Linux-Advocacy Digest #758, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:47:51 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> Yeah, and 'vim' is highly intuative when compared to other vi
>>> clones. It's the same thing.
>> Thus doesn't count.
> Why not?
Because a port of vi is still vi, regardless of what the person who
did the port decided to call it.
> It's the same as saying that power cords are similar to
> power cords.
They're not "ports".
> I think this demonstrates my point quite well.
Your point skews the meaning of "intuitive".
> Define the boundries where you want, and anything you want can
> seem intiutive.
Intuitiveness is not defined in terms of familiarity with
identical things. The use of vi on a Solaris system doesn't
make the use if vi on an AIX system "intuitive".
> It's all so relative as to be useless.
Then why does the word exist?
>>> If you get to define the boundry
>>> wherever you like, you can make anything look intuitive or
>>> unituitive, as needed to suit your argument, by just shifting
>>> the boundry around.
>> The key word here is "if".
> Which you *have* been doing.
According to whom, you? I didn't write the dictionary definition.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:49:12 GMT
JM writes:
> Steve Mading wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> I was just as serious as Steve, who claimed that you didn't have to
>>> move your whole arm to hit Esc.
>> Bullshit. I *was* serious. What, do you have like 1-inch fingers?
> No, he's got a 1" something else...
What might that "something else" allegedly be?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:53:00 GMT
JM writes:
>>>> My keyboard has its cursor keys on the right, at about the same
>>>> distance from the home row as the Esc key.
>>> What? Is your keyboard made out of foil or something?
>> Illogical. What does foil have to do with anything?
> "Illogical"?
That is what I wrote.
> Are you some fucking star-trek freak or something?
Illogical; one does not need to be a "star-trek freak" to identify an
illogical statement.
> As for mentioning foil: what would you use if referring to a keyboard
> where the keys can move about?
I don't have any such keyboard, thus I haven't had the need to think
of a word for it.
>>> The escape key's usually near the "1" key,
>> On the contrary, it's by the F1 key. The tilde is next to the "1" key.
> I said "near", not "next".
The Esc key is nearer to the F1 key. The tilde is nearer to the "1" key.
Does that make you any happier?
>>> but the cursor keys are miles away.
>> Mighty big keyboard you have there.
> Well where are YOUR cursor keys then?
About the same distance as the Esc key. Didn't I already say that?
>>>>>>> Not only that, but you use your LEFT hand, while the
>>>>>>> RIGHT stays by the hjkl keys.
>>>>>> Not if I want to type yuioopnm, for example.
>>>>> Huh?
>>>> Those letters aren't on the home row.
>>> They are if you've been painting new letters on people's keyboards to
>>> confuse them!
>> Is that something you do?
> Often. It's almost as fun as putting broken glass shards in the local
> swimming pool. In the shallow end!
Figures.
>> Any relation to "Moul"?
> What????
Any relation to "Moul"? Something not clear about that question?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:58:12 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>> Actually, the first thing to learn is how to exit the editor,
>>>> hence the ZZ.
>>> I'd been using vi for 1 month before I ever heard of that command,
>>> and I still never use it. It is not the first command you have to
>>> learn. Learning it as ":wq" is much better, as this is consistent
>>> with the other types of quitting commands.
>> The point is that you need to learn how to exit the editor before
>> other less basic commands. The actuall keystrokes used are irrelevant.
> But YOU were the one talking about how inconsistent the quitting
> command "ZZ" is (eariler).
Where did I allegedly say that? I merely said that exiting the editor
is one of the first things you need to learn. It never ceases to amaze
me of the difficulty some people have with reading comprehension.
> I'm saying that it doesn't have to be
> taught that way, and in my case it wasn't.
Were you taught the undo command before you were taught how to save
your text and exit the editor?
>>> ZZ was just a quick shortcut mapping to the 'real' command.
>> Why do you suppose it was added?
> Dunno - I don't use it or find it convienient.
Think about it.
>>>>> Hit escape if you aren't sure. Now you are.
>>>> So much for efficiency.
>>> It takes roughly zero time to do that, and you only do it if
>>> something distracted you long enough to forget where you are.
>> Such distractions happen rather often.
> So? Regardless of how often they happen, they constitute a
> mental break in concentration, and as such the extra 'esc' hit
> is irrelevant to the speed of operation.
I disagree.
> Whatever it was that caused the distraction (phone rings, lose
> train of thought, brain fart, whatever) is going to be vastly
> more of a factor.
Irrelevant, given that I'm talking about the speed of operation
of the editor itself, not the wall clock time getting an editing
job done.
>>>>> It is consistent with being the end of the type of motion command
>>>>> you gave.
>>>> Do you consider d to be a "motion command"?
>>> '$' is the motion command, not 'd'.
>> But you called it "the end of the type of motion command you gave".
> *I* didn't call it anything - pay attention to the attributions.
Practice what you preach. There is only your attribution to pay
attention to.
>>> That's the way the other ones work>
>>> d {motion command} (delete from cursor to the moved-to-spot)
>>> y {motion command} (yank from cursor to the moved-to-spot)
>>> > {motion command} (indent block from cursor to moved-to-line)
>>> < {motion command} (outdent block from cursor to moved-to-line)
>>> v {motion command} (visually select from cursor to moved-to-spot)
>>> ....etc... (the last one (v) didn't exist in the original vi, but
>>> exists in all the new incarnations of it)
>> Doesn't specify whether $ is the end of line or the end of file.
> It's always end-of-line everywhere except where it's being used
> in a place where you would normally put a line number.
The key word here is "except".
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:59:04 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> Why? Suppose you get off an airplane in a country that uses a
>> language that you don't understand, and you've never been there
>> before. Sign A has a word on it in that unfamiliar language
>> while Sign B has nothing but an arrow on it. Now can you fathom
>> the concept?
> Silly me, I thought I was talking about text editors, not signs.
Something wrong with a simple analogy to help illustrate a point?
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:54:45 GMT
In article <VGjY5.10172$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90sdg9$qb9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ah, the very old line, I don't know how they did it, so it can't be
> > done. Sorry, Chad, Just because you or anyone outside of Netcraft
does
> > not know how netcraft get's the numbers does NOT prove Nectraft does
not
> > know how to do it.
> >
> > Are you claiming that Netcraft is making up the numbers?
> >
>
> Prove they aren't.....
Yeah, right! next you'll claim that the black Netcraft has launched a
fleet of black helecopters to take over the Microsoft Headquarters!
This one you need to prove, PROVE THAT NETCRAFT DOES NOT KNOW A WAY TO
GET THE NUMBERS.
>
> >
> > In article <ZOhY5.5053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > > > Not true, Netcraft might show that some NT/2000 systems are
> > rebooted
> > > > > regularly but IME that is never necessary to maintain
stability.
> > In fact
> > > > > the only times I've seen instabilities in the OS is during the
> > setup phase.
> > > > > Once I've got the drivers all correct the systems only fail
when
> > hardware
> > > > > fails.
> > > >
> > > > Moot point - there is still no Windows machine in the top 50.
> > >
> > > Top 50 of whay? Netcraft's admittedly unscientific method of
> > > determining uptime?
> > >
> > > Please, explain to us how you can accurately determine the uptime
> > > of a Windows machine (or any, for that matter) remotely without
> > > any permissions on that box without constantly pinging it?
> > >
> > > Can't? Right, because there is no way. Netcraft must be magic,
then.
> > >
> > > > > MSDN members receive software to stress test NT/2000 haven't
seen
> > the need
> > > > > to run it yet so I'm not sure what it does but I'll let you
know.
> > > >
> > > > Does it warp time so that we can see if the system will _really_
> > stay up
> > > > for 3 years nonstop? I doubt it.
> > > >
> > > > The proof is in the pudding. Once a Windows system has been
_proven_
> > to
> > > > run under some appreciable load for 3 years nonstop, then I
MIGHT
> > > > believe it.
> > >
> > > I'm sure they are out there. Unfortunately, I've never had an
> > environment
> > > that didn't move once a year or so. The past couple companies I've
had
> > > have physically moved from one location to another once or twice.
> > >
> > > The longest stretch of uptime I've had on NT was 312 days or so.
But
> > > the previous stretch was 280 or so days. I had to shut the box
down
> > and
> > > move it to the our new address then get it back up which it stayed
up
> > > for 312 days.
> > >
> > > This machine served the domain, printing, file sharing, internet,
> > Exchange
> > > messaging, and several other tasks for about 50-70 users and about
10
> > > dial-in users and 2 VPN users. It had a heavy load for the
hardware it
> > > was running on.
> > >
> > > > > Security is no longer an issue when properly administered,
just
> > like UNIX,
> > > > > reliability ditto, scalability is actually ahead.
> > > >
> > > > Security is ALWAYS an issue if you want to maintain it. Perhaps
NT
> > has
> > > > finally caught up, perhaps Win2000 is there, but I still see a
> > thousand
> > > > viruses a month plaguing Windows users ...
> > >
> > > Win9x mainly, which is irrelevant. Perhaps there are the clueless
> > > small businesses running NT or 2K as Administrator all the time
> > without
> > > virus software, but any competent person doesn't run as
Administrator
> > > (or root in Unix) and therefore is not subject to these "viruses".
> > I've
> > > had many of them sent to me and none had any affect.
> > >
> > > > Scalability - I don't think so. Will ANY variant of Windows run
on a
> > 256
> > > > processor machine?
> > >
> > > It's irrelevant. Windows can accomplish in less processors what
other
> > > OSes accomplish with larger amounts of processors. Windows scales
out
> > > which lends to better managability, better availability (don't
keep
> > your
> > > eggs in one basket), and better over-all scalability. Reference
> > www.tpc.org.
> > >
> > > -Chad
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:56:21 GMT
In article <ZOhY5.5053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > Not true, Netcraft might show that some NT/2000 systems are
rebooted
> > > regularly but IME that is never necessary to maintain stability.
In fact
> > > the only times I've seen instabilities in the OS is during the
setup phase.
> > > Once I've got the drivers all correct the systems only fail when
hardware
> > > fails.
> >
> > Moot point - there is still no Windows machine in the top 50.
>
> Top 50 of whay? Netcraft's admittedly unscientific method of
> determining uptime?
>
> Please, explain to us how you can accurately determine the uptime
> of a Windows machine (or any, for that matter) remotely without
> any permissions on that box without constantly pinging it?
>
> Can't? Right, because there is no way. Netcraft must be magic, then.
Prove this last satement. Prove that there is no way to get the numbers.
IF you clan not prove it, you can not make this claim.
>
> > > MSDN members receive software to stress test NT/2000 haven't seen
the need
> > > to run it yet so I'm not sure what it does but I'll let you know.
> >
> > Does it warp time so that we can see if the system will _really_
stay up
> > for 3 years nonstop? I doubt it.
> >
> > The proof is in the pudding. Once a Windows system has been _proven_
to
> > run under some appreciable load for 3 years nonstop, then I MIGHT
> > believe it.
>
> I'm sure they are out there. Unfortunately, I've never had an
environment
> that didn't move once a year or so. The past couple companies I've had
> have physically moved from one location to another once or twice.
>
> The longest stretch of uptime I've had on NT was 312 days or so. But
> the previous stretch was 280 or so days. I had to shut the box down
and
> move it to the our new address then get it back up which it stayed up
> for 312 days.
>
> This machine served the domain, printing, file sharing, internet,
Exchange
> messaging, and several other tasks for about 50-70 users and about 10
> dial-in users and 2 VPN users. It had a heavy load for the hardware it
> was running on.
>
> > > Security is no longer an issue when properly administered, just
like UNIX,
> > > reliability ditto, scalability is actually ahead.
> >
> > Security is ALWAYS an issue if you want to maintain it. Perhaps NT
has
> > finally caught up, perhaps Win2000 is there, but I still see a
thousand
> > viruses a month plaguing Windows users ...
>
> Win9x mainly, which is irrelevant. Perhaps there are the clueless
> small businesses running NT or 2K as Administrator all the time
without
> virus software, but any competent person doesn't run as Administrator
> (or root in Unix) and therefore is not subject to these "viruses".
I've
> had many of them sent to me and none had any affect.
>
> > Scalability - I don't think so. Will ANY variant of Windows run on a
256
> > processor machine?
>
> It's irrelevant. Windows can accomplish in less processors what other
> OSes accomplish with larger amounts of processors. Windows scales out
> which lends to better managability, better availability (don't keep
your
> eggs in one basket), and better over-all scalability. Reference
www.tpc.org.
>
> -Chad
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:59:53 GMT
In article <1BiY5.9817$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > Not true, Netcraft might show that some NT/2000 systems are
rebooted
> > > regularly but IME that is never necessary to maintain stability.
In
> fact
> > > the only times I've seen instabilities in the OS is during the
setup
> phase.
> > > Once I've got the drivers all correct the systems only fail when
> hardware
> > > fails.
> >
> > Moot point - there is still no Windows machine in the top 50.
> >
>
> In the top 50 of a majorly flawed data gathering process. Moot
indeed.
>
Prove that they got unreliable information from the top 50!
> > > MSDN members receive software to stress test NT/2000 haven't seen
the
> need
> > > to run it yet so I'm not sure what it does but I'll let you know.
> >
> > Does it warp time so that we can see if the system will _really_
stay up
> > for 3 years nonstop? I doubt it.
> >
>
> Possibly, it'll probably detect anything that could cause problems.
>
> > The proof is in the pudding. Once a Windows system has been _proven_
to
> > run under some appreciable load for 3 years nonstop, then I MIGHT
> > believe it.
> >
>
> Show any system that has been up for three years non stop?
>
> > > Security is no longer an issue when properly administered, just
like
> UNIX,
> > > reliability ditto, scalability is actually ahead.
> >
> > Security is ALWAYS an issue if you want to maintain it. Perhaps NT
has
> > finally caught up, perhaps Win2000 is there, but I still see a
thousand
> > viruses a month plaguing Windows users ...
> >
>
> Properly maintained the systems are as safe as any. Viruses aren't as
big a
> deal as they may seem. I've seen very few actual virii detected, but
then I
> ALWAYS run Macaffe. Just like security, with virii an ounce of
> prevention.....
>
> > Scalability - I don't think so. Will ANY variant of Windows run on a
256
> > processor machine?
> >
>
> Why would you want anything to. Single point of failure doesn't scale
very
> well for me.
>
> > --
> > Porsche Boxster 88,295,395 Club-Z points away
> > Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
> > --
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:02:35 GMT
In article <2GiY5.9838$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90rdtg$1j0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Stephen King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Adam Ruth wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Where can I find some hard numbers
> > > > about the best and mena uptimes of NT and
> > > > Linux? I have my own experience,
> > > > which I'm sure varies from others.
> > > > I have Netcraft numbers which don't
> > > > show NT 4 and W2K hasn't been around long
> > > > enough for some good numbers.
> >
> > The best "real world", "bottom line", source for uptime,
> > availability, and TCO indicators is the ISPs themselves.
> > They know exactly how much it costs to fund a server, exactly
> > how much revenue they can make from each server, and how much
> > each server costs.
> >
>
> Barring, of course, the eunuch's natural fear of anything different.
>
> > Simply put, you'll pay MUCH MORE to have your content hosted on a
> > Windows server than you would to have it hosted on a Linux or
FreeBSD
> > server.
> >
> > In many cases, the ISP quotes don't even include the NT client
licenses
> > and server licenses.
> >
> > The typical set-up costs for a commercial NT based web site range
from
> > 1-5 million dollars. The costs for a comparable Linux web site
range
> > from $1/4-1 million. Recurring costs run about $200/processor/month
> > for NT and about $100/processor/month for Linux. Ironically, there
is
> > actually more PROFIT on Linux or FreeBSD. This is because most
Linux
> > and FreeBSD servers are "set and forget" situations. Once the
> > configuration settings are completed (a 20 minute job) there's
almost
> > nothing left to do but back-ups and log rotations, which are done
> > automatically using cron jobs.
> >
>
> Rex, how about posting some actual references to support these
figures.
Ha! heres a laugh, Chad, the person that NEVER seems to post references
asking this question. Chad, post something to back up your claim that
netcraft can not be getting uptime information from the servers it
claims it can!
>
> > > Which means they have yet to prove themselves
> > > - actually Netcraft shows
> > > that NT need regular reboots, Win2000
> > > seems to be better, but is still
> > > playing catch-up to Irix, Solaris, BSD, Linux etc.
> > >
> > > > I keep seeing this debate and they
> > > > always end up with someone saying, "My
> > > > machine has been up for x months!". Which someone promptly
replies,
> > > > "B.S.!". So has there been any research in this area?
> > >
> > > The research, I would think, cannot be done in non-real time.
> > > It's not like a toilet seat (well, maybe Windows is) where one
> > > can have a machine which operates the device at 100x normal rate.
> >
> > Actually, this is very true for uptimes. Availability can often be
> > measured by monitoring the number of failures against a known number
> > of machines. I have numbers that come from a pool of over 4000
servers,
> > and have those further broken down by server type such as Lotus
Notes
> > servers, File servers, and database servers. Of course, I couldn't
> > publish these because the client who maintained them has an NDA with
> > Microsoft. About all I can do is push up the numbers and see how
they
> > jive with the rest of the industry.
> >
> > Windows NT with SP3 had an availability of about 98.7%,
> > Windows NT with SP6+ seems to get about 99.2%, and
> > Windows 2000 seems to get about 99.8% in a single-server
> > environment.
> >
> > Both Windows and Linux/FreeBSD have the advantage of being able to
> > improve scalability by configuring a "Redundant Array of Inexpensive
> > Servers". The Linux Beowulf has many of these features, as does
> > Windows 2000 clustering. This is how both companies approach the
"five
> > nines" problem (99.999% uptime).
> >
> > > Not only do *nix machines have longer uptimes,
> > > they have longer useful lifespans.
> > > My desktop machine is 7 years old, and
> > > will remain useful for the development
> > > work I do for some time to come, while Windows machines
> > > have a lifespan of what, 3 years before they must be replaced?
> >
> > Actually, most Windows developers need to replace their machines
> > every 12 to 18 months. To make matters worse, many applications
> > mandate that you be running "Server" rather than "Workstation".
> > Windows 2000 professional is great for running Microsoft Office,
> > but you can't prototype servers on a Win2K Pro laptop.
> >
>
> Need or want to? Can't prototype on Win2K pro. Which server can't you
run?
> Oracle maybe, but SQL server and IIS are both available on workstation
and
> can be used to prototype.
>
> > Keep in mind also that Microsoft comes out with new operating
> > systems every 2-3 years, but they also come out with upgrades to
> > Office, upgrades to Internet Explorer, and upgrades to utilities
> > and languages. Any of which can trigger the need for bigger
> > and more expensive machines.
> >
> > Even worse is that the MCSE for Windows NT 4.0 is considered
worthless
> > in Microsoft's eyes for Windows 2000. Microsoft wants you to know
> > Microsoft buzzwords and no others.
> >
>
> Actually, in most cases MSCE is worthless period.
>
> > > The Macintosh fares better than this, I bet.
> >
> > Only slightly.
> >
> > > The race is on. Windows has a LOT of
> > > catching up to do in many respects,
> > > most notably security and reliability.
> > > (scalability too, I imagine)
> >
> > Actually, their biggest problem is still incompatibility.
> > Microsoft assumes that because they have 98% of the desktop
> > market (possibly only 90% if you figure Linux and Mac), that
> > they don't have to adhere to anyone elses standards.
> > This creates a really big problem for corporate interests
> > who have to plug NT servers into Windows, UNIX, OS/390 and
> > VMS.
> >
> > The industry wanted LDAP, Microsoft came up with Active Directory,
> > which uses nonstandard Kerberos, nonstandard LDAP, and nonstandard
> > PKI. Furthermore, it's completely incompatibile with NDS, RACF,
> > and NIS implementations of LDAP, which means that even the
> > sign-on can't be consolidated.
> >
> > With integrators charging over $2 million to integrate Win2K to
> > anything, corporate purchasing managers have developed a whole
> > new appreciation for Linux, which was designed by integrators
> > for integrators, and includes 98% of the integration tools needed
> > to create portals, web sites, or gateways.
> >
> > > --
> > > Porsche Boxster 88,295,395 Club-Z points away
> > > Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
> > > --
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
> > Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
> > http://www.open4success.com
> > Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> > and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
