On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 11:00 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> it still sort of has that resource kit feel to it but you have to give
> them kudo's for continued development...embrace - extend -
> extinguish ;-)
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 17:51 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
> .... or are they going to do what they often do, 'adopt' standards, only
> to contaminate/corrupt them later with MS-specific extensions which
> conflict with other parts of the original standard set, etc. I know,
> sounding paranoid again ....
No, actually, it's quite different.
By going with Windows Servers and ActiveDirectory Services (ADS), they
have _already_ gotten you to forgo open standards. I thought you guys
were bright enough to realize that, but I guess this is just a Windows
bashing list? No offense, but stop sometimes and _think_ -- there is no
"embrace, extend, extinguish" going on here -- you are *ALREADY* using a
100% proprietary back-end.
In reality, It's the same approach they have with Services for NetWare.
They support really old, basic interfaces that are very dated. So they
are only legacy services, and provide no competition with modern Windows
services. So they can say, "hey, we don't recommend those insecure
services, but here, we offer them" not mentioning the fact that they are
very old.
For once I'd like to see Microsoft offer some modern, non-Windows
services. But until then, SFU does a "legacy enough" job for companies
that need it. That's who it is released for. And nearly all the
software is _not_ from Microsoft itself, but licensed from 3rd parties.
--
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The best things in life are NOT free - which is why life is easiest if
you save all the bills until you can share them with the perfect woman
