| Bill Sanders 2005-10-28, 5:46 pm |
| Hi Aaron,
It's pretty stable, but I'd never set up clients on it. As for MM
licensing FMS 2 w/o a cap, it would be nice, but I don't think it's
going to happen. If they'd take the cap off of BW and leave it on
connections, I could live with that. The problem w/ both caps is that
there's never enough BW for the number of connections allowed--except
for things like text chat. Most of my stuff involves A/V and that
gobbles up the most BW. In my view, I or my clients are paying for
the BW, and they don't need to be double-charged.
We're still running FCS 1 on our Linux box, but as soon as FMS 2 is
finished, we're going to load it up. Like you, all I've been running
FMS 2 on is Win XP, and while I was able to get it running on Fedora,
it never was right, So I've got to upgrade to RH 3 or 4 for my Linux
box on my LAN.
Cheers,
Bill
On Oct 28, 2005, at 4:41 PM, Aaron Roberson wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I am running Linux Enterprise Server 3.0 AS
>
> Do you think that FMS 2 is stable enough to run live apps on even
> tough it is in beta? I sure hope they stick with a per cpu license and
> ditch the bw cap on FMS 2!
>
> Aaron
>
> On 10/28/05, Aaron Roberson <iisitedesign-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
>
bill sanders | www.sandlight.com | bloomfield, ct | 860-242-2260
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
|