Okay, I get it! But why would someone want to install a separate server
for each separate network service? Isn't that cost-prohibitive?
Preston Landers wrote:
> Brandon W. Beasley writes:
>
> > Gates uttered the following Newspeak at the Dell ego support group
> > yesterday:
> >
> > "[Windows 2000] should eliminate the UNIX single point of failure
> > issue."
>
> I was also curious, and indeed, somewhat infuriated by this obviously
> FUDish remark. I guess he would prefer a Windows single point of
> failure. My guess is he was refering to the server administration
> feature of W2K, to let knuckleheads point-n-drool manage their farms
> of servers[1]. Similar programs exist for high-end unix like Solaris,
> so you can chalk this one up to plain ole FUD.
>
> [1] Naturally, you need a separate box (with its own CPU, ram, drives,
> etc, and preferably with a backup system) to run each W2k application
> because running more than one service on a windows box is not
> recommended by MS themselves.
>
> ---P
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
