|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/13/07 02:59
Steve wrote:
> "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).
>
No, but it operates over the TCP/IP protocol, just like the internet. It
was MS's first foray into network computing.
> 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.
>
True, Win95 couldn't do RPC - but DCOM was their first try at it.
> 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).
>
>
No, it explains exactly what MS is trying to get the world to adopt.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|