Please UN-subscribe me from this mail :)
_______________________Thanx___________________________________________
At 03:33 PM 2/18/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
>> Let me see if I can't address your comments by citing two examples
>> that I've come across in the last 24 hours. I wasn't looking for these --
>> in fact, I've spent most of the last 24 hours asleep as my body fights
>> off the flu/cold/blech that I seem to have.
>
>Ahh, but still found time to reply to WC, thanks much. Take care.
>
>> Example #1: The Demoroniser: correct moronic and gratuitously incompatible
>> Microsoft HTML. Read about it (and weep) at:
>>
>>
>
>Every single instance I've seen of an MS product generating HTML has made me
>cringe. Nice to see someone developed a "demoroniser", wonder if they'll
>make a "dedreamweaverizer" and a "depagemillizer"?
>
>> Example #2: Microsoft Exchange. The following conversational thread
>> has been taking place on the Spam-L mailing list...
><snip>
>
>Yes, as I mentioned in an earlier thread, I wouldn't even consider using an
>MS product to handle mailserving. However, there *are* decent software
>packages from 3rd parties that run on NT, such as post.office
> http://www.software.com ). Nonetheless, when I think of a mailserver, I
>automatically think Unix.
>
>> This sort of thing happens just about every day. So I don't really bother
>> keeping track of all of the ways that Microsoft's products ignore real
>> and de facto standards because (a) I do not use or support Microsoft
>> products and (b) there's really no need for me to keep a list on hand
>> because fresh evidence arrives on a daily basis.
>
>As you said, "why bother", unless you have to maintain that kind of system.
>
>> As to the scalability/portability comments that I made: the cheapest
>> way to solve many problems is to throw hardware at them. (Hardware is
>> now ridiculously cheap, and a lot of great software is free, while
>> programmer time is still hideously expensive.) But if your software
>> isn't portable to other architectures, especially those that scale,
>> you don't have this option available, and you may have to do it the
>> hard (and expensive) way.
>
>Yes, and making the decision to create "portable" software depends on
>picking the OS that is "portable" to other hardware configs, or designing
>the software using software that is portable to other OS's that are portable
>to other hardware configs, heh (Java, perl, cross-OS compatible databases,
>etc). I understand your point re: portability and scaling now. Thanks.
>
>Jack
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Join The NEW Web Consultants Association FORUMS and CHAT:
> Register Today at: http://just4u.com/forums/
>Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
> Give the Gift of Life This Year...
> Just4U Stop Smoking Support forum - helping smokers for
> over three years-tell a friend: http://just4u.com/forums/
> To get 500 Banner Ads for FREE
> go to http://www.linkbuddies.com/start.go?id=111261
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
___________________________________________________________________
Shop from over 500,000 name brand products at 20 to 70% off retail!
Delivered to your house in 72 hours! Plus lots more!
Check out http://www.vibc.com/Bree26.html for exciting details!
Find out how YOU can get commissions of 50% of the profits from
sales to people you refer! BEST OPPORTUNITY ON THE INTERNET!!!
