On Tue Nov 19 2002 at 17:43, Justin Zygmont wrote: > i'm willing to bet that MS PPTP is propriatory. There's a lot of things > that open source programmers would include, if it was possible. The pptp _protocol_ is described in an RFC. However, the _implementation_ of that protocol (along with non-standard extensions and so on) are a different matter... m$ have a long history of breaking things for others with their products. Their motto for a long time has been to embrace, extend, extinguish. Talk of this new palladium chip is the new-age version of this policy. The pptpd package used to come with redhat (probably in the powertools), I'm not sure why it is no longer included. Perhaps the software might have a non-gpl licence (I'm not sure). It would be good to have it there as standard. > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Alan Peery wrote: > > > Aaron Konstam wrote: > > There are areas that will turn power users of Microsoft right off. It > > was really nice to see a VPN connection offered in "neat" in a standard > > install--but it doesn't work. (Missing a directory and a device, two > > items that appear if you install everything.) The VPN uses CIPE, not > > Microsoft PPTP--which makes it completely unusable in an already > > existing infrastructure... I have win98se clients connecting to a vpn server on a rh73 box, and it works well. Have things changed with the pptpd daemon and/or VPN with win2k or xp? > > Alan Cheers Tony -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
