that product.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Ruset
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:17 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] Open Source Heretic
That looks pretty damn cool. I bet it's expensive as hell, though.
Mesdaq, Ali wrote:
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Ruset
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:05 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] Open Source Heretic
What I was trying to say is that if I could lock down Windows machines
with a central policy fed from a Linux ma
: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:05 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] Open Source Heretic
What I was trying to say is that if I could lock down Windows machines
with a central policy fed from a Linux machine, that would be great.
I have found that a proper implementation of Group Policy and locking
What I was trying to say is that if I could lock down Windows machines
with a central policy fed from a Linux machine, that would be great.
I have found that a proper implementation of Group Policy and locking
down end-user machines fairly tight has saved me countless hours of
troubleshooting
If an office already has a Windows 2003 server then they could just load
it on that one. Chances are most new offices would end up with at least
one Win2k3 server.
I haven't played with it through Outlook, but with Office and IE it
worked pretty nice.
Wayne Johnson wrote:
At 06:41 PM 7/14/2
, 2005 3:52 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] Open Source Heretic
I don't know. There's still a lot of things that closed source stuff can
do that open source can't. And, to a small extent, there are some really
good open-source products that totally kick most closed sourc
At 06:41 PM 7/14/2005, Ben Ruset typed:
Sharepoint is free though.
Running it on a separate server sure isn't free & Office 2k3 isn't free.
Without Outlook 2k3, Sharepoint is severely limited.
It's actually pretty cool, from what small amount of time I've played with it.
Yes it's pretty n
I don't know. There's still a lot of things that closed source stuff can
do that open source can't. And, to a small extent, there are some really
good open-source products that totally kick most closed source apps.
Most of the small firewall distributions kick ass. I'd rather deploy
m0n0wall th
hnson
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:37 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] Open Source Heretic
At 12:28 PM 7/14/2005, Ben Ruset typed:
>That's what's killing Microsofy with Office. Office 97 does everything
>that most casual office workers need to do. There really is no
comp
Sharepoint is free though.
It's actually pretty cool, from what small amount of time I've played
with it.
Wayne Johnson wrote:
At 12:28 PM 7/14/2005, Ben Ruset typed:
That's what's killing Microsofy with Office. Office 97 does everything
that most casual office workers need to do. There rea
At 12:28 PM 7/14/2005, Ben Ruset typed:
That's what's killing Microsofy with Office. Office 97 does everything
that most casual office workers need to do. There really is no compelling
reason to go to a newer version of Office unless you need some really
obscure feature. And who is going to rol
Yep, sorry about the typo.
http://www.bacula.org/
Harry
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 14:13 -0500, W. D. wrote:
> At 13:07 7/14/2005, Harry McGregor, wrote:
> Now we run baclua, and just...
>
> Bacula?
> http://www.Google.com/search?q=Bacula
>
> Start Here to Find It Fast!™ ->
At 13:07 7/14/2005, Harry McGregor, wrote:
Now we run baclua, and just...
Bacula?
http://www.Google.com/search?q=Bacula
Start Here to Find It Fast! -> http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-start-page/
$8.77 Domain Names -> http://domains.us-webmasters.com/
Harry McGregor wrote:
Dynamic DNS is a kludge, and ugly one at that. The workstation should
not have control over it's hostname, that is the network's job.
The workstations name is set locally. What I mean is that when it gets
an IP address from DHCP, DHCP updates DNS records with the comput
Ok, I was going to try and stay out of this, but...
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:33 -0400, Ben Ruset wrote:
> Find me a Linux server that lets me configure things like DHCP and
> Dynamic DNS in a GUI window. Microsoft lets me do that.
Dynamic DNS is a kludge, and ugly one at that. The workstation s
Well then it's not really a matter of what OS that runs it more than
what the use is. In those cases, writing for Windows is a waste.
Thane Sherrington wrote:
At 01:37 PM 14/07/2005, Ben Ruset wrote:
Yup. But I bet it's designed to only work on RedHat Enterprise 4 with
Kernel version 2.6.x.x.
Yup. But I bet it's designed to only work on RedHat Enterprise 4 with
Kernel version 2.6.x.x.x and once you load some other package or update
the server the whole thing breaks until Nortel releases an update.
Developing on Linux is likely very easy as long as you limit yourself to
a narrow dep
At 01:37 PM 14/07/2005, Ben Ruset wrote:
Yup. But I bet it's designed to only work on RedHat Enterprise 4 with
Kernel version 2.6.x.x.x and once you load some other package or update
the server the whole thing breaks until Nortel releases an update.
Actually, it's a dedicated unit. Like a PBX
At 01:28 PM 14/07/2005, Ben Ruset wrote:
Sounds like a very specialized case. I can't see Nortel dropping their
Contivity VPN client for Windows. That's product suicide.
They were building a PC-based system to handle multiple phonelines (up to
256?.) MS Telephony system is completely useless,
Find me a Linux server that lets me configure things like DHCP and
Dynamic DNS in a GUI window. Microsoft lets me do that.
It took me 15 hours to get it working under Linux, whereas it took 5
minutes to do with Windows. And it's not nearly as stable as my Windows
DHCP/DNS server was. I'm resta
Thane Sherrington wrote:
Actually, a friend of mine worked for Nortel, and they finally scrapped
Windows development because MS couldn't give them accurate answers as to
how the software worked or would work in the future.
Sounds like a very specialized case. I can't see Nortel dropping th
ay, July 14, 2005 10:57 AM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: RE: [H] Open Source Heretic
At 12:38 PM 14/07/2005, Chris Reeves wrote:
>cohesiveness is almost non-existant. IE, Adobe can call Microsoft and say
>"Hey, here's what we are going to do.." and they know that the answers
At 12:38 PM 14/07/2005, Chris Reeves wrote:
cohesiveness is almost non-existant. IE, Adobe can call Microsoft and say
"Hey, here's what we are going to do.." and they know that the answers MS
gives them represent a stable coding base, and their team can be assigned
individual roles.
Actually,
Thane Sherrington wrote:
That's true now, but I have paid for MS support in the past, so I assume
that there still is for pay support now - or will be in the future.
Right! You can pay Microsoft per incident, or perhaps get a Microsoft
consultant out, or hire a local consulting firm to suppor
eally invest big money into Linux versions? Right now?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:15 AM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] Open Source Heretic
At 11:54 AM 14/07/2005, Ben Ruset wrote:
At 12:21 PM 14/07/2005, Ben Ruset wrote:
You pay $X for a copy of Windows 2003 Server. After that is paid, you
don't have to pay a dime for support if you don't want to.
That's true now, but I have paid for MS support in the past, so I assume
that there still is for pay support now - or will b
That's how I understand it, yes. (It is also my understanding that at
some point, you pay for MS support.)
You pay $X for a copy of Windows 2003 Server. After that is paid, you
don't have to pay a dime for support if you don't want to.
I can't comment on products like SQL server or whatnot,
At 11:54 AM 14/07/2005, Ben Ruset wrote:
Okay, so you pay for the software from MS *and* get support for a period
of time. With Linux you're not paying for software and then have to find
some 3rd party vendor.
That's how I understand it, yes. (It is also my understanding that at some
point,
Thane Sherrington wrote:
Technically, you pay MS for support by paying high prices for their
software.
I see a lot of "certified" MS Admins, but very few qualified ones.
Don't know about Linux though.
Okay, so you pay for the software from MS *and* get support for a period
of time. With Linu
At 11:11 AM 14/07/2005, Ben Ruset wrote:
1) How many people pay for MS support for Windows? There are SO MANY more
qualified MS Admins than Linux admins. It's easier to support in-house.
Plus, in my experience, Windows is more reliable than Linux for some
applications. Hell, I wish my Linux DNS
1) How many people pay for MS support for Windows? There are SO MANY
more qualified MS Admins than Linux admins. It's easier to support
in-house. Plus, in my experience, Windows is more reliable than Linux
for some applications. Hell, I wish my Linux DNS server was as reliable
as my Windows ser
Interesting article:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/05/26/cz_dl_0526linux.html
The problems I see with his argument are:
1)He says that if you charge for service, then you are saying you are
giving people crap that requires service. But of course that's exactly
what the closed source co
32 matches
Mail list logo
