🚀 go-pugleaf

kony wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:05:09 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>>No, the problem is XP's networking.  If anything, antiquated
>>>protocols have been around so long there is simply no excuse
>>>for problems from the OS.  
>>>
>>>MS does not "tell us" what to migrate away from.  When they
>>>give me a free PC then they can dictate what it uses, not
>>>when it's listed as a "supported" feature.
>>
>>That sounds so terribly 'consumer noble' but the fact of the matter is 
>>there's no good reason to support an antiquated protocol.
>>
> 
> 
> Define support.
> 
> There is no good reason NOT to support it to the extent that
> it works.  There is no good reason not to support ANY
> protocol, even one completely home-grown, to the extend that
> it installs in same manner and is supported though whatever
> features it, itself, supports in a standardized manner.  

That is simply silly. 'Support', of any kind, costs time and effort and 
when the return doesn't justify it then one doesn't do it.


> Perhaps it's only antiquated in your and MS's minds.

It's antiquated by comparing it's capabilities to the alternatives.

> Certainly not so to anyone who uses it.

Neither are buggy whips, to those who 'use them'. but there's little reason 
to 'support' them in "horseless carriages."

>  That doesn't even
> begin to mean someone else shouldn't use something that
> suits their needs more than your own personal alternative
> would.

They're free to use it. They'll just have to provide their own 'support', 
or a third party who might be interested.

> The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
> that it's routable..

Ain't no 'little' thing.

Not to mention it's universally supported across virtually every platform 
on the planet instead of a single O.S..

>  Once you remove that need, you're left
> with a slower protocol.  

Remove it and you've got an antiquated, severely limited, protocol.