I would like to share a folder (directory) on an OSR 5.07 server and create
PDF files there to allow Windows clients to access. So my question is what
is the preferred way to share a folder on OSR 5.07 to be accessed by Windows
client workstations and what application do you need on OSR to create a PDF
from standard input or such.

Thanks
wj

willjay wrote:

> I would like to share a folder (directory) on an OSR 5.07 server and create
> PDF files there to allow Windows clients to access. So my question is what
> is the preferred way to share a folder on OSR 5.07 to be accessed by Windows
> client workstations

I prefer making documents avaiable through a web page using Apache and
Perl or PHP etc.

> and what application do you need on OSR to create a PDF
> from standard input or such.

Ghostscript

--
Ian Wilson

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 07:38:59 -0500, "willjay" <willjay@excite.com>
wrote:

>I would like to share a folder (directory) on an OSR 5.07 server and create
>PDF files there to allow Windows clients to access. So my question is what
>is the preferred way to share a folder on OSR 5.07 to be accessed by Windows

Samba does this, as does VisionFS and AFPS (Advanced File and Print
Server)

>client workstations and what application do you need on OSR to create a PDF
>from standard input or such.

Ghostscript

>
>Thanks

Welcome

>wj
>
>

Scott McMillan

"willjay" <willjay@excite.com> wrote in message news:<pu_1c.50214$Tn.44714@bignews5.bellsouth.net> ...
> I would like to share a folder (directory) on an OSR 5.07 server and create
> PDF files there to allow Windows clients to access. So my question is what
> is the preferred way to share a folder on OSR 5.07 to be accessed by Windows
> client workstations and what application do you need on OSR to create a PDF
> from standard input or such.
>
> Thanks
> wj

AFPS form SCO , or SAMBA to share files

ghostscript to make PDFS

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:15:09 +0000 (UTC), Ian Wilson
<scobloke2@infotop.co.uk> wrote:

>willjay wrote:
>
>> I would like to share a folder (directory) on an OSR 5.07 server and create
>> PDF files there to allow Windows clients to access. So my question is what
>> is the preferred way to share a folder on OSR 5.07 to be accessed by Windows
>> client workstations
>
>I prefer making documents avaiable through a web page using Apache and
>Perl or PHP etc.

What an idiotic response! Samba is the obvious answer - it does just
what the OP asked: allows Windows machines to access files on a
Linux/*nix machine (it does much more than this of course, but sharing
files is the tip of the iceberg). You can't drag and drop with a web
page ;-)

The problem is that if you use Samba with SCOG products, you're going
to be violating the GPL licence under which Samba is distributed (if
you visit the Samba project's home page they state that they are
disgusted that their work is used to help SCO's ancient OS's provide
useful features). Then again, most SCO users don't seem too bothered
by legalities as GPL'ed products for SCO are to be found on a bunch of
warez sites...
--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

Scott McMillan wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 07:38:59 -0500, "willjay" <willjay@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I would like to share a folder (directory) on an OSR 5.07 server and
>> create PDF files there to allow Windows clients to access. So my
>> question is what is the preferred way to share a folder on OSR 5.07
>> to be accessed by Windows
>
> Samba does this, as does VisionFS and AFPS (Advanced File and Print
> Server)

And FacetWIN, except in facetwin, like sco itself, it works more reliably,
and unlike sco or samba, you get free, *excellent* support for life.
Although, it's licenced by counting PC's from the server side, and it's a
pain always having to worry about that when adding new PC's to the network
even if they will hardly touch the sco box...Then again, you also get a
bulletproof scoansi terminal emulator that doesn't eat up sco seat licences
when you open multiple sessions on one PC, and now that sco is back to hard
license count that matters a lot.

--
Brian K. White -- brian@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:49:24 -0500, "Brian K. White" <brian@aljex.com>
wrote:

>Scott McMillan wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 07:38:59 -0500, "willjay" <willjay@excite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to share a folder (directory) on an OSR 5.07 server and
>>> create PDF files there to allow Windows clients to access. So my
>>> question is what is the preferred way to share a folder on OSR 5.07
>>> to be accessed by Windows
>>
>> Samba does this, as does VisionFS and AFPS (Advanced File and Print
>> Server)
>
>And FacetWIN, except in facetwin, like sco itself, it works more reliably,
>and unlike sco or samba, you get free, *excellent* support for life.

Of course, being an ignorant SCO shill, Brian White has never heard of
"community support". Ironic, isn't it Brian, that your cohorts over in
Utah have announced they will (illegally) bundle Samba with their next
version of OpenServer. Not that there will be a new version, since the
last few days have really shattered any illusions about SCO having any
sort of case. It's now transparently obvious that Microsoft (as many
had guessed) are calling the shots, and SCO is little more than a
shell used by our friends in Redmond to spread more FUD.

>Although, it's licenced by counting PC's from the server side, and it's a
>pain always having to worry about that when adding new PC's to the network
>even if they will hardly touch the sco box...

Big surprise there. Brian advises somebody to buy an overpriced,
inferior product when the Free alternative is obviously the better
choice. You're a real piece of work, Brian. What ARE you going to do
once SCO are gone? Set up a spamming outfit, or some other scam?

>Then again, you also get a
>bulletproof scoansi terminal emulator that doesn't eat up sco seat licences
>when you open multiple sessions on one PC, and now that sco is back to hard
>license count that matters a lot.

SCOG are not just counting licences, Brian. As we all know, they are
actively attacking everyone around them, with most of the venom
reserved for their customers. Every single threat of legal action has
been against a SCOG licencee, based upon SCOG presuming the licencees
using UnixWare code where they shouldn't. Though judging by the recent
responses from AutoZone, Computer Associates etc, it seems SCOG have
been lying even harder than usual to the press.

Run along now Brian, you could be fleecing some little old lady out of
her savings or something instead of wasting time here giving bad
advice for free ;-)
--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

FyRE wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:49:24 -0500, "Brian K. White" <brian@aljex.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Scott McMillan wrote:
> >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 07:38:59 -0500, "willjay" <willjay@excite.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I would like to share a folder (directory) on an OSR 5.07 server and
> >>> create PDF files there to allow Windows clients to access. So my
> >>> question is what is the preferred way to share a folder on OSR 5.07
> >>> to be accessed by Windows
> >>
> >> Samba does this, as does VisionFS and AFPS (Advanced File and Print
> >> Server)
> >
> >And FacetWIN, except in facetwin, like sco itself, it works more reliably,
> >and unlike sco or samba, you get free, *excellent* support for life.
>
> Of course, being an ignorant SCO shill, Brian White has never heard of
> "community support". Ironic, isn't it Brian, that your cohorts over in
....

> >Although, it's licenced by counting PC's from the server side, and it's a
> >pain always having to worry about that when adding new PC's to the network
> >even if they will hardly touch the sco box...
>
> Big surprise there. Brian advises somebody to buy an overpriced,
> inferior product when the Free alternative is obviously the better
> choice. You're a real piece of work, Brian. What ARE you going to do
> once SCO are gone? Set up a spamming outfit, or some other scam?
>
Bunch o stuff deleted

I've watched your posts and stayed out of past flames but now I have to respond
to the above characterization of FacetWin as "inferior product." You've obviously
never had the opportunity to use the product and so you are of the mindset that
"free is better." I'll just relate one example of support provided by
the FacetWin team: I have a client that begin using FacetWin on SCO UNIX
3.2v4.2 back before SAMBA or VisionFS was available. They stayed with FacetWin
after upgrading to Openserver 5.0.4 (no charge at that time for FacetWin OS
migration, I don't know if that is still the case).

At one point I installed an HRM program named "Time Tracks" on a FacetWin share
from the SCO box. Time Tracks would not run with multiple users accessing the
shared data files. I called FacetWin Tech support and was talked through the steps
to make a transaction file when the Time Tracks program was running and when
the error occurred upon the second user attempting to access the data files.
I e-mailed the 1Mbyte log file to FacetWin and I received a modified
FacetWin SMB server executable the next day with instructions to modify the rc
script startup to add "-l" when starting the FacetWin smb server. The accompanying
e-mail indicated that "Time Tracks is using a non-standard approach to control
its user license."

I can't site any other example where I have received one-day turnaround on a reported
problem to any other software supplier and I'd be surprised if you can.


> FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

--

Steve Fabac
S.M. Fabac & Associates
816/765-1670

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:07:25 GMT, "Steve M. Fabac, Jr."
<smfabac@att.net> wrote:

[Steve details a nasty bug in Facetwin being fixed]

>I can't site any other example where I have received one-day turnaround on a reported
>problem to any other software supplier and I'd be surprised if you can.

Actually I have reported issues to the Mozilla team, as do thousands
of others. Although it isn't a "one day turnaround", more like a week
in most cases, the problems are fixed, and remain fixed.

With the software problem you detailed, it is costing you money,
unless you consider your time to be worthless.

Of course, you can also >gasp< PAY the developers on any project to
modify the software to your requirements (although with Samba, I can't
concieve of anything else I'd require). Since you also have all the
source code, you can pay any other competent programmer to work on the
code in-house.

If you can cite any examples of a problem with Samba (that wasn't a
misconfiguration error, a problem Brain White seems to have a lot)
then I'd be interested in hearing about it...

My issue in this thread is that the OP required file sharing, and
Samba is the obvious choice. Brain's idea of paying for FW, then
paying for licences to do this is ridiculous (no doubt Brain would
offer to supply the software himself too ;-)

--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

FyRE wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 03:07:25 GMT, "Steve M. Fabac, Jr."
> <smfabac@att.net> wrote:
>
> [Steve details a nasty bug in Facetwin being fixed]
>
>> I can't site any other example where I have received one-day
>> turnaround on a reported problem to any other software supplier and
>> I'd be surprised if you can.
>
> Actually I have reported issues to the Mozilla team, as do thousands
> of others. Although it isn't a "one day turnaround", more like a week
> in most cases, the problems are fixed, and remain fixed.
>
> With the software problem you detailed, it is costing you money,
> unless you consider your time to be worthless.
>
> Of course, you can also >gasp< PAY the developers on any project to
> modify the software to your requirements (although with Samba, I can't
> concieve of anything else I'd require). Since you also have all the
> source code, you can pay any other competent programmer to work on the
> code in-house.
>
> If you can cite any examples of a problem with Samba (that wasn't a
> misconfiguration error, a problem Brain White seems to have a lot)
> then I'd be interested in hearing about it...
>
> My issue in this thread is that the OP required file sharing, and
> Samba is the obvious choice. Brain's idea of paying for FW, then
> paying for licences to do this is ridiculous (no doubt Brain would
> offer to supply the software himself too ;-)

No way. I make them get it themselves, and install it, and do any
config/maintenance themselves.
I just charge them 3x the price of facetwin itself just for my advice in
telling them what to get.
If they need someone to do actual work, I charge them a flat 1k just to give
them a name of someone who can do it, and I get 50% of that persons take
too, so he of course charges about 3x what he really needs.
Don't tell anyone but I don't even know what the heck a corn kernel shell
thing or whatever is!
You're crazy not to get in on this gravy train!

--
Brian K. White -- brian@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani