Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:02:33 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: hasty@rah.star-gate.com (Amancio Hasty Jr.) Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New lmbench available (fwd) Message-ID: <199510301802.LAA06066@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199510290244.TAA00523@rah.star-gate.com> from "Amancio Hasty Jr." at Oct 28, 95 07:44:20 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Either X.500 is a piece of shit or Novell failed to implement X.500 correctly. > For sure at some point there was the concept of X.500 server's content > replication. I shudder to have to look at another OSI document... Why must this be an "either/or" choice"? 8-). Novell implemented the name ordering backwards. They also implemented the parts of X.500 that weren't finalized at the time they started by making the decisions themselves, sometimes incompatably. Finally, they wen with a push model instead of a pull model because they wanted to get rid of the idea of a dentral server (as in YP) that had to be up at the time. The complication this last added was not worth it. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510301802.LAA06066>