Linux-Advocacy Digest #237, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:14:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I (Carl Banks)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(Sea1Dragon2)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Richard Steiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 03:22:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[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...
Microsoft does have a liability insurance
policy which covers such things as legal
fees involved in defending itself against
certain types of lawsuits.
> 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)
Actually the issue here is that Microsoft
didn't take the opportunity to settle during
binding arbitration and instead chose a strategy
based on a very long and protracted battle through
the Federal Court, the Appellate Court, and the Supreme
Court. Since both Microsoft and the DOJ have committed
to appeal any decision made by the appellate court
(actually it's the state attorney's General, not the
Clinton administration pushing this action, which
means that it won't be Bush's option, if he's elected,
to drop the case), this is the insurance company's worst
nightmere. The insurance company was appearantly pushing
for a settlement, or a negotiated remedy, but Microsoft
refuses to accept anything less than unrestricted business
practices, conduct, and "right to innovate", even if that
inteferes with the rights of others to innovate.
It may be that the insurance company decided that since
Microsoft was acting against the advise of the Insurance
company provided lawyers, that Microsoft was now "on it's
own", both in terms of liability and in terms of legal
costs.
If, in fact, the insurance company felt that it could have
gotten a valid settlement - with or without an admission of
guilt, and could have prevented the long and costly litigation
and numerous lawsuits, it's unlikely that the courts will force
the insurance company to cover any damages beyond those acceeded
to under the proposed settlement.
If a plaintiff files as lawsuit against an insured for say $2 million,
but the insurance company can get the plaintiffs lawyer to settle
for $100,000 - and all they need is authorization to "cut the check",
but the defendent refuses to pay the money, the insurance company
is obligated to cover the $100,000, but usually nothing more.
Furthermore, if the insurance company has successfully negotiated
a settlement that it is willing to pay, and the defendent rejects
the settlement, the insurance company isn't normally required to
cover the subsequent legal fees.
Simply put, appearantly the insurance company was willing to
settle, out of court, cover the damages, and let Microsoft
walk away with an admission of being a monopoly, immunity from
prosecution for charges prior to the settlement, and no out-of-pocket
damages (the insurance company would have paid legal fees, minimal
damages, and accepted minimal damages). Microsoft refused to let
the government "Micromanage" them, they didn't want to give up
the right to dictate contract terms, the right to demand exclusive
control of every aspect of the boot sequence, or any other control
that would have allowed them to exclude competitors such as Linux,
Word Perfect, or Netscape from "their desktop".
More importantly, it would have created the possibility that FUTURE
attempts to exclude competitors in either the Operating System,
Application, or ISP market could result in criminal charges including
arrest and prosecution. We could actually see Bill Gates being
escorted by federal marshals to a federal jail for contempt of court.
> hah! this just shows how corrupt those Softie weasels are!
Specificially, it dramatically illustrates the determination of
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to maintain control of the industry.
Their choices will harm investors, customers, and end-users, and
the final outcome will probably result in much more liability and
restrictions than the insurance companies would have accepted.
Microsoft's only chance of getting off "scot free" would be if
the Supreme Court - which reviews the ENTIRE transcript (not just
the single issue in question) - were willing to overlook numerous
incidents of appearant perjury and seemingly criminal behavior
and say that Microsoft has no monopoly on any segment of the market,
Realisticly, Microsoft may be able to argue that it has no monopoly
of the server market. They might even be able to come up with
a supreme court mandate that once their market share drops below
a certain amount (say 60%), that they would no longer be a monopoly.
At that point, Microsoft would try to make the case that the cumulative
total of all Linux versions sold is almost as many as Microsoft sold
in a single year, therefore Linux has a large market share.
Microsoft would still have to walk a thin line. They would have
to convince the Supreme Court that it wasn't a monopoly while
still trying to keep OEMS, Retailers, and end-users convinced that
it was a monopoly and that they couldn't survive without Microsoft
software.
One tactic - used in the DOJ vs Microsoft consent degree suit, was
that Microsoft had done no harm. The DOJ worked very carefully
to show that Microsoft had harmed OEMs, Software publishers (not just
netscape), and end-users. They showed how Microsoft used it's
control of the market to harm IBM, they showed how Microsoft had
used tie-in agreements to exclude competitors, and they showed how
Microsoft had used it's control of Application Programmer Interfaces
to subvert standards and standards processes. They even showed how
Microsoft had harmed users through it's network of nondisclosure
agreements. Finally, they made Microsoft's practice of obstructing
justice by forbidding OEMs, software developers, and large corporate
customers from speaking with federal investigators without the presence
of a Microsoft lawyer. Although Microsoft agreed to announce that
third parties would be allowed to speak freely with DOJ investigators,
this was an admission that such practices existed during previous
federal investigations conducted since 1987.
In the consent decree proceedings, Microsoft was able to limit
the scope to a very narrow issue (whether IE was merely an enhancement
to the operating system, or a bundled application). This prevented
the DOJ from introducing evidence related to harm caused by the
monopoly. During the appeal process, Microsoft then used the
general case - the lack of proof of harm, to get the appellate court
to overturn the conviction.
In the Antitrust suit, Judge Jackson wasn't going to let Microsoft
restrict the scope of the trial so that Microsoft could use an out of
scope issue to win an appeal. Microsoft still thinks that they are
fighting the Consent Decree case, not an antimonpoly case. Judge
Jackson restricted scope of the trial by limited the number of
witnesses. But this did not limit the number of sworn depositions,
and the number of exibits. Finally, the worst evidence against
Microsoft was actually provided by the Microsoft witnesses. Bill
Gates was caught lying numerous times, he was deliberately deceptive,
and effectively admitted to criminal behavior (fraud, blackmail, and
extortion) but attempted to justify the action - not realizing that
he had admitted to criminal actions during cross-examination.
> Microsoft deserves everything coming its way - in spades...
Microsoft has been under investigation since 1983, with actions
attempted unsuccessfully in 1987, 1991, and 1993. Microsoft
eventually negotiated a deal when it was obvious that it was about
to be convicted of bundling and was about to be found to be a
Monopoly in 1994. By 1996, Microsoft had violated the spirit and
intent of the agreement - but defended on a technicality, lost
in the district court, and then had the verdict overturned in
the appellate court by using the lack of evidence - evidence that
Microsoft was able to suppress by limiting the scope of the trial.
Ironically, the Clinton administration was actually quite generous
toward Microsoft. In fact, the district court judge actually
admonished the DOJ attorneys for being to lenient on Microsoft
when their first "settlement" was introduced.
Even this DOJ Antitrust suit was primarily instituted to prevent
each of 20 states from pressing individual lawsuits, with increasing
odds that, not only would Microsoft eventually be found to be a
monopoly, but that Microsoft executives may have been involved in
criminal activities. Furthermore, in 20 independent lawsuits
and criminal investigations, Microsoft was much less likely to
have control of jurisdiction. On several occaisions, the DOJ
even tried to "cut a deal" without consulting with the more
militant states.
Ironically, it was George Bush senior who first initiated
investigation of Microsoft practices. Microsoft has many
enemies and upset OEMs and competitiors, many of whom have
key locations in Texas, Florida, Arizona, New York, and
California. Many of these companies have already made plans
to adopt Linux, and are completely prepared to file charges
if Microsoft attempts to "punish them for their defection".
Perhaps the most important issue in the remedy will be the
restriction on Microsoft's right to set it's own discounts
and it's ability to add clauses that may have an exclusionary
effect. Microsoft would have to give up control of the desktop
(it has already been forced do give up control with Japanese
companies). This means that OEMs could add, delete, or alter
which ISPs, Applications, and Web Browsers end up on the desktop.
They could put IE in the accessories folder, put Netscape on
the desktop, and boot their own desktop manager. Furthermore,
they could raise the retail price of PCs by as much as 20% by
installing BOTH Linux AND Windows on the same machine - and
Microsoft couldn't prevent it.
There is also a very high probability that while Microsoft won't
be forced to publish it's source code, it will be forced to
expose application programmer interfaces, protocols, and
file formats used within Windows. This would include forced
public disclosure (probably to the IETF) of USB and it's peripheral
specific protocols, DVD and it's CSS encryption techniques, and
even proprietary PCI related information. Put another way,
if it isn't currently a published standard, it will be.
Finally, a major thrust of the case was how Microsoft controlled
application developers by userping public standards. This means
that the "applications barrier to entry" has to be dropped. This
means that Microsoft will have to adhere to published standards
and Application Programmer interfaces.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:31:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 03:28:35 GMT
>Max [...]
Has it escaped your notice that I'm extremely BORED with your repetitious use
of third person narrative style? I mean, seriously, stop BORING me.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:32:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 03:26:48 GMT
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:21:13 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:54:36 GMT
>
>>>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 02:42:07 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>>Devlin wrote:
>
>>>You claim to have been forced to accept the terms of a EULA which you
>>>as good as admit below do not exist (the terms, not the EULA.) [...]
>
>>No, I didn't claim what you stated. Thank you for your time.
>
>Hmmn. And conveniently clipped to hide the evidence. Here it is
>again:
>
>"I seem to recall one of those outrageously excessive clauses I was
>forced to agree to saying something about 'you can only run this on
>the os which we allow you to'"
>
>And you now deny having posted this.
>
>>Boring!
>
>Yes, consistency can be. It does, however, help one who so frequently
>appeals to his own authority to * not * be so blatantly wrong so
>often.
I was forced to agree to accept the terms. I said that. You said I was
forced to accept the terms. I didn't say that. The difference, of course,
is...
BORING!!!!
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I
Date: 24 Apr 2000 03:40:25 GMT
Bit Twister,
exactly what drugs were you under the influence of when you wrote:
+ Gees, NOT again. Go here and let the man who name it
+ sound it out for you.
+
+ ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/SillySounds/
That wasn't Richard Stallman.
--
___\___ ____\___
\ / .\ \ / .\
|>< Carl < |>< Banks <
/ \_____)_/ / \______)_/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sea1Dragon2)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 03:46:59 GMT
On 23 Apr 2000 21:46:00 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, that's not really the point of the difference. With a CLI, especially
>general purpose ones like unix shells, anything you do repeatedly
>can be automated by putting exactly the same commands you would
>use manually into a script, perhaps with variable substitution for
>the variations of each run. with a GUI, if automation is possible
>at all it has to be done in some macro language embedded into
>each program with its own peculiar syntax. There is almost
>never a way to do something by hand, then paste those commands
>into a script for re-use.
Wow. Cluelessness at the highest level. You have never used AppleScript?
Oh yeah this is comp.os.linux.advocacy. The only two OS'es which have
ever been written are Linux and Windows 98. My bad.
>>>IMHO, Linux was born out of a sheer dislike of Microsoft, unlike its BSD
>>>cousins, who seemed to originate from a need for a BSD-like OS.
>
>Both Linux and the *bsd's are updated clones of unix systems that
>pre-date windows by at least a decade. Microsoft is pretty
>much irrelevant.
Incorrect. The Linux project was started in 1991. Windows 3.0 was
released in 1990, and earlier versions were released in the mid-1980's.
I'm sure you didn't know that, but...
>>The very early development of Linux was decidedly for hobbyist purposes,
>>but it is clear that the Linux _movement_ is primarily anti-Microsoft
>>and has minimal technical basis.
>
>You mean there are still people that aren't anti-Microsoft?
Do you have any conception of the difference obsessively seeking
out reasons to hate Microsoft (at the expense of getting actual
work done) and making an occasional joke at the expense of Microsoft?
Apparently you are so riddled with hate for Microsoft, so fearful
of the company, and so brainwashed by your trendy and fashionable
Linux colleagues, that you cannot fathom anything else. You, like
the rest of the Linux tribe, are too busy hating Microsoft instead
of working on the product, and that is why you have such a shitty
OS. The BSD people are not nearly as obsessive in their Microsoft
hatred, and at least they have a passable product.
>>The debate between Windows NT and Linux is more interesting
>>as Windows NT solves most of those problems as well as Linux does.
>
>It is possible to keep NT working under very controlled conditions,
>but as an experiment, try installing and testing 3 random new
>programs a day on both an NT and Linux box in active production.
>My experience say the NT box will have to be rebooted in less
>than a week and is fairly likely to end up needing production
>programs reinstalled due to dll conflicts. The Linux box is
>unlikely to have any problems.
I'm working on an instructional series about how to be the most cliched,
most fashionable, dweebiest, trendiest Linux user on the planet. I'd
recommend you audition for a place as a case study, I think you have a
good chance. You'd have to convice me that you are an actual person and
not just a random perl script who soaks up the fashionable and trendy
cliches on comp.os.linux.advocacy and spits back as news posts. Tell
us, what is your motivation? Microsoft's superior products made your
LNUX options worth less than the paper they printed on? Or this a
deeper-seated, more elusive inadequacy that you are trying to make up for?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:49:51 -0500
On 23 Apr 2000 16:30:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>And experienced Linux users copy over the config file they've
>>>used before. But I thought we were discussing beginners here.
>>
>>I think the typical Windows user who would right-click a file can be
>>trained that way in about 10 seconds. How long before you can train a
>>typical Linux user in how to copy -the right- files 'over'?
>
>A typical Linux user would find out for himself...
Exactly. And that mentality is part of the reason Linux as still seen
as a "for geeks only" OS.
>You can either remove the mention of /lib/security/pam_securetty.so
>from /etc/pam.d/login or add a bunch of /dev/ttypn (n= 0 to 20 or so...)
>entries to /etc/securetty.
No linuxconf entries then? :)
Say, is there a reason that the anonymous FTP login is absolutely
powerless in wuftp? Even using webmin to change things around, it's
just useless - making a symlink to, say, /mnt/cdrom/RedHat works if I
log in as a normal Linux user to the FTP server, but if I log in as
anonymous, I can't CD to the symlink. Other examples: I can make
virtual dirs (which are supposed to be open to all users - including
anon) and CD to them with a user's login, but as anon, doesn't work.
Even making the anon root dir to /mnt/cdrom/RedHat causes anon to then
log into a completely empty directory.
Any ideas?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:52:15 -0500
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:09:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:35:47 -0500,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:03:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>For an office setup, sure, with NIS it isn't that bad once you've done
>>>>it a few times, but for one-offs, *I* wouldn't want to be the one to set
>>>>up someone else's filesharing over the phone.
>>>
>>>With Linux, I could log into his system over the network, and configure it
>>>right speedily.
>>
>>And what if he calls you up remotely, has no network connection, or
>>doesn't know how to grant rights to you?
>
>
>
>What if he's blind and doesn't speak english?
>
>(if he doesn't have a network connection, what good does sharing files
>do?)
If you can't connect to him.
>The nice thing about text based configs, is that you can step someone through
>it vet easily, it's easy to say type xyz, rather than saying click on the icon
>that looks like a mutated potatoe, and drag it to the one that looks like a
>squashed pumpkin...
<boggle>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 23 Apr 2000 23:27:28 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Things that are controlled by config files can be wrapped by
>>a GUI to give you the choice much easier than the opposite.
>
>Sometimes. I don't think linuxconf is a particularly good example of
>that.
My objection to linuxconf is that it often does things
unrelated to the configuration you changed, like changing
permissions/ownership on other files. This is OK if you
let it do everything for you but annoying and surprising
otherwise. Webmin seems a little nicer to me, and the
original RedHat control-panel apps weren't all that bad either.
>>It's OK the first time you do something, but after you realize
>>that the 10th time you are repeating 100 steps and doing only
>>one different, how do you automate that other 99?
>
>NT has CLI commands also.
But then you have to start over. You probably didn't use
them the first 9 times so you don't have any idea how
to duplicate the procedure you have been using. And unless
you add in a unix-like shell you don't have much of a
scripting language either.
>>Conceptually it is the same as trust relations between PDCs. Giving
>
>Except that how many PDCs do you have? 5 in an organization? 10?
>50? It doesn't matter - represented as a percentage of machines, it
>MIGHT be .3% or so (one PDC for every 3000 machines, say). For Linux,
>*EVERY* Linux box (100%) that is set up with NFS is granted just as
>much trust as you are granting that administrator that runs the NT
>PDC. That's a problem.
Only if the users have root. Doing that is exactly like letting
them run a trusted PDC - that's just the way the model works.
>>the root password to someone on a client system that you don't
>>trust is the same as giving the administrator password to a
>>trusted domain to that person. One model isn't any more
>>outrageous than the other.
>
>Rootsquash is on by default in Mandrake and RH6.2; I'd think it would
>be on in other flavors too. But the problem isn't just with root -
>users can have different GIDs and UIDs on different systems; that's
>bad.
Rootsquash only prevents access to root-owned files. Root on
a client machine can pretend to be any other user. You really
need to restrict by IP address to hosts you trust or separately
share different areas with address restrictions. Samba style
permission concepts may map better to single-user machines.
>>For example you might
>>want to set all your time servers the same some lines like:
>>ntp time server nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn
>>you can just paste them in from the working copy.
>
>1. Get a time client/server for NT (I think 2k has one, but I haven't
>messed with it)
>2. Make a script to automate it.
>
>What's the problem? Better, what's the difference?
In this case I was trying to describe a configuration process, not
any particular service. What I want, and what files and Cisco's
CLI provide, is a way to do exact cut-and-paste transfers from
a working machine into the one being configured. That's the
piece I find missing from GUI style configurations. If you
have a working machine you might be able to go screen-by-screen
through every step on both machines side-by-side or even
use VNC to see both at once on the same screen, but there is
no way to just grab the working setup and re-use it, and unless
you explore every menu you aren't sure you have the whole thing.
>>I manage an assortment of boxes and find it much more difficult
>>to clone an existing system with services under NT/2K. To build
>>a copy of a Linux web server with a bunch of vhosts, for example, I
>>can copy an entire machine and then edit a few files if the
>>ip addresses are going to be different. On the NT/2K boxes
>>I have to repeat the install and then manually repeat the entire
>>server setup. I always want VNC installed and running as a
>
>Use GHOST to copy the server/install the server, then edit to suit.
But I often don't want the whole machine - I just want to move
a service or I want to take the working service from NT workstation
to server, or to W2k. If I'm moving apache, sendmail, named,
a dhcp server, or any similar service under Linux, I just copy the
appropriate config files and either copy or rebuild the programs
if they aren't already there. How do I do the equivalent move under
NT/W2k without having to repeat the entire install/setup operation?
A web server with a bunch of vhosts or a dhcp server with a lot
of hardware-address entries would be good examples.
>Also, NT comes with a fairly powerful scriptable setup that you can
>use to completely automate the installation (UAFs - unattended answer
>files - look 'em up in the MSKB), and from there you can put things in
>/administrator/startup and install, say, user-level applications for
>NT deployments.
What's an MSKB and how many machines do you have to deploy to
make this worthwhile? Does it solve the problem of being able
to reproduce a setup that has been tweaked and tuned over some
period of time, or do I have to go back and find every setting
and manually enter it into this scriptable setup? I want to
propagate the incremental improvements not clone beta-version-1.
>>service so that's another several steps. I can't get
>>replication to run automatically without a domain controller
>>(why?) so I install the port of rsync with the cygwin dll
>>in another several steps. Maybe there really are easy
>>ways to do these things but if so, they are not as obvious as
>>copying files.
>
>Replication has several well known bugs; without SP3 it's useless.
>Install the latest SP (6a) and try it again.
NT in general was useless before sp3. I first tried it on W2k.
>While I no longer have 2 Win2k boxes here (Linux is happily running on
>2/3rds of my machines now) I see no reason for replication to require
>a domain controller. To import requires NTW, and to export or import
>requires NTS. Win2k may have changed that a bit, but that's all
>that's required in NT4.
I just read what the help files said on w2k server. It said I
could sync manually but not automatically. Rsync looks better
anyway since I can drive it from cron on a unix box and pull
back the log files as well.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:33:48 -0500
Here in comp.os.linux.networking, Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>If its a "NT replacement" is not on the desktop. In the real world,
>NT is not a desktop OS.
Windows NT 4 is used heavily in the corporate world as a desktop OS.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Startling new evidence: Apes descended from Creationists!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
