From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 30 10:40:56 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id KAA07553 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:40:56 -0800 Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA07536 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:40:20 -0800 Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA06066; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:02:33 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199510301802.LAA06066@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: New lmbench available (fwd) To: hasty@rah.star-gate.com (Amancio Hasty Jr.) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 11:02:33 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199510290244.TAA00523@rah.star-gate.com> from "Amancio Hasty Jr." at Oct 28, 95 07:44:20 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 827 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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.