| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Using Linux-Based Network in Wake of Attacks | |
|
||
| Time: 04:50 EST/09:50 GMT | News Source: Yahoo News | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
To protect its flagship Web site from viruses and denial-of-service attacks, Microsoft has asked for help from an unusual place: a network of Linux-based servers. According to Internet security and services firm Netcraft, the software giant has changed the DNS of Microsoft.com so that requests are directed not to its own network but to the Akamai cache servers. Akamai is a network of 15,000 Linux-based servers in locations around the world. Using Linux in any aspect of its operations is highly unusual for Microsoft, because the open-source OS is a chief competitor for market share. "There's a nice bit of irony there," Yankee Group analyst Matthew Kovar told NewsFactor. However, he noted, the benefits of the changed hosting for Microsoft do not actually reflect the relative worth of the Windows vs. Linux operating systems, so the move should not be interpreted that way. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 329 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:56:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 8/28/2003 8:51:16 AM |
|
No, no, no. It's Akamai. MS just moved a few things, not their whole network. Rumors that start on Slashdot shouldn't be repeated. Jeez, people. This post was edited by Cthulhu on Thursday, August 28, 2003 at 08:51. |
| #2 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 8/28/2003 9:41:45 AM |
| In related news, journalism is officially dead as not a single news site (except for perhaps WinInformant) bothered to report the story honestly instead of in the usual anti-MS/pro-ABM light. |
| #3 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 8/28/2003 10:10:59 AM |
|
In other news Microsoft hired a design firm to design a logo. This design firm happens to use a Mac.
the headline reads "Microsoft abandons PC for Macs". |
| #4 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 8/28/2003 10:40:38 AM |
| I met with Akamai the other day, and they were really pushing that they allow .NET apps (app logic to actually be run from their edge servers). Hmm... must be some windows servers hiding in there somewhere. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/28/2003 10:53:39 AM |
| sphbecker--true, the headline is flawed (in several ways). However, Microsoft actually did switch to Akamai as the result of attacks... except it wasn't the recent attacks, but the denial of service attacks they experienced awhile back, as well as a router misconfiguration. |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/28/2003 4:26:47 PM |
| Might as well say it to the wall, stewarts.... How long will it be before someone raises the standard "but those are vulnerabilities for the whole Linux distro..." argument??? For some reason, it's as if you have to limit it to kernel vulnerabilities exclusively in order for them to consider it a valid comparison. If you look into each specific vulnerability, though, you will see that Windows has counterparts for the majority of the affected components, and with no reported vulnerabilities. No one from the Linux camp seems to acknowledge that, though.... |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/28/2003 6:40:21 PM |
|
stewarts -
So far this year... Redhat has released like 89 security bulletins for Redhat Advanced Server 2.1. Something like 200 for all of their Linux distros combined. Microsoft has released 33 total for all products, around 20 of them impact Windows 2000 Server in some way. Oh, I also found the list of Sun bulletins... they've had like 93 so far this year, but I haven't sorted them down by product. The trend seems to be Microsoft improving, the other vendors getting worse. |
| #8 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/28/2003 7:31:17 PM |
|
And the fact is: Microsoft cannot handle its own DNS and web distribution with its own systems if they expect to have ANY level of reliability.
And ALL of the big and capable web distribution networks are primarily built with Linux for a number of reasons besides not-being-Windows (although I'm sure that was a consideration -- becoming a source of worm/virus propagation and/or attack would not be a good thing.) So... even if you look at the story realistically, there are negative implications for Microsoft and Windows. |
| #9 By 1677 (128.193.0.6) at 8/28/2003 8:35:29 PM |
|
Refering to security patches...
Realize that Redhat and other linux companies usually supply well 100's applications and packages with each distro. We are talking about maybe 5 email servers, 3 web browsers, maybe 2 dozen text/code editors and dozens of other types of software. The patches they release also go back many versions, cross into many other project (php/samba/apache/etc) and are for many different platforms (x86/ppc/sun/etc). Additionally, realize that these opensource projects release patches in *days* of the vulnerability being found while MS can take weeks or months. Then sometimes they may not patch the issue at all if they don't think it is worth their time. As to this Akamai issues. One, I'm rather disappointed since news of this has already been posted last week to this site. Second, the real question is, why did MS go with a company that uses linux and not one that uses Windows. If their isn't one then we should ask why? Do they show not to perform as well? To costly? Is not one even interested in making the attempt maybe? But we know they choose a company that is respected in their field and uses linux. Linux, being software that MS puts down at every turn. What they are says is that they are willing to trust linux, that is the real story. |
| #10 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 8/28/2003 11:47:41 PM |
|
sodajerk - "Microsoft cannot handle its own DNS and web distribution with its own systems if they expect to have ANY level of reliability."
You are absolutely correct! Microsoft cannot handle it's DNS and web distribution from a single data center in Redmond, Washington. They have to distribute it out across the Internet, world wide to help localize the traffic so it's not all coming down on giant OC3 pipe into Redmond. This article isn't about a platform, it's about a network architecture. "So... even if you look at the story realistically, there are negative implications for Microsoft and Windows. " No, see now you're grasping at straws trying to stretch this into your ABMer argument. |
| #11 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 8/28/2003 11:56:01 PM |
|
portrman - "We are talking about maybe 5 email servers, 3 web browsers, maybe 2 dozen text/code editors and dozens of other types of software."
So they make bad decisions as to what to bundle with their distributions. This doesn't instill much confidence in me as a consumer. You're saying that their might be 5 email servers, but all of them are really crap? Then why bundle them? Shouldn't I instead be choosing best of breed solutions? Microsoft just sells me an OS. If I want an email server I can choose Exchange, or I can go with a miriad of other products. It seems like the Redhat support costs would be cheaper if they weren't diverting money to support crappy solutions. As it is, Redhat costs are astronomically high for the value Redhat actually provides. "Additionally, realize that these opensource projects release patches in *days* of the vulnerability being found while MS can take weeks or months." Opensource projects might release patches in *days*, but then so do Microsoft development teams. In a similar vain as Microsoft, it takes weeks, sometimes months, for these patches to move from the development team into a production ready status which can be distributed to consumers. I'm ready to pull out the KDE example, which was touted as having been fixed in 90 minutes but instead took two months. One month before KDE released a binary patch, and another month before Redhat released a patch for their distribution from that. So essentially you are distorting the issue here, or in not so nice terms, you are lying to try to win a point. You need to stop thinking of the world as a big group of developers and start realizing that consumers outnumber techies about 1000 to 1. |
| #12 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 8/29/2003 12:16:40 AM |
|
Another, "I love Linux" article. Or as was pointed out above a previously posted article that I am sure will be repeated ad infinitum.
Sorry, but Microsoft has had a relationship with Akamai since 1999. See the link: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/sept99/akamaipr.asp . Akamai provides content distribution for Microsoft. And, in turn, Microsoft provides Windows Media Technologies for Akamai and others. See the link: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/service_provider/hosting/default.aspxAlso, Microsoft has invested in Akamai by buying its common stock. Meanwhile, from Akamai's most recent 10Q, "For the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, Microsoft Corporation accounted for 12% and 11%, respectively, of revenue." |
| #13 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 8/29/2003 1:39:07 AM |
|
#23 "So they make bad decisions as to what to bundle with their distributions. This doesn't instill much confidence in me as a consumer. You're saying that their might be 5 email servers, but all of them are really crap? Then why bundle them?"
It's this funny thing called CHOICE - look up the meaning if you like. You don't need to install all 2 dozen text editors, you may just be happy with vi - then again you may like vi, emacs and pico depending on the task at hand. If you don't install emacs and a patch gets released by Redhat - guess what? - you don't need that patch! if you install all 24 text editors then you more than likely will need that patch - but it's your choice as to what you install. Comparing some imaginary number of patches is completely and utterly pointless as not only are you comparing apples to oranges in the end it doesn't really tell you what the patch was for. A remote buffer overflow in ssh can't be compared to a patch which fixes an issue that could potentially be exploited if you happened to perform a long sequence of specified characters at just the right time whilst hopping on one leg. |
| #14 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/29/2003 11:15:06 AM |
|
Well, there you have it... 4 hours. 4 hours was what it took before the "but Linux distros include so many applications" argument (congratulations, portrman). This argument just doesn't hold water. I'll quote from the last time this was discussed:
A few RH8 errata and Windows counterpart: RHSA-2003:199 Updated unzip packages fix trojan vulnerability zip utility built into Windows RHSA-2002:246 Updated Canna packages fix vulnerabilities Windows Global IME RHSA-2003:235 Updated KDE packages fix security issue Explorer.exe (yes, look closely at the vulnerability) RHSA-2003:241 Updated ddskk packages fix temporary file vulnerability Windows Global IME RHBA-2002:305 Fix memory leak in Xft RDP/Remote Desktop/fonts RHSA-2003:255 up2date improperly checks GPG signature of packages Critical Update Notification/Automatic Updates RHSA-2003:251 New postfix packages fix security issues. SMTP server RHSA-2003:162 Updated Mozilla packages fix security vulnerability. IE RHSA-2003:245 Updated wu-ftpd packages fix remote vulnerability. FTP server RHSA-2003:206 Updated nfs-utils packages fix denial of service vulnerability Windows file sharing Etc. etc. etc. Go take a look for yourself. The argument just doesn't work. However, I think GG has a good point in that the number of vulnerabilities doesn't matter as much as the number of exploits. In this way, yes, Windows struggles. True, if Linux were in its place, it would suffer the same problems, but it's not. In the end, it still boils down to securing a system properly, and Microsoft has shown significant improvement in that direction. People may cry foul if they start having to eat into Symantec's and McAfee's business to do it, but that might be the way it has to go. |
| #15 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/29/2003 11:22:52 AM |
| Btw, GG, Outlook XP (or previous versions with the security update) is significantly less vulnerable than its predecessors, since it blocks most of the common attachments that carry viruses from opening. If you look closely at most of the recent virus outbreaks, they include their own SMTP engine and email address discovery mechanism, working regardless of the email client. Actually, Outlook now protects better than most email clients against virus infection. |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/29/2003 12:19:43 PM |
|
kabuki - "It's this funny thing called CHOICE"
No it's not. It's called software choice forced down my throat. When I'm buying this distribution from Redhat, I'm also paying for support on a whole bunch of crap software that doesn't work or isn't worth using. "If you don't install emacs and a patch gets released by Redhat - guess what? - you don't need that patch!" That doesn't mean zero work, it means I have to audit my environment and determine where this software is installed and then direct patches accordingly. Are there any good enterprise solutions for this? Will Ximians red carpet do software inventory auditing? "Comparing some imaginary number of patches is completely and utterly pointless as not only are you comparing apples to oranges in the end it doesn't really tell you what the patch was for." Well first of all, the numbers aren't imaginary, they are real and easy to count. Second of all, the only reason you are claiming it's an apples to oranges comparison is because you know Linux loses. Linux doesn't just lose, it loses substantially. "A remote buffer overflow in ssh can't be compared to a patch which fixes an issue that could potentially be exploited if you happened to perform a long sequence of specified characters at just the right time whilst hopping on one leg. " Really? Then why is it you Linux zealots keep trying to make that comparison. What is it we are talking about in this thread again? Shall we go back and review the utterly ridiculous claims being made in this article? |
| #17 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/29/2003 1:06:37 PM |
|
"Microsoft cannot handle it's DNS and web distribution from a single data center in Redmond, Washington. They have to distribute it out across the Internet, world wide to help localize the traffic so it's not all coming down on giant OC3 pipe into Redmond."
Did I say they need a central point of distribution? I said they can't use Windows. A network of Windows machines would be worse than a sinlge pt of attack when it came to SoBig. "No, see now you're grasping at straws trying to stretch this into your ABMer argument." Actually, you didn't address my point at all. No one in the world has created a purely or largely Windows distribution network. There's many reasons for this: one -- you create a massive distributed point of attack or denial, two -- cost, and I'm sure there are other concerns. Windows, the platform for all, for all purposes, is clearly not a platform for a distribution network. |
| #18 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/29/2003 1:41:50 PM |
|
Sodajerk, your argument is based on the false premise that just because Windows isn't used by Microsoft for this purpose that it can't handle the task. Does Microsoft have to develop and foot the bill for that kind of worldwide infrastructure just to prove that its software can do it? No, not any more than Sun or Apple. They aren't in that kind of business. Yes, cost would be an issue, but it's an infrastructure cost issue, not a licensing cost issue.
Windows, the platform for all, for all purposes, is clearly not a platform for a distribution network. And on what are you basing that? By your logic, both Solaris and OS X are also clearly not platforms for a distribution network. Even the Yankee Group analyst in the article didn't reach that conclusion: "The Microsoft decision to utilize Akamai is more about effective content broadcasting than a need for an alternate operating system, he said. The Microsoft switch to Akamai may very well have been related to the attacks, Kovar said. But even if the Akamai network was based on Windows servers, Microsoft still may have made the switch to the caching network." |
| #19 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/29/2003 2:03:52 PM |
|
"Sodajerk, your argument is based on the false premise that just because Windows isn't used by Microsoft for this purpose that it can't handle the task."
No, I'm basing it on the FACT that NO ONE has built a distribution network using Windows. I don't give a sh1t what MS does. I care what Akamai and others in the field do. They do not use Windows. Why would I want Microsoft to throw money at something? I hate it when they do this: build something that sucks, and despite being a piece of sh1t, eventually gets used, because they in essence gave away a billion dollars to convince someone to use it. "They aren't in that kind of business. Yes, cost would be an issue, but it's an infrastructure cost issue, not a licensing cost issue." Huh? Two different issues: for Sun and Apple its primarily hardware cost. For Microsoft it's licenses. You are just making my argument on the cost issue. I don't think you've eliminated the issue that it's MS servers that spread viruses and worms and MS servers are the ones that get attacked. Apple and Sun produce Unix-like systems that may be good technological choices but there are other factors. So what? My point is MS and windows are certainly NOT GOOD at two things: reliability and web distribution networks. I didn't say it was bad at everything nor did I say Sun and Apple are great at everything. So, again, what's the point of your deflection? I'm still talking about what MS and WIndows is bad at. "The Microsoft decision to utilize Akamai is more about effective content broadcasting than a need for an alternate operating system, he said." Your telegraphing.... or rather not looking for enough, but presuming that's the end of it. I think MS's reasons for using Akamai are perfectly legitimate. But that has nothing to do with it -- is your point MS can make a good business decision by not eating its own dogfood but I should put up with d!psh!ts who think MS is great at everything? Fck that! Take it a step further: the real question is: why does Akamai use Linux and not Windows? If they have valid reasons and they are the best in their field, can you accept that Windows isn' t the best OS for every field? "The Microsoft switch to Akamai may very well have been related to the attacks, Kovar said. But even if the Akamai network was based on Windows servers, Microsoft still may have made the switch to the caching network." No sh!t, but the point is: if Akamai used Windows, THEY would have been clogged to a halt by SoBig traffic, nevermind MS. Then no one would have been capable of usign Akamai. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, August 29, 2003 at 14:15. |
| #20 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/29/2003 2:45:27 PM |
|
Wrong, sodajerk--I would argue that you could build a distribution network like Akamai using Solaris, OS X, or Windows--and perhaps even a better one. And no, the cost for Microsoft is STILL an infrastructure cost. Who else do you think they're going to pay for the Windows licenses besides themselves???
According to the article, Netcraft's spokesman believed that no one is doing something like what Akamai is doing without using Linux. Does that mean that Solaris and OS X are insecure and unreliable? NO. Does it imply that they couldn't do the task? NO. Does it imply any of the above about Windows? NO. The SoBig traffic has nothing to do with it. You think someone is reading their email on these types of servers? Hotmail wasn't affected by SoBig or Blaster or KLEZ or any other virus. Why would a Windows-based distribution network be affected??? My network wasn't, and I know a lot of others that weren't. I never said that Akamai shouldn't use Linux, so don't put that in my mouth. I'm saying that Windows could do the job, and you're saying it couldn't. Again, by your logic, why didn't Akamai pick Solaris or OS X? It's not that they aren't technically capable; nor is Windows incapable. If you're going to say it's not, you had better provide proof that it isn't. Saying that it isn't used and therefore it's incapable is NOT proof. |
| #21 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/29/2003 3:18:09 PM |
|
sodajerk - "Did I say they need a central point of distribution? I said they can't use Windows."
LOL! I know what you said... I was just pointing out how silly you were being. "Actually, you didn't address my point at all." Of course I didn't address your point, because your point is a distraction from the real issue. It's like talking about whether it's better to pick Apples off a tree by hand or with a machine, and you enter the discussion claiming Oranges taste better than Apples. "Windows, the platform for all, for all purposes, is clearly not a platform for a distribution network. " Tell that to Napster and Kazaa. "No sh!t, but the point is: if Akamai used Windows, THEY would have been clogged to a halt by SoBig traffic, nevermind MS. Then no one would have been capable of usign Akamai." You don't know what SoBig is, or you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense. This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, August 29, 2003 at 15:21. |
| #22 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/29/2003 4:59:57 PM |
|
"Who else do you think they're going to pay for the Windows licenses besides themselves??? "
Again, I never proposed MS build it themselves... I'm asking for anyone to do webcaching with Windows -- NO ONE DOES OR EVER WILL. "According to the article, Netcraft's spokesman believed that no one is doing something like what Akamai is doing without using Linux." Does that mean that Linux is probably the best option for such a purpose? PROBABLY. "You think someone is reading their email on these types of servers?" Yes, Akamai pushes/distributes just about ANY content you wish them too. hence the .Net and WMA/V stuff someone was pointing out earlier. "Hotmail wasn't affected by SoBig or Blaster or KLEZ or any other virus." Strange, it's still affecting my friend's account (I don't have Hotmail). But HE CERTAINLY IS getting messages bounced back to him saying that SoBig is relaying off his hotmail account. "Again, by your logic, why didn't Akamai pick Solaris or OS X?" I'm saying it's the cost of hardware and that alone. Why are you avoiding the question of why not WIndows when you claim it could be and would do a good job? "I was just pointing out how silly you were being." If I didn't say the retarded sh1t you put into my mouth, isn't it you that's being silly? "Of course I didn't address your point, because your point is a distraction from the real issue. " Another distraction. "It's like talking about whether it's better to pick Apples off a tree by hand or with a machine, and you enter the discussion claiming Oranges taste better than Apples. " What the fck? I said Windows would be a pathetic choice for creating a reliable and not-target distribution system. Is that not realted to this whole topic? Have you disagreed with that point yet? "Tell that to Napster and Kazaa." Are you trying to be retarded? YOu know that P-2-P networks have nothing to do with Akamai's market. Just because I condensed it to "distribution network" doesn't mean we aren't talking about WEB CONTENT distribution and CACHING. Compare Kazaa to Speedera, Akamai, Digital Island, Inktomi, et al all you want -- you just look like a retard, and you are still avoiding the point. "You don't know what SoBig is, or you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense." Sure, I do, and you still haven't disagreed with or addressed my point. CAN'T YOU PATHETIC SOFTIES ACCEPT THAT WINDOWS IS PATHETIC AT CERTAIN THINGS AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE A MONOCULTURE FOR EXACTLY THESE TYPES OF REASONS!!!??? |
| #23 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 8/29/2003 7:11:47 PM |
|
jerky boy yelled, "CAN'T YOU PATHETIC SOFTIES ACCEPT THAT WINDOWS IS PATHETIC AT CERTAIN THINGS AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE A MONOCULTURE FOR EXACTLY THESE TYPES OF REASONS!!!??? "
It's still not clear here that is what is being discussed. I realize that is what you wish to turn the argument into, but what we're still dealing with is the network architecture capabilities of Akamai, not of any particular computer platform. Computers are all about providing solutions... not about religion. Once you can accept that fact, perhaps you can engage in an intelligent discussion. |
| #24 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/29/2003 7:53:06 PM |
|
Now you're claiming you don't know what I'm talking about? Why do you keep posting then? Do you know what you are talking about?
You are accusing me of being religious? But my comment is specifically against your's and bluvg's religious obsession with Microsoft. I'm perfectly happy with working with MS and find they have a place though the majority of their products are crappy considering their resources and almost all of their business practices are abominable, etc... I find them unavoidable but usable..., etc.... My claim is: softies must come to accept that Windows is not ideal in ALL situations. Something which you feel you need to fight tooth and nail. But my point is: Windows will continue to be attacked... Whether or not systems are well-administered, you are still talking about huge volumes of network activity because of the fact that Windows is the target. My point is that this is a big problem for MS, they see it as such, and seek out a solution, and the companies who provide a solution ALL choose Linux as their PRIMARY solution and OS. You can claim there are no reasons for this, but increasingly people see through the bullsh!t. You claim it's a network and not a platform issue. I'm claiming the platform is an integral part of the network architecture. And guess what that platform is? Can you guess? Can you guess what it's NOT? Are you claiming that they choose Linux for zero reasons? For reasons only related to cost? That there isn't a technological reason that the five or more companies providing this service all use Linux? How can you claim that it's purely a network thing when each of these companies use different strategies and architectures but use the same OS? Why can you not accept the very simple statement that Windows isn't good for all purposes, and this is clearly one of them? Your resistence to such a point (while at the same time trying to claim you don't understand what we are talking about) shows clearly that you are the one being religious. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, August 29, 2003 at 19:57. |
| #25 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 8/31/2003 4:10:08 AM |
|
"I'll buy this argument from "your" side a little better when/if Microsoft would make something that works with Linux..."
Setup an Oracle server on that Linux box. Use an OLE DB client to talk to that Oracle server. User on ODBC client to talk to that Oracle server. Use on Oracle Data Provider for .NET client to talk to that Oracle server. OK, there, you have three examples. To be perfectly clear, each of the aforementioned clients lives on a Windows box. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 329 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:56:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
