From: "Adam Flinton" 

I thought Windows 2k(3) was a general purpose server OS so what does it do?
Are you saying this OS is only good for a couple of very specific tasks?

Adam

"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