Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO
From: Peter E.C. Dashwood (dashwood_at_enternet.co.nz)
Date: 01/02/04
- Next message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Previous message: Jack Sleight: "Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4"
- In reply to: Richard: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Howard Brazee: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:13:22 +1300
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0401021138.427f56b8@posting.google.com...
> "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>)
>
Richard, this is simple rhetoric. It isn't intended to be offensive or taken
literally, and I don't think Judson did so...(Well, he's still talking to me
<G>)
Besides, if anyone should have a problem with it, that would be Judson. Do
you think he needs your intervention?
> > > 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.
I didn't "specify" it; I believed it. I certainly didn't endorse it as being
desirable.
I was wrong about that and was corrected on it.
>
> > 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.
>
Well, that is why we have a forum and open debate...
> > 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'.
>
No it isn't. In this instance it was purely a rhetorical device. (I don't
REALLY think that Judson, or anyone else, is some kind of backward Cretin
who cannot grasp my all-compelling argument. You are taking the whole thing
much too seriously. I question your right to do this, especially when you
make it personal.)
> > 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.
>
And you seriously think I don't know that? I was talking against the large
central mainframe, not its role as a Network Server.
I believe you also missed my intended meaning of NETWORK.
> > 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.
I didn't say they were, and you have totally misinterpreted what I DID say.
I think your usually acute vision is impaired by your loathing of MicroSoft
and your perception that I was somehow promoting them.
> Both need each other. The alternative (which you were implying) to
> large central servers is distributed services, surely.
Nope. I "implied" no such thing. You have confused my use of the word
"mainframe" with the phrase "large central server". Many mainframes are NOT
large central servers (yet...), and THAT is what I was alluding to.
I am saying that in the future the Network will be ubiquitous and ALL
corporate computers will be connected to it. Companies will buy a slice of
the action.
>
> > 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.
>
It really doesn't matter, and I'm not going to labour this further, but the
word "future" is pretty important in what I wrote. Given that I changed the
topic to what it is, I think I could reasonably expect people to understand
that I am speculating on what is to come, not what we have currently.
Incidentally, you might be right about VPNs...I am currently looking at
this.
> > This is what will be "King".
>
> 'King' implies that it will have control.
It will. Life without it will be inconceivable. I believe it will permeate
our lives in ways we haven't even begun to conceive yet.
I am not saying the Network per se will have "control" (hopefully, Humans
will retain that) but it will be "King" when it comes to need for
information.
>The network on its own will
> do nothing.
Not true. It will enable the flow of information and data into every walk of
our lives.
>It needs large servers, or millions of small servers, or
> both.
Ah, we are talking at cross purposes. My use of "NETWORK" includes all the
devices attached to it, from the supercomputers, to the "intelligent
jewellery" that tells you the name of the person approaching you and what
his wife's name, kid's name, and dog's name is...<G>
>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.
>
Yes, I agree completely with the last sentence. (Don't disagree with the
previous ones; it is just that the mechanics of how it works are irrelevant
to the discussion I am trying to have.)
> 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.
OK. We can agree on the end position <G>.
Pete.
- Next message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Previous message: Jack Sleight: "Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4"
- In reply to: Richard: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Howard Brazee: "Re: (not entirely...) OT: OPINION... chicken entrails, runic stones, and crystal balls... WAS CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
