WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7 - Page 4

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
  •         ---> 
  •         |           `--> Re: What's a hardware firewall? was W iFi security issues? Newbie
  •         ---> 
  •         |               `--> Re: What's a hardware firewall? was W iFi security issues? Newbie

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

On 12/26/2010 6:01 PM, RayLopez99 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Mature companies are doing this,  and they are paying the price of
having to rewrite solutions. But their hands are tied as they cannot
find kids in the US doing .NET technology due to them being trained on
the wrong technology. But they can sure find them in India. :)

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

On 27/12/2010 00:01, RayLopez99 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why would US programmers be "higher quality"?  I don't know of any
specific difference between US programmers and Indian programmers - most
do a reasonable job, some are outstandingly good, and some are hopeless.
  For the great majority, there isn't really a big difference in the
quality of education or training, or the quality of the work.

It is a different matter in situations where experience is important -
more advanced coding, high-efficiency low-level programming,
safety-critical or security-critical work, high-level system design,
working with older languages, etc.  Then there is a big difference
between someone with 20 years experience and a new graduate.  But you
are talking about newly educated programmers using a new language and
environment that is regularly updated.

I don't see outsourcing in this way as a good thing in most cases, but
it is not because of the "quality" of Indian programmers compared to
those in other countries.  Most of the poor results from outsourced
programming comes from an obsession with the bottom-line.  Companies in
countries like the US don't just outsource the job to development
companies in India - they outsource to the company that offers the most
lines of code per dollar.  /That/ is why they get poor quality.


For your interest (and I /know/ it is a rare example):

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-alderman/india-outsourcing-to-the-_b_65942.html

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wrong again (that seems to be one constant with all your posts).

If that was true, why do web hosting companies charge extra for
Windows Server rather than Linux?  Don't tell me it's to pay for the
MSFT license' either.  Rather, it's because Windows is more feature
rich and superior to Linux for servers--you get what you pay for.

Merry Xmas,

RL

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

f/ups cols

RayLopez99 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That license is one reason; another more important reason is because the
windows system is less reliable and requires more
upkeep/maintenance/admin than does the linux.

bitly preview enabled http://bit.ly/fVnxzI+ Why is Linux Web Hosting
Cheaper than Windows Web Hosting? - the web hosting company has to
account for the added cost of keeping the Windows servers running
smoothly. Since the web hosting company has to hire and pay staff to
maintain the integrity of the Windows servers, this cost is then
transferred to the end customer


The only reason for using a windows based webhost is if you are going to
be using some feature which is windows only.

--
Mike Easter

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


rather
either.


because the


Hosting
to




going to

Do you mean like  using .Net, which is not Windows only?

--
posted with a Droid

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

RayLopez99 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

   I know you asked not to be told this but, it's to cover the M$
license(s)...


--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
AMD64X2 6400+ Ubuntu 8.04 64bit

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

On 25/12/10 10:34, RayLopez99 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Are you trying to say I was /wrong/ about what it would take for /me/ to
consider windows on a server?  Sometimes I really don't think you bother
reading posts before replying.  I am happy to discuss rationally with
you, but please cut out the knee-jerk astroturfing just because
something /looks/ like a sleight on your beloved windows.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Web hosting companies charge more for windows hosting because it costs
them more.  It costs more for the licences, it costs far more for the
hardware resources, and it costs /far/ more in maintenance and security.
  For web hosting, the great majority is done using Linux servers -
almost all running apache - because it is cheap and simple to have lots
of domains served from very few physical machines.  And for over 90% of
customers, they don't care what system is serving up their web pages.
There are a few misguided souls that use system-specific backend
features such as ASP, or .net, or specifically require MSSQL databases -
these customers have no choice but to use windows, and pay significantly
more for it.

For /application/ serving, it's a different matter - there the features
are different between Windows and Linux.  Windows is not in any sense
"richer" or "superior" - it's different.  And again, windows is more
expensive because it needs more hardware - for many reasons, Linux
servers virtualise much more efficiently, so hosting companies can get
more customers onto fewer machines with Linux.  And they don't have to
pay license fees (though many will choose to do so by using Red Hat,
Suse, or another commercially supported Linux).


Anyway, I was talking about in-house servers - I didn't mention hosting
at all.  Windows still has a large share of that market, but /I/ would
not use it for servers.  If I had some sort of server application that
had to run on windows, it would be a different matter, but I have not
seen the need of such windows server software for a decade or so.  Linux
handles all my server requirements, and does so faster, more easily and
far cheaper than windows could.  But I can quite understand that some
companies still find windows servers appropriate - I have been talking
about /my/ needs, and those of /my/ employer.



Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No I say you're wrong about "outstanding circumstances"--no need for
such extremes.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I've found through years of provocative posting--some wrongly call it
'trolling'--that name calling and the occasional use of CAPITAL
LETTERS and EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!--not to mention ad hominem attacks,
get your posts replied to and read more often.  Sorry but that's the
way human nature works--the squeaking wheel gets the grease--as both
the existence of Madison Avenue and neon lights attest to.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

OK, I agree on licenses.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What?  You mean separate and apart from the licenses, hardware running
Windows Server costs more?  That's incredible.  Did you misspeak?  You
can retract that statement and I'll not flame you.  Sounds absurd.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

OK this "far" more (you too enjoy provocative posts, in your own way)
is clearly and exaggeration, but for the sake of argument let's assume
that yes, due to Linux's meagre 1% market share, there are few viruses
attacking Linux so yes Windows costs "far" more than Linux to maintain
(to the extent a $50 antivirus program for windows is a "far more"
expense).  $50 >> $0.  So yes, I concede this point as well.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And why would that not be true using WIndows Server?  Aside from the
"cheap" argument--I've conceded Linux is cheaper for a server--why
would it be more simple using Linux?  Because of your unfamiliarity
with Windows Server OS?  If so, that's your fault, not Microsoft's.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Strawman noted.  There are indeed people who have no need for other
than an HTML page being hosted--and for them Apache is fine, agreed.
And MSSQL is "significantly" greater than Linux databases, to the
extent a few dollars a month is "significantly" greater than zero.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

OK.  Damaging admission against your own position noted.  I'll use
this later against you.  What you should have said, if you were a
dishonest Linux partisan, is that the features of Linux are superior,
and listed a few such alleged superior features.  You are either too
honest, too naive to be a Linux partisan, or too inexperienced to know
about feature differences between Windows and Linux.  Rex Ballard of
COLA newsgroup and his sidekick Liarmutt would have highlighted
alleged Linux superiority.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

OK now you mention virtualization.  A new wrinkle.  For now I will
agree that it sounds plausible, but MSFT is working on virtualization
so in a couple of years I would not be surprised if MSFT leapfrogs
Linux.  But you might have a point, since I notice the cheaper costing
web hosting companies do seem to offer Linux as part of their "$1.99 a
month" teaser plan.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Got it.  And those needs change with time.  In a few years, you may be
a Microsoft Server fanboi.  Certainly Linux server market share has
been stagnant while Microsoft's server market share has been growing.

RL

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

On 25/12/10 23:34, RayLopez99 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Again, you are trying to claim I am "wrong" about my own opinion.  It
would be understandable if you were claiming I was exaggerating in my
choice of phrase, but you simply cannot call me "wrong".

And to re-state the point, yes, it would take outstanding circumstances
before I would consider using windows on a server.  I have not seen the
need for windows-specific server software within my company for a
decade.  I have little doubt that once an IT manager or company IT
department gets familiar with Linux on servers, they will not choose
Windows unless they are dealing with particularly specialised
windows-only server software.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is true that if you are a public nuisance - or play the part of one -
you will get attention.  Few people consider it /welcome/ attention -
most of the attention you receive, especially when you are at your most
trollish, is hostile.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Flame me all you want, but it is true.  I'm only considering /servers/
here (for a desktop with modern high-quality graphics and fast speeds,
the requirements in cpu and memory are similar, though windows requires
much more disk space).

For a simple file server, windows server has a minimum requirement of
512 MB and 1 GHz cpu, and a recommendation of 2 GB and 2 GHz.  Based on
my own installations over the past few years, a Linux file server has a
minimum requirements of about 64 MB and 200 MHz cpu (I set up a file
server with a 90 MHz cpu a few years ago, but that's maybe a bit small).
  Certainly 256 MB and 1 GHz is all you need - though obviously more
memory means more caching and faster access.

Or lets consider a "small business server".  MS small business server
has a minimum memory requirement of 4 GB, to provide file serving,
email, and a simple database server for up to 75 people.  I have a
server at our office which serves perhaps 60 people with email and
files, as well as being a database server, source code server, and a
small web server - with 512 MB ram.

Of course, these days it is hard to buy a server-class machine with less
than 2 GB ram, so you might think these levels are irrelevant.  But the
modern style of serving is with virtual servers - and since you brought
up the topic of web hosting companies, virtualisation is absolutely key
in this area.

If you want to virtualise a set of windows machines, you basically have
to have separate installations for each virtual machine, and each of
these installations requires physical ram.  So if you want to run, for
example, 12 virtual windows machines on a server, you are going to need
16 GB ram if they are to get 1 GB in each virtual machine (assuming a
small overhead).  Virtualisation software can sometimes merge duplicate
pages and reduce this a little (open source KVM can do this, and I think
so can VMWare).  But you still have massive ram requirements for
virtualisation.

But with Linux, it's a different world.  If you need to do full
virtualisation, then each machine needs its own memory - but with far
smaller typical requirements, you get far more virtual machines in each
physical server.  And if you can use OS-level virtualisation solutions
such as openvz, it's all shared.  I use openvz to run about 20 virtual
machines on a 4 GB server - the hardware requirements of Windows make
that totally impossible.




Quoted text here. Click to load it

Who mentioned viruses?  I was talking about maintenance and security.
Linux requires much less maintenance.  You do have the occasional
security update, but these are typically small and quickly applied with
a few lines via a remote shell, rather than hundreds of MB downloads and
a set of reboots to patch holes in a browser that has no business being
on a server in the first place.  And security on Linux is clearer and
more watertight, making it easier and more trustworthy (just look at how
many firewalls run Windows, compared to how many run Linux).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

See above.

And note that I was talking about web hosting companies here, not my own
servers.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Only a small percentage of website backends use ASP and/or .net.  The
majority use PHP, Perl, Python, JSP, ColdFusion, etc.  These all run
better on Linux backends (though they can also run on windows),
typically using Apache.  For databases, far and away the most popular is
MySQL, which is almost always run on Linux (though it runs on windows).
  For commercial sites, the "real" databases like DB2 and Oracle also
run on Linux better than on Windows.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I can't figure out what you are trying to say here.  If you are
suggesting that MSSQL only costs a few dollars a month, then that must
be for a very "shared" server - in which case customers would normally
be perfectly happy with free MySQL or Postgresql.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Are you berating me for being a bad liar?

I use windows regularly, and there are plenty of situations when it
makes the most sense.  It would be foolish to try to argue that there is
one "perfect" system that is always the correct choice.  My points have
been that in the context of servers, and hosting companies in
particular, then Linux is the better choice in the overwhelming majority
of cases.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

We are discussing servers, in particular hosting companies, and you
think virtualisation is "a new wrinkle"?  Welcome to the 21st century.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

MS has been buying up virtualisation technology for a long time, and
have offered their own hypervisor for years.  Despite the fact that it
comes with every "pro" version of Vista and Win7, it is still the least
popular virtualisation solution.  Unless they buy one of the /real/
virtualisation companies, MS is pretty much a non-starter except for the
MS-can-do-no-wrong crowd.

And they would need a total re-design of windows before they could come
up with a virtualisation solution to compete with openvz / virtuozzo.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That "teaser" plan is all you need to run a server.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

Quoted text here. Click to load it

    The key here would be some otherwise useful killer app doesn't run
on any platform but Windows. While this is very likely to be the case for
quasi-desktop applications for small shops and associated verticals, it's
much less the case as companies and problems get larger.

    Windows simply doesn't scale as well.


[deletia]
Quoted text here. Click to load it

    Quite. "Linux databases" don't just include mysql and postres. They
include every enterprise grade RDBMS that you can buy a Linux support
contract for that will run workloads that will make mssql and Windows
MELT.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

    Proper Unix databases are what you connect your .NET applications to
in order to give them some illusory bit of robustness.  They don't have
nearly enough robustness on their own.

[deletia]

--
    It's not the size of the CPU, it's how you use it.               |||
                                    / | \

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You cannot play word games like that.  If you mean that in your mind
Linux is superior, contrary to objective facts, then we cannot have a
rational debate.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wrong.  You cannot defeat the laws of physics.  If Linux indeed has
minimum requirements much less than Windows, as you claim, the
downside is that it will have performance much more minimal than
Windows.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why would you want to virtualize so much?  Why do you need virtual
servers?  The only thing I can think of:  various versions of Linux,
each requiring its own server.  Or perhaps even Windows--you have ASP
2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 etc and various MSFT Server editions.  But frankly
you don't need that much virtualization in a server because a server
is by definition a sort of virtual PC to the clients.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Again, two points: (1) with less RAM as in Linux less performance,
and, (2) you don't need that much virtualization in servers so that
you have 100 different servers running on the same hardware.  Three or
four virtual servers is sufficient.



Quoted text here. Click to load it


Are you claiming "maintenance" includes the time it takes for an IT
guy to install a patch on a Windows server?  If so, Windows beats
Linux since Windows offers easy "one-click and forget" upgrades for IT
guys. That's well known.  By contrast with Linux you have to be
physically present at the machine with no help from anybody.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Popular is not better.  And again Windows is gaining.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Admission of lying noted.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Stop right there.  I win.

Goodbye.

RL

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

On 26/12/2010 23:56, RayLopez99 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I was not under the impression that we were having a rational debate.
/I/ am debating rationally, /you/ are posting in defence of your
financial investment in MS :-)

Yes, Linux is superior for /my/ needs on servers.  Those are objective
facts, based on my analysis of the needs of my company, and the options
available.  As I have said many times before, I am happy to use windows
where it is the best choice - on servers, for my company, this is not
the case.

You can argue that windows is a better choice for most companies'
servers if you like.  I'll disagree, but it is a fair argument.

But you /cannot/ argue about what is better for /my/ company - that is
/my/ decision based on /my/ analysis, and my conclusion is
overwhelmingly in favour of Linux.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is a total non-sequitor.  Have you never heard of the term
"efficiency"?  Linux is more efficient for many server tasks, and can
make more out of fewer resources.

However, I will happily agree that more resources give more performance.
  A windows file server with 512 MB and 1 GHz cpu will serve files
faster than a Linux server with 64 MB and 200 MHz cpu.  My point is
merely that with 64 MB and 200 MHz cpu, the Linux box will serve files -
while (current version) windows will not install.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I realise you are not very familiar with servers, but "virtualisation"
is a technique that has been used for several decades to modularise and
contain server applications and resources without needing to have as
many physical servers.

It is possible to run multiple services on the same system.  But
virtualisation makes it easier and more secure.  Here's a few examples,
all of which are OS-independent:

You want to run different web sites with noticeably different options,
or even different web servers.  Could run two web servers on the same
machine, with different non-standard settings for the port, for logs,
for configuration files, etc.  Or you could run two standard setups in
two different virtual machines.

You want have two databases for two different departments at the office.
  Each department has their own database administrator, and you want
them to have management rights to their own areas so that they don't
have to involve the IT department in everything.  But they must be kept
separate and secure from each other.  You can fiddle about with users,
groups, permissions, etc., until you have a setup that looks okay.  Or
you can just give each department it's own virtual machine with it's own
dedicated database server and keep everything as smooth and simple as
possible.

You have a working server, and you want to test out a new version of
some important server software.  You can take full backups, arrange for
some down-time for the server, install the new server, try it, then
restore the old system from the backup.  Or you buy new server hardware,
hopefully close enough to the original, and install everything from
scratch (or from the backups) and test out the new software on new
hardware.  Or you use virtual machines, clone the original to a test
virtual machine, and do your testing - all in a matter of minutes, and
all done via remote logins from your comfortable desk.

You have some software that works best on a 32-bit OS, others that works
best on a 64-bit OS.  With virtualisation, you can have both.

You have some software that works best on one OS variant, others that
work best on a different variant.

You have a guide, tutorial, example, course, etc., showing how to
install or use a piece of software on a particular OS that is different
from the one you are using for other purposes on the server.  You
probably /could/ get it to work on the "main" server OS, but it is just
easier and faster to get it working on the system described in the guide.

I could go on, or you could browse a little on the web.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I am confident that you have no idea what openvz is, and didn't try to
look it up on the web.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVZ

With openvz (or other "light-weight" virtualisation solutions that are
available for Linux), memory is not dedicated to the virtual machines.
If a particular machine is not using the physical ram, other virtual
machines can use it instead.  The same applies to all resources.

The disk space used per virtual machine is perhaps 250 MB (depending on
the distribution, of course), excluding whatever virtual-machine
specific software and data you have.  The processor overhead compared to
running "natively" is negligible (under 1%).  This means that virtual
machines are effectively free.  It takes me two or three minutes (this
is not an exaggeration) to set up a new "blank" openvz virtual machine
on our server.  So if I want to install a new server application, or set
up a new internal web server, etc., why would I /not/ simply set up a
new dedicated virtual machine for the job?

If I were using windows, then I would agree with you - I would use
virtual servers, but far fewer.  After all, each would need its own ram,
installation, setup, licensing, client-access-licenses, etc.  The
overhead in time, money and hardware is very significant.

If I were using Linux with full-system virtualisation (such as VMWare,
Xen, KVM, VirtualBox, etc.) on the server, then I would partially agree
- each virtual machine may be free in cost, but takes time to install
and configure, and hardware resources to run.  The resources would be
less than with windows - no need for any sort of virtualised screen, for
example.  But they would still be significant.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think you've got these mixed up.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's odd to hear that as an argument /for/ windows...

 > And again Windows is gaining.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Admission of illiteracy noted.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What, exactly, did you think we were discussing?  Are you somehow under
the impression that I have been claiming Linux is the only system anyone
should ever use?  I'll give you a hint - if you look at the headers in
the posts I have made, some are sent from a Windows machine at my work,
others from a Linux machine at home.  I pick my software as the best
choice (to within my knowledge) for the job at hand, based on its
technical features, costs, the experiences and knowledge of the users,
etc.  In my experience, that lands on Linux for server systems, and for
desktops and laptops it may be XP, Win7, Fedora, Mint, Ubuntu, or MacOS
depending on the circumstances.


Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it








Ray

Do you realize that eternal.september,aioe,microsoft.public before the shut down
ran
on Linux servers. As far as servers are concerned Linux is much farther ahead
then
MS Servers ever was. I am running a W2K3 Enterprise Server like here  which I
need
because of what I do but the Linux ones (servers) are far more superior.
Ray, do not talk like you know everything ,because all it is showing from you
now is
that you do not. Study the use of servers and their capabilities before making
more
of a fool  out of yourself

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect



Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

On 12/27/2010 3:52 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That doesn't mean a whole lot when the middle tier and backend tier are
all MS running MS servers.


Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well I do notice Linux servers are ubiquitous and so there is some
advantage to them--I always thought it was cost--no software license
if you run Linux Apache.

I don't know everything, but usually I'm pretty good with getting most
of the story right.

RL

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Ray

Linux Servers are big bucks, There is nothing free there. Cost in the vicinity
of
good 5 + figures. And not talking about Apache either

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect



Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7


Quoted text here. Click to load it

What is Linux Apache?
 
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not so far. :) You have much much to learn. You should as I said
previously, take a step back, quit insulting those of us who do know the
subjects better than yourself and take advantage of it; most of us are
willing to share the knowledge, providing you don't make an ass of
yourself to try and get it. IE: Arguing pointlessly because *you don't*
understand the subject. This isn't a place for dick comparisons.


--
Hackers are generally only very weakly motivated by conventional rewards
such as social approval or money. They tend to be attracted by
challenges and excited by interesting toys, and to judge the interest of
work or other activities in terms of the challenges offered and the toys
they get to play with.

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

On 12/25/2010 5:34 PM, RayLopez99 wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Linux servers only dominate on the Web server market, and MS dominates
the rest of the server market in client/server and here is why,  by
means of application servers, middle tier servers, database servers and
backend servers, state servers and COM+ servers where MS dominates. And
as .NET continues to push SOA infrastructure, it will continue to dominate.

Web hosting companies are not concerned about architectures, and Web
hosting companies are for amateurs that don't know how to protect a Web
server that's facing the public Internet or companies that don't have a
Web site staff, servers or the expertise to protect a Web server facing
the public Internet.

Then you have those companies and there are plenty of them that must
provide other things in a Web based solution N-Tier infrastructure that
goes well beyond what's happening at a front-end Web server.


Typical application architectures are comprised of three levels with
each level running servers:

1) The back-end database where critical customer or organizational
information is stored

http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/definition/back-end

2) The application middleware that enables the end-user to perform the
desired action on the data, and;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middleware

3) The front-end Web servers that enable the outside world to interact
with the previous two levels.

Not all servers are front-end facing Web servers, which Linux dominates
there.

I have not seen any middleware Linux servers. I have seen 1 back-end
Linux database server running Oracle. All the rest of them I have seen
have been MS servers on both tiers, in the many sites I have done
contract development work.










Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

Big Steel wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Complete rubbish. If it's a relational database app of any scale it will
be on *n*x.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

They are, because they are concerned bout stability and low maintenance
and low power consumption.

and Web
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Or professionals who simply find they are a cost effective solution tyo
highish traffic simple sites.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ideal for Linux then.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
*nix for choice there.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Depends on what the coders who wrote it chose.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

*nix for choice.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is  because middleware is a term invented my MS to describe its own
stoopid way of doing things.

PHP is 'middleware'



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

On 12/26/2010 8:02 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

<snipped the lip service babble>

<yawn>

You are an idiot that I don't want to be bothered with.

See ya I wouldn't want to be ya.

bye.

Site Timeline