On Friday 03 November 2006 21:18, Matthew Stringer wrote:
On Friday 03 November 2006 20:25, Geoffrey wrote:
Peter Van Lone wrote:
On 11/3/06, Matthew Stringer <qube@firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
Having both software vendors co-operating with each other can only be a benefit to myself and the customers.
exactly
You people are absolutely clueless. Look at Microsoft's history with 'partnering' with other companies. Only Microsoft wins in the end.
Nice attitude!
Although I can understand your fears look at the bigger picture, I have several large clustered systems that consist of M$ and Linux boxes,if I ring up RH and say, my Windows web servers won't talk to my Linux storage, they say, well if you bin your Windows web servers and run RH/Apache you'll be OK. Which ignores why some of my customers specifically want a Windows web server. If I complain to M$ that my Linux LDAP server isn't talking to my Windows machines then they'll tell me to bin Linux and run Windows/Active Directory.
<big snip> Good points Matthew - thanks for making those. I'm a bit of a realist too, I see many systems each day running Linux, NetWare(!), Windows and UNIX and the lack of integration is a bit stumbling block - a far bigger one that it should be in this day and age. If this deal means that I can open a Word .doc file in OOo and save it safely (without it looking like a ransom note), move a .net application from windows to Linux and have it still work and also allow me to run Windows servers in a VM then I'm for it. Properly integrating samba to an AD domain would be nive, but eDirectory and PAM do a better job at that kind of stuff, IMHO. I'll still need to study the fine print and to monitor how things play out, but for now, the glass is half full.. :) Everyone has to compromise to get "real work" done. Look at Ubuntu - they're still shipping something called firefox, aren't they? Does that mean Debian is doomed? Don't think so. Iceeweasel is an evolutionary dead end designed to keep purists happy. Cheers Pete