|
|
Posted by Steve on 09/12/07 19:06
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z76dnb4wSanKgHXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "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?
>
> Yep. DCOM was a patch-work addon when the internet because popular. But
> then Win95 was patchwork, also.
i suppose we'll disagree since DCOM has nothing to do with internet usage
*at all*. the ability to control and access the resources of another server
securely was addressed by DCOM (which is the objectified, programatic
equivalent to RPC's...which also have nothing to do with the internet).
it also has very little to do with win95, save that win95 can't do RPC...but
with the addition of DCOM, was able to work-around its own short-comings -
which was NOT IN THE LEAST why DCOM was created.
but, you define it as you like.
> Also, MS would love to see everyone drop Java, PHP, Perl and other
> languages and just use .NET. And they're doing everything they can to get
> people to do it.
that explains motives and has nothing to do with what .net is or does.
i suppose i expect more usefulness out of definitions of things than
sanders, and apparently you as well (not to be taken as a slight).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|