David,
In many ways Linux is nothing like what you're used to. And much more like
the mainframes you've programmed for all these years.
What protocols are you using to get the boxes to talk to the Linux box.
I'm assuming that you're using the Linux box as a file server, right?
--
Mark
"If you don't share your concepts and ideals, they end up being worthless,"
"Sharing is what makes them powerful."
Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, David Thompson wrote:
> See comments embedded...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sridhar Dhanapalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Adrian Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [newbie] Mandrakesoft CEO defends Linux
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > While I believe that Linux can be an excellent alternative to M$ Windos, I
> > must admit that my greatest fear is that it will be "dumbed down" to cater
> > for ordinary users. This fear, while not totally baseless, is unlikely to
> > eventuate. There will always be serious computer users, who don't want a
> > "dumb" OS. There are, and always will be, apps to cater for these people,
> > especially since these are the people who code most Linux apps anyway. KDE
> > too "dumb" for you? Use WindowMaker, or BlackBox, or XFce... Think the
> > default Linux kernel is too bloated? Recompile it and include only what
> you
> > need. Linux is the most scalable OS ever to exist, and this scalability is
> > increasing with time. Linux can be whatever you make it to be. Want it to
> > run a Windos competitor? With GNOME and KDE it already is. Want it to work
> at
> > the enterprise level? Kernel 2.4 supports the high-end processors like the
> > Itanium in multiprocessor configurations and up to 64GB of RAM. Want it to
> > run a PDA? Compile a tiny kernel and run something like QT-embedded or
> > GTK-embedded. And the most important point is that Linux excels in all
> these
> > scenarios. See my point?
>
> I guess I am the "dumb Windoze user" many of you refer to, because I am
> having one H*** of a time getting Linux to communicate with my Windows
> boxes. I have tried 5 total re-installs, sometimes I'm able to ping the
> linux box from my Win2K box, then after tweaking using linuxcfg, it doesn't
> work.
> After 12 years in the industry as a Cobol programmer, and working with
> DOS and Windows from it's first release, I thought I had a little more
> knowledge the the average person. I maintain that Windows runs the first
> time and any slightly trained monkey can use it from then on. I value linux
> as a suberb server, and I'm going to continue in my attempts to get my home
> network up and running with linux, as opposed to using the Windows standard
> peer-to-peer networking, but as far as networking - this is not for the
> feeble-minded!!
> By the way, I am defending, nor blasting either product (Win & Linux).
> I feel they both have their place.
>
>
>
