On Monday 14 November 2005 19:26, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
For one, from working with Novell NetWare Networks in the early '90s. I just checked my textbooks form college. The text I used in my MIS cakewalk, ur...uh..., I mean to say course, data from 1991, gives the definition of a client running on one box and server on another.
That's not a definition, just a common configuration. Of course Microsoft didn't use that configuration back then, because they hadn't yet noticed that whole networking thing. It took them a while to catch on. A client and server will necessarily run on the same machine if you don't have support for networking
But in the age of Wyse Terminals, mainframes, and mini-computers, there was a mental division between "the server" and "the clients" which typically meant clients (hardware) being very limited in processing capacity in comparison to servers (hardware).
The fact that there was a confusion in terminology doesn't negate the fact that they were still using daemons in exactly the same way as Microsoft used "services". I haven't heard of any machine being singly dedicated to a single task
Of course, but your windows FUD is wrong nevertheless. It has been shown to be usable by non-technical personell. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but usable to the point of indifference by people using it only as an office tool managed by others
And then I went to work for a contractor at the US DoD, Defense Information Systems Agency, Operations Process Improvement Office....
huh?