Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files...... - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files...... - Linux ; Antonio Murphie wrote: > >> I was thinking along the lines of SSH (OpenSSH). Hypothetical case: >> >> Your nephew has an issue because he doesn't know how to install Opera. >> You log >> right in, run kcontrol/gnome-panel (or ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

  1. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    Antonio Murphie wrote:

    >

    < snip >

    >> I was thinking along the lines of SSH (OpenSSH). Hypothetical case:
    >>
    >> Your nephew has an issue because he doesn't know how to install Opera.
    >> You log
    >> right in, run kcontrol/gnome-panel (or kicker, then doing all the GUI
    >> stuff).
    >> You're essentially (virtually) right there on the PC, assuming you have
    >> the
    >> root password. It's very simple and it's totally free.

    >
    > In other words.... it's just like "Remote Desktop" which has been bundled
    > with every Windows computer for the past 8 years.
    >



    Translation: You are clueless. Completely, utterly clueless

    Well, you are a windows user, dumb enough to use OE
    That about is all that is needed to put you firmly into the idiots bin
    --
    It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
    'Where am I allowed to go today?'


  2. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:sRsej.42969$vt2.1997@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
    >* Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >> news:35279476.aPtAkqZxjB@schestowitz.com...
    >>
    >> In other words.... it's just like "Remote Desktop" which has been
    >> bundled
    >> with every Windows computer for the past 8 years.

    >
    > Nope. First, X has been around in one form or another for 23 years.
    > SSH has been around for 12 years.


    Thanks for the history lesson but what does it matter? The issue isn't
    which protocol has been around the longest... it's functionality. In the
    end the user has a graphical connection to the remote computer. Whether ssh
    has been around 12 years and RDP only 8 years isn't relevant. The issue is
    administering a remote computer.

    > Second, SSH can be used to encrypt or tunnel all sorts of protocols:
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Shell#History
    >
    > terminal
    > ftp
    > rsync
    > cp
    > remote monitoring
    > file system


    Yeah I know how it works. At work we may need to connect remotely to any
    one of over 30,000 remote servers that we administer.

    With RDP (the Microsoft implementation) users can also connect to "sound",
    "printers", "serial ports", "disk drives" and etc. So it makes the notion
    that you can optionally tunnel FTP, cp, etc. somewhat redundant since RDP
    also supports this.


    > Not to mention VPN support and usage as a proxy.
    >
    > I like this one, using your vaunted "Remote Desktop" protocol:
    >
    > ssh and rdesktop. Three computers, the computer that will run
    > rdesktop and ssh, a computer used to obtain access to a remote
    > network, and the last will be the computer you want rdesktop to
    > display.
    >
    > "ssh -L3389:mytarget.mycompany.net:3389 sshtarget.mycompany.net"
    >
    > Just log into the middle computer and do
    > nothing on it. Open another shell from the first computer running ssh
    > and type "rdesktop localhost". This example uses the middle computer to
    > port forward 3389 from the end computer to the first computer. If on
    > Windows, run ssh using another local port, e.g.
    >
    > "ssh -L3390:mydesktop.mycompany.net:3389 sshserver.mycompany.net"


    Yep. Been there and done that.

    > Start the native Windows Remote Desktop client and type localhost:3390
    > to
    > remote into "mydesktop.mycompany.net"
    >
    > GNU/Linux and OSS wins (get it? get it?) again!


    Not a strong start for the New Year, eh?



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  3. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    Antonio Murphie wrote:

    >
    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:sRsej.42969$vt2.1997@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
    >>* Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >>> news:35279476.aPtAkqZxjB@schestowitz.com...
    >>>
    >>> In other words.... it's just like "Remote Desktop" which has been
    >>> bundled
    >>> with every Windows computer for the past 8 years.

    >>
    >> Nope. First, X has been around in one form or another for 23 years.
    >> SSH has been around for 12 years.

    >
    > Thanks for the history lesson but what does it matter? The issue isn't
    > which protocol has been around the longest... it's functionality.


    In the functionality department, "Remote Desktop" does not even come close
    to the linux offerings. It is a poor excuse for MS inability to come up
    with something functional
    Linux /can/ administer a remote windows computer via remote desktop, BTW
    It is just another remote protocol for linux machines

    > In the
    > end the user has a graphical connection to the remote computer. Whether
    > ssh has been around 12 years and RDP only 8 years isn't relevant. The
    > issue is administering a remote computer.


    Stop moving the goalposts.
    You have been shown to be clueless, yet you talk about things you know
    absolutely nothing of


    < snip >
    --
    Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. The answer is NO


  4. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:fldqb3$24u$03$1@news.t-online.com...
    > Antonio Murphie wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >> news:sRsej.42969$vt2.1997@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
    >>>* Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >>>> news:35279476.aPtAkqZxjB@schestowitz.com...
    >>>>
    >>>> In other words.... it's just like "Remote Desktop" which has been
    >>>> bundled
    >>>> with every Windows computer for the past 8 years.
    >>>
    >>> Nope. First, X has been around in one form or another for 23 years.
    >>> SSH has been around for 12 years.

    >>
    >> Thanks for the history lesson but what does it matter? The issue isn't
    >> which protocol has been around the longest... it's functionality.

    >


    > In the functionality department, "Remote Desktop" does not even come
    > close
    > to the linux offerings. It is a poor excuse for MS inability to come up
    > with something functional

    So do tell me exactly what functionality you can do with your linux
    offerings that remote-desktop doesn't do.

    Remote desktop has a secure connection.
    It can connect disk drives.
    It can connect printers.
    It can connect serial ports.

    Port forwarding is nice but other than being able to forward a port, how
    does it help administer a remote computer?


    > Linux /can/ administer a remote windows computer via remote desktop, BTW
    > It is just another remote protocol for linux machines

    No ****. It can do the GUI part of the remote desktop but I have yet to see
    a implementation that lets you mount remote drives and printers.


    >> In the
    >> end the user has a graphical connection to the remote computer. Whether
    >> ssh has been around 12 years and RDP only 8 years isn't relevant. The
    >> issue is administering a remote computer.

    >
    > Stop moving the goalposts.


    Perhaps you should read "up" this thread to my original response and learn
    where the goalposts are. Schestowitz posted that the remote user can
    connect via SSH and start gnome-panel and do the "GUI stuff" to remotely
    install software. He said that it's essentially like being there.

    So here's a hint for you clueless... we ARE talking about administering a
    remote computer to install software.


    > You have been shown to be clueless, yet you talk about things you know
    > absolutely nothing of




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    * Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:

    >
    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:sRsej.42969$vt2.1997@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
    >>* Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >>> news:35279476.aPtAkqZxjB@schestowitz.com...
    >>>
    >>> In other words.... it's just like "Remote Desktop" which has been
    >>> bundled
    >>> with every Windows computer for the past 8 years.

    >>
    >> Nope. First, X has been around in one form or another for 23 years.
    >> SSH has been around for 12 years.

    >
    > Thanks for the history lesson but what does it matter? The issue isn't
    > which protocol has been around the longest... it's functionality. In the
    > end the user has a graphical connection to the remote computer. Whether ssh
    > has been around 12 years and RDP only 8 years isn't relevant. The issue is
    > administering a remote computer.


    And, of course, UNIX has had the covered for /far/ longer than Windows,
    Chuck-o.

    > Yeah I know how it works. At work we may need to connect remotely to any
    > one of over 30,000 remote servers that we administer.


    So why the "ignoramus" ploy?

    > With RDP (the Microsoft implementation) users can also connect to "sound",
    > "printers", "serial ports", "disk drives" and etc. So it makes the notion
    > that you can optionally tunnel FTP, cp, etc. somewhat redundant since RDP
    > also supports this.


    Cool.

    >> "ssh -L3390:mydesktop.mycompany.net:3389 sshserver.mycompany.net"

    >
    > Yep. Been there and done that.


    Sure you have. Sure you have.

    >> GNU/Linux and OSS wins (get it? get it?) again!

    >
    > Not a strong start for the New Year, eh?


    I agree. Slapping you down isn't much.

    --
    Tux rox!

  6. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    * Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:

    > No ****. It can do the GUI part of the remote desktop but I have yet to see
    > a implementation that lets you mount remote drives and printers.


    There are other protocols for that, obviously.

    You know, the old partitioning of functionality that stands
    diametrically opposed to Microsoft's "all-but-the-kitchen-sink-in-one-app"
    integration.

    There's more than one way to skin a cat, and UNIX-based software offers
    a very powerful system for skinning cats.

    --
    Tux rox!

  7. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    newsguej.43018$vt2.10069@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
    >* Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >>
    >> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >> news:sRsej.42969$vt2.1997@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
    >>>* Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >>>> news:35279476.aPtAkqZxjB@schestowitz.com...
    >>>>
    >>>> In other words.... it's just like "Remote Desktop" which has been
    >>>> bundled
    >>>> with every Windows computer for the past 8 years.
    >>>
    >>> Nope. First, X has been around in one form or another for 23 years.
    >>> SSH has been around for 12 years.

    >>
    >> Thanks for the history lesson but what does it matter? The issue isn't
    >> which protocol has been around the longest... it's functionality. In the
    >> end the user has a graphical connection to the remote computer. Whether
    >> ssh
    >> has been around 12 years and RDP only 8 years isn't relevant. The issue
    >> is
    >> administering a remote computer.

    >
    > And, of course, UNIX has had the covered for /far/ longer than Windows,
    > Chuck-o.


    Longer yes. But people using it today care more about functionality and
    capabilities than the historical walk down memory lane.


    >> Yeah I know how it works. At work we may need to connect remotely to any
    >> one of over 30,000 remote servers that we administer.

    >
    > So why the "ignoramus" ploy?


    Not at all. I'm simply setting the record straight that the capability
    Schestowitz was recommending to remotely install Opera is essentially doing
    the exact same thing that Remote Desktop would do.


    >> With RDP (the Microsoft implementation) users can also connect to
    >> "sound",
    >> "printers", "serial ports", "disk drives" and etc. So it makes the
    >> notion
    >> that you can optionally tunnel FTP, cp, etc. somewhat redundant since
    >> RDP
    >> also supports this.

    >
    > Cool.
    >
    >>> "ssh -L3390:mydesktop.mycompany.net:3389 sshserver.mycompany.net"

    >>
    >> Yep. Been there and done that.

    >
    > Sure you have. Sure you have.


    I do it quite often. I work at the IT center of a Fortune 500 company.
    (We're almost a Fortune 100 company.) So say we need to administer a remote
    Windows machine in California. All of the desktops (running Windows) are
    behind a Unix machine. You login to the Unix box using a line similar to
    yours:

    "ssh -l username -L3390:mydesktop.mycompany.net:3389
    sshserver.mycompany.net"

    Then forward local port 3390 to port 3389 on the remote side. Then locally
    I startup remote desktop and connect to localhost:3390 and the port gets
    forwarded to the remote machine. Not exactly rocket surgery.


    >>> GNU/Linux and OSS wins (get it? get it?) again!

    >>
    >> Not a strong start for the New Year, eh?

    >
    > I agree. Slapping you down isn't much.


    So that's what that was. I thought some punk was tickling me.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  8. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:gluej.43020$vt2.9752@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
    >* Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> No ****. It can do the GUI part of the remote desktop but I have yet to
    >> see
    >> a implementation that lets you mount remote drives and printers.

    >
    > There are other protocols for that, obviously.


    Yeah. And with Remote Desktop you don't have to enable these features
    either. There's checkboxes in the options dialog as to which of these you
    want to enable.


    > You know, the old partitioning of functionality that stands
    > diametrically opposed to Microsoft's
    > "all-but-the-kitchen-sink-in-one-app"
    > integration.


    You mean like KDE?


    > There's more than one way to skin a cat, and UNIX-based software offers
    > a very powerful system for skinning cats.


    Sure. But for 99% of computer users Remote Desktop is a simple way to get
    everything they need done. And without having to learn the various command
    line options (ssh -CXY -l foo ... setting $DISPLAY... etc.) and without
    having to learn numerous protocols.

    Are the Unix tools more powerful. Sure they are. But these tools are overly
    complex for normal computer users who are better served by Remote Desktop.





    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  9. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    Antonio Murphie wrote:
    >
    > Remote desktop has a secure connection.
    > It can connect disk drives.
    > It can connect printers.
    > It can connect serial ports.
    >
    > Port forwarding is nice but other than being able to forward a port, how
    > does it help administer a remote computer?


    I haven't played with Windows' remote desktop in a while, so please
    let me know if it has improved, but last time I tried it you could
    only remote the entire desktop, not just individual apps. With
    Linux/Unix/X, you can run just an individual app from a remote system
    (even when that system does not have a desktop environment running)
    and redirect it to your local system. You can redirect multiple apps
    from that remote system to different local users, or multiple apps
    from different remote systems to a single local system. Of course
    cut-n-paste between local and remote apps works fine. You can
    also of course redirect an entire desktop if you wish. Multiple
    users can be running remote sessions and not bump into each other (some
    remote desktop systems require exclusive access).

    This highly granular approach to remote windowing combined with
    multiple desktop workspaces makes Linux/X a great system for managing
    many servers or workstations simultaneously.

    How does Windows compare to that? Does it bundle per-app remoting
    yet, or is it still a full desktop system? Seamless multi-user access?
    Multiple desktop workspaces to easily keep remote sessions separate?

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  10. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    * Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:

    >> There are other protocols for that, obviously.

    >
    > Yeah. And with Remote Desktop you don't have to enable these features
    > either. There's checkboxes in the options dialog as to which of these you
    > want to enable.


    Big deal.

    >> You know, the old partitioning of functionality that stands
    >> diametrically opposed to Microsoft's
    >> "all-but-the-kitchen-sink-in-one-app"
    >> integration.

    >
    > You mean like KDE?


    Huh? I can run kcontrol from within the window manager Fluxbox, and
    enable the Keramik or Thinkeramik themes, and set up the Gnome theme
    called Geramik using the xfce-settings-show dialog, and have all the
    gnome apps (and Firefox) look similar to KDE apps.

    Can't get much more modular than that .

    >> There's more than one way to skin a cat, and UNIX-based software offers
    >> a very powerful system for skinning cats.

    >
    > Sure. But for 99% of computer users Remote Desktop is a simple way to get
    > everything they need done. And without having to learn the various command
    > line options (ssh -CXY -l foo ... setting $DISPLAY... etc.) and without
    > having to learn numerous protocols.
    >
    > Are the Unix tools more powerful. Sure they are. But these tools are overly
    > complex for normal computer users who are better served by Remote Desktop.


    True, given that "normal" computer users are locked into Windows. By
    the way, how many of these "normal" computer users even /know/ about
    Remote Desktop, let alone how to use it?

    And what of the Windows XP Home users, who (as far as I can tell) can
    use it only for remote "help"?

    P.S. My God! The cat has just used the cat box in our "computer room",
    and he's bolted away as if pursued by the Hounds of Hell. And now
    the smell! I scoop! And scoop! And scoop! How can one small
    cat generate these quantities and qualities of ordure? Gah. I
    must spray the Air Wick Odor Neutralizer! *cough* *cough*
    --
    GNU/Linux rox, Tux!

  11. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    * thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com fired off this tart reply:

    > Antonio Murphie wrote:
    >>
    >> Remote desktop has a secure connection.
    >> It can connect disk drives.
    >> It can connect printers.
    >> It can connect serial ports.
    >>
    >> Port forwarding is nice but other than being able to forward a port, how
    >> does it help administer a remote computer?

    >
    > I haven't played with Windows' remote desktop in a while, so please
    > let me know if it has improved, but last time I tried it you could
    > only remote the entire desktop, not just individual apps. With
    > Linux/Unix/X, you can run just an individual app from a remote system
    > (even when that system does not have a desktop environment running)
    > and redirect it to your local system. You can redirect multiple apps
    > from that remote system to different local users, or multiple apps
    > from different remote systems to a single local system. Of course
    > cut-n-paste between local and remote apps works fine. You can
    > also of course redirect an entire desktop if you wish. Multiple
    > users can be running remote sessions and not bump into each other (some
    > remote desktop systems require exclusive access).
    >
    > This highly granular approach to remote windowing combined with
    > multiple desktop workspaces makes Linux/X a great system for managing
    > many servers or workstations simultaneously.
    >
    > How does Windows compare to that? Does it bundle per-app remoting
    > yet, or is it still a full desktop system? Seamless multi-user access?
    > Multiple desktop workspaces to easily keep remote sessions separate?


    Nice backup, Thad.

    And don't forget about the CALs (client access licenses).

    --
    GNU/Linux rox, Tux!

  12. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 01 January 2008 16:38 : \____

    > "Remote Desktop" does not even come close
    > to the linux offerings.


    Unless something has changed, RD can only handle one PC at a time, its drawing
    is utterly slow, and there's no 'blending' between local and remote. Now, tell
    me how to do all those computer vision experiment in Windows if I need to
    connect to about 30 PCs at the same time and integrate their functionality.
    Windows remains that teletubby O/S in that regard and the default theme of XP
    suits that characterisation very well.

    Just like notepad, things in Windows are built to give you the very minimum of
    everything.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

  13. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:20:42 -0500,
    Antonio Murphie wrote:
    >
    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:gluej.43020$vt2.9752@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
    >>* Antonio Murphie fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> No ****. It can do the GUI part of the remote desktop but I have yet to
    >>> see
    >>> a implementation that lets you mount remote drives and printers.

    >>
    >> There are other protocols for that, obviously.

    >
    > Yeah. And with Remote Desktop you don't have to enable these features
    > either. There's checkboxes in the options dialog as to which of these you
    > want to enable.
    >
    >
    >> You know, the old partitioning of functionality that stands
    >> diametrically opposed to Microsoft's
    >> "all-but-the-kitchen-sink-in-one-app"
    >> integration.

    >
    > You mean like KDE?
    >
    >
    >> There's more than one way to skin a cat, and UNIX-based software offers
    >> a very powerful system for skinning cats.

    >
    > Sure. But for 99% of computer users Remote Desktop is a simple way to get
    > everything they need done. And without having to learn the various command
    > line options (ssh -CXY -l foo ... setting $DISPLAY... etc.) and without
    > having to learn numerous protocols.
    >
    > Are the Unix tools more powerful. Sure they are. But these tools are overly
    > complex for normal computer users who are better served by Remote Desktop.
    >
    >



    With Linux, you have the choice, RDP, like MS, with the whole desktop
    being remoted. Or you can remote the apps via X11. There's also VNC and
    NX of course, but that's a different issue.

    You *did* know that RDP is available on most modern Linux distros right?
    with no CALs, no artificial limits to how many people can connect, none
    of that stuff. Right?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHepyFd90bcYOAWPYRAmBcAJ47kQ+/vRQODymiPNMNTIWkJS7JTQCfU4Jw
    GTqq5btg2SnYeqZ2yVYXeBk=
    =KdaN
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    I never believe anything until it's been officially denied.

  14. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:

    > Thanks, jim, for the heads up. Either your head's up, or you're the
    > troll. But I suspect it is both.


    Up to now I've actually found Jim to be quite a /reasonable/ poster,
    but his x-post is as suspect as his reasoning in this thread.

    WHS is a product specifically aimed at home users who want a Windows
    based file-server that is so "simple" that it should not require any
    technical skill to operate at all. The fact that it is seriously and
    irreparably broken is a cause for warning, but of little use to tech
    support personnel, since the solution is outside their scope, beyond
    recommending that users /switch/ to something that actually *works*,
    such as pretty much any GNU/Linux distro.

    The ridiculous double-copy method employed by WHS was damning enough
    (along with its lack of RAID support, and a plethora of other issues
    revealed in last year's Ars Technica review), but this latest fiasco
    is the final nail in its coffin.

    Add "servers" to the ever increasing list of things that MS just can
    not do, along with networking, security, SOA solutions, Search, game
    consoles, Digital Media Players, and (let's face it) nearly anything
    constructive. From the look of things, Windows Home Server is one of
    Microsoft's most destructive product to date. I s'pose that means it
    should be vaunted as a rousing success, in Microsoft terms anyway.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._. :*~*:.
    .. .
    .. "Remember, if Christmas isn't found in your heart, .
    .. you won't find it under a tree." ~ C. Carpenter .
    .. .
    .. Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year .
    .. .
    ..:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._. :*~*:.


    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    21:15:16 up 11 days, 18:51, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00

  15. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:17:42 +0000, [H]omer scribbled down:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >
    >> Thanks, jim, for the heads up. Either your head's up, or you're the
    >> troll. But I suspect it is both.

    >
    > Up to now I've actually found Jim to be quite a /reasonable/ poster,
    > but his x-post is as suspect as his reasoning in this thread.


    Jim Richardson seems to be a very reasonable poster. Something that other
    posters could learn something from. Linux needs more reasonable posters
    (Jim Richardson, Thad, etc.) and fewer zealots which do nothing to help
    Linux make inroads with average users.


    > WHS is a product specifically aimed at home users who want a Windows
    > based file-server that is so "simple" that it should not require any
    > technical skill to operate at all. The fact that it is seriously and
    > irreparably broken is a cause for warning, but of little use to tech
    > support personnel, since the solution is outside their scope, beyond
    > recommending that users /switch/ to something that actually *works*,
    > such as pretty much any GNU/Linux distro.
    >
    > The ridiculous double-copy method employed by WHS was damning enough
    > (along with its lack of RAID support, and a plethora of other issues
    > revealed in last year's Ars Technica review), but this latest fiasco is
    > the final nail in its coffin.


    I have no idea what sort of person would use WHS instead of configuring an
    old machine with Samba+Linux but to each his own.

    However I see no reason why WHS wouldn't support RAID. WHS is (crappy)
    software and not a turn-key hardware solution. There is nothing to prevent
    one from running WHS on a machine with a RAID card.


    > Add "servers" to the ever increasing list of things that MS just can
    > not do, along with networking, security, SOA solutions, Search, game
    > consoles, Digital Media Players, and (let's face it) nearly anything
    > constructive. From the look of things, Windows Home Server is one of
    > Microsoft's most destructive product to date. I s'pose that means it
    > should be vaunted as a rousing success, in Microsoft terms anyway.


    --
    Ubuntu Linux
    17:15:12 up 131 days, 5:30, 1 user, load average: 0.17, 0.12, 0.09

    Is that really YOU that is reading this?


    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  16. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:

    > The best people in any endeavour *want to understand* what they are
    > doing. Windows frustrates this, while Linux encourages it. And you
    > are right, Windows gets worse in this regard with every release. The
    > old DOS wasn't bad in this respect, although it was a toy OS. You had
    > the source code, you could change it. You could find out how
    > everything worked. When Windows came along, there was suddenly a huge
    > screen pulled over all of this. (I think it is fair to say that you
    > had the same problems on the Mac, but I never used a Mac in those days
    > so I can't comment personally.) This was why I never adopted
    > Windows. I stayed with DOS for a couple of years until it was
    > absolutely untenable, then switched to Linux. That was over 10 years
    > ago, and I've never used Windows since (except briefly for editing
    > some photos, a job which I now do with Gimp in Linux). I suppose
    > Hadron will now call me a liar, too.


    You most likely are lying, or trying to evade.

    What does it mean to say you "never adopted Windows" or you "stayed with DOS
    for a couple of years"?

    And where did you get the source code to MS-DOS?

    You're claiming to have used DOS only through 1996, then suddenly you
    adopted Linux? I don't buy it for a second.




  17. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 11:24:07 -0500, Antonio Murphie wrote:

    > Whether ssh
    > has been around 12 years and RDP only 8 years isn't relevant.


    If time wasn't relevant, then why was time being boasted about?


    -Thufir

  18. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    [H]omer wrote:

    >Actually I was referring to the OP, jim[at]home.net, who despite being a
    >Windows user, is nonetheless usually quite reasonable, unlike the vast
    >majority of the other Windows users in COLA.


    Maybe. However, IMO, he's got a snotty attitude. I've unplonked him
    for now. But I'll still predict that, should "jim" stick-around,
    he'll follow the classic troll path of starting-out "reasonable", but
    steadily get worse with time, eventually degrading to "worthless
    troll" status.


  19. Re: FYI: Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files......

    * DFS fired off this tart reply:

    > nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >
    >> The best people in any endeavour *want to understand* what they are
    >> doing. Windows frustrates this, while Linux encourages it. And you
    >> are right, Windows gets worse in this regard with every release. The
    >> old DOS wasn't bad in this respect, although it was a toy OS. You had
    >> the source code, you could change it. You could find out how
    >> everything worked. When Windows came along, there was suddenly a huge
    >> screen pulled over all of this. (I think it is fair to say that you
    >> had the same problems on the Mac, but I never used a Mac in those days
    >> so I can't comment personally.) This was why I never adopted
    >> Windows. I stayed with DOS for a couple of years until it was
    >> absolutely untenable, then switched to Linux. That was over 10 years
    >> ago, and I've never used Windows since (except briefly for editing
    >> some photos, a job which I now do with Gimp in Linux). I suppose
    >> Hadron will now call me a liar, too.

    >
    > You most likely are lying, or trying to evade.
    >
    > What does it mean to say you "never adopted Windows" or you "stayed with DOS
    > for a couple of years"?
    >
    > And where did you get the source code to MS-DOS?
    >
    > You're claiming to have used DOS only through 1996, then suddenly you
    > adopted Linux? I don't buy it for a second.


    He's probably an old UNIX head, dude. And he's probably referring to
    the much wider availability of source code in the days before the DOS
    world (led by MS) started migrating to closed source, and before GNU
    came to be.

    Or he just typed too quickly. You and I have done that, haven't we?

    --
    GNU/Linux rox, Tux!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2