Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

How can I do it in UNIX

<< < (12/14) > >>

www.unixsucks.com:
So it's a bunch of FUD which allows microsoft to be where they are now?
What does that mean. Don't you think by this time there is mo FUSS about Linux/*NIX then Windows? I have talked to some people who are really not into computers and seems to me they actually got a lot of *NIX propaganda in their heads. Looks at your own thereads about how people has not idea what do with a computer and would still install Linux. So I don't really see how marketing allows Microsoft to be a leader.
To Void. We use in production enviroment what we have to use and what is forced from above. It's BIND 8 (I suppose) running on Solaris. Here is the problems I have with it: I have to have a local account on that machine to be able to properly administer it. All admins are sharing root password. I can not assign permissions to individual records. I can not purge purge from cache only specific records, I have to purge the whole goddamn cache.
But it walks well, I admit it. It's kinda pain in ass but it works. By the way, it's 6 a.m. here and I was just waked up by our company's help desk becouse of DNS issues. Seems to me that our internal DNS servers are fucked up. So they are calling now *NIX guru to fix it. I'm not 100% positive that it's DNS issue (so it seems to be at this point) but it either that or firewall which both run UNIX and which are fucked up as of now. So *NIX based systems never fucked up?
So what was your point again? That it was my choice? No (I run Win2000 DNS as a primary for www.unixsucks.com). Don't you use Exchange over there as well?
By the way, what is preferred mail scenarion solutoin for Linux based network. What do you run on server, how people read email, what authentication is used? Say you have 20 users network.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: http://www.unixsucks.com ]

voidmain:
Sendmail/IMAP works well, and if you want encrypted traffic use IMAPS, no need for Exchange. You can use POP instead of IMAP but I like having all of my message folders on the server (like Exchange). All Linux distros come with these. Not only can all UNIX mail clients use this server, you can even use Outlook and Outlook Express in Windows to read your mail on your UNIX/Linux server.

There are other products available that provide similar functionality to Exchange, some free, some not.  IMAP suits my partners and I just fine for our side business (and all of the other small business that we host for).

www.unixsucks.com:
So where do you authenticate?
On local email server? Everybody has it's own account there?
How people logon to network or they don't?
Do they have some features which would restrict them to send to specific people inside organisation, to give access to local mailbox to other people, to have rich calendaring and meeting support?
About that link you sent, this quote says it's all. Another brain washed CIO. To tell you the truth i would like to see if they would be able to pull it off.

 
quote:Smith has spoken publicly on a number of occasion about his preference for open standards and systems and listed Sun boss Scott McNealy as his most admired IT figure in a recent magazine interview.
--- End quote ---


[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: http://www.unixsucks.com ]

Pantso:
Hey unixsucks, I've been watching your little debate for a few days now and I've noticed that you're an educated fellow. What bothers me though is your persistence in coming back to the forums again and again just to try and prove that in Linux or *NIX you can't do something as easily as in Windows. Maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong, who knows? All I know is that I can't judge an OS purely by its performance on some highly specialized tasks as the ones you mention here. So far my judgement on Linux included the overall performance of the specific OS against Windows and by overall performance I mean the reliability, the security, the robustness of Linux.

I can't argue with you, and I don't suppose anyone can, that Windows is easier to use, supports more apps, more hardware etc etc. But is that all? Can you sacrifice the reliability of your system in the name of "ease of use"? I know I wouldn't!

Furthermore, don't forget that GNU/Linux is the result of an effort made by millions of programmers around the world, who work mostly in their free time compared to M$, a tightly-sealed major corporation that focus their work only on profit and the mistreatment of their customers.

I can't say that I don't use windows anymore as I have to run some apps designed for Windows only. But I use Linux as well and am trying to learn as much as I can about it and that at least gives me the pleasure of freedom of choice.

Clearly, you have misinterpreted the meaning of these forums and you're not the only one, believe me.The point is that you won't find any immature Windows hater here with no arguments. As you have already figured out for yourself most of the people here have very strong arguments to support their case. So do I and I'm just a computer illiterate compared to most of the people here.

Anyway, good luck in trying to learn a few things more about Linux and *NIX in general. Perhaps, it will help you more in your work than you ever imagined and make your life easier  ;)

Stryker:
I still haven't had my question answered by unixsucks. How many times did you have to click your mouse, between the time you stuck your cd in to install the damned server, and the time it was fully operational (which would include every one of your little rants that you've mentioned)? And you have 5000 users you say...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page