[1098] in RedHat Linux List
Re: your mail
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Lark)
Sat Oct 26 12:27:47 1996
From: Daniel Lark <dan@netsteps.com>
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:24:35 -0600 (MDT)
In-Reply-To: <199610260545.BAA26598@redhat.com> from "Donnie Barnes" at Oct 26, 96 01:45:32 am
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
> >Oh yes you can. I know people who have bought it.
>
> I don't know anyone who has bought it *specifically* for Linux unless
> it came from Caldera. I know people who have bought licenses for what
> they *thought* was a Linux version only to try and get support later
> and find that Netscape turned a deaf ear.
I didn't say anything about support. Even if you buy a "supported" product
from them, you'll play hell trying to actually get said support.
> >Yes they do. Very, very much so. They seem to be targeting ISPs who
> >distribute it to their customers, without having purchased it. (Trumpet
> >Software is doing likewise, as well.) BTW, there is a plan afoot to
> >start "time-bombing" the non-betas (the betas are time-bombed).
>
> Okay, fine...doesn't matter either way to *me*.
It really doesn't bother me either for that matter, but see below.
> >One "good" point of Microsoft is that they let me redistribute a mailer, a
> >we browser, an TCP/IP stack/dialer for nothing. So the choice is
> >economically obvious to me. As much as I dislike Microsoft, I can argue with
> >the price. Netscape should see this, they really should. They are biting the
> >hand that feeds them. While Microsoft forms alliances with ISPs, Netscape
> >punishes them. But I digress...
>
> MS stuff isn't multiplatform, and my bet is that Netscape is still
> banking on that to pull them through. You can't get IE for the Mac,
> can you?
As you have been told there is IE for the Mac and IE for Unix (supposedly
including Linux?!?) is due sometime. My real point is that Microdoft wants
to try to corner the browser market. By doing this they figure to try to
make a dent in the Internet server market. I get constantly bombarded with
blurbs saying how great their IIS is and how ActiveX is the best thing since
sliced bread. Don't be surprised to see that eventually their browsers will
do certain things only when talking to their servers. Clearly, they don't
care about the IETF, W3 consortium, or much else for that matter. They play
along while it is convenient, then... But I have bigger things to worry
about like paying phone bills, etc.
The bottom line is that no matter how much you, I, or anyone else on this
list like Linux, for this OS to make in-roads into the areas that really
count perceptions will have to change.
> That's not the way I read it, and again, it doesn't *matter* in the
> grand scheme. Bad press is better than none at all (to a certain
> extent...). People will at least know there is an alternative. When
> they are fed up with NT, they will likely try it (if we as a distributor
> do any kind of decent job marketing). All I ask is for that to happen.
And it won't! Not as long as misinformation about Linux is spread. Donnie,
you and I are the types that read Byte, Dr. Dobbs, etc. You know the
"systems geeks" (TM). While the types that make OS implementation decisions
read PC magazine, PCWeek, et al. You know "management types" (TM). Classic
example, an MIS group had a small problem, they needed to move mail from VMS
servers (yech!) to Microsoft Exchange Servers (double yech!). It was
suggested that one or two Linux boxes be put in and run sendmail to pass the
mail to and fro. The only real cost would have been the hardware. The
"management types" shot it down stating "we've read about the instability
and security holes and therefore will not allow its use". No instead they
purchased some exotic custom deal from DEC and paid over $10K.
Anyone who has dealt with NT is fed up with it. I know I was. But I ran the
software that was told, regardless of its functionality or lack thereof. Bad
press in this industry kills products. Simple.
> I said "as far as I'm concerned". I do understand the problem, but I
> also contend that it's not *our* fault. You have a choice of very
> amicable workarounds. It's also alot easier to beat us up than it
> is Netscape.
And I apoligize. My fault for making it sound that way.
> >Donnie there is an even bigger security hole out there. It's name is
> >Microsoft's Front Page Extensions. Would you want your customers to be able
> >to place arbitrary CGI's on *your* system? I think not. Thank God there's no
> >Linux port, yet! Again I digress...
>
> You won't get an argument from me.
See my remarks above.
> Well, as a product of some bad programming, Java *is* still a security
> hole.
No more or less than anything else. YP is a security hole. NFS is a security
hole. Sendmail is a security hole. Etc. Netscape to its credit has tried to
fix the security holes in its base classes in a timely basis.
Security is a relative thing on the net. With SYN attacks, ip spoofing,
etc., it would be really easy to curl up into a little ball put up a
firewall, proxy everything, and turn off Java and get really paranoid.
However you learn to cope and live with relative risks.
> >There's a lot of things broken in 4.0. I understand that not everything can
> >be foreseen in advance, but it stills shows as been very buggy any way you
> >look at it. As much as people on the caldera list bitch and complain about
> >Caldera's apparent lack of keeping up with the times, CND 1.0 was remarkably
> >bug-free. Descretion is often the better part of valor.
>
> Well, you're right. Nothing wrong. Completely right. But note that
> Caldera was based on 2.1 plus updates. That was the timeframe they
> hit...had it been 2.0 available when they shipped, it would have had
> problems.
Again no argument from me.
> We give software version numbers for a reason. We jumped to 4.0
> because of alot of things...new install, new libc, PAM, etc. You
> can't expect it to be perfect. It has updates...at least we're
> here, morning, noon, and night, fixing them. And 4.1 will be
> better.
Ditto, but just the sheer number of fixes tend to turn people off.
> (Anyone remember Windows 3.0? You thought 3.1 crashed alot. We want
> to do better than that, and we're trying.)
Definitely, RedHat responds quickly to bugs. No argument there. However
there are benefits for a staged beta run. Lessee we wen from Picasso (3.x
final) to Rembrant (4 beta) to Colgate (4 production). I am on the fifth (or
sixth) beta of the COL of just the boot/install disk. A good beta run, as we
know, does not necessarily make a bug-free procution run.
> 4.0 is very stable. We've had a few problems that weren't install
> related, but none that couldn't be fixed with a simple update. No,
> that may not be enough for some folks...those running 3.0.3 should
> be fine for now. 4.1 will be better, that's all I can promise...
And that's what I am hoping for..
-dan
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Errata
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Tips http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe redhat-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
