Re: OverLord (was Re: MPCS? and source code discussion

Scott Lacroix (slacroix@wpine.com)
Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:14:18 -0400


At 11:18 PM 7/23/98 -0500, Jason Williams wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Scott Lacroix wrote:
>> Or did you just mean that you can't use the password and thus are limited
>> in functionality? Like I said, using the GUI you don't need a telnet
>> password since no-one should be in the allow-wpconfig list anyway.
>
>That's the other problem I've gotten...a lot of the WP staff I've been
>talking to about MPCS haven't placed much importance on the problems of
>the telnet vs. GUI issue. They just tell me to use the GUI and all will
>be well. I don't WANT to use the GUI..I have Refmarshal for that. :) So
>you're saying that allow-wpconfig shouldn't really be used except to have
>the IP of the server in it. That just doesn't work realistically for me
>and others. :)

Well... what I said (or at least what I MEANT) was that IF you are using
the GUI, you don't need to add other addresses to your allow-wpconfig list.
If EVERYONE uses the web GUI, no-one needs to be added specifically to the
list.
That does NOT imply that the functionality of allow-wpconfig has
changed... if you don't like the web GUI, by all means, don't use it. If
you've got something like RefMarshal and/or OverLord and you want to use
that, great! But you've got to go back to the old method of adding multiple
addresses to the allow-wpconfig list.
The only real problem is that they don't mix well right now.

>> Actually, I use it myself for monitoring. (WHOA, Did a guy at WhitePine
>> admit to using a non-WhitePine product???
>
>So..you obviously have more than just the server IP as a allow-wpconfig :)

Yes, but not subnets. If you NEVER use subnets then the web GUI/RefMarshal
combination works really well.

>> Next I'll be saying I use the Cornell v1.0 client too! Wait... I DO use
>> it... :)
>
>I used to run across a few WP programmers that never seemed to use the WP
>client...I got a chuckle out of that. :)

Actually, I'm a switch hitter. In all honesty, it depends on what I'm
doing and what kind of machine I'm running. I preferr the 3.X client (like
you didn't think I was going to say that :) but the Cornell definatly has
advantages in some situations.

>> BTW, sometimes we DO things like that... take the "CU-Cessories"
>> (available on the CU-SeeMe client CD-ROM) as examples.
>

>Yep..I noticed. What determines what gets included as a "CU-Cessory"? A
>new dialer in the works (CUnnect98) is pretty cool. :)

I have no idea... that's all marketing's decision.

- Scott

--

,,-==================================-.-==================================-.. | I haven't lost my mind, it's backed | Scott LaCroix (slacroix@wpine.com) | | up on tape around here somewhere... | Sr. Software Engineer ___ | | - Author Unknown | White Pine Software ./_ -\. | | #include<disclaimer/std.h> | http://www.wpine.com q| o O |p | ``-==================================-^-=====================oOOo=~U~=oOOo-''