Ron Ogle wrote: > It's not trivializing a problem to understand that nice and easy tends to > win over complete and complex. All of the protocols that lost, > were highly > intellectual and covered all/most possible situations. But they > didn't win > out, why? They had too much baggage and were too complex to implement. Jeepers. What can you be talking about? Surely not the protocol discussed on this list, which can be just about expressed on the back of an envelope, if not a beermat. Or is it the APIs which can still give some improvement if existing code is simply recompiled or relinked against them? Complex to implement? We've already seen 2 or 3 independent announcements of running code in the space of just several weeks discussion which spanned the holidays! Cheers, Frank _______________________________________________ LogAnalysis mailing list LogAnalysisat_private http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 12:01:11 PST