Stewart Stremler wrote:
our misery. But NAT is really only detrimental to the end-users and does
...who use software written by incompetent and/or lazy programmers...
You can keep saying that all you want, Stewart.
You are still wrong.
Just because you are incapable of conceiving of why people want to be
able to communicate peer-to-peer on dynamically allocatable IP/port
combinations does not make the concept wrong.
In fact, I am starting to reach the point that I would argue that
client-server is actually the broken model, not peer-to-peer.
Client-server is a premature performance/structure optimization that
then holds your thinking captive.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
