[ros-general] networks

[Rex Jolliff]

At 09:52 PM 5/31/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>We are writing a Microsoft Windows compatible operating system...this 
>means we must do things the way windows does them...

The second statement does not follow from the first.  Otherwise why even 
bother building another OS.
If we come up with a better way to maintain network client state that is 
compatible with existing applications
then more power to us.  To take the attitude you have taken above is not 
helpful.


>however you are more than welcome to change the way a particular thing 
>works, and either submit it to the list for review or make it one of your 
>own side projects/addons.  Sorry if this sounds rather zealotish, but 
>that's the way it has to be.

In my opinion, it is too unyielding a stance, and I'm not convinced it is 
the way it has to be.

>Besides, we aren't even remotely close to that level of networking yet and 
>probably won't be for months, if not years, to come.

I think once someone takes up an interest it is more like weeks to months 
away.  It's still interesting to discuss
don't you think?


>Richard
>
>ros at xzite.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>
>>sysadmins. does anyone else have any opinions on this?

I think keeping client information on the server is a better idea 
also.  Perhaps the appropriate
directories (like the user settings directory) can be mounted at a given 
directory a la unix.  The
mount functionality might be doable with a filter driver.  Or perhaps some 
appropriate registry
settings could be changed to support client data remotely.

>>les
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>ros-general mailing list
>>ros-general at reactos.com
>>http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ros-general mailing list
>ros-general at reactos.com
>http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

Rex Jolliff
rex at osexperts.com
ReactOS (www.reactos.com) -- Check it out