Client user is different
Can you see this difference ?
"I Was Born To Frag"
(vpereira)
zyon:/work#cd /pub
zyon:/pub#more beer
zyon:/pub#cd ~
zyon:~#sleep 18h && poweroff
___________________________________
Victor Alexandre do Valle Pereira
Unix, Security, Networking, Eleet Coding
Módulo Security Solutions -SP - Brasil
ICQ Number:163
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noonan, Wesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Michael T. Babcock'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Victor Pereira"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: Squid and Samba
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael T. Babcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 11:10
> To: Victor Pereira; Noonan, Wesley
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Squid and Samba
>
> Don't forget to upgrade your CPU. We had to move a workstation from a
P-II
> 266 to a Duron 850 to get the same responsiveness out of Win2k as we had
> from Win98 SE (and bring the RAM to 128M from 64M).
>
> Perhaps. I have had differing experiences. Our 266 servers (128MB RAM) do
a
> fine job servicing 250 home directories and profile directories or
providing
> DC, DHCP, WINS and DNS services. They even run great as small remote
> exchange servers. It's all in the implementation, in my experience. I have
> also found W2K to run circles around Win9x performance wise on anything
> bigger than a 233 with 64MB RAM. Move the test to a 350 (or higher) with
> 128MB of RAM, and it is no contest. Like a heavyweight boxing a
> featherweight, Win9x can't hold a candle to W2K.
>
> We've got Linux machines running everything from authentication to file
> sharing to proxy services on 128M with Celeron 333's in them (oh, and we
> don't bother with monitors on them -- they don't need rebooting).
>
> I know numerous companies who are doing the same with W2K (minus the
> monitors of course, though reboots have nothing to do with it). The only
> difference is that they would never use a Celeron for a server, due to the
> caching requirements typically placed on servers.
>
> What are you running for your desktops? Linux? Unless I read the headers
> wrong (X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200), you sent this
> using Outlook Express. That doesn't run on Linux does it? I would think it
> is a little hypocritical to throw rocks at Microsoft like this... while
you
> are using Microsoft to send the message, so to speak. :)
>
> Regardless, this seems to be drifting from the topic of "firewalls" so it
is
> probably best to let it die, or take it to private email.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Wes Noonan, MCSE/MCT/CCNA/NNCSS
> Senior QA Rep.
> BMC Software, Inc.
> (713) 918-2412
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.bmc.com
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
