|
|
Posted by Steve on 09/12/07 13:52
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:u_idnTg1lo8NeHrbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they
>>>>>>> hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your
>>>>>> part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation
>>>>>> simply states that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ======
>>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension --
>>>>>> including the names of its functions and anything else documented
>>>>>> about this extension -- may change without notice in a future release
>>>>>> of PHP. Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>
>>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from your
>>>>>> keyboard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge
>>>>>>> should be.
>>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
>>>>>> fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap
>>>>>> and removing all doubt.
>>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right about
>>>>> it than you are.
>>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>>> His comments like:
>>>
>>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows Foundation
>>> Classes.
>>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
>>> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
>>> implications.
>>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>>
>> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by the above.
>> having worked with all three from their inception, these definitions are
>> either wildly understated or wildy incorrect. take your pick. if my
>> explanation of each seems less correct/accurate than the above...what can
>> i say?
>
> Steve,
>
> Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
> inception. And they are pretty accurate.
so you're telling me you agree with his definition of DCOM (a patch work
add-on) and .net?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|