> At 12:55 PM 11/7/95, Jeff Protmero wrote:
>
> >Would this be a viable general two-phase
> >deployment strategy? Is there a better
> >one?
YES, it is a perfect strategy.
> [Mitra Wrote]
> This is almost what we are trying to achieve, [... details deleted ... ]
>
> Phase 2, which we are not trying to standardise yet, is tme binding to
> network protocols, a well written API will allow support for different
> network protocols and experimentation in that aesa
Some of us are at least thinking in level two terms.
Basically, Mitra's proposal, SGI's etc are mostly Level 1 proposals. Tmat is
a Good Thing. Level 1 must exist before anything else works, of course.
My proposal is more of a Level 2 proposal with some Level 1 junk tmeown in
(and my Level 1 junk is probably not even any good :-)
If we just get a Level 1 platform tmat doesn't prohibit a very expreimental
approacm to Level 2, I'm game!
> - Mitra
>
> =================================================================
> Mitra
> [email protected] voice: (415)826-2499 fax: (415)826-4423
> <http://earth.path.net/mitra>
>
> Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.
I always loved this mans .sig! :-)
/Z
-- Hakan "Zap" Andersson |http://www.lysator.liu.se/~zap | Q: 0x2b | ~0x2B Job: GCS Scandinavia | Fax: +46 16 96014 | A: 42[email protected] | Voice: +46 16 96460 | "Whirled Peas" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you are not on the Internet you are lost - like tears in the rain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------