[LINK] Rampaging bugbear
Sun, 06 Oct 2002 22:00:00 +1000
At 19:19 6/10/02 +1000, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>At 5:28 PM +1000 6/10/2002, Adam Todd wrote:
>>I think I'm still using IE4 and NS 4. I just want a browser that reads
>>HTML :) Not everything else! I don't have time to wait!
>Some of the later offerings have a number of features I like ... I often
>whack a number of tabs in Mozilla for example that I can open whilst I'm
>browsing that provide me with a basic dynamic link to the site I've got
>the tab up and running for. Think of it as a site ticker on steroids.
ROFL! Nice feature, but something I'm not likely to use as my browsing
work generally falls to reading the SMH whilst getting a dozen phone calls,
using TUTOS, whilst taking a dozen phone calls, and checking my own web
site(s) whilst being harasses by cast and crew :)
But I can see the benefit in the way you describe it.
>by a lot of these traps. Finally, for its in-built data packeting, Apple
>uses AppleTalk. It's impossible for someone to transparently hack a Mac
>using an open IP port, because during the conversion process the IP
>packets become AppleTalk packets ... which are subject to numerous
>inherent controls in the system and application which is using them.
I wasn't aware of that, but then it makes sense since I have to use Mac-Lan
to establish file sharing. I'll have to get AppleTalk running on my Nix
server one day in the future :)
>Apple's file sharing and Web sharing system is pretty tight as well.
I rather noticed this with the iMac we have here. Nice machine, pain in
the, well, it does what it was designed to do and keeps people from playing
with it :)
>half a zillion traps in its Cocoa and Darwin GUI's and API's, and serious
>USR based permissions required to make any registry changes. It would be
>hackable to the extent that any UNIX is hackable ... but BSD does have a
>name as the most secure UNIX there is, and has only been hit by two OS
>level worms and no viruses that I know of.
Bottom line is anything that has a legal entry can have an illegal
entry. But it's a lot harder from the other end of a cable and even harder
if people just used Address translation!
>protection, the system directory protection and the like ... and only a
>crazy man would fail not to set them to high and only log in as 'master
>user' when he absolutely had to ... before he even started using the System.
I honestly think that goes without saying on any serious and need to be
secure NIX system.
>I had a love affair with Solaris for years ... but now I'm seriously
>getting to like MacOS X. Even more user friendly than Solaris ... and
>still retains all the NIX power, stability and features.
Oh shuddup! I'm still trying to get my G4's :) I understand I'll NEVER
have Final Cut Pro 3 crash on a G4 with OSX :)
(I did crash the iMac with FCP3 under OS9, but I really wasn't being nice
to FCP and what I was doing!)
>>>That said, the PC does some things better than the Mac and Solaris boxes
>>Yeah, but then a Mac does something better than a PC :) I haven't used
>>Solaris in a LONG time, not really suited for my small environment.
>True ... all OS's have their different strengths and weaknesses. Windows, for
YEAH! Just a damn shame Apple don't jump the PC band wagon.
>example, is in many ways a marvel of software engineering ...
>and I mean that.
Yep, I agree. Considering I've still got a copy of a beta what was to be
Windows 2, not only has it come a long way, but it's changed the entire way
we interface. I still like my NCURSES (or even QBASIC!) text screens
>What other OS that you know of can run on so many different hardware
>configurations (admittedly within the relatively loose Wintel specification),
Ouch! Well I dunno. What other operating systems do you knw chew up disk
space just for the operating system! I can build a Linux Kernel on a
floppy to do a fair bit. Windows doesn't have that adaptability.
And now, it's extremely inefficient to remote boot a windows
workstation. At least with 3.11 you could afford the 2 minute remote boot
I wasn't going to try it with the base 95MB Windows 95!
>as reliably as it does (I know it's Crash City ... but the fact that you
>get any sort of reliability at all out of it is astonishing given the
>plethora of hardware and software conditions it has to cope with) and is
>as extensible to new and changing standards (via drivers and the like)?
Stability comes down to limiting what you load. I have only the drivers
for the date period of the hardware. I don't load every application that
flies my way, although my NT workstation is looking a bit sad right now,
but it hasn't been re-installed since, gee, I can't even tell, well before
2000. I normally replace the C drive every year and install fresh, but
been a tad busy.
My NT workstation also has a 100% uptime, although the last six months I
seem ot have a problem where Explorer will crash, remove the desk top and
task bar and then reload. All the startup apps fly off even though they
are already running.
But it's so rare I don't care.
My NT4 server has been running since early 1998 and never missed a
beat. It's just a file server and print server. Nothing else. Been
meaning to ditch it in favour of a Linux box for enhanced usage. Time is
>Apple and Sun had it easy ... they control the hardware specification.
Yes, and tend to be more stable for the grunt.
>>>database comes to mind.
>>PC? Database? I'd go with MySQL on a Nix system :) OK, perhaps you
>>mean interface - Access? The worst evil, but very useful.
>My SQL is OK, but it's a pain to develop in, and doesn't have what I'd
>call a top-of-the-line data engine.
Well, now you're talking Oracle!
>Access is crud ... and MS should stop selling it.
<smile> As a database yes, as an interface, it's all I can find that works
and seems stable.
>No, I mean the ability to run and develop using little puppies like DB2,
>Oracle, MS-SQL, Sequent,
That's VERY high end. I had a time where I was fighting between Oracle and
MS-SQL. Pros and Cons each way, initially settled on MS-SQL, but found a
con that was more of a problem than the loss of a feature in Oracle so we
cut over. I don't do anything that sophisticated any more. MySQL, perl
scripts, Access and a good Apache Web server (not using PHP) works well for me!
>and mess with all the different app servers and the like that are
>available to access them. It's the simple fact that there's so much choice
This is true.
>And MDAC and little standards like ODBC, OLE-Db and ' some of the .NET
>data technologies are MS initiated and pretty cool. Of course after I've
>developed same I'd whack them on a serious server or whatever ... but just
>being able to handle the multiplicity of choice for development on a
>single machine is
ODBC is very useful. I sometimes wish the interfaces under Linux were so
selectable. But I've chosen a suitable platform that is not over the top,
but not restrictive in what I feel we'll need to do here in the next few
years, at least since changing my overall business and career objectives!
I just wish I had someone who could do the development for me!
BTW it's REALLY good to see someone throw all the variables up and show the
value in each. As I said, I'm not a Mac guru (yet), but I know form a user
(and admin technical perspective) the benefits.
>I find other low end database options that make Access look rather poor.
>Filemaker for example comes at an Access price,
I didn't like Filemaker. Found it clunky. That was a few years ago now,
it might be better. Problem is I got my Access licenses in bulk and it
works. I've got spares so I'm not in a rush to upgrade.
>other data sources via ODBC, JDBC and other API's ... and the one CD
>provides a database that will run on MacOS 9, MacOS X, Windows 98, NT and
>2000 and LINUX from memory.
Hmmm, now that's starting to sound nice :)
>In native Windows it also produces much nicer native system front ends
>than Access ... which is very boring and very MS.
<sigh> That point I totally agree with.
>With Filemaker you can paint like Picasso, with Access you can do things
>the MS way only. Add to that the fact that with Access (when constructing
>Queries or relationships for example) in the normal MS way you have to
>burrow down through fifty levels of damn menu just to get something done
>... whereas these common database operations are simply accessed in FM.
I haven't had that problem. Sometimes you have to burrow through queries,
but I rarely use the menus! (Maybe I'm sloppy in Access? I never wanted
to learn it!)
>No decisions about little database maintenance numbers like indexing (it
>auto-indexes related fields and will auto index fields on the fly for
>example if a major query is made to it based on that field), and can
>handle quite large files with ease. (Up to 50 open files, each file
>limited to 2 gigabytes in size.)
OK, this might be where I get off. As I'm linking to a MySQL server I
don't see much of the database structure in Access.
I even create my queries in mysql's runtime and then paste them into access
and occasionally find a major access weakness :)
Only other thing I do is create forms and reports. SIMPLE ones. :)
>believe, I often recommend Filemaker to them. It doesn't do a number of
>things that high end database packages do, and it may not be as quick on a
>data find and sort of DB2 or Oracle ... then again Access's data engine
>since the excellent version 2 one has become the slowest I have ever seen
>... but it costs bugger all and will handle 99% of your needs.
Again, I don't use the Access database engine. It's just a query client for
the SQL Server :)
I can't even recall using Access Tables for anything. I'll agree Access is
slow if you build a local table of anything over 20,000 records and start
sorting. But MySQL has temp tables :)
>>I tend to build to order nowadays ... I go to a small PC shop and tell
>>them exactly what I want in it - from the make and model of the
>>motherboard, the CPU, the memory, the sounds and graphics cards,
>>installed drives and the like. I go for standards and quality in
>>everything ... I've found that you gets what you pays for in PC
>>construction and it doesn't pay to cut corners.
Yep. Totally agree. And I buy ALL components at the same time. Not six
>>The Mac's can be quite playful thought too. Don't they accept standard PCI?
>Mmm ... have done for years - they gave away that stupid Nubus
>architecture nearly 7 years ago.
I vaguely remember that :)
>They also use ATA/IDE drives now (a backward move in my opinion - I like
>SCSI and RAID),
Yes and no. Cheap drives. Good on Firewire cables :) SCSI is better but
not always affordable. I have an edit server here with more than 400 Gogs
of drive. I'd love to build a video file server on a 1 Gig ether using
only SCSI with a capacity of around 2,000 Gigs, but it's way out of this
(Buy copies of "Something About AJ" then I'll be able to afford it!)
>USB, 6 pin Firewire (which is way cool),
Yep, using both on the iMac. Although the 100 Mbps Ethernet doesn't seem
to do that speed :)
>native 802.11b wireless networking, in-built flat screens in their latest
>consumer desk-tops, and CD and DVD writers as standard.
Ahh, the pleasures of well put together hardware, but a little pricey.
>I'm way impressed with their current consumer line-up (iMacs and iBooks)
>but not so keen on their current range of top-end desk-tops.
iBooks are incredible. Way ahead of the PC based Notebooks. Although I
think the IBM notebooks are top of the Intel arena.
I'm fairly happy with the desk-top G4 range :) It's my only choice!
>Apparently they're working on that new super fast IDE replacment standard
>which Intel is promoting, and Firewire 2 (800 Mbs powered external bus)
>and Firewire 3 (1600 Mbs) should be released in Mac models over the next
<sigh> So we can dump Ethernet :)
How about a SCSI array with a Firewire interface :)
>They're also looking at switching CPU suppliers from Motorola to IBM ...
>which has developed a new multi-core (think 4 CPU's on the one chip) Power
>chip with full Altivec (think a 256 bit DSP) capabilities on-board.
Hmmm. Won't that mean a lot of software changes and a lack of backward
>About the only thing I haven't seen in their plans is USB 2 ... but then
>again, in practice Firewire is much faster and more extensible anyway.
Almost. I haven't seen multiple devices hanging off Firewire yet. I was
of the understanding it's one device per port? If this isn't the case,
then USB is really not required. Given time, I'm sure keyboards, mice and
graphics tablets will all be Firewire.
I'd be worried about Buss sharing and interrupts though. Especially as our
use of exclusively for Video.
>Yeah, but all the things in Exchange fall over if you don't use the MS
>client ware. Personally, in a corporate sense, I wouldn't install Exchange
>in a fit. If you want e-mail and integrated doc management and PIM ...
>think Lotus Notes/cc;Mail/Domino. Secure, quick, and works straight out
>the box ...
Oh I have a thing about Lotus Notes. The first version gave me so much
>does what it says. Exchange has to have so many extensions and additions
>and packages added to it
Ahhh, but this is the Microsoft way! They are preparing us for "module
purchasing." Instead of buying a "package" that you install off a disk,
you'll pay for each driver and module you download!
>Factor in the various maintenance, administration and security issues ...
>and Exchange starts to look very suss as an enterprise e-mail alternative.
One only needs to see the security issues to avoid Exchange!
>And as you say, if you're not worried about integration ... good old
>SendMail, any old IMAP server, a much cheaper document management package
>and a net-workable PIM licensed at about $20 per machine can be set up to
>do all that Exchange/Outlook can do ... and far far more.
Ceypus Fax works REALLY well too! You'll need Hylafax on your Nix box, but
it's all integrated nicely! Prints from Windows no problem. Even better
with the Premier PBX, inbound faxes are email'ed in PDF format to the
correct recipient! Or I can view my faxes from a browser any time :)
OK, I had some time on my hands!
For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/