From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Aug 30 10:20:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 608) id C6A9F14DC2; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:20:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" To: brett@lariat.org Cc: chat@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.19990830090826.04661c40@localhost> (message from Brett Glass on Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:14:26 -0600) Subject: Re: Windows 2000 to demand Microsoft-specific DNS extensions Message-Id: <19990830172027.C6A9F14DC2@hub.freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > The PC Week article at > > http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1016137,00.html > > suggests that Windows 2000, which incorporates Microsoft's "Active > Directory," will require Microsoft's proprietary extensions to DNS in order > to function. This, in turn, will require a site to use NT servers as its > domain name servers. This article is badly written in that it skips the the copies fo windows 2000 being used/tested here are using an HP B-180 as their nameserver. seems to work as well as any microsoft product and significantly better than some. > fundamental technical details, does not explore the possibility that there > might be workarounds for the problem, and dwells instead on the petty, > internal corporate turf wars that this misfeature might cause. Nonetheless, > it's food for thought: Can Microsoft successfully force companies to change > their server platforms by manipulating its ubiquitous desktop client? there is a lawsuit before judge penfield jackson on this very issue. the doj contends that microsoft could do such a thing and has acted illegally in the past. jmb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message