[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 5:28 PM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] OT: Re: posting to Linux mail list
>
>
> Greg wrote:
> >
> >> Geoffrey
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> As I understand it, the older Office products will not run on XP.  Also,
> you can't compare your usage to the generic office drone.  You're much
> more knowledgable, whereas corporations seem to be on the "upgrade cause
> it's there" path.

True, though I swear I don't understand it or even the "we need support"
when you only call once a year but pay $$$$ - and then it could be for
something that will not change or can't change.

>
> >> 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 ?
>
> Agreed.  But then why did people ever leave Windows 3.11??

Crappy assed gui and I think no plug and play.  Windows 95 was a huge
upgrade (and worth it) but it still was not as good as MacOS (but a hell of
a lot cheaper to run). I think Windows 98 added stability, but I cannot
remember.

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

works with Visual Studio .NET.  $295 ??  ack.

> >
> >
> > .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 ?
>
> perltk

I went to http://www.pconline.com/~erc/perltk.htm and saw all of the stuff
for a simple window.  Jeepers.  Too much code for a simple window.  What is
needed for developers is a simple window object that does not need all of
this code - like VB. With simple pull down boxes on an IDE that will add a
menubar and it's contents.  A dev environment that is simple and elegant
like the language.  Better than VB.  Comes with libs that run on all
hardware and OS's and is perpetually backward compatible (must be part of
mission statement or something like Debian's structure).  Something simple
and elegant that can be taught to high schoolers.  Makes gui's easily and
effortlessly.  Able to connect to db's with a single click.  Controls access
and secure.  Comes with stuff pre-done for often used code purposes like
input validation, db connection, etc...  Updateable like apt-get.  Free like
linux (not BSD) to keep corporations from horning in too much.  Powerful IDE
like Visual Studio.  Can take any compiler you give it a path to and run it
against any code you wrote in the IDE like TextPad or plugins for Visual
Studio or Eclipse (?). Whether the MS CLR, perl, python, C, C++, whatever
you got.

Yes, this would be a killer app.

>
> The 'write once run forever' is a spin (I guess?) off the Java 'write
> once run everywhere?'
>
> > 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.
>
> I would disagree.  It makes sense to move to a platform that is more
> secure and more stable.
>
> >> 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.
>
> I think I call that stupidity.

Well, it did make for some humour.

>
>
> > Well, if you are not connected to outside sources, then the security
> > thing is moot.
>
> True, but who isn't connected in some way?  Who will still be standalone
> in the future?  Very few if they want to survive.
>
> > 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.
>
> Agreed, although I don't know how much kde brings to the game.
>
> > 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.
>
> Understood, but these are unique needs.  The general office complex can
> get buy with a Microsoft-less environment.

I would agree if requirements were written in functionality or even if
separated.  If security is a reason for a Windows/NT place to upgrade I
would just suggest a *nix firewall.  Total cost is cheap box + time.
Perhaps some stuff on the firewall to take out any dangerous attachments and
able to run on a 2 nic or 3 nic (if a public net is needed) old box with
good firewall rules.  Maybe a corporate version of a virus checker with
updates for all workstations.  Take out the floppy drives in all of the pc's
so stuff doesn't get brought in from home and lock the cases. If any
software is under service contract replace it with OS stuff (if it breaks/is
unreliable) or blow off the service contracts.  Many consultants love
maintenance contracts since even on MS stuff there aren't enough calls to
justify the cost.  What I think is bought in many (not all) cases is peace
of mind.

Greg

>
> --
> 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
>