|
|
Posted by Steve on 09/13/07 04:36
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:L9ydnVtql5BCOnXbnZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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.
chuckle...perhaps you mean something like their first foray into
cross-server resource utilization. ms dos would technically be ms' first
foray into network computing. and actually to be completely precise, OS2
would have been ms' first go at network computing since they bought dos with
that capability already in place. you're an ibm man, right? i'm sure you
appreciate that history.
>> 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.
dcom had completly different aims than to try and simulate rpc capabilities
in win95. hint, dcom came out around the time of the first beta release of
win98...which means their committment to win95 started to shift from new
development and enhancements to plugging security whole and ironing out
other kinks. when ms brings on a new toy, they are wont to drop the old ones
regardless of whom it effects...look at vb classic. they dropped it like a
hot potato after the first service pack for vb.net. that's a lot of pissed
off companies and developers given the popularity of vb classic at the time.
i digress...the fact that the development of dcom gave win95 capabilities it
did not have before does NOT equate to that being the impetous for its
development. hell, dcom effected *every* winx version and how resources
could be used across servers.
finally, if you still hold to win95 being the reason dcom was developed,
then you may as well say the SAME THING for WMI because it does the exact
same thing as dcom and then some.
>> 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.
that very well may be, but stay on track. whatever it explains, it does NOT
do a thing for explaining what .net is or does...it just says they like it a
lot and want everyone else to too.
cheers
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|