Linux-Advocacy Digest #252, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 12:13:40 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:22:48 GMT
On 25 Apr 2000 01:40:14 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [About one vendor supplying remote stuff]
This is still not a technical answer. It might make sense for the
accountants to insure that we are not tied in to one vendor, but
technical people do not judge design quality by the number of
vendors who support the thing.
Also, it's not true remote Windows must be done from a Windows
client. There are definitely products to do it from Unix. Of course you
will discount this because they are not bundled with the non-Windows
systems. I could argue just as persuasively that X is not a standard
too since it requires an extra product for non-Unix clients.
Basically, your point is that Windows does not have remote tools
because:
(a) Microsoft did not invent Terminal Server.
But the Unix people did not invent X. Invention has nothing to
do with what is in the product.
(b) It requires an add-on tool which costs many.
On many commercial Unix's, X was an add-on tool which required
an extra license and software package. On Linux it is an extra
package, included with the distribution (along with word processors,
spread sheets, and music editing programs, which as we all know
are part of the base OS). Indeed, if you have a non-standard video
card you will need to pay for an X server which runs on your
computer, further demonstrating that X is also an add-on product to
Linux.
(c) It is not accessible from non-Windows hosts.
Incorrect, as there are other products to this. While this requires
the installation of special packages, X is not accessible out of the
box on non-Unix clients without special packages on the client either.
(d) Text tools are not support
You are aware than fully functiional telnetd implementations are
avaialble for Windows, correct? Of course you will discount these,
because they are extra products, while conveniently ignoring the fact
that on many Unix's TCP/IP itself is an extra product which is installed
separately and paid for extra than the base system.
Have I forgotten any?
>Before X, there was no need for a remote graphic tool. Everything
>was remote serial terminal or character mode telnet sessions. Most
>early unix boxes didn't have anything like a built in console so
>it was all remote and had no concept of being limited to one special
>terminal.
Incorrect. There were many non-X based graphics programs before X.
One was Sun's NeWS, and there were many other, long forgotten ones
also.
>Win3.x didn't. Win95 didn't. Win98 doesn't. How many copies of
>NT are out there with terminal services anyway?
Who the fuck uses Windows 3.x/95/98? I am not interested in discussing
these. Please keep your comments limited to NT/2000. For crying out loud.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:32:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Full Name wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:57:20 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Actually I have to disgree, but not for the reasons you may want to
> >hear. Windows is unreliable. Avoiding Microsoft to avoid unreliable
> >software is a reasonable position.
> >
>
> We have approximately 50 NT Workstations running Office 97 on a
> variety of clone hardware. All these machines are left on permanently
> (for backup purposes) and the users do not in general re-boot. Many
> of these machines have lengthy uptimes.
>
> In the last 6 months I've observed a total of three "blue screens of
> death" across the 50 workstations. These were fixed by pressing the
> reset button.
What if brakes worked only 99% of the time?
>
> We also have one PDC and three BDC's. Of these machines the only one
> I know of that has experienced a failure of any kind was the BDC on my
> desk which I use as a workstation. It unexpectedly re-booted while
> downloading a runaway WWW page using Netscape. The machine is a P133
> with 32 MB ram and struggles to do many things.
>
> We also have two Sun Ultra 10's, one Sparc 10 (all running Solaris
> 2.7), an Intel based Linux box and an old HP Unix box. After a recent
> power disruption all 50 NT systems (including the servers) came up
> without any problems. One of the Ultra 10's failed to restart and
> required a file system check. This resulted in down time of our WWW
> server facilities.
>
> The Sparc 10 was recently re-booted remotely using "sync;sync;reboot
> -l". It failed to start requiring a file system check. This resulted
> in a mad dash to work in the car and complaints from our users.
>
> Our Linux box currently has Mandrake 7.x installed. It is only about
> a month old. In that time Linux has been installed four times. The
> first time it was installed with Red Hat 6.x. This was not considered
> secure enough and the switch was made to Mandrake. Unfortunately I
> selected high security and found it rather difficult to get the ftpd
> running. So Mandrake was reinstalled a second time with low security.
>
> Our Unix expert then took on the job of getting NFS running on the
> Linux box to allow backup. Unfortunately the Linux flavour of NFS
> refused to talk to our Solaris box with the tape drive. After almost
> two weeks of full time tinkering (and another install of Mandrake) we
> now have NFS mounts between Linux and Solaris 2.7.
>
> At the end of last year we upgraded the Sparc 10 from Solaris 2.5 to
> 2.7. The three of us started at around 10 a.m. and finished most of
> the work by 7pm. This was mainly due to the repartitioning of the two
> hard disks and problems getting the system to boot from the correct
> device. The entire down time was two days. We run Oracle 7 on the
> system and have since discovered the orainst program core dumps if you
> try to run it on a Solaris 2.7 system (known bug). We hope we will
> never have to do a re-install of Oracle.
>
> I recently wiped NT 4.0 from our BDC and installed NT 4.0 Terminal
> Sever edition. The entire operation (including setting up shared
> printers and directories) took less than two hours. This was done
> solely by myself on a lazy Saturday afternoon. When the users
> returned on Monday no one noticed. The advantage over NT of being
> able to remotely manage our Unix boxes has vanished.
>
> We have had a shortage of disk space on one of our Ultra's and on our
> NT box. Purchasing a 28GB IDE HDD for a tad under $300 solved the
> disk space problems on the NT box. The price of a 9GB SCSI disk for
> the Ultra is around $1500. We would need a Sun technician to come out
> and install it. I slotted the IDE in myself. We cannot afford the
> Sun 9GB. We now dump tar files from our Unix boxes to our NT machines
> using Samba when we require temporary backup space.
>
> We have a 70 GB tape drive for backup purposes on our NT box. This is
> used to backup our NT Workstations. We have experienced no problems
> with this tape drive.
>
> Just before Easter we discovered our 24 GB Sun tape drive was filling
> with less than 12 GB transferred. A Sun technician came out and
> replaced the tape drive. Fortunately we have a (rather expensive)
> maintenance contract with Sun. We will test the replacement drive
> after Easter.
>
> We don't see the need for a maintenance contract for our NT boxes as
> our staff has been pulling apart and assembling PC's for years.
> Replacement hardware is also very inexpensive and readily available.
>
> I do more or less all of the maintenance of our NT Server. The only
> time I need touch the thing is when a new user arrives or we need some
> new shared resources.
>
> Our Unix boxes consume pretty much a full time person. A great deal
> of time is spent assisting users creating scripts and giving them
> access to installed software. Many of them simply refuse to learn any
> Unix and expect us to construct their scripts for them. We cringe
> when a user comes in and wants to start running an X application. We
> push users toward NT equivalents wherever possible. Our Unix users
> consume at least three times as much support time as our NT only
> users. The users themselves clearly prefer to use NT equivalent
> software whenever possible.
>
> One thing I like comparing between our Unix boxes and NT is sharing a
> file system that is going to hold our Access databases that are used
> by many different people. Access creates a '.ldb' file that must be
> read/write by all users who simultaneously access the database.
>
> From the NT point of view this takes about two minutes. The most time
> consuming aspect is ensuring all of the users are placed into the
> appropriate group using the user manager. The file system is then
> shared with change permision to the new group.
>
> From the Unix/Samba pointing of view you must concern yourself with
> the following:
>
> The group the users are in (edit /etc/group).
> The samba umask (smb.conf).
> The group ownership of the directory to be shared.
> The group s bit to be set on the shared directory.
> The user, group and other permission on the files themselves.
>
> All this is necessary to ensure the locking file is read/write to all
> users regardless of who opened the database first and actually owns
> the file locking file.
>
> Once you have that all sorted out you will still find that the
> administrators (who have permission to change the forms, queries, etc
> as well as the data) will have to telnet to the Unix box and chown a
> file before they can copy over it. This is due to the actual owner of
> the file being the last administrator to change it. This is if course
> a non-issue with an NT server.
>
> In the first four months after I started working I found on four
> mornings I was denied access to a Samba share I had access to the
> previous day. This was due to one of the administrators inadvertently
> changing one of the settings above. This happens quite often with
> Samba resulting in irate users. One must be continually aware of file
> ownership, group ownership, s bits and general file permission.
>
> We have not had a single problem with access to out NT shares
> involving established users.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
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.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:40:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Full Name wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:57:20 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Actually I have to disgree, but not for the reasons you may want to
> >hear. Windows is unreliable. Avoiding Microsoft to avoid unreliable
> >software is a reasonable position.
> >
>
> We have approximately 50 NT Workstations running Office 97 on a
> variety of clone hardware. All these machines are left on permanently
> (for backup purposes) and the users do not in general re-boot. Many
> of these machines have lengthy uptimes.
>
> In the last 6 months I've observed a total of three "blue screens of
> death" across the 50 workstations. These were fixed by pressing the
> reset button.
>
> We also have one PDC and three BDC's. Of these machines the only one
> I know of that has experienced a failure of any kind was the BDC on my
> desk which I use as a workstation. It unexpectedly re-booted while
> downloading a runaway WWW page using Netscape. The machine is a P133
> with 32 MB ram and struggles to do many things.
>
> We also have two Sun Ultra 10's, one Sparc 10 (all running Solaris
> 2.7), an Intel based Linux box and an old HP Unix box. After a recent
> power disruption all 50 NT systems (including the servers) came up
> without any problems. One of the Ultra 10's failed to restart and
> required a file system check. This resulted in down time of our WWW
> server facilities.
>
> The Sparc 10 was recently re-booted remotely using "sync;sync;reboot
> -l". It failed to start requiring a file system check. This resulted
> in a mad dash to work in the car and complaints from our users.
>
> Our Linux box currently has Mandrake 7.x installed. It is only about
> a month old. In that time Linux has been installed four times. The
> first time it was installed with Red Hat 6.x. This was not considered
> secure enough and the switch was made to Mandrake. Unfortunately I
> selected high security and found it rather difficult to get the ftpd
> running. So Mandrake was reinstalled a second time with low security.
>
> Our Unix expert then took on the job of getting NFS running on the
> Linux box to allow backup. Unfortunately the Linux flavour of NFS
> refused to talk to our Solaris box with the tape drive. After almost
> two weeks of full time tinkering (and another install of Mandrake) we
> now have NFS mounts between Linux and Solaris 2.7.
>
> At the end of last year we upgraded the Sparc 10 from Solaris 2.5 to
> 2.7. The three of us started at around 10 a.m. and finished most of
> the work by 7pm. This was mainly due to the repartitioning of the two
> hard disks and problems getting the system to boot from the correct
> device. The entire down time was two days. We run Oracle 7 on the
> system and have since discovered the orainst program core dumps if you
> try to run it on a Solaris 2.7 system (known bug). We hope we will
> never have to do a re-install of Oracle.
>
> I recently wiped NT 4.0 from our BDC and installed NT 4.0 Terminal
> Sever edition. The entire operation (including setting up shared
> printers and directories) took less than two hours. This was done
> solely by myself on a lazy Saturday afternoon. When the users
> returned on Monday no one noticed. The advantage over NT of being
> able to remotely manage our Unix boxes has vanished.
>
> We have had a shortage of disk space on one of our Ultra's and on our
> NT box. Purchasing a 28GB IDE HDD for a tad under $300 solved the
> disk space problems on the NT box. The price of a 9GB SCSI disk for
> the Ultra is around $1500. We would need a Sun technician to come out
> and install it. I slotted the IDE in myself. We cannot afford the
> Sun 9GB. We now dump tar files from our Unix boxes to our NT machines
> using Samba when we require temporary backup space.
>
> We have a 70 GB tape drive for backup purposes on our NT box. This is
> used to backup our NT Workstations. We have experienced no problems
> with this tape drive.
>
> Just before Easter we discovered our 24 GB Sun tape drive was filling
> with less than 12 GB transferred. A Sun technician came out and
> replaced the tape drive. Fortunately we have a (rather expensive)
> maintenance contract with Sun. We will test the replacement drive
> after Easter.
>
> We don't see the need for a maintenance contract for our NT boxes as
> our staff has been pulling apart and assembling PC's for years.
> Replacement hardware is also very inexpensive and readily available.
>
> I do more or less all of the maintenance of our NT Server. The only
> time I need touch the thing is when a new user arrives or we need some
> new shared resources.
>
> Our Unix boxes consume pretty much a full time person. A great deal
> of time is spent assisting users creating scripts and giving them
> access to installed software. Many of them simply refuse to learn any
> Unix and expect us to construct their scripts for them. We cringe
> when a user comes in and wants to start running an X application. We
> push users toward NT equivalents wherever possible. Our Unix users
> consume at least three times as much support time as our NT only
> users. The users themselves clearly prefer to use NT equivalent
> software whenever possible.
>
> One thing I like comparing between our Unix boxes and NT is sharing a
> file system that is going to hold our Access databases that are used
> by many different people. Access creates a '.ldb' file that must be
> read/write by all users who simultaneously access the database.
>
> From the NT point of view this takes about two minutes. The most time
> consuming aspect is ensuring all of the users are placed into the
> appropriate group using the user manager. The file system is then
> shared with change permision to the new group.
>
> From the Unix/Samba pointing of view you must concern yourself with
> the following:
>
> The group the users are in (edit /etc/group).
> The samba umask (smb.conf).
> The group ownership of the directory to be shared.
> The group s bit to be set on the shared directory.
> The user, group and other permission on the files themselves.
>
> All this is necessary to ensure the locking file is read/write to all
> users regardless of who opened the database first and actually owns
> the file locking file.
>
> Once you have that all sorted out you will still find that the
> administrators (who have permission to change the forms, queries, etc
> as well as the data) will have to telnet to the Unix box and chown a
> file before they can copy over it. This is due to the actual owner of
> the file being the last administrator to change it. This is if course
> a non-issue with an NT server.
>
> In the first four months after I started working I found on four
> mornings I was denied access to a Samba share I had access to the
> previous day. This was due to one of the administrators inadvertently
> changing one of the settings above. This happens quite often with
> Samba resulting in irate users. One must be continually aware of file
> ownership, group ownership, s bits and general file permission.
>
> We have not had a single problem with access to out NT shares
> involving established users.
Obviously, you don't have a SINGLE competent Unix admin on site.
Most of these so-called shortcomings are 5-minute problems that
are easily solved by any Unix admin with a mere 6 months of experience.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
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.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:41:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> : >
> : > I think it's silly that some people use an operating system just to "get
> : > away from Microsoft" or other such nonsense. Use of an operating system
> : > should be dictated by one's tasks, tastes, and lifestyle, and not the
> : > other way around. Any other reasoning beyond that is simply mental
> : > illness, AFAIC.
>
> : Actually I have to disgree, but not for the reasons you may want to
> : hear. Windows is unreliable. Avoiding Microsoft to avoid unreliable
> : software is a reasonable position.
>
> : There are other things too. If people think that something is "wrong"
> : many times people boycott products and companies in an effort to change
> : the corporate behavior. This is also a reasonable position.
>
> : Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly, has been proven to use its monopoly
> : position to hurt competition. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational
> : position to avoid MS for that sort of behavior in an attempt to effect
> : change.
>
> Honestly, I find it very odd that a member of a community that purports to
> advocate "free thinking" and such follows the government with such fervor.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
In this case, the DOJ is protecting the commercial rights of other
software vendores....and it's about damn time.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks this is a tad hypocritical?
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 67E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
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.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:39:54 GMT
sea_Dragon wrote:
> Ah yes - the Linux way. It is so risky to install a new kernel and has such
> a high probability of wiping out your hard drive that you are recommended
> to install from a floppy, a media with is 100x slower. Nice.
Yep.. no such thing as Windows "rescue disks" at all.
Could've booted off a CD too.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
..I'm sure that if I were wandering naked across the Serengeti Plain and
happened to come across a pride of lions who were feeling peckish, they'd
show me the same f&$#!#g courtesy. Come on, in less time than it takes to say
"Two all-Miller patties" I'd be chili con carnage. -- Dennis Miller on
Vegetarianism.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:43:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen Bodnar wrote:
>
> Well, I dunno. We had a firsthand experience with it here in our neck of
> the woods. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill just about put Lloyd's of
> London out of business when Exxon claimed that the oil spill related
> damages were included in the liability insurance of an oil tanker.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Sounds like Lloyd's just plain screwed up and under-bid the coverage.
>
> Figure that one out!
>
> Stephen
>
> (appologies for non-linux related post!)
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The Cat
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Kind of like trying to sue the firemen for getting your rugs dirty
> > while they were trying to save your house from burning down.
> >
> > TheCat
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:24:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >i had to laugh... now Microsoft is trying to claim insurance money for its
> > >legal costs in defending itself against civil claims for monopolistic
> > >actions...
> > >
> > >and the insurance company won't pay! (Saying that Microsoft is responsible
> > >for any litigation costs as a result of its own actions, not inadvertant
> > >circumstances)
> > >
> > >hah! this just shows how corrupt those Softie weasels are!
> > >
> > >Microsoft deserves everything coming its way - in spades...
> >
> > "Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:42:14 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:18:14 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, your first posts, I respected. I didn't agree with a lot of what you
>said, but I did respect your opinion. Over the next few rounds, you slipped a
>little each time making some odd claims.. but now; conspiracies against you and
>your views?!? Come on... get real. You just lost _all_ credibility IMO.
I am sorry that you do not believe me, but I can definitely assure
you that I _have_ been cancel-botted for all of Usenet from posting to
this newsgroup in the past. If I didn't change my address regularly,
you wouldn't hear from me again, not because I gave up, but because I
have been silenced. I am not claiming that it is a conspiracy against me,
but clearly there are some LNUX shareholders who do not want one single
bad word to get out lest they lose millions of dollars.
>What's that sound? Oh no! The black helicopters are outside... they're after
>you, look out!
Whatever.
>So the fact that it's less robust, not as useful and not as capable isn't
>enough for you?
So now it has gone from being an extra product to being less robust and
not as useful? How is it less robust? For starters, when the power goes
out in my Windows client, all of the programs are still running on the
server, and I simply need to re-connect. When using X, and the Linux
client crashes, I lose all of the programs I was working on, and they
go into thin air, and it is impossible to reconnect to them. Sure sounds
to me like Terminal Server is more robust - certainly more fault
tolerant. Less useful? Huh? Please explain.
>That's all that matters to 99.9% of the people in the world. The most
>technically advanced technology (which WTS isn't) doesn't always win anyway...
>just look at MS' market share.
Please provide __ONE__ __TECHNICAL__ reason why Terminal Server is less
advanced than X.
>I didn't say that NT didn't have "remote capabilities" but it's remote
>capabilities are severly limited compared to Unix. If an NT server is having
>problems, and the GUI isn't responding (or WTS isn't running, or the TCP/IP
>stack is dead) you can't admin it... period. Whereas with a decent Sun box, or
>a properly configured PC with a serial console I can. There's a technical
>advantage for unix boxes: Serial console as a way to connect and admin/fix the
>box if there's a problem.
A serial console is not remote capability. In any case there are tools
available which allow you to connect a serial console to a Windows
machine, to run a DOS session.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
