On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:59:47 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:


>As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
>something much less than a "debate."

Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
opposing view.

>Exchanging valid arguments is
>one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
>simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.

Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?
I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
situations?

>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
>
>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>"certain situations".

You really should pay more attention to my posts then, I
certainly did mention routablity previously.


>
>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>
>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
>the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
>answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>maintains, is indeed also a factor.

I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
default?