[6560] in Kerberos
Re: Is there an implementation of Kerberos 5 for Novell's UnixWare?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Thu Feb 1 07:29:49 1996
To: kerberos@MIT.EDU
Date: 1 Feb 1996 06:56:29 -0500
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <199601301803.SAA00416@gza-server.cam.ov.com>,
Frank D'Urso <frankd@cam.ov.com> wrote:
>Gary,
>
>The people at Novell may have failed to warn you that they will
>be dropping support for Unixware, as they have become part owners of
>SCO, they will not be competing against themselves!
>
>I highly recommend the SCO products and support teams,
>switch over instead to one SCO 5.x, then I would admit being
>partial, contact my company OPEN*VISION and order
>SECURE which runs kerb 5.x!
Oh, now there's a *fine* idea. It's what year? 1996? And you're
recommending that the poor guy switch from a not-particularly-bad SVR4 UNIX to
*System III*? Now there's a *great* idea. Y'know, the other thing he could
do, to achieve similar functionality, would be to first downgrade his machine
to one with about 2/3 the SPECint, and then write some loadable kernel
modules that caused some of the more useful system calls to stop working --
like, say, all the *networking* system calls, since last I checked that
*still* wasn't bundled with SCO Xenix-masquerading-as-SVR3.
A fine idea. Really. I almost never have any that are better.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
love is an angel disguised as lust
