply not true. They're top dog because they use
trickery to keep the competition out.
> Maybe you just don't want to admit that making software is hard, and MS
> is doing they best they can given current market conditions and user
> requirements?
Yes, making software is hard. Making software is *so* hard, in fact,
that a bunch of people who don't even have access to the spec for the M$
Word file format managed to write a word processor that reads M$ Word
files more reliably than M$ Word itself, and can repair files that M$
Word cannot. Clearly M$, the richest software producer on the face of
God's Earth, is doing the very best they can.
(The best they can to screw you out of money for an inferior product,
that is...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Whatever happened to HURD?
>
> Linux ate it.
Heh. The GNU guys must have loved that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Microsoft's entire history seems to revolve around stealing other
> people's stuff and watching them go bankrupt faster than they can sue.
Cite?
>> Name two competitors. Were you even in the market at the time it was
>> hashing out?
>
> When the hell was the IBM PC invented anyway?
I rest my case.
> Actually... I'm not aware of anything else that does what Exchange does.
> Which is a little bit odd, really.
There ya go.
> I know of a few office suites that manage to not constantly crash like
> MS Office does.
> Apache is notable for doing the same thing as IIS
Only in the broad sense that UNIX does the same thing as Windows. They
really aren't comparable.
> There are lots of database engines out
> there; I doubt many of them are worse than SQL Server.
You haven't tried MySql then.
It sounds more like "I don't know the capabilities of Microsoft systems, so
I listen to what Linux enthusiasts tell me about it." :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Both also had a nasty habit of the metadata not matching the source
> code. Like, open a file, add a new method, and VS seems not to "know
> about it" until you close and reopen VS. (You'd hope that just saving
> the file would be enough. No. Maybe just compiling it then? No.)
And how long ago was this, and how out of date were the university's
computers? I was pretty impressed when VS2005 would add intellisense for
routines I'd typed into other files and *didn't* save yet.
> I imagine on today's computers it's probably not quite so slow, but I
> doubt it's become any less inflexible.
So, "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll guess it's bad." Cool.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I've never made any multi-file projects, but I would be very surprised
> if you couldn't set what is run.
I'll grant you that one is buried a little deep in the menu structure. It
always takes me maybe 2 or 3 minutes to remember where it is. Assuming you
didn't actually, you know, type the question into the help system.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> start configuring the build tools, using the debugger, and of course the
> form designer.
And the source code repository, the debugger, the regression test tools, the
planning, the bug tracking, ...
Your university probably didn't pay for the big version that has all that
stuff, too.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> You know what? The Internet abounds with people complaining about Word
> not working right, yet nobody ever seems to complain about Excel or
> Access or PowerPoint or Outlook... Wanna take a guess why that is?
Perhaps because most everyone uses Word, while only people motivated enough
to look up things in the help pages use stuff like powerpoint or access?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Fractint on DOS. Can't think of a single criticism. Awesome program.
Cool. I think I ran this once.
> Midnight Commander on Linux.
I have yet to try this out. I open a shell window and maximize it when I use
Linux. Indeed, I giggle uncontrollably every time someone at work tries to
help me and opens up a Gnome file browser to look for something.
I grant that VIM doesn't suck. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that one was Kerberos. And the point was they made it so
> their Kerberos implementation wouldn't work with anybody else's.
But the standard allowed for that, is my point. Why have a "reserved for use
by vendors" field if you're going to break when vendors use it.
> leaves the issue of these fields being reversed for future use, and when
It wasn't "reserved for future use" as I understand it. It was "reserved for
relaying hidden information we failed to account for in the standard that
your OS needs".
>> What other standards have they done this with.
>
> *cough* The web?
Sorry? In what sense? That the web browser doesn't follow standards set
after the browser was written doesn't really mean they intentionally broke
the web.
>> What I haven't figured out is the huge number of people screaming at
>> Microsoft for bundling programs with Windows that competes with
>> programs they give away for free. Say what?
>
> Before Internet Explorer, web browsers used to cost money.
No they didn't. Netscape at one point *tried* to charge for their browser
for *corporate* use, but since they'd cloned it from a free browser to start
with, nobody ever paid for it.
> So yeah, the products they give away for free compete with other
> products which are free *now*... because you can't sell them for money
> any more.
People are *still* complaining about it, tho. Google is suing Microsoft for
bundling IE right now. The EU is suing MS for bundling Media Player, in
spite of every other operating system coming with the manufacturers media
player and in spite of there being half a dozen highly capable free media
players available.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> start configuring the build tools, using the debugger, and of course
>> the form designer.
>
> And the source code repository, the debugger, the regression test tools,
> the planning, the bug tracking, ...
>
> Your university probably didn't pay for the big version that has all
> that stuff, too.
Well, it had the debugger, and that worked. The rest of what you talked
about would probably be pointless in a 2-week programming project anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> It's difficult to see how you could make a web browser more attractive
> to the casual user than IE already is - at least, enough to make them
> reach into their pockets anyway...
And part of that is how much everyone commoditizes the browser.
Don't complain that everyone has to follow the exact same standards and
render everything pixel-perfect identical, and then complain it's difficult
to differentiate your product enough to sell it.
> If I wanted to be cynical, I could point out that I've never met anybody
> who owns a copy of 3D Studio or Paintshop *legally*. ;-)
Yes you have. I own *two* copies of paintshop. You bastard - I wondered why
they started adding DRM to the install.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Actually... I'm not aware of anything else that does what Exchange
>> does. Which is a little bit odd, really.
>
> There ya go.
I'd actually be interested in finding such a beast... It seems odd that
nobody has made one.
>> I know of a few office suites that manage to not constantly crash like
>> MS Office does.
>
> > Apache is notable for doing the same thing as IIS
>
> Only in the broad sense that UNIX does the same thing as Windows. They
> really aren't comparable.
So what does IIS do that Apache doesn't then? (Aside from giving root
access to anybody who types their URLs with backslashes instead of
forward slashes...)
>> There are lots of database engines out there; I doubt many of them are
>> worse than SQL Server.
>
> You haven't tried MySql then.
OK, so *some* of them are worse. ;-)
> It sounds more like "I don't know the capabilities of Microsoft systems,
> so I listen to what Linux enthusiasts tell me about it." :-)
What makes you think it's the Linux enthusiasts? I hated M$ long before
anybody had even heard of Linus Travolds... And I don't buy it when
people say Linux is the answer. It's too messy and laden with backwards
compatibility...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> From what I heard, Internet Explorer was stolen from a company called
> Spyglass.
You need to stop listening to whoever tells you this crap. "We bought your
code" isn't "we stole your code." Similarly, "we paid everyone in your
company huge amounts of money to come work for us" isn't "we drove you out
of business."
> Spyglass were selling a web browser, M$ licenced the code from them,
> developed IE, and then gave it away for free (in violation of the terms
> of the licence with Spyglass).
Why do you think it was in violation of the terms of the contract?
> A similar story happened at the beginning of the Microsoft story, but
> since I don't recall the precise facts right now I'll leave that one.
Heh heh.
> Sure, nobody forces web developers to use IE-specific extensions.
No. The real main problem is the number of people unwilling to continue to
use the standards that were settled and widespread when IE6 was around. IE6
breaks some stuff, but it works fine if you're not trying to do
sophisticated layout crap the web was never designed for. If your site works
in Navigator 4, it'll work in IE6.
>>> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
>>
>> They didn't force anybody. They signed agreements with manufacturers,
>> and the manufacturers agreed to those contracts.
>
> The way I heard it, it was more like "you will agree to these terms or
> you can't have our product".
Who do you listen to?
> Yeah, well, when car manufacturers lobby the government saying "people
> aren't buying as many cars as they used to; I think we should get
> government subsidies", people just laugh and say "no".
I'm sorry?? What era of history are you living in? Have you heard of AIG?
Perhaps GM?
> Microsoft made their money from Windows. They can afford to give
> products away with it for free. People who's entire business is selling
> those other products can't do this. It's using sales from one product to
> pay for another product; last time I checked, that's not legal.
Only if you properly distinguish "products". Some companies sell car
stereos. When cars started coming with nice stereos, those companies went
out of business.
Who is to say a web browser isn't part of the OS but a graphical file
browser is? Who would have guessed that a program to play MP3s would be
illegal to include with an operating system?
> Like, if Tesco decided to start giving away a free bestselling book with
> every purchase, they'd have a problem because they'd be using grocery
> sales to put book sellers out of business.
Sure. And when Microsoft starts giving away groceries and paying for it with
the OS, then you can make that argument. But first you have to tell me the
objective criteria by which a media player or a web browser aren't part of
the OS, but a text editor or file browser is.
> Well, that's fair enough. But when a business announces something they
> have no intention of making just for the financial effect it will have
> on a potential competetor... that's not really fair.
Cite? Or is this another "story you heard"?
> I'm sure this one has been argued to death. While *technically* this is
> true, the reality is that M$ has carefully engineered a situation where
> little viable alternative actually exists.
Operating systems are a natural monopoly.
>> Why don't you use Linux instead?
>
> Sure. Except that the vast majority of the software I want to use won't
> work with Linux.
That's because operating systems are a natural monopoly.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Tesco might sell petrol at a loss, but they don't give it away *for
> free* to get you through the door, do they?
What makes you think IE is free? You keep saying this, but you don't give
any evidence for it.
Tell me, please list the parts of the code that come with Windows that are
free, vs the parts that are "too expensive"?
>>> Oracle didn't get to be where they are now by stealing other people's
>>> stuff,
>>
>> Oh really:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Oracle
>
> Buying something isn't the same as stealing it.
So, when Microsoft buys a license for PC-DOS or Spyglass, it's stealing, but
when Oracle does, it isn't stealing?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/10/09 10:47, Darren New wrote:
>> Midnight Commander on Linux.
>
> I have yet to try this out. I open a shell window and maximize it when I
> use Linux. Indeed, I giggle uncontrollably every time someone at work
> tries to help me and opens up a Gnome file browser to look for something.
I hiss and cuss at any Linux machine I'm on that doesn't have mc. Often
people either stop asking me for help or just install mc so that they
can be helped. Unintended effect, I assure you.<G>
> I grant that VIM doesn't suck. :-)
It sucks on the beep-o-meter scale.
--
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> The way I heard it was that Gates got some code off a mate and then
> decided to sell it for money, pretending it was his own.
Where did you hear it? Hint: don't trust that source.
Nobody goes "Gee, I happen to have an OS for a new CPU. Want a copy of the
source and all the development notes?"
> At work, I use two web-based applications which actually don't work
> without IE.
There's a tremendous difference between using a browser as a smart terminal
for a limited application, and browsing the general public web.
Know what? I can dial 3 digits at work and get any other phone in the
office, too. But that only works on my office phone.
>> So, first you complain that MS sucks, then you admit that everyone
>> else sucks worse.
>
> No, I said M$ has carefully arranged it so that you don't have much
> choice. They deliberately stop people from making better products.
Give an actual cite with some actual data, rather than just pulling stories
out of your butt. :-)
> I wouldn't mind if M$ was top dog because they actually made the best
> products, but that's simply not true.
So, nobody makes any better products, but MS doesn't make the best?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I'd actually be interested in finding such a beast... It seems odd that
> nobody has made one.
It's only odd because what Exchange does is inherently difficult to do well.
Who is going to write such a thing, and try to compete with Exchange? It's
not cool enough for random Linux enthusiasts to write from scratch, any more
than OpenOffice was.
> So what does IIS do that Apache doesn't then?
Windows logins. ASP.NET. Remote administration. A whole different processing
module method. Interesting deployment options where you don't have to roll
your own. Etc. Go read up on it.
> (Aside from giving root
> access to anybody who types their URLs with backslashes instead of
> forward slashes...)
Cite?
> OK, so *some* of them are worse. ;-)
Most of them are worse for *developers*, for one thing.
>> It sounds more like "I don't know the capabilities of Microsoft
>> systems, so I listen to what Linux enthusiasts tell me about it." :-)
>
> What makes you think it's the Linux enthusiasts? I hated M$ long before
> anybody had even heard of Linus Travolds... And I don't buy it when
> people say Linux is the answer. It's too messy and laden with backwards
> compatibility...
OK, so who is telling you these things? You keep saying things that ought to
be easy to support, but attributing them to "some guy told me"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'd actually be interested in finding such a beast... It seems odd
>> that nobody has made one.
>
> It's only odd because what Exchange does is inherently difficult to do
> well. Who is going to write such a thing, and try to compete with
> Exchange? It's not cool enough for random Linux enthusiasts to write
> from scratch, any more than OpenOffice was.
What Exchange does is store your mailbox in a central database rather
than locally on your PC. That's pretty trivial.
OTOH, I'll grant that it's not very "shiny", so that's probably why
nobody else has done it...
>> So what does IIS do that Apache doesn't then?
>
> Windows logins. ASP.NET. Remote administration. A whole different
> processing module method. Interesting deployment options where you don't
> have to roll your own. Etc. Go read up on it.
None of that made any sense to me, but hey...
>> (Aside from giving root access to anybody who types their URLs with
>> backslashes instead of forward slashes...)
>
> Cite?
I *think* this is the correct one:
https://services.netscreen.com/restricted/sigupdates/nsm-updates/HTML/HTTP:IIS:ASP-DOT-NET-BACKSLASH.html
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It's difficult to see how you could make a web browser more attractive
>> to the casual user than IE already is - at least, enough to make them
>> reach into their pockets anyway...
>
> And part of that is how much everyone commoditizes the browser.
>
> Don't complain that everyone has to follow the exact same standards and
> render everything pixel-perfect identical, and then complain it's
> difficult to differentiate your product enough to sell it.
There are plenty of things a browser can do differently - it's just that
the casual user isn't going to *care* about such things. (E.g., if there
was a browser that had more reliable printing capabilities, would *you*
pay money to use it?)
>> If I wanted to be cynical, I could point out that I've never met
>> anybody who owns a copy of 3D Studio or Paintshop *legally*. ;-)
>
> Yes you have. I own *two* copies of paintshop. You bastard - I wondered
> why they started adding DRM to the install.
Don't look at me - I've never owned a copy of either of those things. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm pretty sure that one was Kerberos. And the point was they made it
>> so their Kerberos implementation wouldn't work with anybody else's.
>
> But the standard allowed for that, is my point. Why have a "reserved for
> use by vendors" field if you're going to break when vendors use it.
>
> It wasn't "reserved for future use" as I understand it. It was "reserved
> for relaying hidden information we failed to account for in the standard
> that your OS needs".
OK, well that would make the situation rather different...
>>> What other standards have they done this with.
>>
>> *cough* The web?
>
> Sorry? In what sense? That the web browser doesn't follow standards set
> after the browser was written doesn't really mean they intentionally
> broke the web.
If I'm not mistaken, HTML was a standard long before M$ started adding
nonportable attributes and entities.
> People are *still* complaining about it, tho. Google is suing Microsoft
> for bundling IE right now. The EU is suing MS for bundling Media Player,
> in spite of every other operating system coming with the manufacturers
> media player and in spite of there being half a dozen highly capable
> free media players available.
OK, that doesn't make a lot of sense, no...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Buying something isn't the same as stealing it.
>
> So, when Microsoft buys a license for PC-DOS or Spyglass, it's stealing,
> but when Oracle does, it isn't stealing?
When you buy a licence for something and then use it in a way that the
licence prohibits, that's stealing. Same way that if I buy a copy of
Excel and put it on one PC, that's buying, but if I put that same copy
onto 2,000 PCs, that's stealing.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> What Exchange does is store your mailbox in a central database rather
> than locally on your PC. That's pretty trivial.
>
> OTOH, I'll grant that it's not very "shiny", so that's probably why
> nobody else has done it...
Every IMAP server does that. Lotus Domino does that. It's a bunch of
other features in Exchange that just IMAP servers won't do. I haven't
actually used Exchange so I can't know what it does compared to Lotus
Domino, but I'd guess that Domino is the most realistic choice for Exchange.
>> Windows logins. ASP.NET. Remote administration. A whole different
>> processing module method. Interesting deployment options where you
>> don't have to roll your own. Etc. Go read up on it.
>
> None of that made any sense to me, but hey...
It does for a bunch of people. I personally don't really agree on Apache
not having remote administration, but I can be mislead what Darren
really means (I haven't used IIS in years) - I assume he means that one
can run the administration console from another Windows-PC.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4a572297$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
> > Of course you can if your product is more attractive for customers to
> > want to pay for it.
> It's difficult to see how you could make a web browser more attractive
> to the casual user than IE already is
Besides complimenting IE, what's your point?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> What Exchange does is store your mailbox in a central database rather
> than locally on your PC. That's pretty trivial.
It does a lot more than that. It has the calendering, reserving of
conference rooms, meeting scheduling, to-do lists, all the permissions of
getting heirarchical groups of people looking at calendars and to-do lists,
revocable email, one message shared between lots of poeple, offline
synchronization of all that stuff, etc etc.
It does *tons* of stuff. You just don't use it.
>>> So what does IIS do that Apache doesn't then?
>>
>> Windows logins. ASP.NET. Remote administration. A whole different
>> processing module method. Interesting deployment options where you
>> don't have to roll your own. Etc. Go read up on it.
>
> None of that made any sense to me, but hey...
You often seem to argue from a position of ignorance. Rather than argue "X
doesn't do anything more useful than Y", you should probably ask "What does
X do that's more useful than Y" when you don't know the answer.
How can you be IT support for a windows-based company and not understand the
terms "windows logins" and "remote administration"?
>>> (Aside from giving root access to anybody who types their URLs with
>>> backslashes instead of forward slashes...)
>>
>> Cite?
>
> I *think* this is the correct one:
>
>
https://services.netscreen.com/restricted/sigupdates/nsm-updates/HTML/HTTP:IIS:ASP-DOT-NET-BACKSLASH.html
And where does it say anything about root access there?
>
>
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Don't complain that everyone has to follow the exact same standards
>> and render everything pixel-perfect identical, and then complain it's
>> difficult to differentiate your product enough to sell it.
>
> There are plenty of things a browser can do differently - it's just that
> the casual user isn't going to *care* about such things.
Well, yes, that's my point. Everything the users actually care about have
been standardized, and it's a big selling point that the browser actually
follows the standards.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> It does for a bunch of people. I personally don't really agree on Apache
> not having remote administration,
Apache doesn't have remote administration, as far as I know. Linux has
remote stuff in general, but you actually have to log into the machine
running Apache to restart it, and you have to look at the files that Apache
instance is reading to change the configuration.
There's no tool for Apache, as far as I know, that lets you change the
configuration on 300 distributed web servers and then sequence a restart of
them in such a way that you're not killing anyone's page-serve as the
servers restart. You have to roll your own using scp (or shared directories
holding the configuration), ssh, etc. You can't turn off an Apache server
without logging into the machine where it's running, and you cant change the
configuration without logging into whatever machine is holding the
configuration files.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, HTML was a standard long before M$ started adding
> nonportable attributes and entities.
Err, no. Remember <blink>?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Buying something isn't the same as stealing it.
>>
>> So, when Microsoft buys a license for PC-DOS or Spyglass, it's
>> stealing, but when Oracle does, it isn't stealing?
>
> When you buy a licence for something and then use it in a way that the
> licence prohibits, that's stealing.
Good thing Microsoft didn't do that! Did you not even read the article?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What Exchange does is store your mailbox in a central database rather
>> than locally on your PC. That's pretty trivial.
>
> It does a lot more than that. It has the calendering, reserving of
> conference rooms, meeting scheduling, to-do lists, all the permissions
> of getting heirarchical groups of people looking at calendars and to-do
> lists, revocable email, one message shared between lots of poeple,
> offline synchronization of all that stuff, etc etc.
In other words, it stores more than email messages in a central
database. Still conceptually the same deal, just with a few minor
details on top.
Now the offline synchronisation... *That* is at least nontrivial to do
right.
> You often seem to argue from a position of ignorance. Rather than argue
> "X doesn't do anything more useful than Y", you should probably ask
> "What does X do that's more useful than Y" when you don't know the answer.
Well, when somebody says that two identical things are not, in fact,
identical, I ask what they think is different...
> How can you be IT support for a windows-based company and not understand
> the terms "windows logins" and "remote administration"?
I don't see what "windows logins" have to do with a generic web server,
that's all.
>>>> (Aside from giving root access to anybody who types their URLs with
>>>> backslashes instead of forward slashes...)
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>> I *think* this is the correct one:
>>
>>
https://services.netscreen.com/restricted/sigupdates/nsm-updates/HTML/HTTP:IIS:ASP-DOT-NET-BACKSLASH.html
>
> And where does it say anything about root access there?
It says that you can "bypass all security controls". How is that
different from root access?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> In other words, it stores more than email messages in a central
> database. Still conceptually the same deal, just with a few minor
> details on top.
No, not really. Shared stuff like calendars is not conceptually the same as
a central email store. What exchange does is inherently hard to get right
because (in part) of the administration/configuration problem and in part
because of the shared part.
A centralized email server isn't sharing anything between users, nor
updating things already in the database.
> Well, when somebody says that two identical things are not, in fact,
> identical, I ask what they think is different...
No. You say "Apache is notable for doing the same thing as IIS", not "What
does IIS do that Apache doesn't?"
>> How can you be IT support for a windows-based company and not
>> understand the terms "windows logins" and "remote administration"?
>
> I don't see what "windows logins" have to do with a generic web server,
> that's all.
Have you ever used an intranet application where you had to log in to the
web page? It means it uses the Active Directory kerberos password stuff to
let you log into web pages.
MS SQL server allows this too.
>>>>> (Aside from giving root access to anybody who types their URLs with
>>>>> backslashes instead of forward slashes...)
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> I *think* this is the correct one:
>>>
>>>
https://services.netscreen.com/restricted/sigupdates/nsm-updates/HTML/HTTP:IIS:ASP-DOT-NET-BACKSLASH.html
>>
>>
>> And where does it say anything about root access there?
>
> It says that you can "bypass all security controls". How is that
> different from root access?
Where do you see it say "bypass all security controls"? I see it say "bypass
ASP.NET authentication capabilities". I see "bypass authentication required
to access files in secured directories."
What this bug is, in practice, is a way to go
"http://blah.com/yadda\..\..\hello.txt"
and get out of the DocumentRoot defined by the web server. For example, they
could use
"http://blah.com/yadda\..\..\cgi\script.php"
to see the source of your PHP CGI script.
Still not root access.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Apache doesn't have remote administration, as far as I know. Linux has
> remote stuff in general,
Well yes, most remote administration tools for Linux AFAIK handles
multiple thingies, not just one software. Apache doesn't have one
built-in, that much is true.
> but you actually have to log into the machine
> running Apache to restart it,
I do believe that Windows and IIS also require authentication to do such
things :-). Yes, AD makes it pretty easy, while both machines (web
server and your workstation) authenticate from the same servers and with
the same instance. And yes, I believe one can handle such thing eg. via
Webmin. Mind you, running Apache on Windows might raise problems on this
view, since AFAIK most remote administration tools for Linux won't work
with it.
> and you have to look at the files that
> Apache instance is reading to change the configuration.
If you do, you're not the usual admin of that server. Admin should know
where particular instance is configured :-). Also in Windows, if you get
a new already running server to admin with multiple instances of same
daemons, you'll need to check which one is which.
> There's no tool for Apache, as far as I know, that lets you change the
> configuration on 300 distributed web servers and then sequence a restart
> of them in such a way that you're not killing anyone's page-serve as the
> servers restart. You have to roll your own using scp (or shared
> directories holding the configuration), ssh, etc. You can't turn off an
> Apache server without logging into the machine where it's running, and
> you cant change the configuration without logging into whatever machine
> is holding the configuration files.
>
Well yes, I either don't know about distributed administration for
Apache, but that's a whole another level than just remote administration.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> If I'm not mistaken, HTML was a standard long before M$ started adding
> nonportable attributes and entities.
>
IIRC Netscape was the one to start adding off-standard things to HTML.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> In other words, it stores more than email messages in a central
>> database. Still conceptually the same deal, just with a few minor
>> details on top.
>
> No, not really. Shared stuff like calendars is not conceptually the same
> as a central email store. What exchange does is inherently hard to get
> right because (in part) of the administration/configuration problem and
> in part because of the shared part.
So instead of sharing datestamped messages and displaying them as
emails, you share datestamped messages and display them as calendar
appointments. Big deal.
> A centralized email server isn't sharing anything between users, nor
> updating things already in the database.
OK, so it's the sharing of stuff (whatever it may be) between multiple
users that's the hard part. (Especially when each user potentially has
an offline cache of the database.) That *is* in fact nontrivial, yes. I
still thing it's hardly insummountable though. (Hell, M$ did it, and
they know nothing about anything...)
>> I don't see what "windows logins" have to do with a generic web
>> server, that's all.
>
> Have you ever used an intranet application where you had to log in to
> the web page? It means it uses the Active Directory kerberos password
> stuff to let you log into web pages.
>
> MS SQL server allows this too.
We have a couple of 3rd party applications that do this. Apparently they
all word by using something called LDAP (which is an open standard). You
don't need a special feature of the web server just for that. Indeed, we
have non-web apps that do the same trick... Some of them aren't even on
Windows.
>>> And where does it say anything about root access there?
>>
>> It says that you can "bypass all security controls". How is that
>> different from root access?
>
> Where do you see it say "bypass all security controls"? I see it say
> "bypass ASP.NET authentication capabilities". I see "bypass
> authentication required to access files in secured directories."
>
> What this bug is, in practice, is a way to go
> "http://blah.com/yadda\..\..\hello.txt"
> and get out of the DocumentRoot defined by the web server. For example,
> they could use
> "http://blah.com/yadda\..\..\cgi\script.php"
> to see the source of your PHP CGI script.
>
> Still not root access.
According to the blog where I first saw this mentioned, if you do
http://example.com/priv/file1
it asks for a username and password due to the security settings on that
folder. However, if you do
http://example.com\priv\file1
it just serves the file, bypassing the security. This is apparently due
to something about the way IIS works internally. (Something like
all-access being the default, and restricted-access files being listed
somewhere, and the name string in the URL not matching anything in the
restrictions list. In other words, it fails-open rather than
failing-closed...)
Either way, I'm sure this *specific* bug has long since been fixed. But
the fact that such a simple and obvious bug happened in the first place
isn't very reassuring. (You would surely have thought that throwing
weird URLs at the server would be one of the very first things to check
during testing... assuming M$ does that...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Well yes, most remote administration tools for Linux AFAIK handles
> multiple thingies, not just one software.
Can you tell me a good remote administration suite for Linux machines?
Something that will, say, let me install software on a bunch of desktop
machines, show me what's installed there, update things, make backups,
restore data, and so on?
> I do believe that Windows and IIS also require authentication to do such
> things :-).
Sure, but it's trivial and I don't have to do it by logging in, is what I
meant. It's pretty trivial even without AD.
>> and you have to look at the files that
>> Apache instance is reading to change the configuration.
>
> If you do, you're not the usual admin of that server.
I mean, Apache reads a file for its configuration. The file is either local
to the machine, or on a network-shared directory.
> Well yes, I either don't know about distributed administration for
> Apache, but that's a whole another level than just remote administration.
Sure. My point is that Linux doesn't really have remote administration. It
has remote access to the local administration. Often just as good or better,
but you need the right tools to make that easier.
You can't remotely reboot a Linux machine without logging into it, for
example. But once you log in, you can do anything you could do if you were
sitting there. (Of course, the latter is true of Windows, too.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> So instead of sharing datestamped messages and displaying them as
> emails, you share datestamped messages and display them as calendar
> appointments. Big deal.
Well, no. Because it's coordinated, you see. Plus it has to be machine
readable, which is obviously non-trivial given it doesn't really work
cross-platform.
>> A centralized email server isn't sharing anything between users, nor
>> updating things already in the database.
>
> OK, so it's the sharing of stuff (whatever it may be) between multiple
> users that's the hard part. (Especially when each user potentially has
> an offline cache of the database.)
Yes. Otherwise, it's just IMAP.
> We have a couple of 3rd party applications that do this. Apparently they
> all word by using something called LDAP (which is an open standard). You
> don't need a special feature of the web server just for that.
How do I configure Apache to do that?
> According to the blog where I first saw this mentioned, if you do
>
> http://example.com/priv/file1
>
> it asks for a username and password due to the security settings on that
> folder. However, if you do
>
> http://example.com\priv\file1
>
> it just serves the file, bypassing the security.
That's *still* not root access. That's serving a file without the web server
asking permission to serve the file. You're bypassing the web server's
security list, not the OS's security list.
> Either way, I'm sure this *specific* bug has long since been fixed. But
> the fact that such a simple and obvious bug happened in the first place
> isn't very reassuring.
And you know what? In the early versions of Netscape, if your web browser
his a URL that read "telnet:;rm -rf ~" you'd lose all your files, because it
just changed the first colon to a space and passed it to the shell as a
command. Everyone makes stupid errors.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Can you tell me a good remote administration suite for Linux machines?
I can't tell you if it's *good* (I haven't tested), but one such suite
is Webmin. I have seen couple of others too, but I can't remember the
names. If I had bunch of machines to care about, I would search test those.
> Something that will, say, let me install software on a bunch of desktop
> machines, show me what's installed there, update things, make backups,
> restore data, and so on?
Distributed administration again? I don't know if those remote admin
suites handle multiple computers with one command.
> Sure, but it's trivial and I don't have to do it by logging in, is what
> I meant. It's pretty trivial even without AD.
Basically that trivialism comes from Windows's habit to try to access
another computer with the username and password you're currently logged
in with. I don't know any other system that does that, but increasing
number of software that allow saving passwords.
> I mean, Apache reads a file for its configuration. The file is either
> local to the machine, or on a network-shared directory.
Yes.
> Sure. My point is that Linux doesn't really have remote administration.
> It has remote access to the local administration. Often just as good or
> better, but you need the right tools to make that easier.
There are remote admin softwares, but because as you say, remote login
is usually at least as good, they are pretty unknown and silent
projects. Distributed admin (eg. "install software X to machins A, B and
C") is something that surely would be useful and would outuseful remote
login in many cases.
> You can't remotely reboot a Linux machine without logging into it, for
> example. But once you log in, you can do anything you could do if you
> were sitting there. (Of course, the latter is true of Windows, too.)
Eg. Webmin has reboot possibility. If logging in to Webmin equals
logging on to the machine, then yes.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
>> We have a couple of 3rd party applications that do this. Apparently
>> they all word by using something called LDAP (which is an open
>> standard). You don't need a special feature of the web server just for
>> that.
>
> How do I configure Apache to do that?
>
Install mod_auth_ldap:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/mod_auth_ldap.html
and dig some easy information from eg. here:
http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxTutorialApacheAddingLoginSiteProtection.html
or a bit more info from here:
http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/120050
and if that's not enough, just use the correct keywords:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Apache+LDAP+authentication
:-)
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:25:52 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Sure. My point is that Linux doesn't really have remote administration.
That depends on how you define "remote administration" - webmin provides
remote administration (for example)....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Your university probably didn't pay for the big version that has all that
> stuff, too.
Haha no, at my University we wrote our C++ in emacs on Unix dumb terminals
:-)
We had some version or VS at work a while back, but I gave up on it and just
use the Express version now as I hardly do anything very big or complex.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
