Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:24:57 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, "Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, "freebsd-questions" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: "Argo Direct Ltd - Mark Roach" <info@argodirect.com> Subject: Re: FREEBSD Message-ID: <002101c16e99$b8921e80$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <002801c16e81$608a56c0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted writes: > Amend that to say > > "...if you already have A PROPERLY RUNNING AND > STABLE BackOffice in place...." Not necessary. There is no reason to assume that a BackOffice configuration is unstable or improperly running by default, and no mention was made of any such instability or running problems in the original post. > this isn't an easy thing to do for someone who's > main job title is "receptionist" and just does a > bit of network administration on the side. The original poster didn't identify himself as a receptionist, as far as I can recall. In any case, anyone who has trouble implementing BackOffice should not go anywhere near FreeBSD or any other flavor of UNIX. BackOffice is _far_ simpler to put in place for someone who is technically unsophisticated (although the person implementing the system would probably still require a bit more IT experience than an average receptionist). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002101c16e99$b8921e80$0a00000a>