I used to run a BBS and I remember them all. I remember Fidonet . I had my own "Node":)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lofback, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:43 PM Subject: RE: Urgent : GURU Required: Excel vs COM in CFMX > Me too. Who remembers using Kermit, Z-Modem, QWK mail, FidoNET and SLMR > (Silly Little Mail Reader)? > > Ahh, the heady pre-Web days... > > Chris Lofback > Sr. Web Developer > > TRX Integration > 28051 US 19 N., Ste. C > Clearwater, FL 33761 > www.trxi.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yager, Brian T Contractor/Sverdrup > > [mailto:brian.yager@;redstone.army.mil] > > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:36 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Urgent : GURU Required: Excel vs COM in CFMX > > > > > > I actually miss BBS days :( (WWIV, VBBS, etc..) > > > > Brian Yager > > President - North AL Cold Fusion Users Group > > http://www.nacfug.com > > Sr. Systems Analyst > > Sverdrup/CIC > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (256) 842-8342 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:info@;turnkey.to] > > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:40 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: Urgent : GURU Required: Excel vs COM in CFMX > > > > > > > Thursday, October 24, 2002, 12:23:04 PM, you wrote: > > >>> Web Services != replacement for COM. > > >>> > > >>>Not by a long shot. > > > > > DW> It certainly works well as a replacement for DCOM; > > while it might not > > > DW> replace everything that COM does now, it can certainly > > replace some of > > > it. > > > DW> SOAP, or something SOAP-like, could certainly replace a > > lot of the > > > rest of > > > DW> COM; you just have to figure out what you'll use for > > inter-process > > > DW> communication. So, I'm not sure if it's really the long > > shot that you > > > think. > > > > > It's a physical impossibility to pass xml data as efficiently as > > > passing data over a COM interface. I accept that SOAP is a viable > > > replacement for DCOM, but not COM itself. > > > > > Especially when with all the "industries investment in Java" that is > > > supposed to be a big reason we love Java now, nobody in Javaland has > > > come up with as efficient an interface as MSXML. Just the thought of > > > using a web service to parse/and receive/send XML is > > laughable to me. > > > > It is the natural progression, however. Speed / Efficiency is > > not the big > > selling point of xml web services. They've been designed / > > developed and > > implemented with the reasonable assumption that speed will > > continue to be > > less and less an issue as time passes. In the past 50-60 > > years speed, memory > > and storage have all continued to become less and less an > > issue in computing > > and there's no reason to believe the same won't continue. In > > a few years, > > the fact that web services were slow in the now will be > > completely moot. > > What will remain ( after their speed is no longer an issue ) > > is what they do > > provide, which is ( from what I understand ) a more flexible > > / dynamic and > > easier to develop method of moving and transforming data / content and > > separating it from format or platform. > > > > Case in point: Does anybody here particularly care that MS > > Word 2000 would > > be slow as hell on an old 286? ( That is assuming an old 286 > > would even > > support it. ) > > > > For that matter, I remember some machines with boot cycles of > > 5 minutes or > > longer from as shortly ago as 1995 and Windows 95. Or for that matter > > waiting 30 minutes or an hour to download a reasonably small > > file from a BBS > > on my old monochrome DataGeneral and NEC laptops that I got > > hand-me-downed > > from my dad. > > > > Software is invariably developed "before its time"... That is > > the nature of > > the business ( or perhaps even human nature ) that innovation > > occurs because > > things that are not practical now are implemented now anyway > > and then made > > practical by further development because the innovators are > > able to see the > > potential. If everybody waited until everything were fast and > > easy, nobody > > would make any money and the industry would go nowhere. > > Everyone would be > > waiting on everyone else to produce something faster, more > > efficient, etc. > > But those things would never be developed because the > > companies trying to > > develop them would never have the money to develop and > > produce them as a > > result of never getting sales because their customers are > > waiting for the > > product to improve. > > > > This doesn't by any means indicate that everyone needs to be > > a forerunner > > and jump onto every new technology before it's practical -- > > this would be > > suicide. But those with the ability to work with a few new > > technologies > > before they are practical have the advantage of being early > > and getting a > > bigger piece of that new market. > > > > I often still wish the industry would evolve a bit slower > > than it does, but > > that's admittedly my own personal hangup, and it has more to do with > > economic equality ( if there is such a thing ) and "the > > digital divide" than > > with anything else. > > > > </dissertation> > > > > > > S. Isaac Dealey > > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > > > > www.turnkey.to > > 954-776-0046 > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
