Linux-Advocacy Digest #581, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 02:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Osugi Sakae)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why use Linux? (Nico Coetzee)
Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (Tim Palmer)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:52:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Yannick from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:35:26
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>> ...sucked. Go ahead, you can say it. "Windows sucks".
>
>1. This was a regular ellipsis for the [...]
You're quibbling, dude. Bad form.
>> >In other words, some people in the linux community used Fear, Uncertainty
>> >and Doubt, so the guy considered switching (FUD ... ??? I must have made a
>> >mistake. This is the capital sin MS is accused of... surely no linux user would
>> >use such techniques ?)...
>>
>> You did make a mistake.
>
>No. I did not make a mistake. I made a small shift of the concept. ...not even of
>the concept, in fact, only of its context. You said yourself that :
>
>> FUD is a dishonest activity, it uses *lies and
>> half-truths* to foment Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt,
>
>... and this is exactly what I meant.
I am not arguing if that is what you meant. I was arguing if you were
being factually correct when you called it FUD, and you weren't. You
made a mistake.
[...]
>> But that MS is a horrible company,
>As of today, this has become an _opinion_.
It's been an opinion all along. If you think I've made a mistake, feel
free to attempt to explain to me how. Unlike Microsoft defenders (not
to pick on you guys, a lot of advocates for the side which is mistaken
most are like this, by necessity), I will listen and consider everything
you say, and anxiously await the moment when you provide some new fact
or insight which will give me an excuse to clarify my thinking.
>> that their products work only to suck money
>It's an american company...
It a company. Yes, most businesses today are horribly unethical.
Microsoft is the point of discussion at the moment.
>> and control the customer
>"Control the customer" remains to be seen...
Only if you're blind.
>Securing their market share is another matter...
They don't *GET* a "market share". NOBODY does. The market is not a
pie chart. And, in fact, securing market share *is* the matter, and the
crime they've been convicted of.
>> (aside from being a mediocre-to-crappy OS),
>As of today, this has become an opinion, not a simple fact...
This was also a matter of opinion all along. For many many years, in
fact. One could argue that the fact that the OS is still on a majority,
let's say, of desktops proves the point invalid. But only if one
ignored all of the evidence to the contrary, which clearly and in detail
indicates that Microsoft has been pushing whatever software on the
public which will most securely lock-in their market power, regardless
of any technical integrity or design quality, and, in fact, in direct
opposition to these characteristics. So it appears to be an opinion
which is quite valid, as opposed to a blind insistence of ignorance
which insists that there were no pre-processor agreements (and the
hundreds of followup monopoly strategies), and if they were they weren't
illegal, and if they were they shouldn't be.
>> and that Microsoft and the industry in general will soon undergo
>> major changes. None of those things are untrue, and so teaching people
>> that they should try alternatives and not be afraid to learn how
>> computers really work isn't FUD.
>
>Never denied the fact that he should try an alternative... only disapproved
>of how he was convinced to do so...
Well, you're mistaken in your disapproval. Or you're lying in your
disapproval. Since you defend Microsoft, I honestly have to admit that
there's a pretty even chance of either being the case. I don't mean to
sound prejudicial, and if, again, you can give me any reason at all to
think otherwise, I will take the bait. I'd really like you to trust me
on that, and give it a shot.
>> Saying "Windows is easy, Linux is hard" is FUD.
>
>As you wish...
OK.
>> Windows is familiar; Linux is different.
>
>There's more to it. Linux is different, but my opinion remains that, for interactive
>tasks (i.e. every task involving user/computer interaction, I'm not speaking of
>servers
>yet), Windows is far more efficient.
I study the efficiency of tasks involving interaction with operators who
are not administering or using servers (other than server components of
a desktop PC.) I have worked professionally in that area for more than
a decade, now. I learned Unix well after I learned Macintosh, and about
the same time as I learned Windows, which I devoured avidly, because I
had been waiting for a decent GUI for the PC for several years.
Windows is more familiar, and that is all. Absolutely all. In the lab,
as well as the real world, end users (even those who are just stuffing
in software for running common applications) are inefficient in the
extreme, on either system. But *nix, my considered and professional
opinion remains, is far more efficient for those familiar with it. And
it doesn't take any more time or effort to become familiar with it,
allowing for the fact that most people are already familiar with Windows
by the time they've ever heard of Linux.
[...]
>> And this is simply an opinion. A rather trite, unproven, and incorrect
>> opinion, but an opinion nevertheless. Unless we want to try to take it
>> seriously, and consider what "unused potential" Windows might have in
>> comparison to Linux,
>
>Which we've been discussing for weeks on this newsgroup, so I won't start all
>over again.
COLA is too busy for even me to keep up with, but I recall someone else
on ADM also questioning your comment in this regard. Could you do us
the favor of summarizing the argument as a new thread, with followups
directed to my 'home' group?
>>or what a "feature for the end user" is,
>
>Even I do not know what features are available for the end user on Windows...
>until I try linux and find some of them missing.
So if it differs from what you are familiar with, that counts as a
missing feature? How are you to know if the feature is not available,
but in an unfamiliar (but possibly even more efficient) way? Unless you
know both about equally well (but not too much; engineers tend to be
more religious than end users), I don't think you can honestly say that
Linux is harder than Windows or missing any features.
On the other hand, I don't know anyone who wouldn't agree that Linux is
missing features, and possibly even some that Windows has, though that
is less likely. The difference is, with Linux we can add them. We
don't need permission, or secret code, from the company that is making
money on the product.
>> and how it
>> differs from a trivial single capability which is used to attempt to
>> obscure the real issues
>
>....stability.... everybody around here thinking it's an end in itself....
>understand what I mean, here ?
No. Stability is an end in itself. It is also a means to a lot of
things, as well, but all by itself it has tremendous value.
>> or dishonestly influence the opinions of those
>> who will be scared off of trying alternatives by dishonest statements
>> such as yours. Then it becomes just more FUD.
>
>At least it is based on arguments, not on comtempt over other people's opinions...
I have no contempt for you, rest assured, and I merely disagree with
your opinions. It is your argument I have contempt for, because your
argument is FUD.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:04:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Yannick from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:36:21
>Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>8k5nr8$1qgcv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >I happen to be an end-user who happens to think Linux is great and has
>> >many more features for the end-user then Windows. Perhaps, you can
>> >point out the end-user features available on Windows not available on
>> >Linux?
>>
>> The ability to regurlarly crash with a pretty blue screen which keeps me
>> well employed having to continually have to repeat the hours of lost work
>> this causes.
>
>I'm still amazed by this one. My university is using mostly (~98%) NT/Win9x
>computers. I must have seen about 2 or three BSODs over the last five months...
>And three linux crashes... (on 2 machines)
I can understand how you'd be amazed. First, let me point out, that I
have in just the last three days remarked to no less than five people in
response to something we've noticed, that the use of technology in the
academic world makes the use of technology in the business world look
somewhere between "clueless" and "pathetically weak" on the average.
But the occurrence of BSODs is quite difficult to pin down. They do
seem to occur with overwhelming regularity by some reports, and hardly
ever by others. I would suspect that part of this is due to the nature
of "using" a computer, or rather, an OS. In a stable environment, when
lucky enough to have a straightforward combination of applications and
devices which are not subtly flawed or incompatible, MS OSes, like any
other computer software, should, and does, run regularly and routinely
without problems. In other words, if you aren't really "using" it very
much, a Windows box can stay up for months, some of them. But sometimes
Windows boxes can be started and left untouched, with no particular
flaws in configuration or administration which are under the end-users
control or cognizance, and they will crash all by themselves. Is it the
Windows software or the hardware in each particular instances? It seems
to be statistically related to Windows. Obviously, empirical evidence
on random crashes are, shall we say, problematic to acquire, so "seems
to be" is the best we can hope for, and therefore all that we need to
consider it possible. In some cases it is, no doubt, hardware. But the
fact is that when you get to the lowest level of the issue, there's no
distinction; something happened that wasn't handled correctly. If the
OS crashes, it is considered that it didn't handle it correctly.
My guess is, in the case of your Linux boxes, however, that these are
simply being wailed on by all sorts of students. Linux is a REALLY hot
commodity in universities these days, and it frankly doesn't surprise me
that Linux had some problems. But I'd also be willing to bet money that
you are mischaracterizing the crash, as the equivalent of a BSOD in the
Linux system is practically unheard of. And they, as well, might easily
be considered the hardware.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:06:13 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:11:36 -0400, Rick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hmmm.. then DOS was not (is not) a real OS, huh? in order to be a REAL
>OS you have to have pre-emtive multitasking huh?, Well, if I dont have a
>REAL OS on my mac, whats controlling it?
>
A toy OS.
--
Microsoft Windows. The problem for your problem.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:13:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>I agree that Windows seems to crash a lot more often that what was
>originally stated, but in some cases it is possible to set it up to run
>without crashing *a lot*.
Now if only anyone had any *real* information about what those cases
are, maybe it wouldn't crash *a lot*.
>But you have to have an administrator that
>knows what he is doing, users that don't fiddle with the control panel,
>and a solid network/server setup in a business to really keep them
>running smooth.
I disagree. It is perfectly possible for an end-user to administer a
desktop computer, and knowing what you're doing doesn't seem to help
avoid crashes. I have seen Windows itself fiddle with the control panel
more often than end users (I'll bet a lot of corporate admins blame
users for quite a bit of Windows' forgetfulness), and the only solid
network/server setup is non-MS.
>Any one of those factors changes and you are crashing
>at least weekly, probably more often.
You'd be willing to back that up empirically, I am sure, but you'd
expect to be able to wait until after you saw the results to determine
what "knowing what he is doing" and "running smoothly" mean, I'd wager.
>I have yet to see a company where
>all three of those things apply. I suppose there is one out there
>somewhere, but I haven't been there.
So it sounds like maybe you're just guessing that this would do it, but
always able to see something besides the fact that the software is crap
to blame it on. If you've never seen an example where all three are
true, what makes you think such a situation is possible to begin with,
let alone that it would cure Windows' ills?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:11:29 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I humbly suggest that you either grow a brain or go back to
>> Windows. Your choice of course.
>
>I would humbly suggest that if all you can do is cast insults
that you
>leave. The doors over there, close it on your way out.
>
1. I did more than just cast insults. Thus your post is
pointless.
2. You claimed that one reason linux doesn't support as much
hardware as Windows or Mac has something to do with the lack of
profits for the hardware companies if they wrote Linux drivers.
I rebutted, pointing out that the drivers are given away free.
3. You are either a troll or you have the absolute worst luck
with computers of anyone I have ever heard of.
If you really like windows and hate linux, don't use linux. It
is that simple. You might want to be happy you have a choice at
least.
--
Osugi Sakae
"You can have my Linux when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
But if you ask nicely, I'll give you a copy. Be easier for both
of us."
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 11 Jul 2000 00:24:04 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kd23a$288d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
> > doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
> > W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same. So, all this
Apache
> > dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
> > EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
> >
> > The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making
ones?
> > Companies that are concerned about their image, product, availability,
> > uptime, performance and all that matters cause their name/image on-line
> > matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST DEFINATLEY not using Linux!
> >
>
> Google is just finishing up their 6,000 node linux cluster. Google is the
> only existing search engine which has had zero downtime since its
inception.
>
> You do not know what youre talking about.
so, your reply to these articles is something to do with google needing such
a huge cluster of boxes and your unsupported claim of zero downtime since
inception?
What the HELL does that have to do with anything? Of course, let's not
forget that all 6000 of those linux boxes are counted as 1 by netcraft
too... <grin>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:19:33 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >This is why:
> >
> >=== script output ===
> >
> >Mon Jul 10 13:42:15 SAST 2000
> > 1:42pm up 28 days, 1:23, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.29
> >USER LINE LOGIN-TIME FROM
> >nicc tty2 Jun 12 14:13
> >nicc :0 Jul 5 15:07
> >
>
> To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
> meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up time
> of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything. What does
> that fact tell you?
>
> Paul
>
> --
>
> "Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
Meaningless?
I remember at me previous work a Novell 3.12 box (File & Print Server). It was
rebooted only for maintenance. If I must guess, the uptime would be somewhere
between 60 and 90 days at a time. I know there were periods where uptimes of
over 100 days were achieved. About 1.5 years ago, just before I left, the
company migrated to NT4. All it had to do was File & Print serving. I was
leaving within a week of the final swing over, so I didn't work very long on
that system. All I know is they struggled for weeks to get the system stable
enough to make it through a week. Even now, they record frequent unscheduled
down times.
To get back to your argument. In the end, it is the end user that needs access
to whatever server they access. If that system is down, obviously there's a
problem. Now add unstable workstations to an unstable NOS and what do you get?
I can understand that there are some reasons why individuals want to
periodically reboot a system. As long as there is a close to zero impact on
normal business functions.
My argument is that with a Linux (Unix) system, both as server and workstations,
you can achieve very high uptimes, which means greater productivity. That is
what it's all about - in the end...
Now, is my argument still meaningless?
Cheers,
Nico.
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
Youth is when you blame all your troubles on your parents; maturity is
when you learn that everything is the fault of the younger generation.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:25:05 -0500
On 9 Jul 2000 00:24:49 GMT, Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>So you mean if we all use Linux, we'll all end up living in crumbling
>>>lookalike concrete apartment buildings and looking over our shoulders for
>>>the KGB?
>> Iventualy....
>Care to explain how exactly that would happen?
>
If CommyLie-nux Commy's get there way, then this is what wood happen alfter the Commy
Revellution.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 11 Jul 2000 00:26:29 -0500
In article <Fb1a5.2498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I don't know enough of the details of SMTP, POP and IMAP to
>> >know how this works; it does nto seem like an example
>> >of using a standard protocol to interoperate. It seems like
>> >three protocols.
>>
>> If you don't understand the issues, why continue the discussion?
>
>Hey, you brought up these protocols. If you meant to end
>the discussion by doing so, then I must offer a different
>strategy:
I brought up some actual widely used protocols on the hope
that you could say something meaningful about them instead
of your usual unfounded rants about how bad protocols that have
been designed by groups of well-informed people are.
>> SMTP is the transport protocol that handles delivery to
>> the destination host where it is stored for access by the
>> user.
>
>"the"? You mean its the one Unix uses, right?
And everyone else that uses internet email.
>I would not be very surprised to learn that Exchange
>has another one.
Yes, Microsoft can screw up just about anything, even
something as simple as email. (Note that the 'S' in
smtp is for simple). Exchange actually does do
smtp, but not very well.
>You mean SMTP the *most popular* one, and thus
>everyone ought to use it, right?
It is the one you can use without pre-arrangement.
>Sort of like Windows? :D
Except that it works well...
>> POP and IMAP are network user access protocols that
>> allow reading the stored messages on demand. POP simply copies
>> the messages over to the user's program, usually all at once.
>> IMAP allows the messages to remain stored on the server and
>> accessed from different remote locations. You can also
>> use other protocols simultaneously, and all of these have
>> had protocol revisions which can co-exist. Where is the
>> 'very limiting' part of this?
>
>I suspect the devil is in the details, really.
Of course it is possible to get them wrong, but that turns
out not to be a problem when you can easily replace a buggy
implementation with any other version you like. If you
are stuck with a proprietary protocol with only one version
any problem is fatal.
>> It is irrelevant that they exist if they don't interoperate except
>> that they reduce the value of the ones that do. It is like a building
>> with a private phone network that doesn't interconnect with the
>> public lines. If enough places used such things that you couldn't
>> contact the people you want, your own phone would become useless.
>
>It's true that these protocols don't miraculously solve the
>problem of interoperability; no protocol can do so unless
>it is forced down the throats of everyone.
There is no need to force anyone to use open protocols. They
are always the best choice.
>Unix *has* been able to do a certain amount of htis, because
>it has dominated the Internet and it *refuses* to interoperate
>with anything. So everyone else has learned to use some of
>Unix's protocols.
Perhaps you can name a few of these systems that will not
interoperate via SMTP. I can't think of any offhand. I don't
think it was developed under unix and it makes no particular
concessions to unix systems.
>But I don't think this makes Unix's weak interoperability
>a virtue.
Because it doesn't exist.
>> >You're
>> >little SMTP/POP/IMAP network won't be able to interoperate
>> >with a client that knows none of these protocols, unless you
>> >have some way to add a protocol to it.
>>
>> Little? SMTP spans the world and I believe into space. And yes,
>> every non-standard, non-interoperable client reduces its value.
>
>I must say this kind of phrasing makes me a little nervous. You
>seem to be saying that everyone in the world should be made the
>use your technologies because their doing so is convinient for
>you: it "increases the value" of your technology.
No one is made to do anything, but following standards is what
permits communications to occur, and communication is valuable.
>> >You know, some sort of plug-in architecture.
>>
>> No, I don't know. You haven't said anything to show how it
>> is better than using standard protocols.
>
>Of course not; you've thrashed about until you found a subject
>I don't know very much about; this allows you some security
>in demanding details.
>
>It's a useful rhetorical trick, I guess.
You are the one who has been trying to make some point about
open protocols being bad in some way. I was politely letting
you attempt to show why you think that.
>[snip]
>> >I think it does have something to do with it; you said the *reason*
>> >for using standard protocols everywhere was to enable one
>> >endpoint at a time changes. In fact, I point out, a plug in
>> >archecture *does* allow this, and even permits you to change
>> >the protocol itself one endpoint at a time, which standardizing
>> >on a single protocol does not.
>>
>> No, it doesn't have anything to do with it because no one ever
>> said anything about using only a single protocol.
>
>Surely that was exactly the thing you proposed as a solution
>to all our interoperability woes?
One for each purpose for public interchange. Additional ones can
be used for private purposes where the standards are unsuitable
in some way or where the intent is actually to restrict interoperation.
However, since the standard protocols have been developed to
meet the usual needs, it is unusual to need anything else.
>> And even
>> if you do, protocols normally have version negotition which
>> allows changes within the protocol to provide backwards
>> compatibility without having to touch existing configurations.
>
>That's nice, and with some kind of plug-in approach it's quite
>useful.
Under unix most services are handled by ordinary user-level
programs, and shared libraries can be replaced or
specified at runtime, so there is no particular need for
a specialized API to limit the things you can do. If your
OS makes loading a program or getting it to use a specific
library difficult, I suppose you might be concerned about
such things.
>[snip]
>> Standard protocols exist for most necessary
>> services and can always be created for new ones. You don't
>> have to be trapped by any single vendor.
>
>Being trapped by a single protocol is hardly an improvement.
You aren't trapped by standards.
>[snip]
>> >> So, where is this mythical driver-like thing that will
>> >> allow a non-MS product to be a domain controller?
>> >
>> >I've already given you the links. It's called a "security support
>> >provider".
>>
>> But it requires replacement of the client. That's not interoperability.
>
>Sure it is. You say it isn't because it isn't what Unix does, and for
>you, "interoperable" is synonymous with Unix.
How can something interoperate if you have to change the other end?
>> >It's because of these things that you can use a NetWare directory
>> >server as a domain controler; but you can also write your own.
>>
>> Novell says it is impossible with the win2k scheme. If they can't
>> do it I doubt if I could either.
>
>Where do they say this?
>
>I betcha they are saying something *else* is impossible, not this:
>Something like using Windows 2000 Actice Directory servers
>with NetWare clients, perhaps.
I believe it is the win2k kerberized domain controller scheme
that they can't match.
[snip]
>I think we've reached an impasse; neither of us will
>back down on what "interoperability" is, and our
>definitions are clearly fundamentally in conflict.
Reached? I think that has been the case all along.
>[snip]
>> No, it is still the same when you have to change the client
>> to make it work. It doesn't matter whether a third party
>> provides the usable client or not, or whether the piece it
>> replaces was designed to be replaced it is still just as
>> much trouble.
>
>Not at all; having an infrastructure for doing this makes it
>easier. It is possible to kludge this kind of thing, but is it
>not better to have some sort of design?
Yes, the wire protocol should be designed such that multiple
vendors products can use it without requiring all the
others to be changed to match.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
