On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 11:23:38AM -0500, Jason wrote:
I had to look this up and I was an English major 8).
You obviously haven't been paying close attention to this list very
long... we have many pedants here, and many pedantic discussions.
An overabundance of pedantry, really... ;-)
--
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, at 2:51am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You obviously haven't been paying close attention to this list very
long... we have many pedants here, and many pedantic discussions. An
overabundance of pedantry, really... ;-)
Hey! I resemble that remark! ;-)
--
Ben Scott
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, at 12:58pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I suppose so. But it's really client/server no matter how MS wishes
to look at it :)
Absolutely. Alas, if you're using NetBIOS, chances are, you're using
Microsoft, which means you have to deal with their brain damage.
Right,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, at 12:21pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to cut to the chase, it looks as thought you would could make things
better by setting the linux box up as a DNS server that serves a local
domain
That would be the rational way, but this person has zero experience with
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, at 11:22pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I fully understand the use of the term 'peer to peer' to imply that
there is no central server utilized for file storage or printing, I must
state emphatically that:
There is no such thing as a 'peer to peer' network.[1]
In a message dated: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:55:25 EST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
While I do agree, it is important to understand that Microsoft Windows is
designed around Microsoft's concept of networking (i.e., peer to peer vs
client/server). If you put a Microsoft Windows Server computer on a LAN
Yes, it is ugly, another reson to try and make everything use DNS
for name resolotion. There are ways to convice the windows PCs to
put more weight on DNS for name resolution via the registry.
Here's what we have used (of course the DNS infrastructure is set
up first):
Win95
In a message dated: 11 Feb 2004 13:08:26 EST
Kenneth E. Lussier said:
DHCP doesn't assign hostnames, it assigns IP addresses (and other
various info).
Well, that's not exactly true, among the 'other various info' you
mention, DHCP can and is used to assign:
- hostnames
- IP addresses
-
In a message dated: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:51:49 EST
Andrew W. Gaunt said:
Just to cut to the chase, it looks as thought you would
could make things better by setting the linux box up
as a DNS server that serves a local domain (with
info re: stuff on the LAN in its zone file) and
caches/forwards
In a message dated: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:21:36 EST
Ed Lawson said:
That would be the rational way, but this person has zero experience with
Linux and telling him, OK, now we are going to set up a DNS might put
him over the edge. OTOH, I suspect we could spend no small amount of
time klutzing
In a message dated: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:42:05 EST
Jeff Macdonald said:
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 12:21, Ed Lawson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:51:49 -0500
snip
I just ran a test and it isn't getting that info via DHCP. One of the
windows boxes is a dual boot machine when booted under Linux it
Just to cut to the chase, it looks as thought you would
could make things better by setting the linux box up
as a DNS server that serves a local domain (with
info re: stuff on the LAN in its zone file) and
caches/forwards everything else. Then configure the
clients (including the client side of
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 11:31, Ed Lawson wrote:
My question relates to getting the Windows boxes to resolve the linux
box by name. He uses the combo DSL modem/router as a DHCP server.
There is no local DNS server, the router points to the ISP's DNS. The
local boxes do not have hosts files
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, at 11:31am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My question relates to getting the Windows boxes to resolve the linux box
by name.
Ahhh. SMB name resolution. Never will you find a more retched hive of
scum and kludges.
First, it depends on the version of Windows. Win 95, 98,
14 matches
Mail list logo
