Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO

From: Richard (riplin_at_Azonic.co.nz)
Date: 01/02/04 

Date: 2 Jan 2004 11:38:07 -0800

"Peter E.C. Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote

> > > You still show difficulty in grasping that the NETWORK will be King,
> rather
> > > than your centralised mainframe.
> > >
> > > (I expected more from you...<G>)

> > You appear to think that if one is not frothing at the mouth in a
> > frenzy to buy into the latest Microsoft technospeak trend that they
> > are trying to force everywhere, then one must be spoken down to as
> > being slightly backward.
>
> Huh?! Please show where ANYTHING I have EVER posted would support that
> conclusion.

It was a combination of the put-down, left as a quote at the top where
you imply cognitive difficulty, and a previous quote where you
specified that web-servives was _dependent_ on Microsoft's .NET.

> Neither am I speaking down to people as being backward. (Although I do
> consider that some of the entrenched attitudes encountered here ARE
> backward;

Maybe they are not 'entrenched' but are 'considered' and just take
into account issues that you have not addressed in their context.

> I still respect the right of people to have an opinion, and
> therefore take the time to attempt a reasoned argument, expecting and
> enjoying fair debate.)

Stating that the reason they don't agree with you is because they have
cognitive difficulty is not 'reasoned argument'.
 
> Please show where I ever referred to "the Network (as web services)". I
> didn't and I don't. I had a misunderstanding about Web Services which has
> since been corrected.

Granted. You did, however, appear to be talking _against_ the large
central server. Most do have some form of dumb access or client/server
access. In fact it is the large central servers that drive the
internet.
 
> When I use the term NETWORK I am referring to the local LAN, the IntraNet,
> and the Internet. Obviously, I agree completely with your last paragraph,
> where a central server or cluster of server blades is simply part of "the
> Network".

The network and the large central server(s) are not alterrnatives.
Both need each other. The alternative (which you were implying) to
large central servers is distributed services, surely.

> Furthermore, I believe that in the future (and that is what I am
> discussing, not the immediate present), the distinction between what is
> currently considered LAN, ClientServer, IntraNet and Internet, will all
> become blurred and companies will simply refer to "The Network".

Hmmmm. It seems to me that they already do. But there are technical
issues about actually making these into one mechanism. For example,
latency can be appalling on the internet. The way to overcome this is
with VPNs which, while using the same ISPs actually run over the
network somewhat differently and separately.

> This is what will be "King".

'King' implies that it will have control. The network on its own will
do nothing. It needs large servers, or millions of small servers, or
both. In some areas the large (central) servers will be the best
solution, in others lots of small servers will be the solution. The
network is just a mechanism to connect thing together. It will become
so ubitquitous that it will be like electricity.

Now I suppose there were people claiming a hundred years ago or so
that 'electricity' will be "King". At the time there were small local
'networks' and competing services (such as hydraulic) and personal
generators. They were right and we still have massive central
'servers' and also small personal 'servers'. We just get on with what
we are doing and ignore that network because it is just there.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VPN equals slow network folder access
    ... primary and secondary WINS servers are the same as the DNS servers. ... At home the VPN has a fixed 10.0.xx.xx address. ... Pressing F5 in My Network Places ... Likewise Internet Explorer ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely)
  • Re: Fine for 3 years - then Internal Network unavailable
    ... Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Troubleshooting on http://www.ChicagoTech.net ... I have two windows 2k servers running IIS and two windows 2k servers running ... All servers have dual network cards. ... ensure that the database servers cannot be seen from the internet and also ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.networking)
  • Re: Dcidag errors
    ... Port blockage between servers ... Other sorts of networking issues (lack of connectivity between the points ... These errors are typically a result of a network connectivity issue of some ... > replicating this nc. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: Can not see my own websites after setting up routing
    ... Now I have to setup two servers as my external DNS servers (ns1.thenoc.us ... Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Troubleshooting on ... This issues seems to only happen on my internal network. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.ras_routing)
  • Re: Windows client - internet connection sharing
    ... >> ADSL line to provide internet access via LAN to a ... > This is all about how you interface your FreeBSD ... > servers and so forth. ... This enables you to set up a 'DMZ' network, ...
    (freebsd-questions)