Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > AFAIK Samba implements the SMB protocol, which is the
> > native resource (file, printer, ...) sharing protocol of
> > Windows. So if you have Windows, you've already got an SMB
> > client and server running.
>
> for the same
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Greg McCarroll wrote on Freitag, 8. Juni 2001 11:11
> > And some pieces of software just wont be able to be plugged
> > in - why can't i run Samba on Windows?
>
> Why would you want to?
* in a heterogeneous network i may want to standardise on a s
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
>
> * GUI
>
> I really don't want to have a server running a GUI, it adds at least some
> overhead, encourages people to `work on the server' and as its an additional
> process may add additional security concerns.
A
Greg McCarroll wrote on Freitag, 8. Juni 2001 11:11
> And some pieces of software just wont be able to be plugged
> in - why can't i run Samba on Windows?
Why would you want to? AFAIK Samba implements the SMB protocol, which is the
native resource (file, printer, ...) sharing protocol of Wind
* Struan Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * at 08/06 11:35 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
> > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> >
> > > calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-)
> >
> > arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out ..
* at 08/06 11:54 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
>
> pah! .. tis written in the scripture ... 'let he who hath one eye be
> blessed' .. clearly the 'one eye' is a reference to the one 'i' in vi ..
> its *obvious* innit ... I shall found my entire religion on this shadowy
> fact wriiten by our lord him
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Struan Donald wrote:
> * at 08/06 11:35 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
> > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> >
> > > calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-)
> >
> > arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out ..
>
* at 08/06 11:35 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
>
> > calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-)
>
> arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out ..
> have you been using [x{0,1]]emacs again ... ?
and th
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-)
arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out ..
have you been using [x{0,1]]emacs again ... ?
--
Robin Szemeti
* Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > There is entirely to much DLL upgrading for my liking at every possible
> > chance with Windows software/service pack. I don't believe that this can
> > really lead to a stable system.
>
> Win2k address a lot of these issues with its dll and system
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> Well here are some reasons why i prefer UNIX to Windows * for servers,
I'm going to play devils advocate. I've been using Win2k for the last four
months and have a basic grasp of it. Its difficult because i agree with a
lot of you
* at 08/06 10:11 +0100 Greg McCarroll said:
>
> Well here are some reasons why i prefer UNIX to Windows * for servers,
> they are pretty much personal reasons and i'm sure not everyone agrees with
> them.
I'd also add that is something hardwary does go wrong and the box
stops running, windows
* Jonathan Peterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >
> >At the end of the day, the simple fact is that Windows 2000 crashes more
> >frequently than *n[ui]x does -- this surely is unquestioned fact.
>
> I just questioned it. Win2k appears to be a very nice OS, although I've
> never used it at th
>
>At the end of the day, the simple fact is that Windows 2000 crashes more
>frequently than *n[ui]x does -- this surely is unquestioned fact.
I just questioned it. Win2k appears to be a very nice OS, although I've
never used it at the server end. It may have all sorts of scalability
issues an
Dominic Mitchell [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>AFAIK, the starfire (Sun Ultra Enterprise 1) only goes up to 64
*>processors (I used to work on an under equipped one ;-) The SGI
*>challenge does 128 procs, though.
The starfile does, indeed, max out at 16 boards with 4 processors each
makin
Hi guys,
Thanks for the input. I'll investigate further, but it has confirmed my
suspicions that SQueaL hasn't made an impact at the terabyte level.
As for the job, it's good, but not the be-all and end-all. I'm too
passionate about what I do to work on systems that I don't believe in.
Anyway
On or about Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 04:58:11PM -0700, Paul Makepeace typed:
>At the end of the day, the simple fact is that Windows 2000 crashes more
>frequently than *n[ui]x does -- this surely is unquestioned fact.
Bear in mind also this item from Monday's RISKS (21.44):
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 1
Ian Brayshaw wrote:
> What I'm trying to find is industry evidence of SQueaL's performance (or
> lack of). The more gory the details the better.
It's not unbiased and you have to sift through the cruft but checking
old Ask-Slashdots is often worth doing as the occasional person comes up
with s
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 12:42:34AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> Leons links to TPC are ace .. thats amazing .. the best NT powered thing
> is at a piss poor 1700 ... presumably NT doesnt scale well to a 128
> processor UltraSparc then ;)))
AFAIK, the starfire (Sun Ultra Enterprise 1) only g
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 02:24:35AM +1000, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
> Have any of you worked with SQueaLServer with a large DB (multiple terabyte
> level), serving high volume transactions (read & write, of the order of
You'd have to be more specific than that. MS's terraserver
http://terraserver.hom
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
> >I didn't even reallise you could get NT for serious mips .. I though it
> >only ran on likkle PC things ...
>
> I wouldn't have used the word "ran" ...
I did put something about htat but deleted it .. I leave it in next time.
I have worked on Solari
Leon Brocard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Redvers Davies sent the following bits through the ether:
>
> > The transactions world record sadly is held by M$ at the moment.
>
>http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
Yeah, seen that. It's interesting to note that SQueaL doesn't make an
appeara
Ian Brayshaw sent the following bits through the ether:
> If it goes through, this is one coder that will be seeking alternate
> employment (along with the rest of the company).
It's probably worth letting the company know about this, although
they'll probably ignore it. FUD works, you know...
Redvers Davies sent the following bits through the ether:
> The transactions world record sadly is held by M$ at the moment.
http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
Leon
--
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
Iterative Software...http://www.iterative-so
> I didn't even reallise you could get NT for serious mips .. I though it
> only ran on likkle PC things ...
The transactions world record sadly is held by M$ at the moment.
Red
Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
>
> > I'm working for a telecoms company that is considering a proposal > to
>move its billing system from Oracle on Solaris, to SQueaLServer > & NT.
>It's a decision that is coming from management (where > else?
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
> I'm working for a telecoms company that is considering a proposal to move
> its billing system from Oracle on Solaris, to SQueaLServer & NT. It's a
> decision that is coming from management (where else?), and I'm trying to
> find out if it's as ludicr
27 matches
Mail list logo
