From: Rod Speed on 21 Jul 2010 03:16 terryc wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:24:06 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: > >> terryc wrote >>> Mike Rofone wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >> >>>>>> If the other networks don't have the same name then network >>>>>> connectivity is limited. >> >>>>> That is just plain wrong. >> >>>> No, it's not. If your computer isn't on the same workgroup as >>>> others then you cannot see them to access shared resources. >> >>> Isn't there a sharing setting to share stuff/item to all? >> >> Its much more complicated than that. > So you never say. >> >>> Caverat, never set this, but as *nix can do it, old bill would have >>> followed. >> >> Its nothing like what happens with that. > > Naah, you're right. Unix had it, IBm copied it for OS/2, then Novell > got it, then old Bill almost two decades later decided he had better > catch up on it or loose more big end business. They dont even have workgroups, stupid.
From: terryc on 21 Jul 2010 09:08 On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:16:57 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: >> Naah, you're right. Unix had it, IBm copied it for OS/2, then Novell >> got it, then old Bill almost two decades later decided he had better >> catch up on it or loose more big end business. > > They dont even have workgroups, stupid. That is correct. Old bill didn't have any method of group sharing. Everyone else did.
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Disabling the trackpad on a laptop Next: How 100 Mbps broadband will rock your world |