On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Olaf Titz wrote:
> If you do anything else than Windows-based pure client apps you
> very quickly need static addresses.
Why? I really don't see any goog arguement for this whatsoever.
> I've worked in an institution where addresses were assigned
> dynamically, no working DNS available and certain privileges
> (access to critical servers) were assigned _by IP address_. On some
> days we had to work more on getting basic networking running again
> and especially the confusion over IP addresses resolved than doing
> our development work. No thanks.
And I work in a building with probably over 1000 machines connected
to the network, most of which are windows based and have their
address assigned by DHCP, whilst some others are statically
configured.
> Of course it would be possible to do this all with a correctly
> functioning dynamic DNS based setup, but unless Window$ 200x does
> this out of the box and does it _right_ this won't happen in the
> real world.
Actually -- it does. I got two laptops the other day, both
pre-installed with Windows 2000. I turned them on, enter a few silly
questions (machine name, password, etc.), inserted the PCMCIA
network/modem card and once it had installed the driver plugged it in
to the network -- at which point it did the DHCP request and
everything pretty much worked as expected.
The only think I had to manually configure was the web-browser and
that could be automated too if someone really desired.
-cw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:10 EST