Linux-Advocacy Digest #398, Volume #25 Sat, 26 Feb 00 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet (Arthur)
Free Anti-Win95 MPEG! (allsafe)
Re: security through obscurity. I'm going to scream. (Greg Copeland)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: Windows advocacy: what's the point? (Greg Copeland)
Re: runas in NT/W2000 (su equivalent) Re: Offtopic: Windows NT security (Greg
Copeland)
Re: Linux And MS Exchange Server (Greg Copeland)
Cheap Linux CDs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows on Linux? (Greg Copeland)
Re: Linux And MS Exchange Server (Greg Copeland)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:20:49 -0600
On 24 Feb 2000 00:46:47 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:15:36 GMT, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>To put it plainly, if I can't stop other people from using my property,
>>>tangible or otherwise, it aint my property any more.
>>
>>But what do you lose as a result? If someone takes your car, you can't
>>drive.
>
>If someone borrows your car without your permission, it is a crime whether
>or not they return it. Even if you are on holiday, and not intending
>to use the car when it is borrowed, this is not considered a mitigating
>factor in the eyes of the law.
This is because a car can only run for a limited number of miles. If
someone else is using these miles then they are lost to the legitimate
owner. There is a real cost associated with every mile a car is driven
that is incurred by the owner of the car. This is not the case with
software. In fact, there is a good argument that may be made that more
people using software actually reduces the cost of the owner using the
software (through a reduction in testing and maintenance costs).
>Also, in my squatting example, the law talks about "trespassing", and
>"breaking and entering". The law does not talk about "wrongfully depriving
>the owner of utility".
I haven't seen the squatting example, nor have I seen the trespassing
example, but I should mention that both of these crimes imply a
reduction in utility in almost all instances but are much easier to
prove. Sometimes laws are written with some level of pragmatism.
>That the owner does not lose utility as a result of unauthorised use
>of property is *not* necessarily considered a mitigating factor.
It is inconvenient to prove and a reasonable assumption based on the way
the real world works.
>In conclusion, those who believe in property rights also believe that ones
>rights to control property extend beyond their needs to utilise it.
>
>>It's interesting to note that the framers of the US Constitution considered
>>intellectual property special.
>
>Yes, because there wasn't as strong a social precedent for
>intellectual property rights at that stage. Violating intellectual
>property rights on a grand scale was more difficult then than it is now.
Because they didn't consider it property. It still isn't. The whole
term `intellectual property' exists to encourage the government to grant
artificial monopolies based on some products. Whether you agree with
the policy or not, you must see the term for what it is.
[Snip]
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
============================================
It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid.
-- George Bernard Shaw
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:45:51 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip homophobic rant>
Steve -
I'd like to point out that Mark, regardless of what you
think of his posts, is not the one spewing vulgar crap
on this newsgroup, and regardless of Mark's opinions
are on the matter, he's shown enough respect for
people here to keep them out of this newsgroup.
If you can't make an on topic argument based on the
merits of the issue in question, why not just go
somewhere where people are interested in your
homophobia?
You're an idiot, no matter what name you post under.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: allsafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Free Anti-Win95 MPEG!
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:18:27 -0800
You guys would appreciate this:
http://www.geocities.com/the_real_waysafe/Blast_win95.html?951463346020
Quick little video that would only tickle the denizens of this group.
(I ain't selling nothing, and you're only two clicks away from
downloading a free 22 second MPEG video that every pissed-off Win95 user
could understand)
------------------------------
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: security through obscurity. I'm going to scream.
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 05:17:13 GMT
You are clearly attempting to be inflammatory. You are taking the old
and almost always incorrect stance that if I don't see it, it's not
true. I can only say, stand where you are and let the world pass you
by.
Greg
Otto wrote:
>
> In short, I do have problems believing an install base of 20M for Linux. I'm
> yet to see it on any places first hand (I'm also a consultant), I've seen
> lot's of NT, Novell, different flavors of Unix, but not Linux networks. The
> first hand experiences can be misleading in both cases, but your numbers
> doesn't add up. What you heard is nothing more than anecdotal evidence and
> it proves that you're gullible when it comes to Linux. You don't actually
> believe that Linux has "greater penetration than NT", do you?
> You also don't have to prove that Linux is a viable platform for servers. We
> might disagree on degree of viability, but nonetheless it can be a very
> capable server.
I have to prove? What planet are you on? Fine. You have to prove that
NT or any OS is a viable server platform. That's meaning drivel. In
any case, it's strictly a matter of opinion unless one is blatantly
constantly falling over (which is what many users depict NT as; I'm sure
there are Linux complaints here too). So, you're back to a meaning
statement with no footing to stand.
> Linux will get better and as it does its market share will increase, there's
> no argument on that either. Forcing companies to make better and cheaper
> software is always good. I just don't believe that Linux has such a great
> installed base as you make it sound like. Questionably, it might have that
> in the future but doesn't have it at the present time.
>
> Otto
Obviously, I disagree. If the numbers are not like you think, how is it
that I've seen in fortune 100 all the way down to 5 man shops? I know
it's being used and taught in the big five consulting firms, including
many smaller consulting firms too. Are you saying that Consulting firms
are spending money to train their consultants for a user base of 1M?
2M? What's the breaking point that you're willing to buy in at? Yes, I
agree. No one knows EXACTLY how many Linux systems there are. However,
it's VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY to see without much imagination that the
install base is at least many times what the total Linux sales are. Got
a number on hand? If the total Linux sales are even a couple million,
it's going to make for a large number, as licensing isn't an issue. I
hope that I can at least appeal to you common sense here (please don't
tell me that you think people buy a Linux CD for each machine they
install it on, let alone that every install has even one purchase
associated with it).
Just food for thought,
Greg
>
> "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In short, I have not trouble believing an install base of 20M for Linux to
> > date. I see it in too many places first hand (I'm a consultant) for it
> not to
> > have a significant market penertration. By most estimates, the 20M figure
> is
> > considered conservitive (actually, 17M, but that was last year - I admited
> the
> > 20M was a round number; at 25%, that's actually ~21M). I didn't argue the
> > window's numbers, but did think they were suspect. Since I didn't know
> what
> > the actual Window's numbers were, I choose not to make them a point of
> > contention. I think that I did express my point that Linux has
> significant
> > installation. Last I heard, has greater penertration than NT (again,
> choose
> > not to mention this as I don't know the exact NT install base), and of
> course,
> > will be reaching market parity with other products. I honestly don't care
> if
> > Linux sticks to the server market. It does quiet well there. Obviously,
> it's
> > got a long ways to go to reach Win on the desktop. That I won't argue.
> My
> > primary point that I wanted to make is that the 1M mark you picked is
> > rediculessly small, as such, the projected growth rates are meaningless.
> In
> > other words, the existing Linux base is strong enough as is, at a steady
> growth
> > of 25% (the largest of any) is significant and should not be dismissed.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> > Otto wrote:
> >
> > > "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Otto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [stuff snipped out]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's just go with the IDT prediction of the future and see what
> those
> > > > > numbers really mean. 25% compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) for
> Linux
> > > and
> > > > > 10% for Windows predicted by IDT. Wow, 2 and a half times faster,
> not
> > > too
> > > > > shabby. Not having concrete numbers on the number of PCs running
> Linux,
> > > > > let's say there's at least 1 million of them in the US, (Drestin,
> > > > > please...), and 50 million Windows. Now walk through the future
> years
> > > and
> > > > > see what happens, see the table below for the next four years with
> the
> > > > > projected growth percentages:
> > > > >
> > > > > Year Linux (25%/y) Windows (10%/y)
> > > > > 2000 1,250,000 55,000,000
> > > > > 2001 1,562,500 60,500,000
> > > > > 2002 1,953,125 66,550,000
> > > > > 2003 2,441,406 73,205,000
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm confused. Most numbers I've seen put linux in the 18-25M range.
> And
> > > that
> > > > was a number from about 8-months to a eyar ago. If we assume 20M,
> just to
> > > make
> > > > the math easier, it certainly has a difference perspective than you
> show.
> > > I'd
> > > > be curious where you get 1M units? Common sense tells you that it is
> a
> > > > woefully incorrect number. Granted, I'm comming in late here, so
> maybe
> > > > I missed something. Nonetheless, help me out:
> > > >
> > > > Year Linux (25%/y) Windows (10%/y)
> > > > 2000 25,000,000 55,000,000
> > > > 2001 31,250,000 60,500,000
> > > > 2002 39,062,500 66,550,000
> > > > 2003 48,828,125 73,205,000
> > >
> > > Interestingly enough, you didn't question the validity of the Windows
> > > numbers :). I've seen numbers for Linux in the 60M range, but that
> doesn't
> > > mean that it's correct. The 1M units for Linux was picked randomly, so
> was
> > > the 50M for Windows. I have IDC numbers for the Windows platform for the
> > > last two years, but not for Linux:
> > >
> > > OS 1998 1999 % Change
> > >
> > > Win9x 138.0 182.0 + 31.9
> > > NT 17.2 28.1 + 63.4
> > >
> > > The percentage changes clearly doesn't happen to agree with IDC's
> projected
> > > CAGR. Never mind the fact that my 50M estimate for Windows was way off
> from
> > > the actual numbers.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay, if we go back and use reasonable numbers for Linux, we see that
> > > Linux
> > > > grew by almost 29M units. That places it at more than half the total
> > > market.
> > > > That is a stark contrast to what you've depicted. In fact, when you
> > > consider
> > > > that the biggest ding that Linux is putting into Window is the NT
> market
> > > share,
> > > > I think that probably eclipses the NT share.
> > >
> > > If you go by your randomly picked number for Linux, yes you're correct.
> > > However, that would assume that there's almost more Linux installations
> > > today than NT. I somehow doubt that it is a fact.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Only a fool would argue that Linux isn't have a market impact. I'd
> bet
> > > that
> > > > 25% growth is conservitive by the end of of 2002. By the end of 2001,
> > > Linux
> > > > should be possitioned to have a complete enterprise solution. I
> suspect
> > > that
> > > > as Linux becomes better accepted, and the fact that it does everything
> > > that is
> > > > needed, it should begin to eat well into NT's market growth. So, I
> > > actually
> > > > expect NT's growth to slow be 2003 and Linux's to have somewhere in
> the
> > > area of
> > > > an extra 10-20% growth.
> > >
> > > It is possible, but it could go another direction also. Nobody knows
> what
> > > will actually happen 3-4 years down the road.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That of course, ups Linux's 2003 numbers in the area of 52.7M.
> Likewise,
> > > it
> > > > puts Win numbers at 63M. That's a differnence of about 10M
> installations.
> > > > Either way, it clearly shows that Linux will have market parity by
> 2003.
> > > The
> > > > only question is, to what degree and whom will be market leader.
> > >
> > > Makes no difference to me who's the market leader, as long as there is
> > > choices. It would be bad if either of the platforms extinct the others.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, my numbers are assumption, but I find that historically, my
> > > numbers
> > > > are generally in the ball park with other projections that I've done
> for
> > > my
> > > > self and co-workers. Take then for what they are...pretty much as
> valid
> > > as any
> > > > other project at this point. Needless to say, mine are reasonable.
> > >
> > > There is one problem with your assumption on the Linux number, other
> than
> > > making yours "reasonable" :). The total number (Windows9x plus NT) for
> the
> > > Windows is 210M (IDC). If you assume that there's 25M Linux PCs
> presently,
> > > that would mean roughly 12% of the Windows number. Knowing the fact that
> > > Windows have between 90-95% market share, with the 210M number, then
> Linux
> > > market share should be about 10% presently with the 25M number. That's
> > > clearly not the case since there are other OSs with bigger market share
> than
> > > Linux, like Apple, and even Apple's number is single digit when it comes
> to
> > > market share.
> > > Obviously the 25M number for Linux is inflated, the actual number is
> > > probably closer to my 1M number than your 25M number. Say between 2-3
> > > million? Even that number is kind of pushing it since the actual market
> > > share of Linux is about 0.26%, which is less than half of the Windows
> 3.1
> > > market share.
> > > Let me just state that I have no problems with Linux gaining market
> share.
> > > What I have problem with is the fact people representing Linux as an
> > > "do-all" future OS, when there's nothing indicating it presently that'll
> > > happen. It might, but don't burry any present OSs until that happens.
> Doing
> > > so is just wishful thinking, personal opinions and not facts.
> > >
> > > Otto
> >
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:59:36 -0800
Barry Margolin wrote:
> While many end users don't personally try commercial software before they
> buy it, they may do so indirectly. They often read reviews in magazines,
> or learn about it by word of mouth.
It is possible to envision that the cosource model (also known as the street
performer protocol) could work this way. Invited reviewers to could given the
opportunity to review the software, either as a work in progress, or upon
completion. Based on these reviews, people could either sponsor the software
or not. The developer could decide whether to release the software as planned
(or as-is, for a completed work) or to make changes and try the process again.
------------------------------
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows advocacy: what's the point?
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 05:41:11 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Actually, when I worked for one of the top 5 consulting companies, the IT
> > department started realizing how many admins they had to take care of a small
> > number of NT machines and how often they had to be baby sat, rebooted, SP's
> > applied, and constantly monitored to make sure nothing went wrong. Then, they
> > looked around at what they were having to do to support their Solaris and
> HP/UX
> > boxes. Hardly anything. They pretty much took care of themselves once there
> > were up and running. At that point, people began questioning how much sense
> it
> > made to keep NT. I left shortly after. Several months later, most of the
> > various IT departments were being closed down. Last I heard, there was a lot
> > of thought to shifting back to a lower maintenance OS, thusly, trying to
> obtain
> > a lower TCOS.
> >
> > I for one have never seen anyone that gets the type of TCOS numbers that MS
> > says people get. Furthermore, I generally see a lower caliber admin for NT
> > systems (there easy right?), which in turn, creates more administration
> > overhead (fixing erros and screw ups), further raising the already too small
> > (i.e. unrealistic and incorrect) TCOS for NT.
>
> Another fine example of incompetent administrators blaming NT's instabilities
> on NT, as opposed to the real problem: the administrator.
>
I think you jumped the gun. NT doesn't need as high a caliber admin as
UNIX does. Having said that, many of the problems lie strictly in bed
with NT. Period.
> For some reason, people think that they can just take a default install of
> NT and it'll run just as fine as their UN*X box which they spent 2 weeks
> fine tuning and configuring. What makes you think you have to do any
> less on NT? You still have to apply the best practices for network installation
> on NT, it's just easier to implement. NT isn't easy, it's EASIER, that's the
> key.
This was not the case. You are being extremely presumptuous. You also
highlighted my point that I made above.
>
> I have an NT box here that gets hit heavily (Intranet server, Exchange for 50
> users with a 1.8 GB private infomration store and a 5GB Public, general file
> sharing with 150GB of storage, 6 printers with an average of 1600 pages printed
> per day, including 300 to a color laserjet, Mac services, proxy services,
> and many other services) and, it's been up for 65 days, or 183 if you don't
> count the extended power outtage that occured 65 days ago. I have even
> looked at the screen, consoled in, or touched the keyboard for over 64 days.
>
No offense, but I wouldn't of even mentioned uptime here. Honestly, 64
days is laughable. That again is my point. It's really a difference in
the direction the UNIX and NT people look. Generally speaking, UNIX
people look downward on 64-days. NT people look upward on 64-days.
UNIX: hehe NT: wow...cool...awsome. This is an important concept to
get. Likewise, many mainframe people have a tendency to say MAIN: hehe
and UNIX: cool...wow...awsome. Likewise, UNIX has been gaining lots of
ground here and earned a lot of respect. NT is just starting to play
and has a long ways to go. I hope you understand that it's really a
matter of perspective based on the set of standards that you're used
to. Generally speaking, it looks like this: MAIN >= UNIX >= Linux >=
NT >= Win9x > Win > DOS.
> How 'bout our SQL server for our website which has a 800MB database (nothin'
> spactacular, but it's not like it's sitting idle) and has an average load
> of 15-25% on a dual-PIII Xeon 500 that has been up for almost 200 days now.
I'd say this is common for many machines that don't have a load. Having
run large MS SQL machines (Intel and Alpha), weekly reboots are
scheduled to avoid the SQL/NT memory leaks that cause it to thrash it
self to death within 4-6 weeks (4 on Alpha, 6 on Intel). BTW, these
systems do hunting and fishing license issuance for the state of Texas
and Idaho (it later grew to support another state, but I don't remember
[I had left]). BTW, I wrote the front end communication backbone on NT
(X.25 & TCP/IP). It's uptime is much lower than an equivelent system
that I wrote on OS/2 for the Texas Lone Star Card and other federal
assistance programs that are using in Texas, NM, and a couple others
(I've slept since there...sorry). Needless to say, I understand the
needs for 24x7x365 demands. NT is EXTREEMLY problematic in this area as
reboots MUST be scheduled on EVERY 24x7 NT system that I've seen;
including projects that I've not been directly involved with.
>
> It's all how you set it up. Rebooting frequently, blue screens, crashes...
> they're all a result of faulty set up or low quality hardware.
>
> I could easily set up a linux box on chump hardware and configure it in
> such as way so as to be unstable (install every application including
> betas, load unnecessary drivers, etc) and it would crash just as often,
> if not moreso than these hourly-BSOD'ing boxes you guys mention frequently.
Granted, but I've NOT been talking about chump hardware. In fact, I've
been talking about NT on good name brand hardware with very capiable
admins in the later part of the message.
>
> > > TCO is BS.
>
> If you're a UN*X admin, because it's all expensive =)
>
> > > You only have to configure a UNIX box once. :)
>
> Same thing with an NT box. If you have to "configure" it more than
> once, you're doing something wrong.
>
> Chad
Not exactly true. I think that you forget about all of the MS required
maintenance that if imposed if you consider you self to be competent on
issues as security, networking, and basic stability. Generally
speaking, once you have a working UNIX system, it doesn't need to be
touched at the system level. On NT, because of the way things
integrate, many application touch the "system" because of DLL and OS
file updates (sometimes upgraded as part of an application). This is
really true under UNIX. This is a well know flaw of NT. Once that W2K
is hoping to start addressing. Sorry, but that's the reality we live
in. Fact is, NT does REQUIRE more attention.
Greg
------------------------------
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: runas in NT/W2000 (su equivalent) Re: Offtopic: Windows NT security
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 05:42:30 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > Yea, I knew that but I was replying (not clearly apparently) to the
> person
> > > that tells us that "su" stands for "super user" - that suggests su =
> root
> > > (super user). Doesn't su stand for something else? substitute user? I
> dunno
> > > (don't care).
> > >
> >
> > su stands for "set user." Since, by default, the user to be set it root,
> many
> > people have adopted the "super user" concept. Last I heard, it is "set
> user"
> > command. This is an important distinction as any user can issue the "su"
> > command no behalf of another user. In other words, a user "moe" and do
> "su
> > larry". In either case, I could not consider them to be "super." :)
> >
>
> Careful greg, a mistake like this will have everyone telling you you know
> NOTHING about unix whatsoever. SU stands for switch user. it once upon a
> time on a machine I used (Old Magnuson m80) stood for "super user" but
> aparently I'm the only one who ever heard of this. Now you tell us it's "set
> user" hmmm...
Heheheee.....the humor value is obvious! Thanks.
Greg
------------------------------
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux And MS Exchange Server
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 05:51:30 GMT
"Timothy J. Lee" wrote:
[snip]
>
> Meanwhile, keep an eye on obsidian.co.za's stuff, bynari.net's stuff,
> and HP Openview for the day when they get fed up at all of Exchange's
> problems and high costs and start looking for a replacement.
>
I think you mean HP OpenMail. And yes, Bynari is making VERY good
progress with their MS Exchange offering. :)
Greg
------------------------------
Subject: Cheap Linux CDs
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 05:52:27 GMT
http://cd.nodevice.com
Cheapest Linux CDs in Canada.
$CDN 7.50 per CD including shipping & taxes.
All flavours of Linux + BSD.
==================================
Posted via http://nodevice.com
Linux Programmer's Site
------------------------------
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows on Linux?
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 05:58:31 GMT
"Christopher S. Arndt" wrote:
>
> I keep reading about running Windows on VMWare, but isn't VMWare kind of
> expensive? I mean, isn't it counter intuitive to pay a minimun of $100 a
> machine to run windows under linux, and besides, you would have to pay for
> the Windows distribution as well, wether it be 98 or NT.
>
> If you could give me some feedback on this I would definitly appreciate
> it.
>
> Linux Newbie
Okay, VMWare really serves a number of purposes. One such purpose is to
provide access to Win9x/NT under Linux. This alone has LOTS of value
for engineers that still need access to legacy applications that are
only available under the guest OS. The obvious advantage is that when
the guest OS goes south, you don't have to reboot. Rather, you just
restart the application (VMWare - application). Of couse, it also means
that they don't have to reboot just to run that "ONE" application.
Secondly, it's becoming a VERY valuable tool for support infrastructure
because suddenly, a single machine can be used to support n-number of
diverse OS types and in the case of Linux, distributions. So, $100 to
add value like this, which saves on hardware, time, and space, it
actually a huge savings.
Greg
------------------------------
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux And MS Exchange Server
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 06:01:11 GMT
http://cobra.bynari.net/screenshots.shtml
If you inspect the screen shots for names, you might find one or two
that looks familiar.
Greg
"Timothy J. Lee" wrote:
>
> "John F" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |I would like to use Linux at work but we have a MS Exchange Server
> |running the interoffice mail, common calendar, contacts, etc. Outlook Web
> |Access isn't an alternative because is very limited and, of course, it
> |basically sucks.
>
> Not that Outlook is much better. (If you have a Solaris or HP-UX
> computer, or a Microsoft computer that you can remote control with VNC,
> or a Microsoft OS running in an emulator, you can get Outlook for it.)
>
> |My question is; Does anyone make an Exchange Server client
> |for Linux? Is anyone working on one? Thanks in advance.
>
> Purely for mail, if the Exchange server has POP and IMAP turned on,
> you can use whatever mail client you like that does POP or IMAP.
> But you're stuck with the Outlook interface for the other stuff.
>
> Meanwhile, keep an eye on obsidian.co.za's stuff, bynari.net's stuff,
> and HP Openview for the day when they get fed up at all of Exchange's
> problems and high costs and start looking for a replacement.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Timothy J. Lee timlee@
> Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
> No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
