Linux-Advocacy Digest #935, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: businesses are psychopaths (phil hunt)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (ZnU)
Re: Criteria in Evaluating Distributions: (Grega Bremec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:20:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>The only thing you should have got from this is that there is no one size
>fits all DNS solution when using Active Directory.
The thing we got from it is that there are no DNS solutions when using
Active Directory. Just DNS problems when using Active Directory.
>It will all depend on
>your existing infrastructure, and how you choose to use what you have.
But we already knew *that*. Even Giuliano, who is not an expert in
networking (like I am and it appears Matt is), knew that. Of *course*
'it all depends' on what we have, and how we choose to use what we have.
Unless, of course, you have Windows 2000, and then you don't have any
choice but to chew dirt while trying to make up for the product's
deficiencies, spawned, one and all, by Microsoft's insidious attempt to
destroy interoperability with monopolistic intent.
>The
>discussion about scripting resulted from Matt throwing up red herrings.
The discussion about scripting was the red herring you threw up when
Matt pointed out why your position is one of naive stupidity concerning
what makes a network solution attractive or even acceptable to
professionals. Its 'gee wizz' product-izing and a brainless attempt to
extend a criminal monopoly, not a discussion of interoperability and
configuration of network systems. That's what this 'discussion' is
about; not your increasingly desperate attempts at hand-waving.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:15:25 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p3rda$bd8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> : Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> :> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)) wrote:
> :>
> :> >If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an existing OS
> :> >(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download for
> :> >RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is sucked
> :> >in later. :-)
> :> >
> :> Emphasis on "UN-metered" connection.
> :> You should see what I have to pay for my Internet connection.
>
> : That is why Linux is available through so many channels. On-line, in
> : stores, free with books, etc. You can pick the method that best fits
your
> : situation.
>
> I generally prefer to buy an off-the-shelf copy at a store, for two
> reasons: 1 - $50 or so is worth the savings in time (downloading
> an entire CD's worth onto hard disk, then burning my own CD from
> that is an annoyingly tedious task, and takes up lots of disk space
> in the meantime.) 2 - I like to fund the companies, to help keep
> them in business.
>
> The only exception to this is emergency bugfixes - those I'll download.
As I said, you can pick the method that best fits your situation. In your
situation then off-the-shelf purchases is best for you. That is your
choice, and it is good to know that you do have the choice.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:32:47 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p3v1i$1m1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:kPat5.50418$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:836t5.794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Also, consider this: currently, < 1% of our target demographic uses
> > > Linux..
> > > > < 4% uses Mac. The other 95 or so % use Windows.
> > >
> > > Nah, 0.5% uses Amiga ^_^
> >
> > Not according to my stats, they don't....
>
> Would you care to provide us with your statistics? What is the population
> and the bias factors? Is the raw data available?
No, the raw data isn't available. I provided you with the statistics above.
And it's based on number of web hits from each OS.
Simon
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:37:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>What documentation do you require? How to write a script?
>
>The documentation you need would probably be:
>Which registry key to change (easy to find)
>
>It's a standard location on each machine, it really is trivial.
Is that to say Microsoft has given some commitment that it won't change
in the next version in their typical "sorry suckers; you'll just have to
work around it" behavior, in the next version of whatever Microsoft
product you install next?
>> Then why would we need to set up a second DNS server for W2K (which is
>> the point I opbjected to).
>
>To keep Unix admins off your back - who either a) don't want to give up
>control of their DNS, or b) won't run a recent version of BIND.
The Unix admins run DNS; it isn't a question of giving up control, its a
question of allowing nimrods like you to screw up the company's IT
infrastructure. None of the Unix vendors insist you run the most recent
version of BIND, why should it matter to Microsoft?
[...]
>> to different servers run by 2 different groups when that was NEVER
>> required before???? Sounds like extra overhead to me! Not to mention all
>> the work needed to change over (even your little scripts would be a pain
>> if documentation is screwed up [as many paces are]
>>
>Documentation is not required - standard changes, standard addresses etc.
So first "everybody has documentation" becomes "documentation is not
required", but now magically everyone has perfect addressing standards
without conflicts throughout their enterprise which never vary from site
to site (yea, right). Could you quit flopping around like a dead fish
and just go away? You've said your piece, we gave it the once-over, and
now its time to move on to something more useful.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:30:46 -0400
Paul Mindeman wrote:
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Well, then you don't know what you're talking about. Windows 2000 is far
> > superior in it's security infrastructure than almost all versions of
> > Unix except special breeds created for the highest levels of the government
> > which have special non-standard kernels and inner-workings which
> > essentially make them non-Unix anyhow.
> >
> > Windows NT 4.0 has acheived C2 red and orange book security ratings from
> > the DoD. A feat no other Unix has achieved except for special varieties
> > which incorporate home-grown add-ons (including a DAC implementation
> > since the DoD recognizes what a backwards and insecure method the
> > G/U/E scheme is).
> >
> > Educate yourself before making wide-eyed assumptions that "Unix is
> > better" which is simply ignorant and arrogant. Each has their pluses
> > and minuses, but when it comes to the security implementation in Win2K
> > (which has had major improvements in security even over NT 4.0 and
> > incorporates all the modifications in NT4SP6 to make the orange-book
> > C2) there's no comparision to Unix (especially Linux, which is a joke
> > for anyone who has an impartial view of things -- e.g. non-Slashdot
> > drones)
> >
> > -Chad
>
> I've seen you say this numerous times in this thread, but you haven't said how
> WinNT/2k security is superior to Unix style security. In my (admittantly little)
> experience with NTFS, the file and directory permissions look alot like Unix style
> permissions, only with a fancy GUI. I'm curious to know what magic makes WinNT/2k
> security so much better
>
When the OS blows up, nobody can hack your data.
> Paul
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:31:46 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:536t5.791$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > 8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > It make no different if the OS is written under the authority of the
> > > manufacturer of the computer of if the manufacturer aquires it from else
> > > were, the customer pays for it if they use it or not. In the case of
> the
> > > example computer system of the if it did not come with the OS the price
> to
> > > the customer would have been $1,130.00 instead of $1,150.00 for the
> > machine.
> >
> > Has anyone actually tried to return his windows licence that came with a
> > computer?
>
> A client of mine did try that about 10 years ago, that was the Dos licenses
> that came with several computers they purchased. From the get go those
> machines were purchaed to run NetWare but yet they came with Dos bundled in
> with the computers. So here they had six unneeded licenses for Dos that
> could only be used on that particular model.
>
> The client was determined on principal to take Microsoft up on the then
> publicized offer to refund for unwanted and unused Dos licenses just as the
> current offer is for Windows. It became a big run around between Microsoft,
> the OEM, and the dealer. Finally when the cost to pursue the situation
> further appeared to exceed the vaule of the refund should it ever have been
> achieved, the client abandoned the attempt. The cost of the licenses and
> the cost of the persuit of the refund amounted to a total of just over
> $800.00 lost not counting time and salary, and consulting fees expended on
> the issue.
It's simple:
Send them a bill, and then take it to small claims court.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:40:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> >In article <8p0fmt$2gq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >Once again you misunderstand Matt. What I suggested there was to use
>> >the Unix version of BIND **only**, no Windows 2000 DNS at all. If you
>> >run a reasonably recent version of BIND (8.1 from memory) you can do
>> >this.
>>
>> Why would I have to run a recent version of BIND?
>>
>It needs to support
>1. Dynamic Updates
>2. SRV records
>3. Incremental transfers (not sure if this is a requirement or just a
>recommendation)
Why? What does NT (W2K) finally having a hierarchical directory system
(Active Directory, finally replacing that 'trust relationship' 'domain
controller' nightmare) for file and print services (and I assume at
least some application services) have to do with DNS?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 17:42:49 -0700
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p3e74$c8cik$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I'd also be interested to know if NT/W2k has anything comparable to
> > 4.4BSD's sysctl, that is a way to drastically reconfigure a running
> > system's kernel on the fly without reboot or other interruption.
> >
>
>
> Or the Linux ProcFS which also alows on the fly kernel reconfiguration
Why would it need to? You can't recompile the kernel for NT/W2k.
Whether it exists at all (used at MS for on-the-fly development work) is
another matter -- they're the only people who'd ever use that.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:51:32 +0100
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:13:32 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >There is something quite bizarre about this picture. Most people
>> >try to behave in a selfless manner and, failing that, rationalize
>> >their selfish actions as selfless.
>>
>> Is that the way you see it? Sounds pretty unfalsifiable to me. Every
>> action that everybody takes, you can just retroactively apply whatever
>> vaguery you want as selfish/selfless, and come to your ready-made
>> conclusion. Its a false dichotomy.
>
>On the contrary,
>1) selfless; not selfish
>2) selfish; what one would do if unrestricted by constraints over
> which one has no control, including lack of mental plasticity
If you had total mental plasticity, you would have no motive for
doing anything. So you'd proablty just sit still until you starved
to death.
I don't think your definitions make sense.
A better start would be from evolution. Selfish behaviour can be defined
as any behaviour that furthers the survival of the gene that codes for it.
(Note that tha behaviour may be in an organism other than the organism
that the gene is in, e.g. the way rabies alters mammalian behaviour).
>> Dawkins would also be the first to
>> point out, for instance, that the term 'species' is likewise
>> meaningless, from a genetic perspective.
I doubt that Dawkins would point out any such thing. Species are the
units on which evolution operates.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ]*****
"Something has gone wrong with your computer. Don't worry your silly little
head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation of a paperclip to
look at instead."
-- Windows2007 error message, extrapolated
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:55:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> In article <8p0m84$993$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> You did NOT claim that bind could do it all when you stated:
>>
>> "set the Win2K DNS up to forward to the Unix DNS"
>
>Because that wasn't the issue I was addressing - unlike you, I stick to
>topic. The issue I was addressing was how to provide a Windows based DNS
>while still allowing Unix admins to control the root level domain for your
>company.
What you didn't do was explain why you would need to do that at all to
begin with. Why aren't you just using the existing DNS infrastructure?
[...]
>> why would you set up W2K to forward to Unix DNS if you telling me that
>> you suggeted NOT using w2K DNS??? Please try to remember what you have
>> said...
>
>Like I also said if you bothered to read, was that there were many ways to
>implement it, and what is easier for your company will probably be
>different.
So it could be that your experience, your recommendation, indeed, your
information, will probably be entirely worthless, is that it?
>> And WILL BIND ENABLE ALL features of Active Directory???
>>
>Yes. DNS simply provides a locator service for the Active Directory. SRV
>records are used to locate the various Active Directory service providers
>(such as Domain Controllers), obviously A records (dynamically created by
>Win2K hosts) are used to locate machines.
>So as long as BIND supports
>1. SRV records
>2. Dynamic updates
>3. Incremental transfers
>
>it will enable all the features
So we don't need to screw things up by implementing DNS on the Active
Directory server *at all*, and there's not a single reason (besides
wanting to stop 'control by those Unix admins') to do so, is that what
you're saying?
I would really like to know this information, by the way, honestly.
Because unless things (notably appellate things) move much more quickly
than is expected, I know quite a large number of people who are going to
be forced to use W2K and Active Directory, against their better
judgement, and I think most of them will want to know how to minimize
their exposure. I wouldn't want anyone to inadvertently forget to
mention that there's no reason whatsoever to use 'Microsoft DNS
services' on the AD server, if they know how to set up the real DNS
system to 'correctly' point to W2K.
It would still make perfect sense to implement a sub-domain, as you
indicated, as that will further minimize the damage that would/will
occur when AD starts 'dynamically' updating things and then starts
failing rather rudely and screwing up the network. That would be
typical behavior for one of these anti-competitive little jobbies.
Microsoft doesn't seem interested in building stuff that works; just
stuff that sells. When you're a monopoly, that's all you need.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:59:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > "Joe R." wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > But a better thing would be to make the public schools at least
> > > > > as
> > > > > good as the private schools. I believe, perhaps naively, that
> > > > > this
> > > > > can be done; and even more naively, that it isn't simply a matter
> > > > > of
> > > > > money.
> > > >
> > > > It's much a matter of money; halving the class sizes requires
> > > > doubling
> > > > the number of teachers, for example.
> > >
> > > If you believe that class size is the only thing wrong with the
> > > schools,
> > > of course.
> > >
> >
> > It is by no means the only thng wrong, but is a large part in some
> > areas.
>
> Please explain why the best universities in the world routinely
> put their students through classes where the material is taught
> in lectures where the class size is in the HUNDREDS.
College students are essentially independent adults. If you put hundreds
of 3rd graders in a room with one teacher, just forget about them
learning anything; you'd be lucky to get through 15 minutes without a
serious injury....
> Class size has nothing to do with it...it's the brain-damaged
> curricula, and dumbed-down text books.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: Criteria in Evaluating Distributions:
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:59:47 GMT
...and Adam Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
>My dad has a joke that all distributions of Linux
>feature easy installation ... but when you want to
>go online ... what? You actually want to use the
>*Internet* with Linux?
Why? You ever thought of a Linux distribution _not_ having had an
Internet link set up?
>Everywhere I read a review on a Linux distribution,
>they discuss how easy it is to install that
>distribution, how easy it is to turn on a machine
>that runs that distribution, and sometimes even
>how easy it is to set up X-Windows. They tell you
>how powerful that distribution will be once you
>*do* connect to the Inernet ... but I have yet to
>see a review that tells you how easy it is to
>connect a distribution to the Internet.
>
>When I read a review on a Linux distribution,
>my biggest question is, "how easy is it to configure
>the IP connection from the vague info given my my
>ISP?"
Take Slackware 7.x for example. Granted, it doesn't have the cute
X-windows based net setup that the other distributions have, yet - it
works!
It did take me about an hour to set up my (now ex) external modem in
RedHat, God knows how much it would've taken me if I didn't know what
files to patch (a consequence of using "non-user-friendly" distros for
the most of my stay with Linux), but the fact is, when you're not in
the mood to do the hand editing, just run "pppsetup" that slackware
has. It's amazing how ugly the script looks, and what work it really
does without you having to know anything else than:
- what number you want to dial,
- what port the modem is connected to,
- what speed the modem is running at,
- IP of the ISP's name server,
- and, of course, what type of authentication they use
(either pap, chap/mschap, or script-based).
This information is, AFAIK, standard information that any ISP will
have to give out anyway, so there should really be no problems involved
in setting it up. One can easily fall back to defaults on all other
questions the script is asking, and it's not that it would be short on
providing the most basic information with every question.
Usually, the most difficult thing to do is get an ISP's support staff
to comprehend what you actually mean when asking about what kind of
authentication they used, and you might have to call in several times
before you get the person that actually knows what you're asking - but
it's not that we could refer to that as a difficulty that a
distribution has.
Anyway, I have found it to be quite helpful, but not necessary, if at
least one read pppd and chat manpages, because it really enables you
to understand things a whole lot better - in case any difficulty
emerges during the setup process.
<snip>
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
