Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Upcoming time boundary events
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 00:01:31 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <101le0r$jov$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <100fp4v$1nmtf$1@dont-email.me> <101l2mn$3grj7$1@dont-email.me> <101l3g5$nvl$1@reader1.panix.com> <101la97$3iet6$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 00:01:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="20255"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)

In article <101la97$3iet6$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 6/2/2025 5:01 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <101l2mn$3grj7$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> Which means that Lawrences comment was actually correct.
>> 
>> I've had Lawrence plonked for a while now.  I strongly recommend
>> that you do the same.  He is a troll, and does not engage in
>> good faith.
>
>In this thread he first claimed that my tttt example created a new
>process every time. When he was told that was wrong then he
>acknowledge that. And the he noted that it would create multiple
>processes is run concurrently. Which is correct.
>
>That is good behavior.

Sure.  In contrast to literally years of poor behavior in this
and other newsgroups.

>There are other participants here that could learn
>from that!

Indeed.

>>> And you calling it silly was wrong.
>> 
>> I noticed you didn't quote the rest of my reply.
>> 
>> Like I said, I'm not convinced that one cannot write an
>> application that uses multiple devnames and then define logical
>> symbols so that it can interact with multiple clients using
>> transparent task-to-task communications.
>
>So you called him silly because you think that he could be wrong
>even though you don't have any specifics?
>
>Interesting personality you have!

Stop trying to move the goalposts.  I said what I said; if you
are having a hard time interpeting it, ask for clarification,
but do not put words in my mouth.

>>                                           And as I mentioned, I
>> don't see any structural reason that a transparent client cannot
>> communicate with a non-transparent server.
>
>I am not even sure what that means.

I'm not surprised.

>But I am pretty sure that my code example that Lawrence was commenting
>on does not do it. That was totally classic transparent all the way.
>
>So that argument is totally irrelevant.

Not at all.  The statement was that one _can't_ do it.  I said
that's a silly statement, and gave reasoning.  If you disagree
with that reasoning, then say that.

But my experience with you, specifically, is that you tend to
argue about things that you really do not know about
(hypervisors, passing around open file channels, etc), and do so
endlessly, despite evidence showing your interpretation is wrong
in context.  You've even quoted me back to myself to try and
argue something you didn't understand.  Usually when you've been
definitively shown to be wrong, you simply stop posting rather
than admit error.

In fact, you're basically doing that right now.

	- Dan C.