Message from discussion corba or sockets?
From: cbbro...@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: corba or sockets?
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <Ccr9OWi1xN=1nCk41e3EezruCFP3@4ax.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <39FEF3C9.563F6879@cadvision.com> <email@example.com>
Organization: Please try to understand before one of us dies.
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Win32)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:29:15 CST
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:29:15 GMT
In our last episode (31 Oct 2000 18:36:55 +0000),
the artist formerly known as Erik Naggum said:
>* Wade Humeniuk <humen...@cadvision.com>
>| They are fine protocols, but only as transport and network layer
> What does this mean? It makes absolutely no sense at it stands.
The point is that they're not directly "application" layer protocols.
A good comparison seems to me to be that they generally represent the
"assembly language" of the networking world.
TCP/IP does indicate that it includes "application" layers that
provide _some_ of the higher level stuff; you have made some
desparaging remarks about recent RFCs that would go along with the
notion of separating "application layers" from the remainder of it...
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@" "acm.org")
Who wants to remember that escape-x-alt-control-left shift-b puts you
into super-edit-debug-compile mode? (Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc
on the intuitiveness of commands, especially Emacs.)