| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Comments:
<0> msdn has nothing to do with sharepoint?
<0> oh my bad
<0> i guess citrix bought it
<1> amon is right
<1> **** citrix
<2> amon! freenx rules.
<3> sure openoffice is 10 years ago, but hell, so is it's deployment price!
<2> No machine forever.
<4> http://www.microsoft.com/australia/ShOwtime/sessionh.aspx?videoid=9999
<1> dude
<1> stop drinking
<1> msdn has nothing to do with citrix
<2> ahaha.
<0> no, msdn has to do with sharepoint
<1> ok
<1> and msdn has something do to with SSO
<0> yes
<1> but i didnt see any comments there
<0> that was my point
<0> the point was
<0> it's NOT that hard
<2> Just stop it.
<0> you just look up wtf you want to do
<1> the point was you can natively manage any citrix farm
<3> sso? stateful switch over?
<0> it's not like we're breaking new ground
<1> single sign on
<3> nsf? not stop forwarding?
<0> digi i could
<1> ok
<0> just give me some google time
<3> single sign on!
<3> the panacea!
<1> while you are googling and people can't login, thats a problem
<2> OMG.
<3> people have been trying that FOREVER
<3> see.
<3> RAC/F
<0> why is it a problem
<0> they can login now
<0> why would it magically break
<1> you deviate from the original point in order to gain an edge
<5> hehe
<2> ahaha.
<0> no
<1> your point was that any monkey can manage citrix out of the box
<3> zing.
<5> is it windows?
<2> **** man.
<1> because there is nothing to manage
<5> <0> why would it magically break
<0> i approach the problem from the way it would present itself to me if i worked for oyu
<0> you*
<3> computers are hard. lets go shopping.
<2> You know what. Leave my c0w alone.
<0> if it was a new website, and needed SSO updates, it would be a project
<0> and **** would be setup, and planned, well ahead of time
<1> which is like me saying i can manage act ****
<0> you can
<1> when i ahve little experience in doing so
<1> but im not going to
<0> you ****in read the knowledge base
<2> I can't type fast enough to argue on iRC.
<1> because i dont pretend to know everything via osmosis
<1> so anyhow
<2> NEway.
<2> tgif.
<0> i never said i knew how to manage it
<0> i just said that i was capable of it
<1> if you hire someone based on what they can learn vs. what they already know...
<3> XTR
<0> digi, then you've made a good hire
<5> they need both, imo
<3> you have semi-hit the nail on the head
<3> i submit this for proof: http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922
<2> abo Is that you?
<2> omg.
<1> you dont hire many people, do you?
<6> amonfils: send me 2k so I can get some nice lights and ****, kthnx.
<2> AHGAHA/
<3> alien bees?
<5> digidog: they need a good base to build upon
<0> we've hired enough people that knew ****
<0> and couldn't learn
<0> yes.
<2> I love you Bdatx.
<6> amonfils: dunno, still shopping
<3> i just love that name.
<3> 'alien bees'
<5> but they need to be able to learn
<1> well don't ***ume because i said x=y that i beleive y=x
<0> but, i'm drunk, so it's all good
<2> Bdatz I'm so juiced.
<1> point is, no company deploys citrix to promote lazyness in administrators
<0> oh that heh
<5> but if x=y, then y=x ;)
<3> no, they deploy it as a cost measure.
<0> i was just doing that to troll you =)
<1> they deploy it to save tco
<3> :P
<0> but that being said
<1> ah concept change
<2> You say potato. I say potota.
<0> an admin's time is part of TCO
<0> ...
<1> yup
<5> you say potato, i say pommes
<1> companies could go around using POP3 for email in enterprise enviornments as well
<5> something wrong with that? lol
<3> frech.
<3> french, even.
<1> i must pee
<3> pommes frites!
<5> mmm
<5> pommes pouf!
<2> STFU.
<5> digidog: something wrong with pop3 in enterprise? :)
<3> it does not scale.
<3> (c) vgill
<6> I was waiting for you to say that =D
<5> hehe
<5> scale huh
<3> gotta hand out the mad propzpropz
<2> OH ****. There's a warning about a *** offender on TV. I'm scared.
<2> Hig me from behind.
<1> it ****s?
<1> and if you use it
<7> we do pop3. there are so many shortcomings of it, its not ready for enterprise, but at our company's size, well, to be honest i still dont think its right. thin client imap may be better.
<1> nevermind
<2> Bdatz You're never on IRC anymore. :(
<7> i worded that wrong
<6> XTR: trying to retire by 40 is hard work =(
<3> the only winning move is
<1> we understood z0g :)
<3> NOT TO PLAY
<7> pop3 isnt "ready" for enterprise is wrong. it simply shouldnt be used
<6> it has its uses.
<3> pop3 has it's place. google things so!
<3> cause they won't let me imap.
<2> **** man. It's the jurney not the destination.
<3> imap4+tls 4tw.
<6> does *anything* do imap well?
<1> no
<7> pine!
<6> between both server and client?
<2> Mutt.
<3> thunderchicken.
<5> mutt
Return to
#windows
or
Go to some related
logs:
#politics
#windows
socrewzy
#qmail
#beginner
burning fry oil in desiel engines
#unixhelp
limit inodes virtuozzo
#computers
realdolls.com
|
|