[oclug] Unix: the Way, the Truth and the Light was [OT]
sandy at storm.ca
Thu Aug 9 23:32:51 EDT 2001
Francis Pinteric wrote:
> --- Sandy Harris <sandy at storm.ca> wrote:
> > Francis Pinteric wrote:
> > Two points that I think contradict each other.
> > > System and other configuration relating to Linux systems is on
> > topic.
> > > ...
> > > Interfacing Linux (or anything) to Microsoft anything is OFF
> > topic.
> > The second point is nonsense. There is a lot of MS software out
> > there, and discussion of how to make Linux work with it (samba,
> > vmware, ...) is a legitimate topic here.
> I, of course, disagree vehemently.
> As for the amount of MS software out there, so what? All of it must
> be destroyed or converted to run on some sort of Unix/Linux system.
there are lots of things wrong with many Microsoft products,
some of the company's marketing practices suck,
I'd like to see them lose the big court case,
and Unix is (at least in your opinion and mine) better designed
in several important ways,
It is still not clear that some sort of jihad to wipe out all their
nasty software is desirable, let alone practical.
Microsoft may destroy themselves in any of a number of ways.
The courts may break them up for illegal business
practices, but see below.
The customers may flee for various reasons. Recent reports
say the US Air Force have chosen Star Office as their
standard office package and several Washington dep'ts
are considering dumping IIS because of Code Red.
Microsoft promised 64-bit NT for Alpha and never delivered.
If they do the same on IA-64, that will hurt badly.
The new marketing for XP may backfire seriously.
My guess is they'll take damage in all these areas over the next
few years, but survive all of it.
> Your particular attitude comes from the notion that the type of
> software you use, the operating it runs on or the people who make
> the stuff is irrelevant, as long as it does the job.
No. It comes from the notion that some things are not my call.
If a client has a bunch of NT servers and MS desktops, users and
adminstrative staff who understand that environment, applications
that get their business done, ... I'm not crazy enough to suggest
they trash it all for political and philosophical reasons.
Never try to teach a pig to sing.
It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I might suggest they look at using the e-smith product instead of
buying another Win 2K server license. Certainly I'd suggest Apache
instead of IIS, a Linux box instread of an Exchange server, a
Linux or OpenBSD firewall box instead of some proprietary solution
(MS or third party) running on NT, ... Evolutionary change, not
There are perfectly good business and technical reasons to use
Open Source software, even in a Microsoft (or Mac or MVS) shop.
This is especially true for security software, because you cannot
audit the proprietary stuff. Also, having multiple OSs in play is
good for security. I might suggest a Linux-based firewall to an MS
shop, but I'd say OpenBSD on the firewall for a Linux-based business.
> This utilitarian approach is naive and misguided.
I'd say that of your style of evangelism.
Note that this is not because I'm apolitical. See my document:
> First, we all agree that Microsoft is a monster and must be stopped (curtailed,
> destroyed, you choose).
No. I don't like them, and I both expect and hope that their own
mistakes will destroy their monopoly position, but I cannot agree
with your assertion.
> Their whole way of doing business is immoral, illegitimate
I'm strongly inclined to agree. Of course, they're not the only ones
and arguably not even the worst offenders. Look at the movie industry
and DVD cases, for example.
For that matter, you can make a case that the immorality is inherent
in capitalism and all large companies exploit their workers, their
markets and the environment shamelessly. Or all large organisations,
including and prehaps especially "socialist" states.
> and illegal (so says a U.S. court).
Recent reports I've seen seem to indicate that higher courts disagree.
It will likely be many years before the Supreme Court makes a definitive
ruling, and until then the legal status is anything but clear.
> They continue their
> immoral practices even today with their reaction to anyone who they
> percieve as an enemy. By using their software, and even by allowing
> other systems the capability of interfacing to their system (except
> in the case of migration from Microsoft to a good system) only
> supports them.
> By giving Linux (or any other system) the capability of seamless
> inter-operability does the same thing. It is providing a service to
> Microsoft that they should not have in the first place. The goal of
> the revolution that we are all at the beginning of is a Microsoft
> free world. Unless a person on this list wants to interface his Linux
> box to a Microsoft system for the sole purpose of migrating files off
> said system, or to DHCP a good system to it with the aim of replacing
> it in toto, then it is illegitimate.
> > > Giving advice to Microsofters other than dumping the OS is OFF
> > topic.
> > No.
> > Some MS-related questions are off-topic. Consider the person who
> > asks
> > here how to configure an Exchange server, on the theory that such a
> > knowledgable bunch will be able to help. They should be told off in
> > no
> > uncertain terms. The deails are a matter of style. I'd be inclined
> > to
> > flame them to smoldering slag; others might be polite.
> Now, that's a good attitude. You agree with me here. I would of
> course tell him that Hell is populated with Microsoft collaborators
> and non-Catholics. That would be about as polite as I would get.
I'd tell him or her that Hell was populated with clueless twits
incapable of directing their questions sensibly. My objection is
not to using Exchange, but to polluting this list with a question
completely unrelated to Linux.
> No, actually, these days I ignore the whole thing and then once in a
> while stur the pot on this list just to vent some steam over the fact
> that there are still (sigh) people out there who think that Microsoft
> has the right to co-exist with the rest of world.
> > However, a question about how to make Exchange work with a Linux
> > firewall, or how to make Outlook send properly formatted messages
> > so Pine users can read them or ... is legitimate.
> Perhaps, unless you're using your Linux box to provide a mail service
> TO an Exchange system. That is wrong.
Why? I assume (based on reports I've heard rather than on experience),
that Exchange is a pretty ugly application. Bloated, complex, a bear
to administer. However, I've heard all that said of sendmail as well.
But what's wrong with using a Linux box to protect an Exchange server
from various attacks, especially since this protects the rest of the
net from whatever a compromised Exchange server might unleash?
> For instance, there was a
> message on this list (or was it on another one?) that asked for a way
> of being able to use their Apache server as a front end to some slew
> of Mircosoft boxes to remove unwanted and vindictive virii from mail
> before passing it along to the sickly Microsoft box. My position is
> that the Linux box should NOT remove the offending virii and allow
> the Microsoft box to self distruct. However, the removal of known
> Unix virii would be legitimate.
In my more cynical moments (but only then), I might agree with you
here. They made their choices. Let them take the consequences.
The problem with that is much like the difficulty with letting
drunk drivers kill themselves. Like those drivers, infected
systems damage others.
I don't mind using an extract of bread mold if it kills infections.
Codoms are a Good Thing. So is the application I think you are
referring to, MIMEdefanger from www.roaringpenguin.com.
More information about the OCLUG