In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/30/2006
at 01:12 PM, john gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The triviality of this issue is, however, convenient in one way. It
>provides an occasion for noting that clinging to a piece of obsolete
>technology that we know and love, a high resolve to go on using it
>until it is pried from our lifeless fingers, is dysfunctional.
Your analysis is flawed by the invalid assumption that those defending
sequence numbers love them. I have, in my career, always strived to be
an early adopter of new technology, and have eagerly dropped old
technology WHEN IT CEASED TO PROVIDE ME WITH VALUE. I have not,
however, been willing to drop old technology that was still useful
simply because it was old and out of style.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
