I'm tired of the quasi-judeo-christian belief that client/server is the only way to implement networking systems.
1. No feedback on message delivery. Of course you can have feedback on message delivery. What a silly comment.
2. Bandwidth overhead introduced by error correction/checking (UDP is the wrong protocol). UDP has error correction (it doesnt have error correction). TCP uses UDP uses IP. There is nothing that TCP does that a system built using UDP cant. Conversely, a purpose-built protocol over UDP can be more efficient than the lazy approach of just using TCP for everything.
3. Central server still needed to record IP addresses to pass to clients. You thik this is a good thing? In any case, ID's can be virtualised. Heard of Freenet?
4. Massive bandwidth outlay on connection. (Modem user has to send buddy image to all 100 buddies online). Caching and distributed resource delivery.
5. t wouldnt work throught a NAT firewall. It could work fine through a NAT. The NIC doesnt care how you architect your software.
6. You wouldnt know if you had become disconnected. Keepalives.
7. You couldnt log on from any machine (ala msn, icq), because no central server to give you your contacts list User ID's and passwords, encrypted distributed storage
If you want to consider more intelligent message delivery system, move past client/server with TCP.
I am not anti-semitic.
Zion is the fabled ancient Jewish homeland. As you know, google is your friend, and I wont insult you with links. I am also quite aware that even mentioning this connection opens me for labelling as an anti-semite.
Zion is the fabled ancient Jewish homeland. In the Matrix Universe, it is projected as being the last bastion of humanity against adversity.
Make your own connections. Or not.
But this is such a blatant pro-Jewry phenomenon, and I am outrageously amused that no-one has made the open connection.
It's also curious that so many of the lead characters are black, yet Jews and blacks are traditionally placed at opposite ends of contention.
Clever?
Make up your own minds. Just ensure you are making your own minds.
// html_parser.cpp,v (C) 1990- Microsoft
#include "html/parser.h"
template
void html_block(II F, II L) {
for (; F != L; ++F)
if (tag(*F)())
for (++F; F != L; ++F)
if (tag(*F)::Type::val == Type::Crash)
__asm int 3; }
OK, they didnt use meta-programming C++ techniques, but there's code similiar to that in the IE source.
This HTML rudely crashes IE:
I didnt make that up. That's the actual contents of the html code that when processed by the HTML parser in IE crashes it. Its safe to look at here, because its not being processed by the parser - its being processed by the text renderer, which just draws text.
Read it. Its not hard to understand, even if you've never seen HTML source before. The phrase "input type crash" demonstrates a clear
intention, to, um, crash.
It was included by the programmers for a number of very good reasons. I dont really care to list them all here.
But this is clearly not a "bug". Actually, it shows good engineering practise.
Microsoft rox0r.
No, really, they do.
Slashdot Mirror
P2P UDP is actually a very good solution.
I'm tired of the quasi-judeo-christian belief that client/server is the only way to implement networking systems.
1. No feedback on message delivery.
Of course you can have feedback on message delivery. What a silly comment.
2. Bandwidth overhead introduced by error correction/checking (UDP is the wrong protocol).
UDP has error correction (it doesnt have error correction). TCP uses UDP uses IP. There is nothing that TCP does that a system built using UDP cant. Conversely, a purpose-built protocol over UDP can be more efficient than the lazy approach of just using TCP for everything.
3. Central server still needed to record IP addresses to pass to clients.
You thik this is a good thing? In any case, ID's can be virtualised. Heard of Freenet?
4. Massive bandwidth outlay on connection. (Modem user has to send buddy image to all 100 buddies online).
Caching and distributed resource delivery.
5. t wouldnt work throught a NAT firewall.
It could work fine through a NAT. The NIC doesnt care how you architect your software.
6. You wouldnt know if you had become disconnected.
Keepalives.
7. You couldnt log on from any machine (ala msn, icq), because no central server to give you your contacts list
User ID's and passwords, encrypted distributed storage
If you want to consider more intelligent message delivery system, move past client/server with TCP.
-Christian
Does that "Linux" code come from that V5 and V7 code?
Yes. Sorry.
The linux code is definately derivative.
All the FUD the penguins are spreading about SCO's case is just noise.
I dont know about the details of the case. But I know code. And that code is stolen.
You cant run about with the GPL unless you also follow the rules.
How can you hope to enforce the GPL? Good luck.
--Christian
I am not anti-semitic. Zion is the fabled ancient Jewish homeland. As you know, google is your friend, and I wont insult you with links. I am also quite aware that even mentioning this connection opens me for labelling as an anti-semite. Zion is the fabled ancient Jewish homeland. In the Matrix Universe, it is projected as being the last bastion of humanity against adversity. Make your own connections. Or not. But this is such a blatant pro-Jewry phenomenon, and I am outrageously amused that no-one has made the open connection. It's also curious that so many of the lead characters are black, yet Jews and blacks are traditionally placed at opposite ends of contention. Clever? Make up your own minds. Just ensure you are making your own minds.