Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?
From: Les Mikesell (lesmikesell_at_comcast.net)
Date: 09/14/03
- Next message: Sinister Midget: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- Previous message: Alan Connor: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- In reply to: Erik Funkenbusch: "Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?"
- Next in thread: Erik Funkenbusch: "Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?"
- Reply: Erik Funkenbusch: "Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 04:16:56 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
news:API8b.332237$Oz4.121848@rwcrnsc54...
> You're referring to the situation where Microsoft used a field in the
> Kerberos standard that was explicitly reserved for vendor specific
> extensions in the standard. The complaint was that Microsoft didn't
> document the extension at first.
Does that mean that alternative versions of Active Directory services
are available now, and those programs (say MS CRM) that claim to
require AD really don't?
---
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@comcast.net
- Next message: Sinister Midget: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- Previous message: Alan Connor: "Re: M$ attack on Common Sense"
- In reply to: Erik Funkenbusch: "Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?"
- Next in thread: Erik Funkenbusch: "Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?"
- Reply: Erik Funkenbusch: "Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
