[Sussex] Network problem

[Geoff Teale]

Andrew wrote:
-------------
> That's one of my main tools, it just great!  It has an Tight 
> executable
> file, works on the main OS (Still no real support for Mac 
> (which is strange
> as Mac X really is an Unix)).  


Yes, but the GUI layer is completely different to anyone elses and
completely proprietary.  To paraphrase Frank Zappa - that OS isn't free as
it applies to you and me.

>Using VNC has given us the 
> ability to remote
> view CCTV systems we use.
> 
> The problem with VNC is I don't want anyone but for me to know the
> passwords.  VNC isn't the best solution in all applications.  
> It falls down
> if using on NT 4 system as doesn't run before password entry. 
>  Mainly down
> to NT 4 way of working.  Which our main servers are.  As such 
> we use an KVM
> for in viewing and operating them.


Erm, I don't think that's true.   At thomson we used VNC a lot (machine room
was at ground level, we were on the 4th floor) and it was a (depressingly)
regular task to bounce the NT4 severs running SQL Server and Exchange via
VNC, upon reboot you could refresh the browser window and get a VNC session
to do the first login - only thing was you had to use the original VNC
password for the system (rather than the current one) for that first log-in.


I don't know how this was set-up, Larissa was the NT girl, she knew the
registry like the back of her hand (and she _still_ thougt it sucked).
 
> Which brings me on to another issue with Microsoft I don't 
> see any need to
> get Windows 2000/2003 Server when NT is serving our needs 
> fine.  If we where
> going to update the servers I would probably go for some 
> Linux, mainly due
> to insane costs from Micro$oft.   We have some people who do 
> very serious
> work using Windows 95, but I don't see point in getting my 
> licences for them
> so they can have Windows 2000.  It works and works fine.  
>  
> Now I could spend the money and upgrade but just can not for 
> my life see any
> point in do that and that not because I wouldn't be able to 
> get the money to
> do it.  I just think its just an waste of time.

Yup, but they don't make money if you don't buy new operating systems.. they
_have_ to force you forward.  If they based their revenue of service and
support this wouldn't necessarily be the case - but when your only
profitable areas are OEM OS sales and MS Office box shifting you have to
force the issue.

-- 
geoff.teale at claybrook.co.uk
tealeg at member.fsf.org

"The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offense." 
 - Edsger W. Dijkstra (from "Selected Writings on Computing")


The above information is confidential to the addressee and may be privileged.  Unauthorised access and use is prohibited.
 
Internet communications are not secure and therefore this Company does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
 
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
 
Claybrook Computing Limited is a subsidiary of Claybrook Computing (Holdings) Limited
Registered Office: Abbey House. 282 Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7NJ
Registered in England and Wales No 1287205
 
A Hogg Robinson plc company