xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS/Linux 1.1??

To: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS/Linux 1.1??
From: Dan Swartzendruber <dswartz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 13:23:16 -0400
Cc: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Sean Elble <s_elble@xxxxxxxxx>, Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3B23A15D.8C23C74C@xxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106100842220.17893-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 12:33 PM 6/10/01 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> i didn't mean to (potentially) offend anyone.  i'm sure the wine guys
> have worked their butts off.  i mean from the enduser standpoint, as
> far as using an advanced app like quicken2000.

First off, don't use the "latest and greatest."  I run into Windows
bigots daily who say "when Linux apps can support my Office 2000
documents, then I'll switch."  Of course, they are the same ones who
goto XP the day it comes out.

CASE IN POINT:  Microsoft canNOT even get MS Office for Mac formats
to work with most of the MS Office for Windows ones (I mean, ever
try Excel?  CSV baby! ;-).

Stick with older versions and you'll be better off.  Better yet,
lobby Intuit!

it's not a matter of latest and greatest. it's a matter of things i can do with q2000 that i can't do with older ones. yes, i'm perfectly aware i could do without those features, but i don't want to. as far as "lobbying intuit" is concerned, this is basic Business 101. companies like intuit will start porting apps like quicken to linux when it captures a reasonable market share of the desktop (i know there's a certain degree of chicken and
egg there, but that's life).

> i don't agree.  samba may not be "complete", but it does everything
> i need to do (the only things missing are not visible to win98 it
> seems).

First off, you're talking to a contributor on "Samba Unleashed."
And I was not saying anything "bad" about Samba -- actually, Samba
is _exponentially_more_stable_ than native NT because Samba is a
pure, 100% userspace daemon.  But Samba _is_ in the same boat as
WINE -- wasteful reverse engineering that takes years and can never
keep up.

we're talking apples and oranges here.  my point was simply that for most
applications relating to win9x networking, samba is pretty much as good as
having an NT server.  looking at the compatibility list for wine, only someone
with very generous definitions could say the same thing.  just looking at the
issue as an end-user here, not a developer.

Personally, I think it's time (and it has been suggested) that the
Samba team create their own client-side interfaces to Samba.
Although that could be another lesson in frustration (Microsoft
doesn't exactly put "everything" in the DDK).

So, this brings me back to my original point:  Don't used the
"latest and greatest" features.  I constantly bang my head on the
wall when some smuckie on the Samba list says "please get
ActiveDirectory working, I need it."

addressed this already.

> worth taking a look at.  i've also heard from someone that kde alpha
> kmail supports it.

Well, age old Netscape Communicator does fine for me.

fine for you.  i note you never asked why i need IMAP.  if i was able
(or willing) to settle for POP3, there are a myriad of apps i could
use (including the current kmail).



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>