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

[Greg]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org]On Behalf Of
> Geoffrey
> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 9:48 AM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] OT: Re: posting to Linux mail list
>
>
> 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.

I am currently running Office 97 on Windows 2k at home and I don't have any
reason to change. The wife runs Windows 98 and Office 97.  We will not
upgrade.  I don't know if XP would force Office users to upgrade or if you
can run old Office's on XP, but I dont' know why you would want to run XP
anyway.  I would suggest not upgrading unless there is a reason - and a
really good one at that.

>
> >>> 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.

True, but I would really examine the reason to upgrade at all.  What is it
that is different from business yesterday than today or tomorrow ?

>
> >>> 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/

.NET ? ackkkkk sptteee. ok, it is nice in some respects from a developers
perspective (more object based, nice easy greasy little ways to do many
things that were choresome before) but I think it will change much in the
next 4 years or so.  Can't perl be run with nice little windows and such so
that the "write once run forever" can be true ?



>
> >>> 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.

True. But I have seen several that are not - they are still running NT 4 and
Visual Studio 6.

>
> > 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.

True.  But if you do the same stuff day in and day out and you have a static
environment and change to anything is not needed.  There is a state agency
still running on Windows 3.1.  It runs a system that basically is all they
do (store docs). No change needed here.  I think Linux is only an option
when you change due to a systemic reason - a new required functionality that
is OS oriented (or you can just use Perl/Java/VB/whatever) to the old
Windows 98 system.

>
> >> 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.

Yes, and I had a boss who spent many hrs fixing it (after work) - despite
the company having a huge Oracle db and many db's that could have converted
it, as well as a web developer to put a nice front end on it.  I dunno - I
guess it was the control thing. *I* couldn't explain it.

>
> >> 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.

Well, if you are not connected to outside sources, then the security thing
is moot.


>
> > 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.

True.  Like I said, if you are upgrading your OS for a reason, you need to
look at everthing.  At that point a small VB/whatever patch will not work.
Linux, the MS merry-go-round and I think Sun had a system (Sun Rays ?) that
was a pretty good idea based on using terminals (with really nice screens)
and a central computer, but it died a horrible death.

I think that for "write once run forever" apps irrespective of OS perl,
java, tcl/tk, and now even KDE's stuff could be an answer.

But for niche users, their app has them MS bound.  A good example is CAD.
AutoCAD is only run on MS and now requires Win2K or XP.  I think someone in
the early parts of the thread mentioned OCR stuff.  Some others gave other
examples. I am sure that there are many apps - medical, financial, and such
where the user is application (not OS) bound and would use Linux if it would
run on Linux.  My architect friend had to install Win2K since the newest
AutoCAD won't run on Windows 98 - and he needs to be able to read the latest
AutoCAD formatted files.




>
> --
> Until later, Geoffrey	esoteric at 3times25.net
>
> Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>