Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:L9ydnVtql5BCOnXbnZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Z76dnb4wSanKgHXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:u_idnTg1lo8NeHrbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>>>>>>>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something
>>>>>>>>>>>> they hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on
>>>>>>>>>>> your part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the
>>>>>>>>>>> documentation simply states that:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this
>>>>>>>>>>> extension -- including the names of its functions and anything
>>>>>>>>>>> else documented about this extension -- may change without notice
>>>>>>>>>>> in a future release of PHP. Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from
>>>>>>>>>>> your keyboard?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas
>>>>>>>>>>>> gauge should be.
>>>>>>>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you
>>>>>>>>>>> are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your
>>>>>>>>>>> yap and removing all doubt.
>>>>>>>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right
>>>>>>>>>> about it than you are.
>>>>>>>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>>>>>>>> His comments like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>>>>>>>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows
>>>>>>>> Foundation Classes.
>>>>>>>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
>>>>>>>> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
>>>>>>>> implications.
>>>>>>>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>>>>>>>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>>>>>>> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by the
>>>>>>> above. having worked with all three from their inception, these
>>>>>>> definitions are either wildly understated or wildy incorrect. take
>>>>>>> your pick. if my explanation of each seems less correct/accurate than
>>>>>>> the above...what can i say?
>>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
>>>>>> inception. And they are pretty accurate.
>>>>> so you're telling me you agree with his definition of DCOM (a patch
>>>>> work add-on) and .net?
>>>> Yep. DCOM was a patch-work addon when the internet because popular. But
>>>> then Win95 was patchwork, also.
>>> i suppose we'll disagree since DCOM has nothing to do with internet usage
>>> *at all*. the ability to control and access the resources of another
>>> server securely was addressed by DCOM (which is the objectified,
>>> programatic equivalent to RPC's...which also have nothing to do with the
>>> internet).
>>>
>> No, but it operates over the TCP/IP protocol, just like the internet. It
>> was MS's first foray into network computing.
>
> chuckle...perhaps you mean something like their first foray into
> cross-server resource utilization. ms dos would technically be ms' first
> foray into network computing. and actually to be completely precise, OS2
> would have been ms' first go at network computing since they bought dos with
> that capability already in place. you're an ibm man, right? i'm sure you
> appreciate that history.
>

Well, yes, MS-DOS did have a TCP/IP component eventually (after Novell
made a fortune on their Netware and MS finally saw the way things were
going). But it wasn't much. Telnet, ftp, gopher, finger... just the
basic stuff. Nothing for rpc.

Windows for Workgroups did add NETBIOS support, but that was an add-on
product to DOS. So technically, W4W was their first foray into network
computing, not DOS :-).

As for OS/2 - MS worked mainly on the core code - they didn't write any
of the networking code. That was all from IBM, sold as add-on products
until OS/2 3.0 or so. MS worked mainly on the presentation manager and
come of the kernel. But it was out of the OS/2 business as of 2.1 -
which is why OS/2 2.1 was smaller and faster than 2.0.

>>> it also has very little to do with win95, save that win95 can't do
>>> RPC...but with the addition of DCOM, was able to work-around its own
>>> short-comings - which was NOT IN THE LEAST why DCOM was created.
>>>
>> True, Win95 couldn't do RPC - but DCOM was their first try at it.
>
> dcom had completly different aims than to try and simulate rpc capabilities
> in win95. hint, dcom came out around the time of the first beta release of
> win98...which means their committment to win95 started to shift from new
> development and enhancements to plugging security whole and ironing out
> other kinks. when ms brings on a new toy, they are wont to drop the old ones
> regardless of whom it effects...look at vb classic. they dropped it like a
> hot potato after the first service pack for vb.net. that's a lot of pissed
> off companies and developers given the popularity of vb classic at the time.
>

I didn't mean they were trying to emulate rpc - but that they were
trying to do inter-system resource sharing. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

As for W98 - that was a lot more than just plugging security holes and
other kinks. W95 was basically W4W with the W32 API's running on DOS,
sold as a single package. They just made W4W the default for the
display instead of a DOS prompt. W98 was pretty much a rewrite of the
kernel and a bunch of work on the rest of it.

> i digress...the fact that the development of dcom gave win95 capabilities it
> did not have before does NOT equate to that being the impetous for its
> development. hell, dcom effected *every* winx version and how resources
> could be used across servers.
>

Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.

> finally, if you still hold to win95 being the reason dcom was developed,
> then you may as well say the SAME THING for WMI because it does the exact
> same thing as dcom and then some.
>

I never said W95 was the reason DCOM was developed. I just said that's
where it first showed up. MS developed DCOM because they saw people
wanted to network, and they saw Novell getting a lot of money for
Netware. Actually pretty astute on their part.

>>> but, you define it as you like.
>>>
>>>> Also, MS would love to see everyone drop Java, PHP, Perl and other
>>>> languages and just use .NET. And they're doing everything they can to
>>>> get people to do it.
>>> that explains motives and has nothing to do with what .net is or does.
>>>
>>> i suppose i expect more usefulness out of definitions of things than
>>> sanders, and apparently you as well (not to be taken as a slight).
>> No, it explains exactly what MS is trying to get the world to adopt.
>
> that very well may be, but stay on track. whatever it explains, it does NOT
> do a thing for explaining what .net is or does...it just says they like it a
> lot and want everyone else to too.
>
> cheers
>
>

Yes, they want everyone to buy into .net. Those who do will be
committed to the MS platform for a long time.

A perfect example. Right now I have a customer (a non-profit) running
ASP (VBScript) for their site. We have a VPS - but it has to be
Windows/IIS, and the VPS costs about twice what a Linux server would.
Plus it doesn't have all of the capabilities of PHP or Perl.

We could convert it to .NET, but that would be expensive and time
consuming. Rather, we'd like to convert it to PHP and switch to Linux
hosting. But that also is expensive and time consuming.

So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which also
runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of conversion
would be several years worth of the price difference.

But as I'm making changes to the site, I am adding more PHP code and
getting rid of some of the VBScript. Eventually we'll have enough
changed that it's cost effective to convert.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:L9ydnVtql5BCOnXbnZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Z76dnb4wSanKgHXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:u_idnTg1lo8NeHrbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears PHP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks strangely note that this is just a place-holder for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something they hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation
>>>>>>>>>>>> on your part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the
>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation simply states that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this
>>>>>>>>>>>> extension -- including the names of its functions and
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else documented about this extension -- may change
>>>>>>>>>>>> without notice in a future release of PHP. Use this
>>>>>>>>>>>> extension at your own risk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled
>>>>>>>>>>>> from your keyboard?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gauge should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening
>>>>>>>>>>>> your yap and removing all doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more
>>>>>>>>>>> right about it than you are.
>>>>>>>>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>>>>>>>>> His comments like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>>>>>>>>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows
>>>>>>>>> Foundation Classes.
>>>>>>>>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was
>>>>>>>>> added because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain
>>>>>>>>> internet implications.
>>>>>>>>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>>>>>>>>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>>>>>>>> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by
>>>>>>>> the above. having worked with all three from their inception,
>>>>>>>> these definitions are either wildly understated or wildy
>>>>>>>> incorrect. take your pick. if my explanation of each seems less
>>>>>>>> correct/accurate than the above...what can i say?
>>>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
>>>>>>> inception. And they are pretty accurate.
>>>>>> so you're telling me you agree with his definition of DCOM (a
>>>>>> patch work add-on) and .net?
>>>>> Yep. DCOM was a patch-work addon when the internet because
>>>>> popular. But then Win95 was patchwork, also.
>>>> i suppose we'll disagree since DCOM has nothing to do with internet
>>>> usage *at all*. the ability to control and access the resources of
>>>> another server securely was addressed by DCOM (which is the
>>>> objectified, programatic equivalent to RPC's...which also have
>>>> nothing to do with the internet).
>>>>
>>> No, but it operates over the TCP/IP protocol, just like the internet.
>>> It was MS's first foray into network computing.
>>
>> chuckle...perhaps you mean something like their first foray into
>> cross-server resource utilization. ms dos would technically be ms'
>> first foray into network computing. and actually to be completely
>> precise, OS2 would have been ms' first go at network computing since
>> they bought dos with that capability already in place. you're an ibm
>> man, right? i'm sure you appreciate that history.
>>
>
> Well, yes, MS-DOS did have a TCP/IP component eventually (after Novell
> made a fortune on their Netware and MS finally saw the way things were
> going). But it wasn't much. Telnet, ftp, gopher, finger... just the
> basic stuff. Nothing for rpc.
>
> Windows for Workgroups did add NETBIOS support, but that was an add-on
> product to DOS. So technically, W4W was their first foray into network
> computing, not DOS :-).
>
> As for OS/2 - MS worked mainly on the core code - they didn't write any
> of the networking code. That was all from IBM, sold as add-on products
> until OS/2 3.0 or so. MS worked mainly on the presentation manager and
> come of the kernel. But it was out of the OS/2 business as of 2.1 -
> which is why OS/2 2.1 was smaller and faster than 2.0.
>
>>>> it also has very little to do with win95, save that win95 can't do
>>>> RPC...but with the addition of DCOM, was able to work-around its own
>>>> short-comings - which was NOT IN THE LEAST why DCOM was created.
>>>>
>>> True, Win95 couldn't do RPC - but DCOM was their first try at it.
>>
>> dcom had completly different aims than to try and simulate rpc
>> capabilities in win95. hint, dcom came out around the time of the
>> first beta release of win98...which means their committment to win95
>> started to shift from new development and enhancements to plugging
>> security whole and ironing out other kinks. when ms brings on a new
>> toy, they are wont to drop the old ones regardless of whom it
>> effects...look at vb classic. they dropped it like a hot potato after
>> the first service pack for vb.net. that's a lot of pissed off
>> companies and developers given the popularity of vb classic at the time.
>>
>
> I didn't mean they were trying to emulate rpc - but that they were
> trying to do inter-system resource sharing. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
>
> As for W98 - that was a lot more than just plugging security holes and
> other kinks. W95 was basically W4W with the W32 API's running on DOS,
> sold as a single package. They just made W4W the default for the
> display instead of a DOS prompt. W98 was pretty much a rewrite of the
> kernel and a bunch of work on the rest of it.
>
>> i digress...the fact that the development of dcom gave win95
>> capabilities it did not have before does NOT equate to that being the
>> impetous for its development. hell, dcom effected *every* winx version
>> and how resources could be used across servers.
>>
>
> Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.
>
>> finally, if you still hold to win95 being the reason dcom was
>> developed, then you may as well say the SAME THING for WMI because it
>> does the exact same thing as dcom and then some.
>>
>
> I never said W95 was the reason DCOM was developed. I just said that's
> where it first showed up. MS developed DCOM because they saw people
> wanted to network, and they saw Novell getting a lot of money for
> Netware. Actually pretty astute on their part.
>
>>>> but, you define it as you like.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, MS would love to see everyone drop Java, PHP, Perl and other
>>>>> languages and just use .NET. And they're doing everything they can
>>>>> to get people to do it.
>>>> that explains motives and has nothing to do with what .net is or does.
>>>>
>>>> i suppose i expect more usefulness out of definitions of things than
>>>> sanders, and apparently you as well (not to be taken as a slight).
>>> No, it explains exactly what MS is trying to get the world to adopt.
>>
>> that very well may be, but stay on track. whatever it explains, it
>> does NOT do a thing for explaining what .net is or does...it just says
>> they like it a lot and want everyone else to too.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>
> Yes, they want everyone to buy into .net. Those who do will be
> committed to the MS platform for a long time.
>
> A perfect example. Right now I have a customer (a non-profit) running
> ASP (VBScript) for their site. We have a VPS - but it has to be
> Windows/IIS, and the VPS costs about twice what a Linux server would.
> Plus it doesn't have all of the capabilities of PHP or Perl.
>
> We could convert it to .NET, but that would be expensive and time
> consuming. Rather, we'd like to convert it to PHP and switch to Linux
> hosting. But that also is expensive and time consuming.
>
> So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which also
> runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of conversion
> would be several years worth of the price difference.
>
> But as I'm making changes to the site, I am adding more PHP code and
> getting rid of some of the VBScript. Eventually we'll have enough
> changed that it's cost effective to convert.
>

Hi Jerry,

I am not sure what is wrong, but I only see your postings in
comp.lang.php while it is clear you're having a conversation with more
people involved.
Hard to follow the discussion this way.

Is something screwed up at my side, or are you alone posting to
comp.lang.php for some reason?

Regards,
Erwin Moller

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:UOednTt_JMQuNHXbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> Steve wrote:
>>>> Not at all. OK, on a Windows system MySQL support is supplied by
>>>> php_mysql.dll. And if MySQL isn't installed, the DLL won't load and
>>>> phpinfo() will show MySQL support isn't enabled.
>>>>
>>>> The MySQL interface is NOT compiled into PHP on the distributed Windows
>>>> binaries - or you'd never be able to run PHP unless you had MySQL
>>>> installed.
>>> again, you brought up the mysql example. i'm keeping this generic and
>>> modules like .net and others can certainly be compiled directly into php.
>>>
>> Nope, I just corrected your misstatements about PHP and MySQL. It is
>> typical of the way PHP modules act. Other modules act the same way.
>
> and other modules at the same time do NOT act the same way, but in the way i
> described. since you won't get off the mysql specifics theme and refuse to
> see my "misstatements" at the conceptual level i intended...let's talk about
> ODBC and php. i can "enable" odbc in php. however i do that is beside the
> point. that main thing to note is that the "enabling" doesn't require *ANY*
> db to be installed...since there is NO *literal* ODBC database. odbc is a
> protocol, not a database. so your point about having to have third party
> applications installed for every lib/extension that may consume them carries
> no weight. *SOME* extensions are protocols, some are functional resources,
> and some are just type libraries. in the case of .net enabling, it is a set
> of functional resources that php to use the .net framework. that does NOT
> mean that phpinfo() would show different results when the same compiled
> version of php gets put on a server with the .net framework and on one
> without. it shows "enabled" in both cases.
>

I said modules which require external libraries - which .NET does. And
even protocols need the appropriate libraries installed. If that is not
so, specifically which modules are those?

> try it. until then, you have an unqualified "Nope". after you do, as i have
> done this evening, your "Nope" will turn to an "Oh...Ok, Ooops".
>

Show me exactly which ones act at hat way, please.

>>> now to say that i have to have mysql (specifically) installed on my
>>> system that runs php and enables php is rather odd since i should be able
>>> to connect to any server running mysql if i provide the proper
>>> credentials, etc.. for this specific mysql lib, you're saying the
>>> dependency is an absolute must (that i have to have mysql installed on
>>> the same server though i otherwise have NO intention of ever using it)?
>>> can you tell me you've actually *done* this in order to prove it to
>>> yourself before? do you have a documented reference to support this?
>>>
>> You need to have the MySQL client libraries installed on the system
>> running PHP - just like if it were MSSQL Oracle or any other module. So
>> yes, the dependency is an absolute must.
>
> omg! you weren't even paying attention. the way in which php is compile or
> whether or not modules exist IS NOT EVEN THE POINT!!! i already explained
> that the "libraries" are indeed needed if the extension is not able to be
> compiled into php!
>

Yes, it does. If you're going to compile the extension into PHP itself,
the libraries must be available at compile time, and when you run PHP,
or PHP won't load.

If you're going to compile something as an extension module, then those
libraries need to be present when you compile the extension and when you
load the extension.

> read the OP. he wanted to know:
>
> "And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where .net is NOT
> installed."
>
> are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing?!!! my point is that
> ENABLING a feature in php has NOTHING to do with whether or not the TARGET
> (.net framework in this case) is installed. i never disagreed with "client
> libraries", in fact i specifically stated how php could include features
> (compilation or run-time loading) and even states precisely that the
> extension in question MUST exist in order to either compile it in or load at
> run-time. did you miss that whole thread?
>

No, I'm saying the .NET support is different than any other module - PHP
says the support is installed, even when it isn't. But .NET support is
experimental, so there will be some bugs.

>
>> You need to learn how these modules work. It's not just PHP - the same is
>> true in C/C++, for instance.
>
> i know how they do. it just seems you haven't even been on the same topic.
> i'm talking about third-party applications and you're talking about
> libraries that make it possible for php to use them.
>

Anything not from ZEND is a third-party application. They can be
libraries or applications.

> <snip>
>
>> Great. Now try to get it to work when the COM module you're calling isn't
>> installed on the system. Or the new vendor when you don't have the DLL
>> installed.
>
> Great. now try and follow a thread, see what was asked, and THEN judge the
> answer. you're not even in the ball park as far as this topic is concerned.
>

I did. And you're still telling me other modules say their extensions
can be loaded and show up as enabled, even though the necessary
libraries aren't installed. Again, which ones are those?

> am i going to hear back from you on this post? i'd be embarrassed to had i
> done the same thing. but it takes a certain kind of person to step back from
> such a defensive position as you've taken and say that, indeed, "i just
> misunderstood what you were explaining".
>
> we'll see.
>
>

Then you should be embarrassed for your incorrect statements.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

<snip>

> I did. And you're still telling me other modules say their extensions can
> be loaded and show up as enabled, even though the necessary libraries
> aren't installed. Again, which ones are those?
>
>> am i going to hear back from you on this post? i'd be embarrassed to had
>> i done the same thing. but it takes a certain kind of person to step back
>> from such a defensive position as you've taken and say that, indeed, "i
>> just misunderstood what you were explaining".
>>
>> we'll see.
>
> Then you should be embarrassed for your incorrect statements.

"incorrect" would be purely speculative given that i asked you to back up
your posit with either a documented reference or actually trying it. as it
is, i know for a fact that i can enable .net support in php by loading its
corresponding php .net extension library (.dll) at run-time yet not have the
actual ms .net framework installed. you say it's a bug...i say "whatever".

as it is, i still think you are talking apples when the rest of us are
talking oranges. but, i'm done discussing this.

Erwin Moller wrote:

>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> I am not sure what is wrong, but I only see your postings in
> comp.lang.php while it is clear you're having a conversation with more
> people involved.
> Hard to follow the discussion this way.
>
> Is something screwed up at my side, or are you alone posting to
> comp.lang.php for some reason?
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller

Hi, Erwin,

No, I'm talking to Steve. Looks like you or your news server is
filtering him out.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Steve wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I did. And you're still telling me other modules say their extensions can
>> be loaded and show up as enabled, even though the necessary libraries
>> aren't installed. Again, which ones are those?
>>
>>> am i going to hear back from you on this post? i'd be embarrassed to had
>>> i done the same thing. but it takes a certain kind of person to step back
>>> from such a defensive position as you've taken and say that, indeed, "i
>>> just misunderstood what you were explaining".
>>>
>>> we'll see.
>> Then you should be embarrassed for your incorrect statements.
>
> "incorrect" would be purely speculative given that i asked you to back up
> your posit with either a documented reference or actually trying it. as it
> is, i know for a fact that i can enable .net support in php by loading its
> corresponding php .net extension library (.dll) at run-time yet not have the
> actual ms .net framework installed. you say it's a bug...i say "whatever".
>
> as it is, i still think you are talking apples when the rest of us are
> talking oranges. but, i'm done discussing this.
>
>

No, you said there are other extensions which do the same thing. There
are not.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.

No, it began with Win95 - in an "extras" folder, or somesuch.
Win95 was the "MS doesn't get networking" release of Win32.
Prior to that, it was just something they were tinkering with.
.... acutally, that's what it was afterwards, too, wasn't it?

I recently saw a guest lecture series on the Paul Allen network (U-Dub)
in which they interview Microsofties. It was kinda funny watching this
old guy talk about the headaches he had as a mucky-muck - trying to
pretend that the engineering form WFC/COM/Com+/DCOM and several others
was really in synch with the marketing... the poor guy didn't even
believe it himself.

But that's what ya gotta do when your a manager of cubicle rats.


> So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which also
> runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of conversion
> would be several years worth of the price difference.

Hey, that's like the War Against Iraq. The original benefits didn't pan
out, but the cost of upgrading to peacetime is considered too expensive.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.
>
> No, it began with Win95 - in an "extras" folder, or somesuch.
> Win95 was the "MS doesn't get networking" release of Win32.
> Prior to that, it was just something they were tinkering with.
> ... acutally, that's what it was afterwards, too, wasn't it?
>
> I recently saw a guest lecture series on the Paul Allen network (U-Dub)
> in which they interview Microsofties. It was kinda funny watching this
> old guy talk about the headaches he had as a mucky-muck - trying to
> pretend that the engineering form WFC/COM/Com+/DCOM and several others
> was really in synch with the marketing... the poor guy didn't even
> believe it himself.
>
> But that's what ya gotta do when your a manager of cubicle rats.
>
>
>> So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which
>> also runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of
>> conversion would be several years worth of the price difference.
>
> Hey, that's like the War Against Iraq. The original benefits didn't pan
> out, but the cost of upgrading to peacetime is considered too expensive.

The difference is - if we weren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we'd be
fighting them here.

Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa. And they want to do it
again. The only thing keeping them from doing it is we're taking their
havens away from them.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> The difference is - if we weren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we'd be
> fighting them here.

That's what the entertainers and televangelists say.



> Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa.

What an idiot.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa. And they want to do it
> again. The only thing keeping them from doing it is we're taking their
> havens away from them.

I'm sorry.
Once just isn't enough.
I gotta say it again.
What an idiot!

BT

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> The difference is - if we weren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we'd be
>> fighting them here.
>
> That's what the entertainers and televangelists say.
>
>
>
>> Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa.
>
> What an idiot.

Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:

1968 - Bobby Kennedy assassinated
1972 - Munich Olympics, 11 Israeli athletes murdered
1979 - US Embassy in Tehran taken over and hostages held for 444 days
1980's - Multiple Americans in Lebanon kidnapped
1983 - Marine Corps barracks in Beirut bombed
1985 - Cruise ship Achille Lauro hijacked and a 70 year old American
thrown overboard in his wheelchair
1985 - TWA flight 847 hijacked in Athens and a U.S. Navy diver killed
1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 bombed
1993 - First bombing of the World Trade Center
1998 - US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed
2001 - 4 airliners hijacked, killing over 3,000 people
2002 - Reporter Daniel Pearl kidnapped and murdered

Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists have
vowed to destroy our civilization.

I have nothing against most Muslims. They are only interested in living
in peace. But there are a few who have twisted their religion to meet
their own ends. And these are the problems.

Get your head out of your ass, Sanders. You should be glad we finally
have a President with the balls to stand up to them. If we would have
had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
can be assured they would be here. Or maybe you want to see IED's along
the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times Square.
Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and our
civilians killed.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:eSlGi.2662$ZA5.2264@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa. And they want to do it
>> again. The only thing keeping them from doing it is we're taking their
>> havens away from them.
>
> I'm sorry.
> Once just isn't enough.
> I gotta say it again.
> What an idiot!

yes, sanders, you certainly are.

where'd my killfile go...oh, there it is.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
> can be assured they would be here. Or maybe you want to see IED's along
> the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times Square.
> Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and our
> civilians killed.

We didn't go after them in Iraq.
We lured them into Iraq.
The Iraqis did not deserve that.
If we were to *go after* them, we would be invading Pakistan.

Where you go wrong here is in taking the Abramoff Republicans' word of
honor about what they're up to. They are not honorable people.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Or maybe you want to see IED's along
> the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times Square.
> Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and our
> civilians killed.

We've already had a lot of that.
In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Or maybe you want to see IED's along the roads. Maybe you'd like to
>> see suicide bombers in Times Square. Maybe you'd like to see our
>> bridges and buildings blown up and our civilians killed.
>
> We've already had a lot of that.
> In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.
>
>

Yea, right. Name EVEN ONE.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas,
>> you can be assured they would be here. Or maybe you want to see IED's
>> along the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times
>> Square. Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and
>> our civilians killed.
>
> We didn't go after them in Iraq.
> We lured them into Iraq.

ROFLMAO! Listing to "Billary" again? And actually eating that shit?
Saddam was one of the worst terrorists in the world. He killed many
more people than bin Laden did.

Your head is further up your ass than I thought.

> The Iraqis did not deserve that.
> If we were to *go after* them, we would be invading Pakistan.
>

At least Pakistan is working WITH us in the war on terror.

> Where you go wrong here is in taking the Abramoff Republicans' word of
> honor about what they're up to. They are not honorable people.

Where you are going wrong is you're listening to those who are
supporting the terrorists for their own political purposes.

They depend in the naivety (or stupidity - take your pick) of people
like you to stay in power.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Erwin Moller wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote ...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote ...
>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote ...
>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:

[back-and-forth snipped]

> Hi Jerry,
>
> I am not sure what is wrong, but I only see your postings in
> comp.lang.php while it is clear you're having a conversation with more
> people involved.
> Hard to follow the discussion this way.
>
> Is something screwed up at my side, or are you alone posting to
> comp.lang.php for some reason?

It's not just you; I can't see Steve's posts either on news.bluewin.ch
(except for <xJnGi.87$0L1.18@newsfe06.lga>, which came later). But over
on news.individual.net I see what seem to be all his posts, so it's not
just Jerry talking to himself or an imaginary friend.


--
John

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:
>[...]

How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?

What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?

>Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists have
>vowed to destroy our civilization.

There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I don't
support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.

Some people just get what they deserve. The only problem and real
tragedy is: It's always the little guy from the streets, the usual
civilian, who has to pay the biggest price for the government's
mistakes, for their egoism and arrogance. It always hits the innocent,
never the real guilty.

>I have nothing against most Muslims. They are only interested in living
>in peace. But there are a few who have twisted their religion to meet
>their own ends. And these are the problems.
>
>Get your head out of your ass, Sanders. You should be glad we finally
>have a President with the balls to stand up to them.

Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.

>If we would have
>had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

Correct. It could be even worse.

>And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
>can be assured they would be here.

The only reason to invade Iraq was the oil. When was the war finished
"officially"? What's the situation now? Worse than ever.

But what does this all have to do with PHP? Bush wouldn't even know how
to spell it.

A curious side note: Our biggest telco "Deutsche Telekom" is known for
ruthlessly protecting their "intellectual properties" and tradamarks,
suing everyone who even thinks about using something colored magenta
(their brand color) or using anything that starts with "T-", because of
their brand names T-Com, T-Mobile, T-Systems etc. They grab all domain
names with "t-" at the beginning - they even own "t-errorist.de" ...

Micha

As a programmer, you might be exptected to
associate these events in a more logical way.

Sure, Saddam was a bad guy.
And yes, we were attacked by muslim extremists.
But Saddam was not the only bad guy in the
world, and was not in cahoots with Al Queda.
He did not attack us. There was no Al Queda in
Iraq until after the war started.

We had a golden opportunity to kick ass in Afganistan,
rebuild a country and make some allies. But we scewed
it up bigtime. We gave Osama his best christmas present
possible: the world's greatest recruiting tool,
wrapped in an impossible-to-win civil war.

Bush is a moron. The only remaining excuse for
starting this war (they've changed motivations a
half a dozen times now) is nation building. By
creating a land-of-milk-and-honey democracy in
Iraq, we will indirectly defeat Al Queda. That's
nation building, which Bush promised we would not do.

And it's a building construction project with little
hope of success. We might be stuck with it now,
whether we like it or not. But it's important to remember
the fools who got us into this mess in the first place.