From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_030A_01C2E56E.2B546670
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   CALs aren't needed just to run IIS on any of the Windows server =
editions.  This isn't new to Windows Server 2003.  I don't know if the =
Web Edition of Windows Server 2003 would require CALs for the FP = scenario
you mentioned earlier.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e6a0d4d{at}w3.nls.net...
  At a guess, because the 10 connection limit is a hard limit (it a web =
server
  not a file server). Web Edition appears to me to be NTpro with a =
license to
  run full IIS. I like that, it is exactly what is required by an ISP =
and if I
  can convince the backup software vendors that it should be treated as =
a
  workstation price wise then we'll be ready to rock with this version.

  Forget about the "server" issues, this version is aimed squarely at =
the
  folks using linux to host multiple websites, it's not a file server. I =
would
  not expect that they are going to allow upgrades via adding CALs. =
Rich's
  silence suggests either he doesn't know either or he does know but =
thinks
  this is a disadvantage, I don't have a problem with it if it is a =
limitation
  because it fills a BIG gap for me.

  Geo. (note they didn't include proxy capabilities, that suggests 10
  connection is a hard limit to me)

  "Thees Peereboom"  wrote in message
  news:dmoj6vce5m2qpn9tlohoo3jplnhbt7v3r9{at}4ax.com...
  > 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.ms=
px
  > >  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.ms=
px.
  > >          <
  > >
  > >          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.ms=
px.
  > >
  > >             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.
  > >                  >
  > >                  >
  > >
  >


------=_NextPart_000_030A_01C2E56E.2B546670
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   CALs
aren't needed just to =
run IIS on=20
any of the Windows server editions.  This isn't new to Windows = Server=20
2003.  I don't know if the Web Edition of Windows Server 2003
would = require=20
CALs for the FP scenario you mentioned earlier.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:3e6a0d4d{at}w3.nls.net...At=
 a=20
  guess, because the 10 connection limit is a hard limit (it a web =
servernot=20
  a file server). Web Edition appears to me to be NTpro with a license =
torun=20
  full IIS. I like that, it is exactly what is required by an ISP and if =

  Ican convince the backup software vendors that it should be =
treated as=20
  aworkstation price wise then we'll be ready to rock with this=20
  version.Forget about the "server" issues,
this version is =
aimed=20
  squarely at thefolks using linux to host multiple websites, it's =
not a=20
  file server. I wouldnot expect that they are going to allow =
upgrades via=20
  adding CALs. Rich'ssilence suggests either he doesn't know either =
or he=20
  does know but thinksthis is a disadvantage, I don't have a problem =
with it=20
  if it is a limitationbecause it fills a BIG gap for =
me.Geo. (note=20
  they didn't include proxy capabilities, that suggests 10connection =
is a=20
  hard limit to me)"Thees Peereboom" <theesp{at}barkto.com>">mailto:theesp{at}barkto.com">theesp{at}barkto.com>
wrote in=20
  messagenews:dmoj6vce5m2=
qpn9tlohoo3jplnhbt7v3r9{at}4ax.com...>=20
  Rich,>> If someone mentions that
certain aspects of a =
product=20
  are unclear and> you are able to clear up and you also happen =
to work=20
  for the company> that actually produces that product, why not =
simply=20
  clear up whatever> might be
unclear?>> - Thees=20
  Peereboom>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:11:36
-0800, "Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote:>> >  
He didn't say the ability to =
act as a=20
  domain controller.  He saiddomain capabilities and this has =
abaility=20
  to be a full domain member.> >>
>   The =
rest of=20
  what you are unclear about is irrelevant.  This is the=20
  WebEdition.  If you want one of the Standard, Enterprise, or=20
  DatacenterEditions, get it.>
>> >Rich>=20
  >> >  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:3e693f0c{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
  >  He's not wrong about domain capabilities, any NT server =
except the=20
  web> >  server version can be a domain
controller, the =
web=20
  server version lacksthat> > 
capability. Also from =
what I=20
  read it's not clear if auth and fileserving>
>  are =
limited=20
  to 10 connections or if that can be increased by addingCALs. =
If>=20
  >  it can't be increased then he would also be correct about =
those=20
  (thatit's> >  lacking)
although as I said it wasn't =
clear=20
  from the description Iread.>
>> >  =
Geo.>=20
  >> >  "Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message news:3e68e419{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
  >     You are wrong about NT
authentication, =
wrong=20
  about file serving,wrong> > 
about domain=20
  capabilities.  Now, do you want to take back that you =
made>=20
  >  nothing up?> >> =
>     It=20
  doesn't include CALs because it doesn't need any for what =
itdoes.>=20
  >> >  Rich>
>> =
>   =20
  "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message> >  news:3e68cd09{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
  >    I made nothing up, notice the
"no Cal's" =
part.  Of=20
  course you can add> >  cal's and add all
what I said, =
but it is=20
  extra cost.> >>
>    - Bob =
Comer>=20
  >> >>
>      "Rich"
=
<{at}>=20
  wrote in message news:3e68ca32{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
 
>        
You did admit =
making=20
  stuff up.  You wrote in> >  news://news.barkto.com/3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net">news://news.barkto.=
com/3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net>=20
  >>
>       
I'm not so =
sure=20
  that can be said any more, but no matter I
wasn'tjust>=20
 
>       
talking overall OS=20
  functionality, but what you can do with that>
> =20
  specific>
>       
=
version of=20
  Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that means no NT>
> =20
  authentication,>
>       
=
files=20
  serving, or print serving, and I assume no domain>
> =20
  capabilities -->
>       
=
that's=20
  4 areas that Windows is strong on and Linux needs to =
catchup,>=20
  >  yet I> =
>        can=20
  put together a Linux box that does all 5 of these things fora =
LOT>=20
  >  less>
>       
=

  money.> >>
>      I =
referred you=20
  to> >http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/de=
fault.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overvie=
w/default.mspx>=20
  >  so that you can stop making things up and use real info if =
you want=20
  to> >  criticize.  You have
multiple times =
expressed no=20
  interest in visitingthis> > 
site to avoid your =
making=20
  false statements.> >> =
>     =20
  Rich> >> =
>       =20
  "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message> >  news:3e68aa51{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
 
>       
>   I =
didn't argue=20
  against your invalid assumptions.> >>=20
 
>       
At least state them, if =
you=20
  can't even do that they don't exist.>
>>=20
 
>       
>You already admited =
you=20
  made stuff up.> >>=20
 
>       
I did not.> =
>>=20
 
>       
>You don't appear to =
have=20
  any interest in this.> >>=20
 
>       
You're right, your =
argument=20
  style of late totally turns me off.I am>
>  =
not>=20
 
>       
nearly as much against =
you and=20
  Microsoft as you think I am...> >>=20
 
>       
- Bob Comer>=20
  >> >> >>=20
 
>       
"Rich" <{at}> wrote =
in=20
  message news:3e684a50{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
 
>          
I =
didn't=20
  argue against your invalid assumptions.  You already> =
> =20
  admited you>
>       
=
made stuff=20
  up.  I referred you to a reliable source of factual> =
> =20
  information.>
>       
=
You don't=20
  appear to have any interest in this.  Maybe you =
wouldprefer>=20
  >  to>
>       
=
make=20
  false statements, which you now claim as an opinion onlybased =
on>=20
  >  a>
>       
=
fiction of=20
  your own imagination.  Of course you still haven't> =
> =20
  acknowledged>
>       
=
that when=20
  you make up facts on which you base your opinions =
youshould>=20
  >  be>
>       
=
honest=20
  and acknowledge that.> >>=20
 
>       
Rich> =
>>=20
 
>       
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message>
>       
news:3e6835d9{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
 
>       
>   It's =
not=20
  whether or not you are giving an opinion or not
thatwas> =
> =20
  your>
>       
major=20
  deception.> >> =
>       =20
  LOL!  An opinion is not a deception.>
>>=20
 
>       
>  It was that =
your=20
  opinion was based on assumptions you made andnot> =
> =20
  fact.> >> =
>        And=20
  again, assumptions you have not argued against.>
>>=20
 
>       
>You just admitted =
that you=20
  made up what it was that you were> >  =
comparing.>=20
  >>
>       
I admitted =
no such=20
  thing.> >> =
>       =20
  >Not that it wouldn't do you some good to prefix your=20
  opinions,as> > 
opposed>=20
 
>       
to statements of fact, =
with "I=20
  believe" or "I feel".<>
>>=20
 
>       
I say it again, *ALL* I =
say=20
  here is opinion.  (It may be
factalso,> >  but =

  it>
>       
may not be, =
just not=20
  intentionally wrong.)> >>=20
 
>       
>   In =
regard you=20
  your mention of propaganda, don't you
thinkthat> >  =
this is=20
  a>
>       
bit ironic =
given that=20
  your post to which I replied was
propagandaand> >  =
as=20
  you>
>       
admitted =
based on a=20
  fiction of your own creation?<>
>>=20
 
>       
No, I don't as what I =
said=20
  wasn't propaganda -- to be usingpropaganda>
>  =
I'd>=20
 
>       
have to have something =
to gain,=20
  I have nothing to gain by what Isaid.>
>  =
You>=20
 
>       
yourself know I use =
more=20
  Microsoft products than Linux, and Ilike a>
> =20
  third>
>       
platform =
(the=20
  AS/400) the best. As for the last part, I createdno> =
> =20
  fiction,>
>       
I =
STATED AN=20
  OPINION.> >> =
>        -=20
  Bob Comer> >>
>> >>
>>=20
 
>       
"Rich" <{at}> wrote =
in=20
  message news:3e682dfc{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
 
>       
It's not whether or not =
you are=20
  giving an opinion or not that wasyour>
>  =
major>=20
 
>       
deception.  It was =
that=20
  your opinion was based on assumptions youmade>
> =20
  and>
>       
not fact. =
You just=20
  admitted that you made up what it was that youwere>=20
 
>       
comparing.  Not =
that it=20
  wouldn't do you some good to prefix your> >  =
opinions,>=20
 
>       
as opposed to =
statements of=20
  fact, with "I believe" or "I feel".>
>>=20
 
>          
In =
regard you=20
  your mention of propaganda, don't you think thatthis> =
>  is=20
  a>
>       
bit ironic =
given that=20
  your post to which I replied was
propagandaand> >  =
as=20
  you>
>       
admitted =
based on a=20
  fiction of your own creation?> >>=20
 
>       
Rich> =
>>=20
 
>         
"Robert =
Comer"=20
  <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>=20">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>=20
  wrote in message> =
>       
news:3e6821ab$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>=20
 
>         
> If you =
are=20
  just making assumptions you should state that youare> =
> =20
  giving>
>       
=
an>=20
 
>         
opinion =
based on=20
  assumptions and not making a statement
basedon> > =20
  facts.<> >>=20
 
>         
As I have =
stated=20
  before, when I say something I am stating an> >  =
opinion,=20
  no>
>         
=
more, no=20
  less, if you want to take everything I say as fact(or> =
> =20
  false> =
>         =20
  fact,) that is your choice, but I have no energy to argue =
such.>=20
  >  This is,>=20
 
>         
after all, =
a=20
  discussion group, not a scientific journal of some>
> =20
  kind.> >>=20
 
>         
>It will =
avoid=20
  having your false statements pointed out.>
>>=20
 
>         
You haven't =
pointed=20
  out any...> >>=20
 
>         
>If you =
care=20
  about facts, and I'm not sure you do, see>
>> =
>>=20
  >http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/de=
fault.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overvie=
w/default.mspx.>=20
 
>         
=
<>=20
  >> =
>         
You're=20
  wrong, I'm tired of reading Microsoft propaganda
likethat.> =

  >> =
>         =20
  >   As for your comments regarding the web=20
  edition'ssuitability for>=20
 
>         
something =
other=20
  than web server, maybe you should take a momentand> =
> =20
  ask>
>       
=
what>=20
 
>         
the likely =
purpose=20
  is for something called the web edition.<>
>>=20
 
>         
Well duh -- =
I was=20
  comparing it to Linux and I can do cheaperand>
>  =
more=20
  with> =
>         
Linux,=20
  that's all I said.> >>=20
 
>         
=
>   In=20
  regard to free support, do you mean posting to anewsgroup =
or>=20
  >  some>=20
 
>         
infamous =
IRC=20
  channel?  Is this what you use to support =
yourcritical>=20
 
>         =20
  systems?<> >>=20
 
>         
More than =
just=20
  newsgroups, but, that's how I support all our>
>  =
systems,=20
  even> =
>         
the=20
  AS/400.  To phrase it another way, we have no =
softwaresupport>=20
 
>       
contracts>=20
 
>         
on anything =
in my=20
  department. (Not saying I wouldn't want them>=20
 
>       
necessarily,>=20
 
>         
but they =
didn't=20
  have sw support contracts under the oldmanager...)> =
>>=20
 
>         
No IRC or =
IM=20
  though, I loath that kind of thing...>
>>=20
 
>         
- Bob =
Comer>=20
  >> >>=20
 
>         
"Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote in message news:3e681879{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;=20
  If you are just making assumptions you should state that =
youare>=20
  >  giving>=20
 
>         
an opinion =
based on=20
  assumptions and not making a statementbased
on> > =20
  facts.> =
>         
It=20
  will avoid having your false statements pointed out.  If=20
  youcare> >  about>=20
 
>         
facts, and =
I'm not=20
  sure you do, see> >>
>> >http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/de=
fault.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overvie=
w/default.mspx.>=20
  >>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;=20
  As for your comments regarding the web edition's =
suitabilityfor>=20
 
>         
something =
other=20
  than web server, maybe you should take a momentand> =
> =20
  ask>
>       
=
what>=20
 
>         
the likely =
purpose=20
  is for something called the web edition.>
>>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;=20
  In regard to free support, do you mean posting to anewsgroup =
or>=20
  >  some>=20
 
>         
infamous =
IRC=20
  channel?  Is this what you use to support =
yourcritical>=20
 
>         
=
systems?>=20
  >> =
>         =20
  Rich> >>=20
 
>           
=
"Robert=20
  Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message> =
>         
news:3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>=20
 
>           
=

  >  Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand =
waving?>=20
  >>=20
 
>           
=
I just=20
  stated my opinion, that's all. I'm not here to
listout>=20
 
>       
everything>=20
 
>           
=

  possible.> >>=20
 
>           
=

  >   It's well known that Linux has less =
functionality.>=20
  >>=20
 
>           
=
I'm not=20
  so sure that can be said any more, but no matter
Iwasn't>=20
  >  just>=20
 
>           
=
talking=20
  overall OS functionality, but what you can do
withthat> =
> =20
  specific>=20
 
>           
=
version=20
  of Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that means no NT>=20
 
>         =20
  authentication,>=20
 
>           
=
files=20
  serving, or print serving, and I assume no domain>
> =20
  capabilities -->=20
 
>           
=
that's=20
  4 areas that Windows is strong on and Linux needs
tocatch>=20
  >  up,>
>       =20
  yet>
>         
=

  I>=20
 
>           
=
can put=20
  together a Linux box that does all 5 of these thingsfor
a>=20
  >  LOT>=20
 
>         
=
less>=20
 
>           
=

  money.> >>=20
 
>           
=
>If=20
  you want to roll your own it can cost less for =
Linux,assuming>=20
  >  your>=20
 
>         
=
time>=20
 
>           
=
is=20
  worth >nothing.> >>=20
 
>           
=
There's=20
  actually a decent amount of free support out
there,and> =
> =20
  you>
>       
=
don't>=20
 
>           
=
have to=20
  roll your own version, you can use
someone'sdistribution.>=20
  >>=20
 
>           
=
>If=20
  you want to use a supported version, like from =
RedHat,expect>=20
  >  to>
>       =20
  spend>=20
 
>           
=
much=20
  more for your annual subscription.  They will sell you
a>=20
 
>       
subscription>=20
 
>           
=
to red=20
  hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.<>
>> =

 
>           
=
I would=20
  *never* pay Red Hat that much, they don't have
enoughto> =
> =20
  offer>=20
 
>           
=
support=20
  wise.  I have spent that much on Microsoft products> =
> =20
  several>
>       
=
times>=20
 
>           
=
over up=20
  to now, but things are a changin.  I might add that> =
> =20
  Microsoft is>=20
 
>           
=
quite=20
  costly for aftermarket support and I don't buy
thateither.> =

  >>=20
 
>           
=
>If=20
  you want their supported enterprise level web server =
youare>=20
  >  going> =
>       =20
  to>=20
 
>           
=
pay=20
  another $395 to $895 annually.  That's more than four =
tosix>=20
  >  times>=20
 
>         
=
more>=20
 
>           
=

  expensive than the Windows Server 2003 solution.<> =
>>=20
 
>           
=
I got=20
  it beat -- I have a server here at home
(alwayslearning)>=20
  >  that>
>       
=

  cost> =
>         =20
  $0>=20
 
>           
=
for the=20
  Linux and about $200 for the hardware.  (I also
havea> =

  >  Linux>=20
 
>         
=
client>=20
 
>           
=
PC here=20
  that I paid $99 for and I'm not going to do thatagain,
at>=20
  >  least>=20
 
>         
not> =

 
>           
=
this=20
  distribution.)> >>=20
 
>           
=
- Bob=20
  Comer> >>
>> >>=20
 
>           
=
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message news:3e67d5e4$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;  =20
  Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand waving?> =
>>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;  =20
  It's well known that Linux has less functionality.  If=20
  youwant> >  to>=20
 
>       
roll>=20
 
>           
=
your=20
  own it can cost less for Linux, assuming your time
isworth> =

 
>       
nothing.>=20
 
>           
=
If you=20
  want to use a supported version, like from
RedHat,expect>=20
  >  to>
>       =20
  spend>=20
 
>           
=
much=20
  more for your annual subscription.  They will sell you
a>=20
 
>       
subscription>=20
 
>           
=
to red=20
  hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.  If =
youwant>=20
  >  their>=20
 
>           
=

  supported enterprise level web server you are going to =
payanother>=20
  >  $395>
>       
=

  to>=20
 
>           
=
$895=20
  annually.  That's more than four to six times =
moreexpensive>=20
  >  than>
>       
=

  the>=20
 
>           
=
Windows=20
  Server 2003 solution.> >>=20
 
>           
=

  Rich> >>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp; =20
  "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message>=20
 
>           
=
news:3e67b7d1{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp; =20
  Less functionality, higher cost. Ease of use is a draw, =
butit>=20
  >  would>=20
 
>         
=
have>=20
 
>           
=
to be=20
  even cheaper just for a web server.> >>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp; =20
  - Bob Comer> >>
>>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;   =20
  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e67b63f{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;      =20
  By what criteria and how so?> >>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;   =20
  Rich> >>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote=20
  inmessage>=20
 
>           
=
news:3e67ae88$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  That's not good enough to compete with Linux.>
>>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  - Bob Comer> >>
>>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
  message>=20
 
>           
=
news:3e67a4e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  > http://www.th" target="new">http://www.th=">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html">http://www.th=
eregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  >>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  > There will be no price increases (as such) =
whenMicrosoft>=20
  >  ships>=20
 
>         
its> =

 
>           
=

  next>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  > server OS, Windows Server 2003, on April 24th, =
butthere>=20
  >  will be> =
>       =20
  a>=20
 
>           
=

  new>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  > budget-priced version of the product aimed squarelyat =
the>=20
  >  web>=20
 
>           
=

  server>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  > market. Server 2003 Web Edition comes without client> =
> =20
  access>=20
 
>           
=

  licences, with>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  a>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  > 2gig limit on memory, 2-way SMP, and is $399.>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  >>=20
  =
>           &nb=
sp;     =20
  >>
>>

------=_NextPart_000_030A_01C2E56E.2B546670--

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