Subject: NT vs. netatalk and $$ (was Re: netatalk comps (and alternatives in SAMBA))
From: Marc J. Miller (itlm019@mailbox.ucdavis.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2000 - 15:33:46 EDT
Two words in favor of netatalk and CAP: open source. If we need to figure
out why something is acting the way it is, we can look at the source code
and even modify it ourselves to get the desired behavior. We (my
department) feel we simply can't trust Microsoft to help us with something
that could be a Mac issue or could be a server issue. MS will likely leave
us to figure it out on our own if they think it might be a problem with
MacOS.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Zink/Netatalk List" <netatalk@fizbin.com>
To: "Marcus Radich" <marcus@darena.co.nz>; <netatalk-admins@umich.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: netatalk comps (and alternatives in SAMBA)
on 7/23/00 10:11 PM, Marcus Radich at marcus@darena.co.nz wrote:
> The NT approach? Get another server for Proxy, another for Web Dev,
> another for Exchange Server...boy, THIS adds up! I'd say you are up
> for a bit more than the quoted $150...
I could argue likewise by creating situations that require extra hardware
that Linux can't provide - I'm talking realistic situations -- and these
involve the use of dedicated servers for workgroups, since proxy servers are
already present in the installation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 17 2001 - 14:31:36 EST