On Tuesday 19 August 2003 05:46, Condon Thomas A KPWA wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > If you want only one service, why not use ftp? W2K has a pretty
> > interface for ftp that looks the same as explorer. Linux clients will
> > get all the correct permissions and such. That would be my suggestion
> > if you need to mix the two.
>
> Don't count on Windows to make this easy. Sure, W2K *now* has ftp. But
> don't forget that NT came out with FTP *only* on the servers, not on the
> "pro" version (read: desktop). You had to be hooked to an WinNT server to
> perform FTP transfers. Ain't that sweet! There is no guarantee that
> Win2003 in the non-server version will have ftp. And you *will* have to
> upgrade. Bet on it.
>
Hmmm, right and wrong. True WinNT didn't have a inbuilt FTP client and it was
only with Win2K & WinME that it was integrated into explorer. However, no
matter what they take out of explorer.exe, iexplore.exe (well, that's just a
wrapper now) will always have it's ftp folder view thingy. I seriously doubt
that they would remove that functionality though - part of them making it
"easy to integrate with your existing proprietary solution".
What do you mean exactly when you say that NT only came with FTP on the
servers? You mean the command line ftp client? You mean an FTP server itself?
Win2k/XP et al have iis (cut version on the workstations) but my
understanding is that the file server would be on Gentoo and the Win box
would just be accessing the files.
Regards,
Jason
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
