[ale] OT: Re: posting to Linux mail list

[Geoffrey]

Greg wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: ale-bounces at ale.org
>> [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey Sent: Tuesday,
>> December 30, 2003 9:21 PM To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts Subject:
>> Re: [ale] OT: Re: posting to Linux mail list
>> 
>> 
>> Greg wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, VB is cheap, easy , plenty of developers (I think it is the
>>> # 1 language by number of developers) and did I mention it is
>>> cheap ?
>> 
>> Cheap???  Let's see, what are the prereqs for running VB?  Oh,
>> yeah, one of those M$ OS's, running about $200+ for one box.
> 
> 
> 
> If you already have it, then the cost is $0.00. That's it - nada,
> zilch, nothing. *IF* you want to buy into .NET, then it is a
> different story, but most companies have already paid for their OS's.
> Also, cheap refers to the developer cost, also.

We've all seen the continuous upgrade merry-go-round Microsoft tries to 
force on people.  You can't ignore those costs.  Further, you can't just 
upgrade your OS.  If you upgrade to XP, you'll have to upgrade Office as 
well.  That's quite expensive.

>>> It interacts with other VB stuff (all of MS office) and it is 
>>> object-oriented (no, not object based).
>> 
>> Oh, cheap again, let's see, MS Office, that's about $400.
> 
> 
> Most companies have already paid for Office, unless they have fallen
> for this silly "We must upgrade simply because we must have the
> latest" philosophy.  Upgrading without a reason is silly, and I would
> say that the majority of places dont' need to upgrade.

What?  All companies have historically done this.  It's just of late 
that companies are starting to question the upgrade merry-go-round. 
With Microsoft dropping support for their older OS's companies have 
little choice.

>>> It can easily access and use C++ and Windows API's is scalable to
>>> probably about 90% of what business's require.
>> 
>> I could say the same for perl and C.
> 
> 
> perl and c can access Windows API's ?  And what gui do you use for
> perl ? I don't know as I have only used it for small scripts on
> linux.

I wasn't referring to perl and C in Windows, but C can certainly access 
Windows APIs.  As for perl, how about perl and .NET?

http://www.activestate.com/Products/Visual_Perl/

>>> It is not a scripting language (like HTML)
>> 
>> No, HTML is not a scripting language, it is a markup language.
>> 
>> 
>>> but a full development language.  It represents RAD at it's best
>>> and is only as insecure as the coders make it. Many apps are not
>>> necessarily networkable and many companies are not connected to
>>> the net (or weren't), so the security thing is not a huge thing
>>> in some instances.
>> 
>> Scripting language is one that does not compile to a binary.  As I 
>> recall, VB requires an additional dll to run, thus it would be
>> similar to Perl in that it needs an engine.  Correct me if I'm
>> wrong, as I don't stay on top of the M$ stuff.
> 
> 
> VB compiles to a binary, yes.

Does it not require an additional dll?  Is it truly an executable?  I 
really don't know.  Just the same, C is definitely compiled to a binary 
and Perl can be as well.

>>> Rewriting is many times not an issue, as many clients will point
>>> out. Money, politics, and the what-if-Linux-changes (lib problems
>>> anyone ?) points make re-writing not a choice for many
>>> businesses.
>> 
>> Then they are not looking at the bigger picture, which is what too
>> many companies do these days.
> 
> 
> If you only need a few changes (or none at all) then do nothing. I
> would only change if there is a reason.  Just because there is
> something else new does not constitute a reason.

Agreed, but look at all the companies that continue the M$ upgrade 
merry-go-round.

> I don't think that just because MS dumps an OS is reason for a
> company to dump it also.  My wife will continue to run Windows 98.
> Yes, NT has gone to (as the certs for it, even though many companys
> still use it).  RH, Suse, and OpenBSD end of lifes stuff too, so if
> you want support, hire a small consultant.

I can tell you that large companies are not going to continue to operate 
on an unsupported OS.  Further, you can't compare the lack of closed 
source Microsoft OS to open source OSs.  With Microsoft, you don't have 
the opportunity to fix it yourself.  What is a consultant going to do 
for you with an OS that's no longer supported?  If he/she finds a bug in 
windows 98, she/he still will not be able to get it fixed either.

>> So, no support for your OS.
> 
> 
> Why not hire a small consultant (for less $) who will come on site as
>  opposed to some mega $$ MS/RH support contract.  Of course, if you
> hire good folks, then you don't need a support contract so much.  It
> just varies. It really does.

You still miss the point of getting a bug fixed in an unsupported OS. 
If you go to M$ with a bug in windows 98, they are not going to fix it. 
  You're stuck with it.  If you find a bug in SuSE 7.3, you at least 
have the opportunity to fix the bug yourself, or hire a contactor to do 
the same.  A consultant is not going to be able to fix a bug in an 
unsupported Microsoft OS period.

>> Perl can easily do pretty much all you've defined VB can do, and
>> more. I can write to an Access db and create excel spreadsheets
>> with Perl.  What other db engines (I know that's a stretch, calling
>> Access a db) can VB write to?  Perl can write to: Oracle, Informix,
>> Postgresql, Mysql, Access, and ODBC compliant DB.
> 
> 
> As can VB (well, don't know about Postgresql these days)  I know this
> is scary, but *a lot* of businesses still use Access.  Really - and
> they are big businesses ... running apps that deal with folks $$$$.

And do some research.  Access is so easily corrupted it's ridiculous to 
even consider it a db.

>> Who the hell really cares if you can VB with Word?  Who really does
>>  that?  Most  businesses use Word for just what it is, a word
>> processor.
> 
> 
> Many businesses. You can set up Word to work with databases for form
> letters and such.  Need to set up a program to make letters based on
> business logic ? - use VBA.  It basically puts a nice face (Office)
> on programming. And you can use the VBA object library to do neat
> stuff as opposed to writing more code.  There is a whole developer
> community dedicated to programming in VBA (VB for Applications).
> Remember Bill started out as a Basic programmer, so yrs ago, MS move
> all Office apps to VB.  You can open up a dev environment in Excel or
> Access and go at it, using the programs objects. I have seen more
> Access and Excel apps, but Word, PowerPoint, and Outlook support this
>  (and thus the first security holes were born).

I rest my case on your last statement. :)  Quick and easy solutions that 
ignore the security implications are not the right solutions.

> My overall point is that many businessess don't need to change to the
> latest software (whether OS or MS based).  Change without reason is
> silly, though using MS because it makes clients sleep better is
> better than suggesting an OS solution and making folks uneasy.  The
> result is often throwing the OS solution out (a write off of much
> $$$), a prejudice towards OS solutions, and implementing a MS
> solution but with the loss in time and perhaps at a greater cost, as
> often folks will use it as an excuse to buy an upgrade to .NET (lock
> in hell as .NET is to change several times in the next couple of yrs.
> But RH I think will do the same thing.) when they could have gotten 
> away with a few hours of a VB programmers time.

Any business making such decisions is not looking at the big picture. 
Most businesses are operating that way, unfortunately.  The missing 
piece of the puzzle is the difference between forced upgrades by 
Microsoft because you don't have a choice if you stay that route.  At 
least with the open source solutions, you can fix a bug yourself or get 
a consultant to do so.  Even with a good consultant you're not going to 
get a fix into a OS Microsoft is no longer supporting.  That is huge.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey	esoteric at 3times25.net

Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft