>XP Home was purposefully "crippled" by MS so it lacks networking features >in XP Pro and Win2k Pro. Yawn... Are you informed well enough to know how it was "crippled" as you say? I think not, it may not be a member of a Windows domain. That's it. It costs less. That's fair? I wonder if you apply your analogy to RH? They have Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Platform versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Big price diff there? Is that RH "crippling" their Linux? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
RE: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "'CentOS mailing list'" <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
- From: "Joseph L. Casale" <JCasale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 09:08:22 -0600
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <760152.5764.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <DE2AF78792D7403E926281E9714B0143@ethan27> <760152.5764.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Thread-index: AckqHHZ/8rrm8zszRIqGNSYu+C5ojAAA8wcA
- Thread-topic: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
- From: Guy Boisvert
- Re: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
- References:
- RE: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
- From: John
- RE: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
- From: Spike Turner
- RE: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
- Prev by Date: Re: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
- Next by Date: Re: Installing a new VM on a xen box.
- Previous by thread: RE: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
- Next by thread: Re: Samba 3.0.28/3.0.32
- Index(es):
 |