From: Thees Peereboom 

Rich,

If someone mentions that certain aspects of a product are unclear and you
are able to clear up and you also happen to work for the company that
actually produces that product, why not simply clear up whatever might be
unclear?

- Thees Peereboom

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:11:36 -0800, "Rich"  wrote:

>   He didn't say the ability to act as a domain controller.  He said domain
capabilities and this has abaility to be a full domain member.
>
>   The rest of what you are unclear about is irrelevant.  This is the Web
Edition.  If you want one of the Standard, Enterprise, or Datacenter
Editions, get it.
>
>Rich
>
>  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e693f0c{at}w3.nls.net...
>  He's not wrong about domain capabilities, any NT server except the web
>  server version can be a domain controller, the web server version lacks that
>  capability. Also from what I read it's not clear if auth and file serving
>  are limited to 10 connections or if that can be increased by adding CALs. If
>  it can't be increased then he would also be correct about those (that it's
>  lacking) although as I said it wasn't clear from the description I read.
>
>  Geo.
>
>  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e68e419{at}w3.nls.net...
>     You are wrong about NT authentication, wrong about file serving, wrong
>  about domain capabilities.  Now, do you want to take back that you made
>  nothing up?
>
>     It doesn't include CALs because it doesn't need any for what it does.
>
>  Rich
>
>    "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
>  news:3e68cd09{at}w3.nls.net...
>    I made nothing up, notice the "no Cal's" part.  Of course
you can add
>  cal's and add all what I said, but it is extra cost.
>
>    - Bob Comer
>
>
>      "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e68ca32{at}w3.nls.net...
>         You did admit making stuff up.  You wrote in
>  news://news.barkto.com/3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net
>
>        I'm not so sure that can be said any more, but no matter I wasn't just
>        talking overall OS functionality, but what you can do with that
>  specific
>        version of Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that means no NT
>  authentication,
>        files serving, or print serving, and I assume no domain
>  capabilities --
>        that's 4 areas that Windows is strong on and Linux needs to catch up,
>  yet I
>        can put together a Linux box that does all 5 of these things for a LOT
>  less
>        money.
>
>      I referred you to
>  http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/default.mspx
>  so that you can stop making things up and use real info if you want to
>  criticize.  You have multiple times expressed no interest in visiting this
>  site to avoid your making false statements.
>
>      Rich
>
>        "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
>  news:3e68aa51{at}w3.nls.net...
>        >   I didn't argue against your invalid assumptions.
>
>        At least state them, if you can't even do that they don't exist.
>
>        >You already admited you made stuff up.
>
>        I did not.
>
>        >You don't appear to have any interest in this.
>
>        You're right, your argument style of late totally turns me off.  I am
>  not
>        nearly as much against you and Microsoft as you think I am...
>
>        - Bob Comer
>
>
>
>        "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e684a50{at}w3.nls.net...
>           I didn't argue against your invalid assumptions.  You already
>  admited you
>        made stuff up.  I referred you to a reliable source of factual
>  information.
>        You don't appear to have any interest in this.  Maybe you would prefer
>  to
>        make false statements, which you now claim as an opinion only based on
>  a
>        fiction of your own imagination.  Of course you still haven't
>  acknowledged
>        that when you make up facts on which you base your opinions you should
>  be
>        honest and acknowledge that.
>
>        Rich
>
>        "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
>        news:3e6835d9{at}w3.nls.net...
>        >   It's not whether or not you are giving an opinion or not that was
>  your
>        major deception.
>
>        LOL!  An opinion is not a deception.
>
>        >  It was that your opinion was based on assumptions you made and not
>  fact.
>
>        And again, assumptions you have not argued against.
>
>        >You just admitted that you made up what it was that you were
>  comparing.
>
>        I admitted no such thing.
>
>        >Not that it wouldn't do you some good to prefix your opinions, as
>  opposed
>        to statements of fact, with "I believe" or "I
feel".<
>
>        I say it again, *ALL* I say here is opinion.  (It may be fact also,
>  but it
>        may not be, just not intentionally wrong.)
>
>        >   In regard you your mention of propaganda, don't you think that
>  this is a
>        bit ironic given that your post to which I replied was propaganda and
>  as you
>        admitted based on a fiction of your own creation?<
>
>        No, I don't as what I said wasn't propaganda -- to be using propaganda
>  I'd
>        have to have something to gain, I have nothing to gain by what I said.
>  You
>        yourself know I use more Microsoft products than Linux, and I like a
>  third
>        platform (the AS/400) the best. As for the last part, I created no
>  fiction,
>        I STATED AN OPINION.
>
>        - Bob Comer
>
>
>
>
>        "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e682dfc{at}w3.nls.net...
>        It's not whether or not you are giving an opinion or not that was your
>  major
>        deception.  It was that your opinion was based on assumptions you made
>  and
>        not fact. You just admitted that you made up what it was that you were
>        comparing.  Not that it wouldn't do you some good to prefix your
>  opinions,
>        as opposed to statements of fact, with "I believe" or
"I feel".
>
>           In regard you your mention of propaganda, don't you think that this
>  is a
>        bit ironic given that your post to which I replied was propaganda and
>  as you
>        admitted based on a fiction of your own creation?
>
>        Rich
>
>          "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
>        news:3e6821ab$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>          > If you are just making assumptions you should state that you are
>  giving
>        an
>          opinion based on assumptions and not making a statement based on
>  facts.<
>
>          As I have stated before, when I say something I am stating an
>  opinion, no
>          more, no less, if you want to take everything I say as fact  (or
>  false
>          fact,) that is your choice, but I have no energy to argue such.
>  This is,
>          after all, a discussion group, not a scientific journal of some
>  kind.
>
>          >It will avoid having your false statements pointed out.
>
>          You haven't pointed out any...
>
>          >If you care about facts, and I'm not sure you do, see
>
>
>  http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/default.mspx.
>          <
>
>          You're wrong, I'm tired of reading Microsoft propaganda like that.
>
>          >   As for your comments regarding the web edition's suitability for
>          something other than web server, maybe you should take a moment and
>  ask
>        what
>          the likely purpose is for something called the web edition.<
>
>          Well duh -- I was comparing it to Linux and I can do cheaper and
>  more with
>          Linux, that's all I said.
>
>          >   In regard to free support, do you mean posting to a newsgroup or
>  some
>          infamous IRC channel?  Is this what you use to support your critical
>          systems?<
>
>          More than just newsgroups, but, that's how I support all our
>  systems, even
>          the AS/400.  To phrase it another way, we have no software support
>        contracts
>          on anything in my department. (Not saying I wouldn't want them
>        necessarily,
>          but they didn't have sw support contracts under the old manager...)
>
>          No IRC or IM though, I loath that kind of thing...
>
>          - Bob Comer
>
>
>          "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e681879{at}w3.nls.net...
>             If you are just making assumptions you should state that you are
>  giving
>          an opinion based on assumptions and not making a statement based on
>  facts.
>          It will avoid having your false statements pointed out.  If you care
>  about
>          facts, and I'm not sure you do, see
>
>
>  http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/default.mspx.
>
>             As for your comments regarding the web edition's suitability for
>          something other than web server, maybe you should take a moment and
>  ask
>        what
>          the likely purpose is for something called the web edition.
>
>             In regard to free support, do you mean posting to a newsgroup or
>  some
>          infamous IRC channel?  Is this what you use to support your critical
>          systems?
>
>          Rich
>
>            "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
>          news:3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>            >  Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand waving?
>
>            I just stated my opinion, that's all. I'm not here to list out
>        everything
>            possible.
>
>            >   It's well known that Linux has less functionality.
>
>            I'm not so sure that can be said any more, but no matter I wasn't
>  just
>            talking overall OS functionality, but what you can do with that
>  specific
>            version of Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that means no NT
>          authentication,
>            files serving, or print serving, and I assume no domain
>  capabilities --
>            that's 4 areas that Windows is strong on and Linux needs to catch
>  up,
>        yet
>          I
>            can put together a Linux box that does all 5 of these things for a
>  LOT
>          less
>            money.
>
>            >If you want to roll your own it can cost less for Linux, assuming
>  your
>          time
>            is worth >nothing.
>
>            There's actually a decent amount of free support out there, and
>  you
>        don't
>            have to roll your own version, you can use someone's distribution.
>
>            >If you want to use a supported version, like from RedHat, expect
>  to
>        spend
>            much more for your annual subscription.  They will sell you a
>        subscription
>            to red hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.<
>
>            I would *never* pay Red Hat that much, they don't have enough to
>  offer
>            support wise.  I have spent that much on Microsoft products
>  several
>        times
>            over up to now, but things are a changin.  I might add that
>  Microsoft is
>            quite costly for aftermarket support and I don't buy that either.
>
>            >If you want their supported enterprise level web server you are
>  going
>        to
>            pay another $395 to $895 annually.  That's more than four to six
>  times
>          more
>            expensive than the Windows Server 2003 solution.<
>
>            I got it beat -- I have a server here at home (always learning)
>  that
>        cost
>          $0
>            for the Linux and about $200 for the hardware.  (I also have a
>  Linux
>          client
>            PC here that I paid $99 for and I'm not going to do that again, at
>  least
>          not
>            this distribution.)
>
>            - Bob Comer
>
>
>
>            "Rich"  wrote in message
news:3e67d5e4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>               Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand waving?
>
>               It's well known that Linux has less functionality.  If you want
>  to
>        roll
>            your own it can cost less for Linux, assuming your time is worth
>        nothing.
>            If you want to use a supported version, like from RedHat, expect
>  to
>        spend
>            much more for your annual subscription.  They will sell you a
>        subscription
>            to red hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.  If you want
>  their
>            supported enterprise level web server you are going to pay another
>  $395
>        to
>            $895 annually.  That's more than four to six times more expensive
>  than
>        the
>            Windows Server 2003 solution.
>
>            Rich
>
>              "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
>            news:3e67b7d1{at}w3.nls.net...
>              Less functionality, higher cost. Ease of use is a draw, but it
>  would
>          have
>            to be even cheaper just for a web server.
>
>              - Bob Comer
>
>
>                "Rich"  wrote in message
news:3e67b63f{at}w3.nls.net...
>                   By what criteria and how so?
>
>                Rich
>
>                  "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>            news:3e67ae88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>                  That's not good enough to compete with Linux.
>
>                  - Bob Comer
>
>
>                  "Geo."  wrote in message
>            news:3e67a4e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>                  > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html
>                  >
>                  > There will be no price increases (as such) when Microsoft
>  ships
>          its
>            next
>                  > server OS, Windows Server 2003, on April 24th, but there
>  will be
>        a
>            new
>                  > budget-priced version of the product aimed squarely at the
>  web
>            server
>                  > market. Server 2003 Web Edition comes without client
>  access
>            licences, with
>                  a
>                  > 2gig limit on memory, 2-way SMP, and is $399.
>                  >
>                  >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4