The battle moves on from why pay for an OS to why pay for an application(database)

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thing2, Feb 16, 2006.

  1. thing2

    AD. Guest

    Huh? Netware has em, Solaris etc has em, FreeBSD has em, Linux can have em.
    AD., Feb 17, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. OK I stand corrected. :eek:)

    A Nice Cup of Tea
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 17, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. thing2

    Enkidu Guest

    ACLs are a good idea. Anyone who's worked with both Windows and Unixey
    systems knows that Windows is MUCH more flexible in the file security
    area. There's nothing wrong with adopting a good idea.


    Enkidu, Feb 17, 2006
  4. thing2

    Fred Dagg Guest

    Fred Dagg, Feb 17, 2006
  5. thing2

    thingy Guest

    I dont need cant know much about analysis and dont follow
    history obviously.

    Just look at the history of windows from windows 1.0, 2.1, 3, win95,
    win2k, XP. Unixes had gui desktops right back in this time, but windows
    was dirt cheap and even though unstable was good enough. So combined
    with good enough intel hardware that was 10~20 times cheaper than unix
    and look where Microsoft it today, challenging Unix higher and higher up
    the stack, at the low end they already ship more than Unix.

    Ditto Linux it has a decent % of the server space, and despite what
    people think about its desktop capabilites it is actually good enough
    for more things, its % will grow, if only because its cheaper than XP
    and I bet way cheaper than vista.

    No company throws away dollars without some method, LAMP is well
    established and has a decent %, Oracles eyes are more open than many.

    As for a terminal threat, Digital, Wang, DEC, Data General....all very
    large, all gone....


    thingy, Feb 17, 2006
  6. thing2

    Steve Guest

    No I said it was the equivalent of access - single user, small volume.
    Basic functionality
    To mimic the process of always finishing a job that you start maybe? Not
    in my world.>
    What *are* you talking about? Any workflow is a group of discrete
    processes, it is *not* a single process. The database is there to store
    the current state ( in this context... )
    Oh dear. More FUD. Who said linux didn't have ACL's? Only you - we use
    them quite happily, thanks.
    You also live in a perfect world. Out here in the real world, people make
    *mistakes*....who's pontificating about things he knows little about in this case.
    Steve, Feb 17, 2006
  7. thing2

    Steve Guest

    Ho ho ho. ACL's were about looong before Microsoft thought about adopting
    them. It was part of the Posix ( can't remember which ) standard from the
    early 90's, or maybe even earlier.
    Steve, Feb 17, 2006
  8. thing2

    Steven H Guest

    Hello AD.,
    nope - im sure if its already been done the anti ms brigade will jump up
    and down about how the people at ms dont have a unique thaught in their combigned
    intellegence since there copying it off somebody else.

    what i am talking about is the concept of a transaction whereby file i/o,
    database access, web-services - ie a workflow can be wraped up into a single
    transactional unit - its quite cool really (yea im a geek)
    what CORBRA & J2EE - why ? cant be that bad J2EE / Java is much better than
    it was - i dont know about CORBRA to comment (not old enough :)
    but why is it only the 'enterprise' style - and why havent the 'normal' distro's
    built ACL's ? they are incredably powerfull and when they are understood
    by an administrator they will play a pivitol role in locking down a box.

    take for example what your average buisnesses do, they have some hardware
    firewall (proberly running embedded linux), 'protecting' their windows servers.

    somebody gets past the firewall (can be done happens all the time when there
    is an exploit for a given firmware version) and because the 'administrator'
    doesnt understand acl's the hacker can easealy get into thoes servers.

    now consider the same thing happenning exept that the acl's have been properly
    thaught out... what is going to happen ? nothing the hacker will sniff around
    to see if there is anything else to find.

    of course all the proper acl's in the world wont do anything about the 'stupid'
    syndrome people giving out valid usernames and passwords.
    Steven H, Feb 18, 2006
  9. IOW, perfect for use driving websites where there is only one "user". I'm
    not convinced that MySQL cannot handle heavy usage.

    A Nice Cup of Tea
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 18, 2006
  10. T'was the Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:16:31 +1300 when I remembered A Nice Cup
    There's always SQL server. Xerox Global Services manages 7 million
    transactions a day with SQL Server 2005, states
    Waylon Kenning, Feb 18, 2006
  11. And how many *nix hosts have M$ SQL server installed?

    A Nice Cup of Tea
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 18, 2006
  12. T'was the Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:07:31 +1300 when I remembered A Nice Cup
    My guess is none at all. Try switching to Windows Server 2003 if you
    want SQL Server 2005.
    Waylon Kenning, Feb 18, 2006
  13. But I want neither of them. I have no intention of ever replacing a
    perfecly fine installation of *nix with... something... from Micro$oft.

    A Nice Cup of Tea
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 18, 2006
  14. T'was the Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:28:14 +1300 when I remembered A Nice Cup
    That's fine, you just weren't convinced MySQL could handle huge data
    loads, and I pointed out a SQL server that could.
    Waylon Kenning, Feb 18, 2006
  15. Incorrect.

    It's not that I wasn't "convinced". I haven't seen an implementation of
    MySQL that couldn't cope with what had been asked of it. And MySQL is

    And besides, there are other SQL databases available on *nix should I
    require a fuller implementation of SQL.

    A Nice Cup of Tea
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 18, 2006
  16. T'was the Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:49:54 +1300 when I remembered A Nice Cup
    "I'm not convinced that MySQL cannot handle heavy usage."
    Which means you're not convinced. Sometimes discussing things with you
    is like nailing jelly to a wall. It's like having a debate with John
    Waylon Kenning, Feb 18, 2006
  17. I wasn't convinced that MySQL COULD NOT handle heavy loads.

    You have posted nothing that suggests it cannot.

    A Nice Cup of Tea
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 18, 2006
  18. T'was the Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:47:14 +1300 when I remembered A Nice Cup
    I never said it couldn't. For all I know, it probably can and does it
    quite well. I was just pointing out a solution that definitely could
    handle heavy loads.
    Waylon Kenning, Feb 18, 2006
  19. And as I said, I wasn't convinced that it couldn't.

    A Nice Cup of Tea
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 18, 2006
  20. But it certainly was not invented for Windows. Good security was
    invented for mainframes long before Windows. It may not have been
    called ACLs back then (or maybe it was), but it did the same job.
    IIRC, the Multics operating system was the first to have flexible
    security with something like what ACLs do. That was a *very* long
    time ago! Then there was a period where IBM dominated and a lot of
    the lessons of the Multics system were forgotten for a while.

    And I have still not seen anything as good as what guard files did on
    the Burroughs B6700 we had at Massey in 1979. You could write a
    program and have the results of that program control access - complete
    flexibility when you needed it. MCP was a really good operating
    Stephen Worthington, Feb 18, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.