|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/13/07 14:50
Steve wrote:
> "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.
>
Well, yes, MS-DOS did have a TCP/IP component eventually (after Novell
made a fortune on their Netware and MS finally saw the way things were
going). But it wasn't much. Telnet, ftp, gopher, finger... just the
basic stuff. Nothing for rpc.
Windows for Workgroups did add NETBIOS support, but that was an add-on
product to DOS. So technically, W4W was their first foray into network
computing, not DOS :-).
As for OS/2 - MS worked mainly on the core code - they didn't write any
of the networking code. That was all from IBM, sold as add-on products
until OS/2 3.0 or so. MS worked mainly on the presentation manager and
come of the kernel. But it was out of the OS/2 business as of 2.1 -
which is why OS/2 2.1 was smaller and faster than 2.0.
>>> 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 didn't mean they were trying to emulate rpc - but that they were
trying to do inter-system resource sharing. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
As for W98 - that was a lot more than just plugging security holes and
other kinks. W95 was basically W4W with the W32 API's running on DOS,
sold as a single package. They just made W4W the default for the
display instead of a DOS prompt. W98 was pretty much a rewrite of the
kernel and a bunch of work on the rest of it.
> 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.
>
Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.
> 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.
>
I never said W95 was the reason DCOM was developed. I just said that's
where it first showed up. MS developed DCOM because they saw people
wanted to network, and they saw Novell getting a lot of money for
Netware. Actually pretty astute on their part.
>>> 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
>
>
Yes, they want everyone to buy into .net. Those who do will be
committed to the MS platform for a long time.
A perfect example. Right now I have a customer (a non-profit) running
ASP (VBScript) for their site. We have a VPS - but it has to be
Windows/IIS, and the VPS costs about twice what a Linux server would.
Plus it doesn't have all of the capabilities of PHP or Perl.
We could convert it to .NET, but that would be expensive and time
consuming. Rather, we'd like to convert it to PHP and switch to Linux
hosting. But that also is expensive and time consuming.
So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which also
runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of conversion
would be several years worth of the price difference.
But as I'm making changes to the site, I am adding more PHP code and
getting rid of some of the VBScript. Eventually we'll have enough
changed that it's cost effective to convert.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|