At the moment it need cygwin. So the answer is a qualified yes. But other, less painless (or painful, depending on your POV) ways to run pnet on win32 are being explored, including cross-compiling and mingw.
Frankly, I see more and more people more and more outraged at Microsoft. The feeling I get reminds me of a public utility -- people need it, that's true. But if there's a chance to slip away they'll take it. In other words, I think the general trend is starting to lean towards not letting Redmond rip people off all the time.
So if more than a few folks start using pnet, because they see it a chance to ease their MS burden, they won't go back to shouldering that burden as easily. Microsoft has a stranglehold on the market. But the consumers, after all, are the market. That gives us something to leverage, although admittedly it's a long-range thing. (OTOH, as you imply, 2 years is fairly long-range in this business...)
So, in short, MS won't be able to just change the standard because noone will use it. They'll use pnet instead. See?;-)
Slandering people while hiding behind anonymity is for weak-kneed cowards, throwing words on public forums like so many worthless lumps of pheasant waste. After programming for 20 years (10 professionally) I've learned more from glancing through Rhys' code than I can say. His sources are clean and clear. Each routine is a hard, bright little creature. It's literature.
You don't like it? Fine. You can even say so. If you show your face and spell your reasons, maybe you can save a little seed of dignity. Better yet, show your code, so we can all see your basis of authority for judging Rhys as sub-par. #dotgnu on irc.openprojects.net is fine. For now I'll continue to think of you as a little, little person, racking computer experience by trolling slashdot between troubled, intense bouts of pr0n.
The problem with LDAP is that it wants to be the authoritative source for all the information it makes available. This is a fundamental weakness of massively centralizing the storage of information that spans an entire organization, in LDAP, an RDBMS, or anything else. We should be very careful about our assumptions wrt "all applications."
From a (slightly outdated) whitepaper describing macs: "What's required is distributed responsibility for the information and uniform, centralized access to it." (macs is the Modular Access Control System, a project I'm working on to let different APIs interconnect, with an emphasis on access control.)
Don't get me wrong, I love LDAP -- but it's no panacea. There is no panacea. I may be biased but macs allows the different owners of different information to manage it their way, while making it available to others in another way. A sort of many-to-many cross-interfacing of APIs and storage mechanisms, which lets folks choose the best tool for the job, be it LDAP,/etc/passwd, SASL, or something else from the RFCs.
Slashdot Mirror
At the moment it need cygwin. So the answer is a qualified yes. But other, less painless (or painful, depending on your POV) ways to run pnet on win32 are being explored, including cross-compiling and mingw.
mdsFrankly, I see more and more people more and more outraged at Microsoft. The feeling I get reminds me of a public utility -- people need it, that's true. But if there's a chance to slip away they'll take it. In other words, I think the general trend is starting to lean towards not letting Redmond rip people off all the time.
So if more than a few folks start using pnet, because they see it a chance to ease their MS burden, they won't go back to shouldering that burden as easily. Microsoft has a stranglehold on the market. But the consumers, after all, are the market. That gives us something to leverage, although admittedly it's a long-range thing. (OTOH, as you imply, 2 years is fairly long-range in this business...)
So, in short, MS won't be able to just change the standard because noone will use it. They'll use pnet instead. See? ;-)
Cheers,mds
Slandering people while hiding behind anonymity is for weak-kneed cowards, throwing words on public forums like so many worthless lumps of pheasant waste. After programming for 20 years (10 professionally) I've learned more from glancing through Rhys' code than I can say. His sources are clean and clear. Each routine is a hard, bright little creature. It's literature.
You don't like it? Fine. You can even say so. If you show your face and spell your reasons, maybe you can save a little seed of dignity. Better yet, show your code, so we can all see your basis of authority for judging Rhys as sub-par. #dotgnu on irc.openprojects.net is fine. For now I'll continue to think of you as a little, little person, racking computer experience by trolling slashdot between troubled, intense bouts of pr0n.
Oh, yeah: Cheers.
mds
From a (slightly outdated) whitepaper describing macs: "What's required is distributed responsibility for the information and uniform, centralized access to it." (macs is the Modular Access Control System, a project I'm working on to let different APIs interconnect, with an emphasis on access control.)
Don't get me wrong, I love LDAP -- but it's no panacea. There is no panacea. I may be biased but macs allows the different owners of different information to manage it their way, while making it available to others in another way. A sort of many-to-many cross-interfacing of APIs and storage mechanisms, which lets folks choose the best tool for the job, be it LDAP, /etc/passwd, SASL, or something else from the RFCs.
Cheers!
mds