best language for 3D manipulation over web ?

[TGOS]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 17:21:30 +0300, Attila Feher <Attila.Feher at lmf.ericsson.se>
wrote:

<snip>
 
> Just to inform you: the worlds easiest to hack and crack systems are the
> UNIX systems.

That's absolutely incorrect.
It's easily provable by having a look at "how" hackers were entering a Unix
system. Whenever a new hack is made public somewhere on the Internet, I first
have a look at "how it was done" because that's most interesting to me (more
interesting than "who was hacking the system" and "for what reason"). And
usually I'll read the following:
"This hack was possible because of a security hole in XYZ, that got fixed in
version 1.234, which was released <long time ago>".

But that's all only valid for maybe 5% of all hacks, 95% of all hacks are only
possible because the hired system admin wasn't qualified for this job. Come on,
if you leave your UNIX server widely open to the public, it's no wonder if you
get hacked.

IOW most UNIX hacks only result of poor administration and hacking a perfectly
secured UNIX system is extremely hard. In most cases it's harder than hacking
Windows, because only a "root-hack" is really useful on UNIX systems, whereby
on Windows systems it's enough to be an ordinary user in many cases.

Despite that, more people will be able to see UNIX source code before it gets
released than are actually working for Micro$oft as whole, so the chance that
they find hidden bugs in network code (for example) is a lot higher than in
case of Windows.

But leaving this all aside for a second:
*Where* in my post did I say that Unix is extremely secure and hard to hack?
All I said is that Windows isn't secure.

PLEASE, don't put words into my mouth that I never used!
I suggest you read my post a second time.

> Serious users (security, incl. but
> not limited to NATO, banks etc.) use VMS.  Some smaller banks use(d)
> OS/2.

Same situation as above.
I never said that those use UNIX, did I?
(if you disagree, please post the line!)
All I said was that those don't use Windows.
Are you sure you have read my post?

And speaking about cross-platform development:
OS/2 is a very good Java platform. I don't know anything about VMS, but it's
certainly not impossible to port a Java Virtual Machine for this system as
well.

> But what is sure: Linux (UNIX) with sources is ony used (at
> serious places) as firewall (where the actuall OS is inspected and
> corrected line by line) and as a Web Server with no online connection to
> the real internal network.

Again, I never said that UNIX is used in all the places you described above.
I get the feeling that you are replying to the wrong post here.

> So don't take UNIX to any higher level than it is.

I never did that, you are currently doing that because you assume ... well, I
have no idea what you are assuming.

> And about Windows being a shit: Just try to look around and find a
> portable async gethostbyname or a standard gethostbyname_r for
> Unices...  Good luck.  BTW you can find numerous workarounds which fail
> in numerous environments.

And the fact that this function (which I personally have never needed up to
now) doesn't exist on UNIX is the proof that Windows isn't shit? Funny, but
that makes no sense to me.

> Windows is not better than UNIX and UNIX is not better than Windows and
> none of those are neither secure nor realtime O/Ss.

1) I never said that UNIX is better than Windows (correct me if you can!), I
only said that Windows is unstable, insecure and not very well thought out.

2) I never said that UNIX is secure, neither in my last post nor  in this post.

3) There actually is a realtime version of Linux ... just thought I should
mention that.

> Don't make a religious war about this.

It rather looks like /you/ are making a religious war out of that.
I nowhere said "UNIX is better" and that all people shall use UNIX PC instead
of Windows PCs. I use Windows myself (not as only OS, but still more often).

I was only pointing out that not 99.9999% of all PCs run with Win32 (the
reality is not even close to that) and that cross-platform development has no
disadvantages.

> BTW 1 addition: there are numerous Internet SW which run only on Windows
> (some only on win9x series) and they do survive.

I never said they can't survive, did I?
I only said that all the BIG companies support multiple platforms, that was
all. Hell, to which post are you really replying here? Certainly not to mine.

> Like online casino SW.  Would they survive with a Linux only solution?

I don't know and I don't care. I'm a supporter of cross-platform solutions and
a Linux only solution is no cross-platform solution.

You seem to misunderstands my motives. Saying how shitty Windows is and only
developing Linux software from this day on isn't making the situation any
better. You exchange one "platform dependent solution" with another "platform
dependent solution". Cross-platform development meaning to not develop for any
specific platform.

It means developing a base version that can run everywhere and then only
fine-tune this base version for different systems. That's cross-platform
development.

To get back to your question: Would the casino SW developers also survive when
creating software that can run on Windows, Linux, Solaris, Irix and OS/2?
Certainly! Maybe even better than they are doing right now.

> So there is a huge market for Windows apps.

Just like there's a huge market for other OSes, so why not supplying software
for more than a single market? Because you could gain more customers and earn
more money? Yeah, that would certainly be a big disadvantage.

If you are developing a online application that people shall be able to use
within their browser (and that's what this whole thread is all about...but I
assume you don't know that because you haven't read anything within this thread
up to now, including my post to that you are replying), where is the advantage
of limiting it to a single platform? I don't see any.

The cross-platform solution is there, all you need to do is using it!

-- 
TGOS