Discussion:
F$UNIQUE library function
(too old to reply)
yyyc186
2008-01-13 18:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Here's a little oddity. I don't find a SYS$ version of F$UNIQUE like
most of the other lexical functions have. Did HP once again breech
the tradition or did they stick it in a LIB$ function some where?
V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
2008-01-13 20:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Here's a little oddity. I don't find a SYS$ version of F$UNIQUE like
most of the other lexical functions have. Did HP once again breech
the tradition or did they stick it in a LIB$ function some where?
SYS$CREATE_UID
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

http://tmesis.com/drat.html
Jan-Erik Söderholm
2008-01-13 21:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
Post by yyyc186
Here's a little oddity. I don't find a SYS$ version of F$UNIQUE like
most of the other lexical functions have. Did HP once again breech
the tradition or did they stick it in a LIB$ function some where?
SYS$CREATE_UID
If I understand F$UNIQUE correctly, it generates the same
number (or "unique identifier") as is described here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUID , right ?

It's just the standard formatting in 8-4-4-4-12 groups
that is "missing", but very easily added, of course :

$ uid = f$unique()
$ uuid = f$extract(0,8,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(8,4,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(12,4,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(16,4,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(20,12,uid)
$ show sym *uid
UID = "E235872B0008098611DCC2228494C2C5"
UUID = "E235872B-0008-0986-11DC-C2228494C2C5"
$

Jan-Erik
V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
2008-01-13 21:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Post by V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
Post by yyyc186
Here's a little oddity. I don't find a SYS$ version of F$UNIQUE like
most of the other lexical functions have. Did HP once again breech
the tradition or did they stick it in a LIB$ function some where?
SYS$CREATE_UID
If I understand F$UNIQUE correctly, it generates the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUID , right ?
It's just the standard formatting in 8-4-4-4-12 groups
$ uid = f$unique()
$ uuid = f$extract(0,8,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(8,4,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(12,4,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(16,4,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(20,12,uid)
$ show sym *uid
UID = "E235872B0008098611DCC2228494C2C5"
UUID = "E235872B-0008-0986-11DC-C2228494C2C5"
$
F$unique() invokes SYS$CREATE_UID. SYS$CREATE_UID accepts a vector of
4 longwords. SYS$CREATE_UID was introduced when transaction services
were incorporated into VMS. The 4 longwords (16 bytes, 128 bits) can
represented by 32 hexadecimal characters. Introducing the hyphens (-)
at the appropriate locations creates the familiar 36 character UUID.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

http://tmesis.com/drat.html
FredK
2008-01-14 03:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Not exactly.

SYS$CREATE_UID creates a valid UUID/GUID as per the standards. It returns a
binary Octaword that can be directly used. However, the display or "wire"
format of a UUID/GUID is broken into fields - some of which are
byte-swapped. The point being, that if you see a text version of a UUID you
cannot simply transpose it directly into a binary Octaword. I learned this
the hard way...

I believe that F$UNIQUE returns the UID by simply converting the octaword to
hex - so do not just add dashes and expect ot to be a valid wire format
UUID. However, the value will still be unique.



// GUID tutorial:
//
// GUIDs are described using what is called a "wire format" which is
displayed
// as a combination of five fields describing a 16-byte field. The EFI
partition
// GUID for example is published as:
//
// C12A7328-F81F-11D2-BA4B-00A0C93EC93B
//
// To store this in memory, ignore the dashes and chop it up into 6
// fields.
//
// o The first 8 hex digits (32 bits)
// o The next 4 hex digits (16 bits)
// o The next 4 hex digits (16 bits)
// o The next 4 hex digits (16 bits)
// o The next 4 hex digits (16 bits)
// o The next 8 hex digits (32 bits)
//
// 128-bits total
//
// Using the EFI GUID as an example, convert the fields:
//
// C12A7328 is stored as-is to the first uint32
// F81F is stored as-is to the next uint16
// 11D2 is stored as-is to the next uint16
// BA4B is byte-swapped (4BBA) and stored to the next uint16
// 00A0 is byte swapped (A000) and stored to the next uint16
// C93EC93B is byte swapped (3BC93EC9) and stored to the next uint32
//
// Thus you can look at result as the octaword:
//
// 3BC93EC9A0004BBA11D2F81FC12A7328
// (high) (low)
//
// Which of course is a little endian byte stream of:
//
// 28 73 2a c1 1f f8 d2 11 ba 4b 00 a0 c9 3e c9 3b
// (low) (high)
//
// The GUIDs stored as constants here are stored as OCTAWORDS. To
// add a new GUID:
//
// If the GUID was supplied in xxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxx
// format you must convert it using the scheme outlined above into
// an octaword.
//
// If the GUID was generated by SYS$CREATE_UID -- which creates a
// GUID (also known as a UUID) - then you are returned an octaword
// in the correct format.
//
// FYI this is the definition of the EFI GUID (UUID, RFC 4122). This
// matches the SYS$CREATE_UID output which we use for signatures.
//
// Name Offset Length Description
//
// TimeLow 0 4 The low field of
the timestamp.
// TimeMid 4 2 The middle field
of the timestamp.
// TimeHighAndVersion 6 2 The high field of the
timestamp
//
multiplexed with the version number.
// ClockSeqHigh 8 1 The high field of the
clock sequence
//
multiplexed with the variant.
// ClockSeqLow 9 1 The low field of the
clock sequence.
// Node 10 6 The spatially
unique node identifier.
// This
can be based on any IEEE 802
// address
obtained from a network card.
// If no
network card exists in the system,
// a
cryptographic-quality random number
// can be
used.
//
Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
In article
Post by yyyc186
Here's a little oddity. I don't find a SYS$ version of F$UNIQUE like
most of the other lexical functions have. Did HP once again breech
the tradition or did they stick it in a LIB$ function some where?
SYS$CREATE_UID
If I understand F$UNIQUE correctly, it generates the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUID , right ?
It's just the standard formatting in 8-4-4-4-12 groups
$ uid = f$unique()
$ uuid = f$extract(0,8,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(8,4,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(12,4,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(16,4,uid) + "-" + -
f$extract(20,12,uid)
$ show sym *uid
UID = "E235872B0008098611DCC2228494C2C5"
UUID = "E235872B-0008-0986-11DC-C2228494C2C5"
$
Jan-Erik
Arne Vajhøj
2008-02-03 00:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by FredK
SYS$CREATE_UID creates a valid UUID/GUID as per the standards. It returns a
binary Octaword that can be directly used. However, the display or "wire"
format of a UUID/GUID is broken into fields - some of which are
byte-swapped. The point being, that if you see a text version of a UUID you
cannot simply transpose it directly into a binary Octaword. I learned this
the hard way...
I believe that F$UNIQUE returns the UID by simply converting the octaword to
hex - so do not just add dashes and expect ot to be a valid wire format
UUID. However, the value will still be unique.
Does SYS$CREATE_UID create a version 2 UUID ?

Because if it is a version 4 it should not matter whether
it is byte swapped or not.

Arne
FredK
2008-02-04 15:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Endianness matters more when using a published string. We use the method as
described in RFC-4122. When generating the binary octaword, it is a
structure of fields, and so there is no issue. It is when transmitting the
individual fields where the endian problem arises.

Version 1-5 are simply differences in generation method, with type 4 being a
cryptological quality random number as part of the GUID, type 2 being a DCE
security method. If I had to go into the code and guess - it is probably
type 1 (MAC address). But without looking that is just a guess. They all
generate sufficiently unique values - types 3-5 removing any trace of
origin.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by FredK
SYS$CREATE_UID creates a valid UUID/GUID as per the standards. It
returns a binary Octaword that can be directly used. However, the
display or "wire" format of a UUID/GUID is broken into fields - some of
which are byte-swapped. The point being, that if you see a text version
of a UUID you cannot simply transpose it directly into a binary Octaword.
I learned this the hard way...
I believe that F$UNIQUE returns the UID by simply converting the octaword
to hex - so do not just add dashes and expect ot to be a valid wire
format UUID. However, the value will still be unique.
Does SYS$CREATE_UID create a version 2 UUID ?
Because if it is a version 4 it should not matter whether
it is byte swapped or not.
Arne
Richard Maher
2008-01-14 23:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by yyyc186
Here's a little oddity. I don't find a SYS$ version of F$UNIQUE like
most of the other lexical functions have. Did HP once again breech
the tradition or did they stick it in a LIB$ function some where?
As well as sys$create_uid you may want to be aware of: -

call "lib$ascii_to_uid"
using by descriptor the_ascii_bit
by reference the_binary_version
giving sys_status.

and

call "lib$uid_to_ascii"
using by reference the_binary_version
by descriptor the_ascii_bit
giving sys_status.

why their existance has never been documented in the mainstream VMS manuals
escapes me. (I also wish Rdb made use of them when dumping DECdtm
transactions)

Maybe it's like that patch release for VMSINSTAL in 8.2 after HP broke it -
It's just never been "the right thing to do"?

Not too sure how many Kleinsorges (universally accepted units of
"rightness") one needs to get something done at VMS, but I guess if the
people making decisions at middle-management over the last 10 to 15 years
started doing the right thing then there'd be a run on body-bags, so best
just let them continue to do whatever it is they want then?

Regards Richard Maher

PS. *Simply refusing* to fix the bug with $getdti where the full resource
manager name is never returned bigger than the search criterisa was a
particularly nice touch!

PPS. As I've said before, if you want to see what Jim Johnson's been up to
in recent years you may wish to have a look at: -
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=388&SiteID=1

If you're into SOA and maybe curious as to how transactions play a part with
WS-AT and Business Activity transactions then it could well be worth
watching. If, on the other hand, your buddies work in RTR or you're trying
to eliminate some competition for the slush-fund then I guess getting rid of
valuable resources like Jim Johnson and Alan Potter would be "the right
thing to do" :-(

The fact that the same RTR wankers that I complained about ten years ago
(feel free to search this newsgroup for something like "Captain RTR and his
syphilitic hoard of cutthroats") are now positioning their snouts at the
WS-Transaction trough is an absolute disgrace!

Yes VMS needs more and regular DECwindows patch kits and less DECdtm people
(hold on - there hasn't been anyone at DECdtm for about ten years Doh!) Umm,
how can a popular product like ACMS be first outsourced to EDS and now
strategically positioned offshore, yet a domestic presence for DECwindows is
mandated? Which workstations are we selling again?

As I said "Full steam ahead - You're all doing very well" :-(
yyyc186
2008-01-15 04:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Maher
If you're into SOA and maybe curious as to how transactions play a part with
WS-AT and Business Activity transactions then it could well be worth
watching. If, on the other hand, your buddies work in RTR or you're trying
to eliminate some competition for the slush-fund then I guess getting rid of
valuable resources like Jim Johnson and Alan Potter would be "the right
thing to do" :-(
The fact that the same RTR wankers that I complained about ten years ago
(feel free to search this newsgroup for something like "Captain RTR and his
syphilitic hoard of cutthroats") are now positioning their snouts at the
WS-Transaction trough is an absolute disgrace!
Thanks for all of the posts.

I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-20 04:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.

Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?

Arne
yyyc186
2008-01-20 21:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
Arne
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
besides the desktop editions. While I had some problems with one
touchpad on a notebook and a minor glitch with the 64-bit version
(other than SUN not being polite enough to supply an AMD 64-bit Java
plug in) it is the cleanest implementation I have found. Novel will
once again be raped by Microsoft so we should expect SuSE to disappear
from the marketplace in about two years. That is how long it took MS
to get them to kill off DR DOS and DR MDOS. Oracle is going to use
its deep pockets to put Red Hat out of business. The product won't
improve, Red Hat will just go under when Oracle offers to provide full
corporate support for $50/year. Of course, Red Hat won't sell their
proprietary package code to Oracle even when they are going under, and
I don't blame them.

That leaves Ubuntu as the distro to beat. DELL has already started
shipping it on some systems, and quite a few small PC vendors are pre-
loading it now as well.
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-20 22:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
besides the desktop editions.
It has a server edition, but it is not very widely used.
Post by yyyc186
it is the cleanest implementation I have found.
Cleanest in what way ?
Post by yyyc186
Novel will
once again be raped by Microsoft so we should expect SuSE to disappear
from the marketplace in about two years.
So far no signs of that happening.
Post by yyyc186
Oracle is going to use
its deep pockets to put Red Hat out of business. The product won't
improve, Red Hat will just go under when Oracle offers to provide full
corporate support for $50/year. Of course, Red Hat won't sell their
proprietary package code to Oracle even when they are going under, and
I don't blame them.
So far Redhat makes good money on RHEL. They have had some bumps lately,
but they relate mostly to their acquisition of JBoss.

You can see Oracle's current price list here:
http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/els-pricelist.pdf

I doubt they will offer the full service for 50 a year.
Post by yyyc186
That leaves Ubuntu as the distro to beat.
Not really.

In the desktiop market: Ubuntu is leading over Fedora Core and
Mandrivia.

But in the server marker RHEL, SLES and to some extent Debian
battle. Ubuntu is not a major player.
Post by yyyc186
DELL has already started
shipping it on some systems,
True.

Dell sell Ubuntu on desktops and laptops.

But they sell servers with RHEL and SLES.

Arne
yyyc186
2008-01-21 16:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It has a server edition, but it is not very widely used.
It is gaining ground and attention since a lot of companies are
looking at moving their desktops to Ubuntu with OpenOffice.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
it is the cleanest implementation I have found.
Cleanest in what way ?
Stability. Ease of installation. Polish in the automatic update
procedure. Best selection of "standard" applications with default
installation.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Novel will
once again be raped by Microsoft so we should expect SuSE to disappear
from the marketplace in about two years.
So far no signs of that happening.
Lots of signs actually, but to each their own.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/els-pricelist.pdf
I doubt they will offer the full service for 50 a year.
Doubt away. Oracle is going to turn ugly to put Red Hat out of
business. Red Hat won't sell to them and Oracle, like the Borg,
wishes to assimilate. They will slash the support to an absurdly low
value.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
That leaves Ubuntu as the distro to beat.
Not really.
Yes, really.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But in the server marker RHEL, SLES and to some extent Debian
battle. Ubuntu is not a major player.
We shall agree to disagree. I have been doing work for Fortunate 50
and Fortunate 10 clients and have YET to encounter a Red Hat box at
_any_ of their locations or data centers. I have seen Ubuntu on DELL
servers and even HP blades.

Now that Microsoft Windows and HP-UX have trained upper management to
accept outages and system crashes as a way of life, most companies (at
least the ones I'm encountering) are looking to replace both back end
servers and desktops with a single distro to reduce support issues and
overhead.
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-21 22:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It has a server edition, but it is not very widely used.
It is gaining ground and attention since a lot of companies are
looking at moving their desktops to Ubuntu with OpenOffice.
Ubuntu is very widely used as a desktop OS.

I do not consider that good argument for using it as server
OS - on the contrary.
Post by yyyc186
We shall agree to disagree. I have been doing work for Fortunate 50
and Fortunate 10 clients and have YET to encounter a Red Hat box at
_any_ of their locations or data centers. I have seen Ubuntu on DELL
servers and even HP blades.
Have you looked at
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/alliances/en/linux?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz
?
Post by yyyc186
Now that Microsoft Windows and HP-UX have trained upper management to
accept outages and system crashes as a way of life, most companies (at
least the ones I'm encountering) are looking to replace both back end
servers and desktops with a single distro to reduce support issues and
overhead.
But they will not reduce cost.

Desktop requirements and server requirements are too different.

Arne
yyyc186
2008-01-24 15:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Ubuntu is very widely used as a desktop OS.
I do not consider that good argument for using it as server
OS - on the contrary.
Apparently you weren't around in this industry to watch the
progression from Lose 3.1 to Lose NT. Doesn't matter what you
consider a good argument, it is simply how it happens.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Now that Microsoft Windows and HP-UX have trained upper management to
accept outages and system crashes as a way of life, most companies (at
least the ones I'm encountering) are looking to replace both back end
servers and desktops with a single distro to reduce support issues and
overhead.
But they will not reduce cost.
Desktop requirements and server requirements are too different.
Arne
Of course they will reduce cost. They will be moving from software
which requires hundreds if not thousands of dollars to license to
software which costs about $16 for one DVD to be shipped to you if you
don't have the time or bandwidth to download it. They will also
completely eliminate the expense of MS Office and its support contract
along with a lot of other commercial software.

Desktop and server CONFIGURATIONS are different, that does not mean
the OS must be different, it simply means it must be able to be
configured to handle the situation it is placed in.

We have already watched this many times. Do you think an OpenVMS
cluster running business applications actually "needs" DecWindows???
No. That was developed because DEC was trying to sell workstations.
In true DEC marketing fashion they hosed it from beginning to end when
they tried to sell it.

The idea was that the desktop would actually be clustered into the
production cluster so everyone could get to everything. Then
marketing got greedy with the license pricing, the workstations didn't
sell, and DEC was gone.
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-25 03:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Ubuntu is very widely used as a desktop OS.
I do not consider that good argument for using it as server
OS - on the contrary.
Apparently you weren't around in this industry to watch the
progression from Lose 3.1 to Lose NT. Doesn't matter what you
consider a good argument, it is simply how it happens.
I was around.

MS tried that and are now moving in the other direction - the difference
between desktop versions of Windows and server versions of Windows.
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Now that Microsoft Windows and HP-UX have trained upper management to
accept outages and system crashes as a way of life, most companies (at
least the ones I'm encountering) are looking to replace both back end
servers and desktops with a single distro to reduce support issues and
overhead.
But they will not reduce cost.
Desktop requirements and server requirements are too different.
Of course they will reduce cost. They will be moving from software
which requires hundreds if not thousands of dollars to license to
software which costs about $16 for one DVD to be shipped to you if you
don't have the time or bandwidth to download it.
We are discussing server versions of Linux versus desktop versions
of Linux.

Same price.
Post by yyyc186
Desktop and server CONFIGURATIONS are different, that does not mean
the OS must be different, it simply means it must be able to be
configured to handle the situation it is placed in.
The different configs can go rather deep, but yes.

But I would still prefer to get a server OS/config from someone focusing
on that and with real customers that give feedback.

Arne
Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER
2008-01-22 07:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Desktop requirements and server requirements are too different.
But people ignore this (or why did windows reach the datacenters - coming
from the gameconsoles at home via the desktops in office - then?)
and buy them (to reduce to only one desktop _and_ server platform)...
--
Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
Network and OpenVMS system specialist
E-mail ***@langstoeger.at
A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist
Bill Gunshannon
2008-01-22 13:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Desktop requirements and server requirements are too different.
But people ignore this (or why did windows reach the datacenters - coming
from the gameconsoles at home via the desktops in office - then?)
Surely you know the answer to this!! What is the one thing that VMS truly
lacks? MARKETING!!!!

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-23 00:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Desktop requirements and server requirements are too different.
But people ignore this (or why did windows reach the datacenters - coming
from the gameconsoles at home via the desktops in office - then?)
and buy them (to reduce to only one desktop _and_ server platform)...
MS has serious problem with Linux in the server market.

And if you look at the difference between Windows in desktop
and server versions, then I think it is significantly increasing
(well - it was about zero in NT 4.0, so difficult not to).

And it is definitely not an approach I would recommend.

Arne
d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
2008-01-21 13:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
Arne
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
besides the desktop editions. While I had some problems with one
touchpad on a notebook and a minor glitch with the 64-bit version
(other than SUN not being polite enough to supply an AMD 64-bit Java
plug in) it is the cleanest implementation I have found. Novel will
once again be raped by Microsoft so we should expect SuSE to disappear
from the marketplace in about two years. That is how long it took MS
to get them to kill off DR DOS and DR MDOS. Oracle is going to use
its deep pockets to put Red Hat out of business. The product won't
improve, Red Hat will just go under when Oracle offers to provide full
corporate support for $50/year.
If that plan works against Redhat then why wouldn't it work against any Linux
distro including Ubantu. If Redhat falls to Oracle then that is the end of
Linux distributions from anyone other than big companies like Oracle.

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
Post by yyyc186
Of course, Red Hat won't sell their
proprietary package code to Oracle even when they are going under, and
I don't blame them.
That leaves Ubuntu as the distro to beat. DELL has already started
shipping it on some systems, and quite a few small PC vendors are pre-
loading it now as well.
yyyc186
2008-01-21 16:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
If that plan works against Redhat then why wouldn't it work against any Linux
distro including Ubantu. If Redhat falls to Oracle then that is the end of
Linux distributions from anyone other than big companies like Oracle.
Right now Ubuntu distro is just an organization of mostly unpaid
people. It is not a corporation with stock and executives with stock
options (to my knowledge). If someone is willing to live in a cave
and eat what they find, it is pretty difficult to beat them with the
"I work cheaper than you" strategy.
d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
2008-01-21 17:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
If that plan works against Redhat then why wouldn't it work against any Linux
distro including Ubantu. If Redhat falls to Oracle then that is the end of
Linux distributions from anyone other than big companies like Oracle.
Right now Ubuntu distro is just an organization of mostly unpaid
people. It is not a corporation with stock and executives with stock
options (to my knowledge). If someone is willing to live in a cave
and eat what they find, it is pretty difficult to beat them with the
"I work cheaper than you" strategy.
So all of these corporations who are adopting Ubuntu have noone to goto for
a support contract ? The Ubuntu developers don't have an organisation setup to
provide telephone support etc ?
Sorry without that sort of support structure in place lots of corporations
aren't going to touch Ubuntu.


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
sol gongola
2008-01-21 18:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
Post by yyyc186
Post by d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
If that plan works against Redhat then why wouldn't it work against any Linux
distro including Ubantu. If Redhat falls to Oracle then that is the end of
Linux distributions from anyone other than big companies like Oracle.
Right now Ubuntu distro is just an organization of mostly unpaid
people. It is not a corporation with stock and executives with stock
options (to my knowledge). If someone is willing to live in a cave
and eat what they find, it is pretty difficult to beat them with the
"I work cheaper than you" strategy.
So all of these corporations who are adopting Ubuntu have noone to goto for
a support contract ? The Ubuntu developers don't have an organisation setup to
provide telephone support etc ?
Sorry without that sort of support structure in place lots of corporations
aren't going to touch Ubuntu.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
That is not correct, ubuntu is just another linux distribution customized
for some purpose. The differences are not so great that any linux support
organization wouldn't be able to perform maintenance.
yyyc186
2008-01-24 15:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
So all of these corporations who are adopting Ubuntu have noone to goto for
a support contract ? The Ubuntu developers don't have an organisation setup to
provide telephone support etc ?
Sorry without that sort of support structure in place lots of corporations
aren't going to touch Ubuntu.
Well, you can go to http://www.ubuntu.com and click the support link
on the left side of the screen. There are companies providing
commercial support. Most developers get their answers either through
the news groups or the internal Ubuntu forums, but yes, for those who
feel the need to have a phone number where they can be put on
perpetual hold, can actually buy access to one.
V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
2008-01-21 15:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
Arne
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
What is a sever edition? Once you buy and install it, it makes you want
to slash your wrists out of sheer frustration? Sounds to me just like a
Micro$oft product a la Weendoze. :)
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

http://tmesis.com/drat.html
yyyc186
2008-01-21 16:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
What is a sever edition? Once you buy and install it, it makes you want
to slash your wrists out of sheer frustration? Sounds to me just like a
Micro$oft product a la Weendoze. :)
Generally speaking, the "server edition" is a customized installation
package which installs most/all of the products you need as a server,
but leaves out the desktop apps. Ubuntu put a lot of effort into
their customized installations. Ubuntu, KUbuntu, EUbuntu, and the
server edition.
sol gongola
2008-01-21 18:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
Arne
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
What is a sever edition? Once you buy and install it, it makes you want
to slash your wrists out of sheer frustration? Sounds to me just like a
Micro$oft product a la Weendoze. :)
Linux desktops and servers were customized (optimized?) for the purpose
but can be used either way and the missing applications can be added.

When MS has server and desktop editions, they intend server and desktop
use, licensed accordingly. One isn't supposed to be upgradeable to the
other. With windows NT, microsoft even claimied they were two completely
different systems until someone showed that the main difference, besides
the installed applications, were only in the registry settings.
Richard B. Gilbert
2008-01-21 19:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by sol gongola
Post by V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
In article
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
Arne
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
What is a sever edition? Once you buy and install it, it makes you want
to slash your wrists out of sheer frustration? Sounds to me just like a
Micro$oft product a la Weendoze. :)
Linux desktops and servers were customized (optimized?) for the purpose
but can be used either way and the missing applications can be added.
When MS has server and desktop editions, they intend server and desktop
use, licensed accordingly. One isn't supposed to be upgradeable to the
other. With windows NT, microsoft even claimied they were two completely
different systems until someone showed that the main difference, besides
the installed applications, were only in the registry settings.
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
sol gongola
2008-01-21 20:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
Post by sol gongola
Post by V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
In article
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say.
What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
Arne
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
What is a sever edition? Once you buy and install it, it makes you want
to slash your wrists out of sheer frustration? Sounds to me just like a
Micro$oft product a la Weendoze. :)
Linux desktops and servers were customized (optimized?) for the purpose
but can be used either way and the missing applications can be added.
When MS has server and desktop editions, they intend server and desktop
use, licensed accordingly. One isn't supposed to be upgradeable to the
other. With windows NT, microsoft even claimied they were two completely
different systems until someone showed that the main difference, besides
the installed applications, were only in the registry settings.
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Application was a bad word choice. I meant the different pieces of
software (or services) that are present in windows server that are
not present in windows desktop.
Bill Gunshannon
2008-01-21 22:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by sol gongola
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
Post by sol gongola
Post by V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
In article
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say.
What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
Arne
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
What is a sever edition? Once you buy and install it, it makes you want
to slash your wrists out of sheer frustration? Sounds to me just like a
Micro$oft product a la Weendoze. :)
Linux desktops and servers were customized (optimized?) for the purpose
but can be used either way and the missing applications can be added.
When MS has server and desktop editions, they intend server and desktop
use, licensed accordingly. One isn't supposed to be upgradeable to the
other. With windows NT, microsoft even claimied they were two completely
different systems until someone showed that the main difference, besides
the installed applications, were only in the registry settings.
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Application was a bad word choice. I meant the different pieces of
software (or services) that are present in windows server that are
not present in windows desktop.
You were still misinformed.

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Bill Gunshannon
2008-01-21 22:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
Post by sol gongola
Post by V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
In article
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
Arne
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
What is a sever edition? Once you buy and install it, it makes you want
to slash your wrists out of sheer frustration? Sounds to me just like a
Micro$oft product a la Weendoze. :)
Linux desktops and servers were customized (optimized?) for the purpose
but can be used either way and the missing applications can be added.
When MS has server and desktop editions, they intend server and desktop
use, licensed accordingly. One isn't supposed to be upgradeable to the
other. With windows NT, microsoft even claimied they were two completely
different systems until someone showed that the main difference, besides
the installed applications, were only in the registry settings.
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Richard B. Gilbert
2008-01-22 00:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
Post by sol gongola
Post by V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
In article
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
Arne
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
What is a sever edition? Once you buy and install it, it makes you want
to slash your wrists out of sheer frustration? Sounds to me just like a
Micro$oft product a la Weendoze. :)
Linux desktops and servers were customized (optimized?) for the purpose
but can be used either way and the missing applications can be added.
When MS has server and desktop editions, they intend server and desktop
use, licensed accordingly. One isn't supposed to be upgradeable to the
other. With windows NT, microsoft even claimied they were two completely
different systems until someone showed that the main difference, besides
the installed applications, were only in the registry settings.
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
bill
That's what I saw in the companies I worked for that used Windows
servers. (Some used Novell instead). And this was all from four to
fourteen years ago( back to Windows 3.1)! I was not, however, a Windows
support person; the closest I came to that was taking over the
Anti-malware effort at my last employer.
David J Dachtera
2008-01-24 01:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
bill
That's what I saw in the companies I worked for that used Windows
servers. (Some used Novell instead). And this was all from four to
fourteen years ago( back to Windows 3.1)! I was not, however, a Windows
support person; the closest I came to that was taking over the
Anti-malware effort at my last employer.
Oh! You moved them to VMS, right? ;-)

David J Dachtera
DJE Systems
Richard B. Gilbert
2008-01-24 02:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David J Dachtera
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
bill
That's what I saw in the companies I worked for that used Windows
servers. (Some used Novell instead). And this was all from four to
fourteen years ago( back to Windows 3.1)! I was not, however, a Windows
support person; the closest I came to that was taking over the
Anti-malware effort at my last employer.
Oh! You moved them to VMS, right? ;-)
They were already using VMS! That's why I was there. Actually they
were using something like seven different operating systems on six
different hardware platforms, three different databases. . . . A real
hodge-podge; the result of the acquisition of about 25 different
companies during the preceding four or five years! IBM Mainframe,
AS400, Sun SPARC, X86, Macintosh, Alpha

Then they were, themselves, acquired. The new owners were Novell users
and didn't use VMS. That's why I'm no longer there.

VMS was not a desktop O/S there or anywhere else I've been in the last
few years. The last company I worked for that used VMS on the desktop
was the F.W. Dodge division of McGraw-Hill ca. 1998. I believe they
converted to Windows and Unix. They were moving in that direction when
I left.
Bob Koehler
2008-01-24 14:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
Our MS guru says he got it from MicroSoft.
sol gongola
2008-01-24 14:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Koehler
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
Our MS guru says he got it from MicroSoft.
The rule was that if each machine had only one application running
then you only lost one application when the machine went down :)
Bill Gunshannon
2008-01-24 21:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by sol gongola
Post by Bob Koehler
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
Our MS guru says he got it from MicroSoft.
The rule was that if each machine had only one application running
then you only lost one application when the machine went down :)
I have Windows servers that only go down when I tell them to. Go figure.

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Bill Gunshannon
2008-01-24 21:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Koehler
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
Our MS guru says he got it from MicroSoft.
Well, I just looked at my Sharepoint documentation and they have it
running IIS, Sharepoint and MSSql all on the same box. Looks like
MicroSoft doesn't agree.

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Richard B. Gilbert
2008-01-24 22:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Bob Koehler
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
Our MS guru says he got it from MicroSoft.
Well, I just looked at my Sharepoint documentation and they have it
running IIS, Sharepoint and MSSql all on the same box. Looks like
MicroSoft doesn't agree.
bill
I think it might make a big difference WHEN this "rule" was promulgated.
Windows was not always the fine O/S we know today (W/XP not Vista). ;-)
I encountered it ca. 1994 at which point it made a great deal of sense.
Windows 3.1 was current and W/95 and W/NT were waiting in the wings.
These were the days when the help desk wouldn't even talk to you if you
couldn't say that you just now rebooted your system!
Bill Gunshannon
2008-01-24 23:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Bob Koehler
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
Our MS guru says he got it from MicroSoft.
Well, I just looked at my Sharepoint documentation and they have it
running IIS, Sharepoint and MSSql all on the same box. Looks like
MicroSoft doesn't agree.
bill
I think it might make a big difference WHEN this "rule" was promulgated.
Windows was not always the fine O/S we know today (W/XP not Vista). ;-)
I encountered it ca. 1994 at which point it made a great deal of sense.
Windows 3.1 was current and W/95 and W/NT were waiting in the wings.
These were the days when the help desk wouldn't even talk to you if you
couldn't say that you just now rebooted your system!
Yeah, well Win 3.1 and 98 were never server OSes in the first place. But
then, considering how out of touch so many people here seem to be regarding
Unix and everything else not VMS, no surprise they base their understanding
of Windows on something like that. But then, look how out of touch with
the IT world of today VMS is.....

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-25 02:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
I think it might make a big difference WHEN this "rule" was promulgated.
Windows was not always the fine O/S we know today (W/XP not Vista). ;-)
I encountered it ca. 1994 at which point it made a great deal of sense.
Windows 3.1 was current and W/95 and W/NT were waiting in the wings.
Win 3.1 + WfW 3.11 + WinNT 3.1 + WinNT 3.51 out with Win95 + WinNT 4.0
waiting I presume.

(and only the NT versions were servers)

Arne
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-25 02:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Bob Koehler
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
Our MS guru says he got it from MicroSoft.
Well, I just looked at my Sharepoint documentation and they have it
running IIS, Sharepoint and MSSql all on the same box. Looks like
MicroSoft doesn't agree.
SharePoint run in IIS, so they have to be on the same box.

SQLServer can be deployed on the same box or on another box
depending on the sites preferences.

Arne
Bill Gunshannon
2008-01-25 13:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Bob Koehler
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
Our MS guru says he got it from MicroSoft.
Well, I just looked at my Sharepoint documentation and they have it
running IIS, Sharepoint and MSSql all on the same box. Looks like
MicroSoft doesn't agree.
SharePoint run in IIS, so they have to be on the same box.
SQLServer can be deployed on the same box or on another box
depending on the sites preferences.
Yes it can. But the statement here was that it must and that this
requirement came from MicroSoft and I was merely pointing out the
falacy of that notion as MS own instructions include running all
three ont he same box. I am sure I could find other examples but
that was the easiest. Well, here's one more, but people may not
really consider all of these as separate services.
To run Terminal services with ThinClients you need Terminal Services,
DHCP, RIS and you may have to run your own DNS as well. By default
the Server will start all of them on the same machine. And we are
not even addressing all the applications that the ThinClients will
then run from that same server.

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
yyyc186
2008-01-25 14:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
SharePoint run in IIS, so they have to be on the same box.
SharePoint, now THERE is a God-awful product no professional would
have designed, developed, or worked on. That thing must be where the
team from Microsoft Bob went.
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-27 18:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
SharePoint run in IIS, so they have to be on the same box.
SharePoint, now THERE is a God-awful product no professional would
have designed, developed, or worked on. That thing must be where the
team from Microsoft Bob went.
It is getting very popular these days. It seems to meet customers
requirements.

Arne
yyyc186
2008-01-28 09:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
SharePoint run in IIS, so they have to be on the same box.
SharePoint, now THERE is a God-awful product no professional would
have designed, developed, or worked on. That thing must be where the
team from Microsoft Bob went.
It is getting very popular these days. It seems to meet customers
requirements.
Arne
Truth be told, it doesn't meet any requirements other than to inflate
MS income. It is quite a pathetic product which looks more like a
poor imitation of Netware 3.11 than anything else.
Arne Vajhøj
2008-02-02 23:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
SharePoint run in IIS, so they have to be on the same box.
SharePoint, now THERE is a God-awful product no professional would
have designed, developed, or worked on. That thing must be where the
team from Microsoft Bob went.
It is getting very popular these days. It seems to meet customers
requirements.
Truth be told, it doesn't meet any requirements other than to inflate
MS income. It is quite a pathetic product which looks more like a
poor imitation of Netware 3.11 than anything else.
What does a web portal for collaboration and document management
of today have in common with a operating system with build in
file server from the early 1990's ??

Arne
yyyc186
2008-02-03 00:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
What does a web portal for collaboration and document management
of today have in common with a operating system with build in
file server from the early 1990's ??
If that is all you know about Netware, then it would be like someone
trying to explain the sky to a person that had never seen it. Netware
had collaboration with its groupware and other components for years.
By the time 5.x came out (still in the 90's) it was fully IP and Web
based. Oooing and Ahhhing over the pathetic product MS has released
is quite simply unthinkable.
Arne Vajhøj
2008-02-03 03:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
What does a web portal for collaboration and document management
of today have in common with a operating system with build in
file server from the early 1990's ??
If that is all you know about Netware, then it would be like someone
trying to explain the sky to a person that had never seen it. Netware
had collaboration with its groupware and other components for years.
By the time 5.x came out (still in the 90's) it was fully IP and Web
based. Oooing and Ahhhing over the pathetic product MS has released
is quite simply unthinkable.
Netware is an operating system.

I guess you are talking about the application GroupWise.

operating system <> application

A bit difficult to guess that when you write "Netware 3.11" you
really mean "GroupWise 5".

GroupWise includes collaboration and document management. But
it has bigger overlap with Exchange & Outlook than with SharePoint

SharePoint's competitors are the commercial products from IBM,
Oracle, BEA and SAP plus a few open source products.

Arne
yyyc186
2008-02-03 16:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
GroupWise includes collaboration and document management. But
it has bigger overlap with Exchange & Outlook than with SharePoint
SharePoint's competitors are the commercial products from IBM,
Oracle, BEA and SAP plus a few open source products.
Let me hazard a wild guess Arne. Based upon your posts, you went and
got certified in several MS products didn't you?
Arne Vajhøj
2008-02-03 23:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
GroupWise includes collaboration and document management. But
it has bigger overlap with Exchange & Outlook than with SharePoint
SharePoint's competitors are the commercial products from IBM,
Oracle, BEA and SAP plus a few open source products.
Let me hazard a wild guess Arne. Based upon your posts, you went and
got certified in several MS products didn't you?
No.

Never even worked with SharePoint. I am into JSR 168 compliant
portals.

Arne
John Wallace
2008-02-03 22:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
SharePoint run in IIS, so they have to be on the same box.
SharePoint, now THERE is a God-awful product no professional would
have designed, developed, or worked on. That thing must be where the
team from Microsoft Bob went.
It is getting very popular these days. It seems to meet customers
requirements.
Arne
You seem to be assuming that "large installed base" implies that a product
does actually "meet customers requirements". This can be a rash assumption,
especially when in the context of a monopoly supplier with years of
structuring "deals" in order to maintain and even extend that monopoly.
Sharepoint is one of many products bundled with the MS Action Pack, an
excellent "deal" on MS's part (in the UK it's GBP200 per year (per site?),
given the relevant MS certifications), because it makes it financially
uninteresting for MS "partners" (dealers, consultants, etc) to look outside
MS for alternatives to MS products, even if the non-MS alternatives might
sometimes better "meet customer requirements". Readers who aren't aware of
the MS Action Pack may want to look at
https://partner.microsoft.com/40013779 (or wherever) for background.

Regards
John
Arne Vajhøj
2008-02-03 23:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wallace
You seem to be assuming that "large installed base" implies that a product
does actually "meet customers requirements". This can be a rash assumption,
especially when in the context of a monopoly supplier with years of
structuring "deals" in order to maintain and even extend that monopoly.
Sharepoint is one of many products bundled with the MS Action Pack, an
excellent "deal" on MS's part (in the UK it's GBP200 per year (per site?),
given the relevant MS certifications), because it makes it financially
uninteresting for MS "partners" (dealers, consultants, etc) to look outside
MS for alternatives to MS products, even if the non-MS alternatives might
sometimes better "meet customer requirements". Readers who aren't aware of
the MS Action Pack may want to look at
https://partner.microsoft.com/40013779 (or wherever) for background.
Same concept as DSPP.

Arne
John Wallace
2008-02-04 08:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by John Wallace
You seem to be assuming that "large installed base" implies that a product
does actually "meet customers requirements". This can be a rash assumption,
especially when in the context of a monopoly supplier with years of
structuring "deals" in order to maintain and even extend that monopoly.
Sharepoint is one of many products bundled with the MS Action Pack, an
excellent "deal" on MS's part (in the UK it's GBP200 per year (per site?),
given the relevant MS certifications), because it makes it financially
uninteresting for MS "partners" (dealers, consultants, etc) to look outside
MS for alternatives to MS products, even if the non-MS alternatives might
sometimes better "meet customer requirements". Readers who aren't aware of
the MS Action Pack may want to look at
https://partner.microsoft.com/40013779 (or wherever) for background.
Same concept as DSPP.
Arne
Same concept as DSPP? Only if you're ignoring the details...

DSPP: aiui, not intended to be used to run the business on, you need real
licences for that (aiui).

MS Action Pack: run the business on it. See the web pages - you get real
server licences, and real client licences in moderate quantity.

Things they do have in common: requiring some level of commercial
partnership, licences expire annually.

Which one is the better deal? How can they afford it without grossly ripping
off real customers?

hth
John
Arne Vajhøj
2008-02-05 00:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wallace
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by John Wallace
Readers who aren't aware of
the MS Action Pack may want to look at
https://partner.microsoft.com/40013779 (or wherever) for background.
Same concept as DSPP.
Same concept as DSPP? Only if you're ignoring the details...
DSPP: aiui, not intended to be used to run the business on, you need real
licences for that (aiui).
MS Action Pack: run the business on it. See the web pages - you get real
server licences, and real client licences in moderate quantity.
Ah. I see.

Maybe HP should steal that idea !
Post by John Wallace
Which one is the better deal? How can they afford it without grossly ripping
off real customers?
MS have some products they make "some" money on.

Arne
AEF
2008-02-20 13:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
SharePointrun in IIS, so they have to be on the same box.
SharePoint, now THERE is a God-awful product no professional would
have designed, developed, or worked on. That thing must be where the
team from Microsoft Bob went.
We're using it at my company to document our upcoming data-center
move. Yeah, I'm not very impressed with it. It integration with Excel
is clumsy. You have to click your document to get a stupid drop down
menu instead of just selecting it and having a menu already at the
top. Excel lies to you about who has it checked out. I somehow managed
to modify, save, and check-in what Excel told me was a "Read-Only"
version. What the proper procedure for checking a document in and out
is not clear. What it's going to do when you Save or Close is not
clear. Surprise dialog boxes pop up with choices that you think you
already did but are then not sure actually happened, so you have to
open the document again to see if your changes really took. And don't
get me started on navigating the folder tree!!! Yuck.

AEF

yyyc186
2008-01-24 15:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
That is the rule unless you want large publicly visible outages.
Bill Gunshannon
2008-01-24 21:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
That is the rule unless you want large publicly visible outages.
Properly set up Windows boxes work just as well as any other servers.
I don't even remember the last time I had a Windows Server crash.
Come to think of it, my desktops don't either. Maybe it has more to
do with how they are set up then the OS itself.

Oh, and I should probably mention that I don't even like Windows and
so spend as little time messing with it as possible and still I can
set them up to be secure and stable.

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
yyyc186
2008-01-25 01:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Properly set up Windows boxes work just as well as any other servers.
I don't even remember the last time I had a Windows Server crash.
Come to think of it, my desktops don't either. Maybe it has more to
do with how they are set up then the OS itself.
Oh, and I should probably mention that I don't even like Windows and
so spend as little time messing with it as possible and still I can
set them up to be secure and stable.
We have distinctly different experiences then. At my client sites not
a day goes by where at least 5 of them don't need a reboot.
Thankfully I have nothing to do with those hokey little toys. They've
even had people from MS on site hitting the re-set buttons.
sol gongola
2008-01-25 13:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by yyyc186
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
That is the rule unless you want large publicly visible outages.
Properly set up Windows boxes work just as well as any other servers.
I don't even remember the last time I had a Windows Server crash.
Come to think of it, my desktops don't either. Maybe it has more to
do with how they are set up then the OS itself.
Oh, and I should probably mention that I don't even like Windows and
so spend as little time messing with it as possible and still I can
set them up to be secure and stable.
bill
Well that explains you problem. You really need to 'mess' with it :)

To get windows to misbehave, you need to perform multiple
application installs including internet download of shareware
and trial applications even if try to uninstall or delete
afterwards. You gotta load up on dll's and registry entries
that don't go away. That is what many people do to their machines.

Windows crashes often are a result of driver conflicts, memory
leaks, malicious software. Things you wouldn't normally have on
VMS (or *ix). Microsoft make it so easy for an individual to mess
up their system unless it is completely locked down.
Bill Gunshannon
2008-01-25 14:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by sol gongola
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by yyyc186
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
That is the rule unless you want large publicly visible outages.
Properly set up Windows boxes work just as well as any other servers.
I don't even remember the last time I had a Windows Server crash.
Come to think of it, my desktops don't either. Maybe it has more to
do with how they are set up then the OS itself.
Oh, and I should probably mention that I don't even like Windows and
so spend as little time messing with it as possible and still I can
set them up to be secure and stable.
bill
Well that explains you problem. You really need to 'mess' with it :)
To get windows to misbehave, you need to perform multiple
application installs including internet download of shareware
and trial applications even if try to uninstall or delete
afterwards. You gotta load up on dll's and registry entries
that don't go away. That is what many people do to their machines.
What people do to their machines has little to do with the quality
of the OS. If I put Crisco in the engine of my Porsche instead of
motor oil will it be Dr. Ferdinand's fault when the engine siezes?
Post by sol gongola
Windows crashes often are a result of driver conflicts, memory
leaks, malicious software. Things you wouldn't normally have on
VMS (or *ix).
Or on a properly installed and setup MS Server.
Post by sol gongola
Microsoft make it so easy for an individual to mess
up their system unless it is completely locked down.
And if VMS was popular enough to have the installed base that MS does
it, too, would have installations run by incompetent SA's who would
screw it up. Nothing is idiot proof, not even VMS.

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-27 18:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by sol gongola
Microsoft make it so easy for an individual to mess
up their system unless it is completely locked down.
And if VMS was popular enough to have the installed base that MS does
it, too, would have installations run by incompetent SA's who would
screw it up. Nothing is idiot proof, not even VMS.
I doubt that the worst windows admins would be able to
get a VMS system installed, get the apps installed
and get everything running.

Which raises the question: is it bad to make IT systems
so easy to use that people without a clue about IT can
get them up and running ?

Arne
P. Sture
2008-01-28 18:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Which raises the question: is it bad to make IT systems
so easy to use that people without a clue about IT can
get them up and running ?
That's a good question, and I'm not sure that I like the answer.
--
Paul Sture

Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks:
http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-25 02:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
That is the rule unless you want large publicly visible outages.
Lots of Windows servers run multiple apps. Maybe the majority of them.

There are millions of small companies out there using WinSBS (with
either Exchange+IIS eller Exhange+IIS+SQLServer+ISA).

Arne
yyyc186
2008-01-25 14:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
That is the rule unless you want large publicly visible outages.
Lots of Windows servers run multiple apps. Maybe the majority of them.
There are millions of small companies out there using WinSBS (with
either Exchange+IIS eller Exhange+IIS+SQLServer+ISA).
Arne
And there are companies that I've been to who reboot exchange servers
a minimum of 3 times per day because of crashes.
Bill Gunshannon
2008-01-25 14:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
That is the rule unless you want large publicly visible outages.
Lots of Windows servers run multiple apps. Maybe the majority of them.
There are millions of small companies out there using WinSBS (with
either Exchange+IIS eller Exhange+IIS+SQLServer+ISA).
Arne
And there are companies that I've been to who reboot exchange servers
a minimum of 3 times per day because of crashes.
Which may say a lot more about the SA's than about the OS.

bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-27 18:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
That is the rule unless you want large publicly visible outages.
Lots of Windows servers run multiple apps. Maybe the majority of them.
There are millions of small companies out there using WinSBS (with
either Exchange+IIS eller Exhange+IIS+SQLServer+ISA).
And there are companies that I've been to who reboot exchange servers
a minimum of 3 times per day because of crashes.
I think they need a better admin.

That is not the norm.

Arne
yyyc186
2008-01-28 09:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Who told you that rule? Kerry? You were misinformed.
That is the rule unless you want large publicly visible outages.
Lots of Windows servers run multiple apps. Maybe the majority of them.
There are millions of small companies out there using WinSBS (with
either Exchange+IIS eller Exhange+IIS+SQLServer+ISA).
And there are companies that I've been to who reboot exchange servers
a minimum of 3 times per day because of crashes.
I think they need a better admin.
That is not the norm.
Arne
It's the norm for every site I've been too. No, I don't touch the
Windoze boxes, just hear everybody complaining about how Exchange is
down yet again today.
Arne Vajhøj
2008-01-21 22:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
That is the usual story at least.

And it possible is less geared towards multiple usages
than OS's that grew up with terminal users running
dozens of different apps.

But it can do it. And the main reason that it is not
seen so often is the change in the way computers are
used today. The majority of apps are running on the
desktops.

Arne
yyyc186
2008-01-24 15:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard B. Gilbert
ApplicationS??? I was never a Windows Server person but I got the
impression that the rule was one application per server! At the very
least, one application at a time!!
Now they install virtualization software on the Windows Server and run
8+ applications on it. The server isn't any more stable, in fact, it
is less stable and you now have 8 times the outages. But hey! Look
at how much you saved on hardware!!!
V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
2008-01-21 21:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by sol gongola
Post by V***@SendSpamHere.ORG
Post by yyyc186
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by yyyc186
I'm not really interested in looking at anything MS has to say. What
they produce is neither technology nor business quality software.
Like the rest of the world, I'm moving to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is competing for the same customers as Windows.
Have you considered something more "different": Centos,
Debian, Gentoo or maybe FreeBSD ?
Arne
I've looked at many. Ubuntu is the next wave. It has a sever edition
What is a sever edition? Once you buy and install it, it makes you want
to slash your wrists out of sheer frustration? Sounds to me just like a
Micro$oft product a la Weendoze. :)
Linux desktops and servers were customized (optimized?) for the purpose
but can be used either way and the missing applications can be added.
When MS has server and desktop editions, they intend server and desktop
use, licensed accordingly. One isn't supposed to be upgradeable to the
other. With windows NT, microsoft even claimied they were two completely
different systems until someone showed that the main difference, besides
the installed applications, were only in the registry settings.
Doh! You missed the misspelling mirth.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

http://tmesis.com/drat.html
Loading...