Re: Should we stay with M$
From: Jason Dixon (jason_at_dixongroup.net)
Date: 09/11/03
- Previous message: Ed Wilts: "Re: WU-FTP config problem"
- In reply to: Martin Moss: "Re: Should we stay with M$"
- Next in thread: Martin Moss: "Re: Should we stay with M$"
- Reply: Martin Moss: "Re: Should we stay with M$"
- Reply: Dave Ihnat: "Re: Should we stay with M$"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Red Hat Mailing List <redhat-list@redhat.com> Date: 11 Sep 2003 09:52:04 -0400
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 08:34, Martin Moss wrote:
> Security MS = bad, linux=good,
> Access is not a Database Server, unlike SQL Server, mysql is.
> All software you could want to use on linux is free, as is Linux, unless you
> wish to purchase a set of CD's. MS is not.
> Apache Vs IIS, no competition.
Stop. Your response is nothing but pure fanboyism. This type of
advocacy is ignorant and does nothing to advance OSS in the industry.
Allow me to retort:
> Security MS = bad, linux=good
Any OS is only as secure as its Systems Administrator. I'm not going to
start my typical rant here, I already ran through this with Didier weeks
ago. Yes, MS has a terrible history track. So do other OS's. There
are a number of points to consider: Exploit creators generally focus on
Microsoft because it's the most prevalent (and worst administered) OS;
Red Hat generally has just as many patches released as Windows (if not
more), BUT... ; Red Hat also distributes much more software (3rd party)
with their system than Windows... it would be impossible for them to
audit all of it; etc, etc.
What trend does this reveal? Bugs will continue to exist, exploits will
continue to happen. The one advantage Linux/OSS has over the
proprietary market is a *proven* track record of fast patching. *This*
is where Linux/OSS excels. Nevertheless, you're not helping anyone out
by painting with broad strokes.
> Access is not a Database Server, unlike SQL Server, mysql is.
I'm not sure whether you're trying to say "Access and SQL Server both
suck, MySQL is good", or "Access sucks, both SQL Server and MySQL are
good". If the latter, you're ok. If the former, you're actually quite
wrong. While I would *never* suggest that a client run SQL Server, it
actually competes nicely with a number of other popular commercial
RDBMS's. It *is* an enterprise database, like it or not. And yes, it
too has a terrible security record.
> All software you could want to use on linux is free, as is Linux,
> unless you wish to purchase a set of CD's. MS is not.
Free as in speech, not as in beer.
> Apache Vs IIS, no competition.
I won't argue this point except to say, it matters on the OP's
circumstances. Apache does not have support for full-blown ASP
programming. If that's what their department insists on using (doesn't
sound like it), they're stuck with IIS. Personally, I love Apache...
even on Windows. I've taken full-blown Perl web applications written in
CGI::Application (with HTML::Template inheritance) and ported it
trivially from Linux/Perl/Apache/MySQL to Windows2000/ActiveState
Perl/Apache/MySQL. Coooool.
Martin, I don't mean to sound patronizing, but we have to advocate
Linux/OSS in a responsible manner. Please check this out in your spare
time:
http://www.datasync.com/~rogerspl/Advocacy-HOWTO-5.html
-- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
- Previous message: Ed Wilts: "Re: WU-FTP config problem"
- In reply to: Martin Moss: "Re: Should we stay with M$"
- Next in thread: Martin Moss: "Re: Should we stay with M$"
- Reply: Martin Moss: "Re: Should we stay with M$"
- Reply: Dave Ihnat: "Re: Should we stay with M$"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
