J
John Kelly
v
Jack said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
John Kelly
Hay Jack, what sort of pratt are you...yeah,,, the sort that likes to talk
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
J
John Kelly
Hay Jack, what sort of pratt are you...yeah,,, the sort that likes to talk
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
J
John Kelly
Hay Jack, what sort of pratt are you...yeah,,, the sort that likes to talk
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
J
John Kelly
Hay Jack, what sort of pratt are you...yeah,,, the sort that likes to talk
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
Him said:I'm not sanchez, you psychotic moron!
too stupid to understand the dog reference?
click on the link I gave you, idiot!
J
John Kelly
Hay Jack, what sort of pratt are you...yeah,,, the sort that likes to talk
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
J
John Kelly
Hay Jack, what sort of pratt are you...yeah,,, the sort that likes to talk
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
to an imaginary audience......PRATT
D
Dana Cline - MVP
I tell you what, you have consistently said that you are tired of this
There you go attacking the person again. Attack the idea, not the person!
Thank you! Finally, a technical definition. I'll respond to it, then I'll
shut up on the subject and we can put this thread to bed.
It appears that there are various degrees of network awareness. You may see
network awareness as a yes/no question. I see it as various degrees of
yes/no.
For instance, things like permissions for files is properly the providence
of the network operating system, not the application. XP and servers already
handle this quite well.
Several of the items you mention fall into the category of "single user vs.
multi-user". In my mind, a network aware app can still be single user - that
is, a project can only be opened and worked on by one user at a time. True
multi-user apps are almost always very expensive, and have special
requirements such as a dedicated server. Very few MS apps are multi-user.
However, most MS apps can use a UNC path to access files across a network -
the network share doesn't have to be mapped to a drive for the app to find
it. In that sense, the app is network aware.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I see network awareness in
shades of gray, you see it in black and white.
Dana Cline - MVP
thread, yet you continue to post in it...therefore you are a liar....
There you go attacking the person again. Attack the idea, not the person!
Thank you! Finally, a technical definition. I'll respond to it, then I'll
shut up on the subject and we can put this thread to bed.
It appears that there are various degrees of network awareness. You may see
network awareness as a yes/no question. I see it as various degrees of
yes/no.
For instance, things like permissions for files is properly the providence
of the network operating system, not the application. XP and servers already
handle this quite well.
Several of the items you mention fall into the category of "single user vs.
multi-user". In my mind, a network aware app can still be single user - that
is, a project can only be opened and worked on by one user at a time. True
multi-user apps are almost always very expensive, and have special
requirements such as a dedicated server. Very few MS apps are multi-user.
However, most MS apps can use a UNC path to access files across a network -
the network share doesn't have to be mapped to a drive for the app to find
it. In that sense, the app is network aware.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I see network awareness in
shades of gray, you see it in black and white.
Dana Cline - MVP
J
John Kelly
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I see network awareness in
shades of gray, you see it in black and white.
No, all I see is someone testing themselves out, wishing they had not got
involved and then, after receiving some tuition, attempt to ingratiate
themselves with there masters.......nothing you said in your again wordy
reply is relevant. Movie Maker is NOT network aware....period
As you said you are not going to come back to this thread...is there any
chance that you will not do so, or are you going to give us yet another
example????
--
John Kelly
www.the-kellys.org
www.the-kellys.co.uk
All material gained from other sources is duly acknowledged. No Value is
obtained by publishing in any format other peoples work
G
Guest
John Kelly said:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I see network awareness in
shades of gray, you see it in black and white.
[...]
reply is relevant. Movie Maker is NOT network aware....period
The following program shows that it is straight-forward to determine if a drive letter is mapped to a network path or not; UNC paths can also be detected by looking for the leading "\\".
Using such information, Windows Movie Maker could reject all network paths accepting only those local to disks; some applications (apparently not WMM2) actually do such things.
Dan
-----
#include <stdio.h>
#include <windows.h>
static void printDriveType(int driveType)
{
if (driveType == DRIVE_FIXED)
wprintf(L"DRIVE_FIXED");
else if (driveType == DRIVE_REMOTE)
wprintf(L"DRIVE_REMOTE\n");
else
wprintf(L"other or unknown drive type\n");
wprintf(L"\n");
}
static void testDriveType(const WCHAR* drive)
{
wprintf(L"Drive '%s' is: ", drive);
printDriveType( GetDriveTypeW(drive) );
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
static const WCHAR localDrive[] = L"C:\\";
static const WCHAR remoteDrive[] = L"Y:\\"; // \\server\dir mapped to Y:\
testDriveType(localDrive);
testDriveType(remoteDrive);
getchar();
return 0;
}
-----
J
John Kelly
Hello there,
Dan, I am not sure what your point is.....
If the only criteria for being "network aware" then is the fact that it can
see an external hard drive it follows that everything that works on XP is
network aware. I am sure Bill Gates will be over the moon with his staff.
the mvp papajohn has tried a number of times to help at schools in the USA
who having taken the kind of advice he has given in here which is also
supported by an unnamed mvp lead and is also supported by the person dana
(yep another mvp) The advice fails every time because Movie Maker is not in
any manner "network aware"...why not?, because it was never meant to be.
the mvp dana says that server software will take care of movie maker and
its record locking requirements (It needs them otherwise someone else can
move the goal posts with another instance of movie maker) I challenge the
mvp dana to name the server software that can handle the requirements of
Movie Maker. I will then through my Government connections obtain a report
on that software ( I already know what the report will say of course...and
here is why)
Run Windows Explorer, find the collections file for your local copy of
Movie Maker and change the attribute to READ ONLY. This will simulate
optimistic file locking that would be required in a network environment.
Now start Movie Maker and make any change you like to the collection
file...If Movie Maker does not crash immediately when you restart it, you
will find that it will know nothing about the change you made to the
collection. Movie Maker may even decide as it often does that the
collection is corrupt and it will re-create the file thereby loosing all of
your work.....
How do I know this??? I just did it!!!
Did I really need to do this? NO
Why Not?? because a number of schools in the USA who have spent Money and
effort and time trying to get it to do the things papajohn says it can do
have tried to achieve under his guidance and have failed ...not failed a
little bit...PLAIN FAILED, it does not work...it does not work because
Movie Maker is NOT NETWORK AWARE.
The fact that Movie maker can see an external drive, no matter how that
drive is configured is not an action of Movie Maker, it is simply a
consequence of the fact that the local copy of XP makes it possible....
The result of all of this is that we now have three mvp's and Mr. Brown's
unnamed mvp lead all making themselves look very silly. They are trying by
twisting words to defend papajohn...a lost cause if I ever saw
one....papajohn makes these blunders almost regular enough that you can set
your watch by him.....A Joke, a real "network aware" Joke...perhaps they
should have said, "its sort of network aware"...no that does not work
either, does it?
The only thing that is truly clear is that Mr Brown takes bad advice and
has used his position to enforce an untenable point of view, and the
criteria for selecting mvp's is very low, very low indeed. I feel sorry for
the next poor sole that takes this wondrous advice about Movie Maker being
"network aware"...frankly, it will teach him a lesson if some one sues him
for damages after they fork out money, time and effort based on his advice
and find, as those two schools did, that papajohn's advice when based on
his own knowledge is very bad, and when based on the knowledge gained by
copying messages from people who do know what they are talking about, is
fraught with danger because he has no idea what it actually
means..."network aware" being a reasonably good example.
The next thing to occur, if it has not already today...a user will appear
and praise papajohn's help and advice....you wait and see.....I will put
money on it.
Dan, I am not sure what your point is.....
If the only criteria for being "network aware" then is the fact that it can
see an external hard drive it follows that everything that works on XP is
network aware. I am sure Bill Gates will be over the moon with his staff.
the mvp papajohn has tried a number of times to help at schools in the USA
who having taken the kind of advice he has given in here which is also
supported by an unnamed mvp lead and is also supported by the person dana
(yep another mvp) The advice fails every time because Movie Maker is not in
any manner "network aware"...why not?, because it was never meant to be.
the mvp dana says that server software will take care of movie maker and
its record locking requirements (It needs them otherwise someone else can
move the goal posts with another instance of movie maker) I challenge the
mvp dana to name the server software that can handle the requirements of
Movie Maker. I will then through my Government connections obtain a report
on that software ( I already know what the report will say of course...and
here is why)
Run Windows Explorer, find the collections file for your local copy of
Movie Maker and change the attribute to READ ONLY. This will simulate
optimistic file locking that would be required in a network environment.
Now start Movie Maker and make any change you like to the collection
file...If Movie Maker does not crash immediately when you restart it, you
will find that it will know nothing about the change you made to the
collection. Movie Maker may even decide as it often does that the
collection is corrupt and it will re-create the file thereby loosing all of
your work.....
How do I know this??? I just did it!!!
Did I really need to do this? NO
Why Not?? because a number of schools in the USA who have spent Money and
effort and time trying to get it to do the things papajohn says it can do
have tried to achieve under his guidance and have failed ...not failed a
little bit...PLAIN FAILED, it does not work...it does not work because
Movie Maker is NOT NETWORK AWARE.
The fact that Movie maker can see an external drive, no matter how that
drive is configured is not an action of Movie Maker, it is simply a
consequence of the fact that the local copy of XP makes it possible....
The result of all of this is that we now have three mvp's and Mr. Brown's
unnamed mvp lead all making themselves look very silly. They are trying by
twisting words to defend papajohn...a lost cause if I ever saw
one....papajohn makes these blunders almost regular enough that you can set
your watch by him.....A Joke, a real "network aware" Joke...perhaps they
should have said, "its sort of network aware"...no that does not work
either, does it?
The only thing that is truly clear is that Mr Brown takes bad advice and
has used his position to enforce an untenable point of view, and the
criteria for selecting mvp's is very low, very low indeed. I feel sorry for
the next poor sole that takes this wondrous advice about Movie Maker being
"network aware"...frankly, it will teach him a lesson if some one sues him
for damages after they fork out money, time and effort based on his advice
and find, as those two schools did, that papajohn's advice when based on
his own knowledge is very bad, and when based on the knowledge gained by
copying messages from people who do know what they are talking about, is
fraught with danger because he has no idea what it actually
means..."network aware" being a reasonably good example.
The next thing to occur, if it has not already today...a user will appear
and praise papajohn's help and advice....you wait and see.....I will put
money on it.
D
Dana Cline - MVP
the mvp dana says that server software will take care of movie maker and
Sigh. Read my post. Please. I said _nothing_ about "record locking". What I
said was that the network operating system handles things like permissions
and user-level file locking. "Record locking" is a database feature, not a
"network feature", so has no place in this discussion.
Seems to me you're confusing "network aware" with "multi-user".
Yes, we know all about "twisting words"...
According to J. Bollinger, Institut Fur Computer Systeme, Zurich,
"Applications that can deal with changes in the network environment are
called network-aware. A network-aware application attempts to adjust its
resource demands in response to network performance variations."
By this definition, MM certainly is not network aware.
Tim O'Reilly, at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3422, postulates that
there are more than a handful of criteria that define "network awareness".
MM doesn't seem to meet any of them.
Google had literally hundreds of hits, with those hits offering a
bewildering array of definitions of "network aware". Some of which MM might
meet.
Dana Cline - MVP
its record locking requirements (It needs them otherwise someone else can
move the goal posts with another instance of movie maker) I challenge the
mvp dana to name the server software that can handle the requirements of
Movie Maker.
Sigh. Read my post. Please. I said _nothing_ about "record locking". What I
said was that the network operating system handles things like permissions
and user-level file locking. "Record locking" is a database feature, not a
"network feature", so has no place in this discussion.
Run Windows Explorer, find the collections file for your local copy of
Movie Maker and change the attribute to READ ONLY. This will simulate
optimistic file locking that would be required in a network environment.
Now start Movie Maker and make any change you like to the collection
file...If Movie Maker does not crash immediately when you restart it, you
will find that it will know nothing about the change you made to the
collection. Movie Maker may even decide as it often does that the
collection is corrupt and it will re-create the file thereby loosing all of
your work.....
Seems to me you're confusing "network aware" with "multi-user".
The result of all of this is that we now have three mvp's and Mr. Brown's
unnamed mvp lead all making themselves look very silly. They are trying by
twisting words to defend
Yes, we know all about "twisting words"...
According to J. Bollinger, Institut Fur Computer Systeme, Zurich,
"Applications that can deal with changes in the network environment are
called network-aware. A network-aware application attempts to adjust its
resource demands in response to network performance variations."
By this definition, MM certainly is not network aware.
Tim O'Reilly, at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3422, postulates that
there are more than a handful of criteria that define "network awareness".
MM doesn't seem to meet any of them.
Google had literally hundreds of hits, with those hits offering a
bewildering array of definitions of "network aware". Some of which MM might
meet.
Dana Cline - MVP
J
John Kelly
Sigh Sigh Sigh ???
Yes I actually meant file locking, but for it to work properly it will also
need record locking inside the collection file!!! and record locking within
the small database that is otherwise referred to as THE COLLECTIONS is
required!!! Its one of the reasons that the schools could not make the
program work within a network environment...
No, the use of the program across a network implies multi user, otherwise
what is the point please tell. It can only run on XP so why would you want
to run it across a network if not to give access to it for multiple users,
the way the schools wanted to do following advice from the one guy who has
not got the guts to defend his own remarks!!!! . I think we have already
dispensed with the myth that just because it sees a drive made available by
the OS that does not make the program network aware...by any measure that I
or a good many current professionals would use
Ah yes, now we are once again on the run we have your second insult...the
first was in your prior message when you laughingly told me not to attack
the person and then followed it up with the statement I could only see black
and white. Explain what you mean by twisted words...you are implying I
assume that I have twisted some words somewhere...please show where I have
once deviated from the statement that Movie Maker is NOT network aware.
Well what do you know??? You found someone who does not agree with you...do
I take it that you are therefore prepared to actually admit that movie maker
is not network aware, will you pass that small gem on the Mr. Brown, will we
now see a retraction by the mvp papajohn???
Name any one, but surely the directness of your first statement must have
been made from knowledge, Yes? or are you now admitting that your whole
agenda was in fact to continue the debate even though you know nothing on
the subject. I did not hear any denial when I stated that you had clearly
been tutored in what to say...even though, from memory, one of the things
you asked was to do with TCP/IP and not networks...LOL You really should
brush up on things before deciding to say anything
You are now reduced to maybe's if's and perhaps's....I still await your
reply to the question of which server software as described by you a few
messages back that could look after the needs of Movie Maker
To those people who have a passable knowledge of the subject, you did very
badly, believe me, very very badly.
To those who know nothing of the subject, they will wonder about your last
message and mine and then they will start to wonder about MVP's in general.
That will be a pity. I have conversed with several very knowledgeable MVP's
and I am sure they will not care for their status to be damaged in the way
you, papajohn, denny, an unnamed mvp lead and Mr Brown and Mr Eddy and the
PRATT JACK have conducted themselves, and not been reprimanded. Actually
Mr. Eddy is now the clear winner at poor performance, once again allowing
the flaming to get way out of order and quite clearly contrary to the rules
he claims apply.
Again, you have failed to cover yourself in any kind of glory.
Perhaps you now realise, like it or not, that when it seemed that Mr. Brown
was going to ask me to join as an MVP I told him that as long as people
like papajohn were MVP's there was no way I would consider it. It now seems
that the mvp program is worse than I realised.
Maybe when papajohn the now infamous mvp picks up a book and does some
reading instead of trying to publish one himself, he will have the courage
to defend himself and his remarks gained by the knowledge he will acquire
by reading a proper book. I cannot imagine what it is that drives a person
in such a way as to make him run and hide at the very first sign of a
challenge. I can understand why you would want to defend one of your
own....nepotism is it?? its similar if not exactly so.
"network aware" Ha!!!
Sigh. Read my post. Please. I said _nothing_ about "record locking". What
I
said was that the network operating system handles things like permissions
and user-level file locking. "Record locking" is a database feature, not a
"network feature", so has no place in this discussion.
Yes I actually meant file locking, but for it to work properly it will also
need record locking inside the collection file!!! and record locking within
the small database that is otherwise referred to as THE COLLECTIONS is
required!!! Its one of the reasons that the schools could not make the
program work within a network environment...
Seems to me you're confusing "network aware" with "multi-user".
No, the use of the program across a network implies multi user, otherwise
what is the point please tell. It can only run on XP so why would you want
to run it across a network if not to give access to it for multiple users,
the way the schools wanted to do following advice from the one guy who has
not got the guts to defend his own remarks!!!! . I think we have already
dispensed with the myth that just because it sees a drive made available by
the OS that does not make the program network aware...by any measure that I
or a good many current professionals would use
Yes, we know all about "twisting words"...
Ah yes, now we are once again on the run we have your second insult...the
first was in your prior message when you laughingly told me not to attack
the person and then followed it up with the statement I could only see black
and white. Explain what you mean by twisted words...you are implying I
assume that I have twisted some words somewhere...please show where I have
once deviated from the statement that Movie Maker is NOT network aware.
Tim O'Reilly, at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3422, postulates that
there are more than a handful of criteria that define "network awareness".
MM doesn't seem to meet any of them.
Well what do you know??? You found someone who does not agree with you...do
I take it that you are therefore prepared to actually admit that movie maker
is not network aware, will you pass that small gem on the Mr. Brown, will we
now see a retraction by the mvp papajohn???
Google had literally hundreds of hits, with those hits offering a
bewildering array of definitions of "network aware". Some of which MM
might
meet.
Name any one, but surely the directness of your first statement must have
been made from knowledge, Yes? or are you now admitting that your whole
agenda was in fact to continue the debate even though you know nothing on
the subject. I did not hear any denial when I stated that you had clearly
been tutored in what to say...even though, from memory, one of the things
you asked was to do with TCP/IP and not networks...LOL You really should
brush up on things before deciding to say anything
You are now reduced to maybe's if's and perhaps's....I still await your
reply to the question of which server software as described by you a few
messages back that could look after the needs of Movie Maker
To those people who have a passable knowledge of the subject, you did very
badly, believe me, very very badly.
To those who know nothing of the subject, they will wonder about your last
message and mine and then they will start to wonder about MVP's in general.
That will be a pity. I have conversed with several very knowledgeable MVP's
and I am sure they will not care for their status to be damaged in the way
you, papajohn, denny, an unnamed mvp lead and Mr Brown and Mr Eddy and the
PRATT JACK have conducted themselves, and not been reprimanded. Actually
Mr. Eddy is now the clear winner at poor performance, once again allowing
the flaming to get way out of order and quite clearly contrary to the rules
he claims apply.
Again, you have failed to cover yourself in any kind of glory.
Perhaps you now realise, like it or not, that when it seemed that Mr. Brown
was going to ask me to join as an MVP I told him that as long as people
like papajohn were MVP's there was no way I would consider it. It now seems
that the mvp program is worse than I realised.
Maybe when papajohn the now infamous mvp picks up a book and does some
reading instead of trying to publish one himself, he will have the courage
to defend himself and his remarks gained by the knowledge he will acquire
by reading a proper book. I cannot imagine what it is that drives a person
in such a way as to make him run and hide at the very first sign of a
challenge. I can understand why you would want to defend one of your
own....nepotism is it?? its similar if not exactly so.
"network aware" Ha!!!
J
John Kelly
Hello Mr. Brown,
With regard to your publicly made comments as a Microsoft Employee in your
attempt to defend the mvp papajohn....another of your mvp's kindly provided
the following information...
the mvp dana wrote...............
According to J. Bollinger, Institut Fur Computer Systeme, Zurich,
"Applications that can deal with changes in the network environment are
called network-aware. A network-aware application attempts to adjust its
resource demands in response to network performance variations."
By this definition, MM certainly is not network aware.
Tim O'Reilly, at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3422, postulates that
there are more than a handful of criteria that define "network awareness".
MM doesn't seem to meet any of them.
Can we now have a retraction of both your remarks and those of papajohn?
I think its about time you came clean on this, a lot of your customers are
being misled.
With regard to your publicly made comments as a Microsoft Employee in your
attempt to defend the mvp papajohn....another of your mvp's kindly provided
the following information...
the mvp dana wrote...............
According to J. Bollinger, Institut Fur Computer Systeme, Zurich,
"Applications that can deal with changes in the network environment are
called network-aware. A network-aware application attempts to adjust its
resource demands in response to network performance variations."
By this definition, MM certainly is not network aware.
Tim O'Reilly, at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3422, postulates that
there are more than a handful of criteria that define "network awareness".
MM doesn't seem to meet any of them.
Can we now have a retraction of both your remarks and those of papajohn?
I think its about time you came clean on this, a lot of your customers are
being misled.
J
John Kelly
hello Mr. Eddy,
With regard to your implied insult....I take great exception to your
comments and look forward to an apology in here and quite quickly...in the
meantime one of your mvp's DANA wrote....
According to J. Bollinger, Institut Fur Computer Systeme, Zurich,
"Applications that can deal with changes in the network environment are
called network-aware. A network-aware application attempts to adjust its
resource demands in response to network performance variations."
By this definition, MM certainly is not network aware.
Tim O'Reilly, at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3422, postulates that
there are more than a handful of criteria that define "network awareness".
MM doesn't seem to meet any of them.
From this you can see that I AM CORRECT, all of your bully boys are
INCORRECT and nothing they did has changed my view.
With regard to your implied insult....I take great exception to your
comments and look forward to an apology in here and quite quickly...in the
meantime one of your mvp's DANA wrote....
According to J. Bollinger, Institut Fur Computer Systeme, Zurich,
"Applications that can deal with changes in the network environment are
called network-aware. A network-aware application attempts to adjust its
resource demands in response to network performance variations."
By this definition, MM certainly is not network aware.
Tim O'Reilly, at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3422, postulates that
there are more than a handful of criteria that define "network awareness".
MM doesn't seem to meet any of them.
From this you can see that I AM CORRECT, all of your bully boys are
INCORRECT and nothing they did has changed my view.
J
John Kelly
Hello Again,
I should have also made the following comment in my last message to you.
The reason this message thread became what it is, is due to the lack of
administration and those friends of papajohn together with all of their
non-relevant comments. It is abundantly clear to anyone who chooses to read
all of this message thread that only one other person decided to actually
discus my comments and to research them...we now know that the results of
that research confirm that my initial remarks are 100% accurate. If your
Mr. Brown did what I imagine his job is a newsgroup administrator there
would have been a quick and perhaps friendly result in which papajohn
would have withdrawn his statement, instead, and I have made this comment
before, none of your staff and none of the mvp's (with the exception
perhaps of Dana) have covered them selves in any kind of glory.
Do you think the time has arrived when you should deal with these staff
members? Do you think its time Mr. Eddy should deal with the idiots who
tried by issuing vulgar and misguided comments, like "Jack", "FU", "Him"
etc etc
Is it going to be the case that next time some one dares to contradict the
mvp papajohn that we are going to have a repeat performance? Would you find
that satisfactory?
I should have also made the following comment in my last message to you.
The reason this message thread became what it is, is due to the lack of
administration and those friends of papajohn together with all of their
non-relevant comments. It is abundantly clear to anyone who chooses to read
all of this message thread that only one other person decided to actually
discus my comments and to research them...we now know that the results of
that research confirm that my initial remarks are 100% accurate. If your
Mr. Brown did what I imagine his job is a newsgroup administrator there
would have been a quick and perhaps friendly result in which papajohn
would have withdrawn his statement, instead, and I have made this comment
before, none of your staff and none of the mvp's (with the exception
perhaps of Dana) have covered them selves in any kind of glory.
Do you think the time has arrived when you should deal with these staff
members? Do you think its time Mr. Eddy should deal with the idiots who
tried by issuing vulgar and misguided comments, like "Jack", "FU", "Him"
etc etc
Is it going to be the case that next time some one dares to contradict the
mvp papajohn that we are going to have a repeat performance? Would you find
that satisfactory?
D
Dana Cline - MVP
With regard to your implied insult....I take great exception to your
He forgot to mention the rest of my quote...that a google search for
"network aware" turns up a bewildering array of definitions, all different,
including some that MovieMaker might meet. So, it appears there is not a
specific definition that all can agree on. That point was conveniently
ignored.
Dana Cline - MVP
comments and look forward to an apology in here and quite quickly...in the
meantime one of your mvp's DANA wrote....
He forgot to mention the rest of my quote...that a google search for
"network aware" turns up a bewildering array of definitions, all different,
including some that MovieMaker might meet. So, it appears there is not a
specific definition that all can agree on. That point was conveniently
ignored.
Dana Cline - MVP
J
John Kelly
There is no convenient forgetting of any thing, you made a remark that falls
into the wishful thinking category. Your previous remarks are quite
clear......
Two leading authorities are quite clear that Movie Maker can not be
considered a network aware program....are you now going to suggest that
somewhere there might be a contrary opinion if only you could find it,
perhaps maybe, if the wind is in the right direction, or, because you are an
mvp and embarrased to be so known????
You lot of mvp's are getting more and more stupid as time goes by...for gods
sake what is wrong with you...Do you want to withdraw your remarks about the
first two authorities statements...you are.....I cant say it here...I think
you know what I am thinking...for gods sake...you shot yourself and papajohn
and mr brown in the foot, as well as all the other morons who added their
little contribution...now go away and live with it. You proved my point
better than I had, I did not need to go look for proof one way or
another...I already knew the remark was stupid as were the people who tried
to support it.
Additional Qualification for being an mvp.......inability to accept they are
ever wrong.....put this one at the top of the list...
into the wishful thinking category. Your previous remarks are quite
clear......
Two leading authorities are quite clear that Movie Maker can not be
considered a network aware program....are you now going to suggest that
somewhere there might be a contrary opinion if only you could find it,
perhaps maybe, if the wind is in the right direction, or, because you are an
mvp and embarrased to be so known????
You lot of mvp's are getting more and more stupid as time goes by...for gods
sake what is wrong with you...Do you want to withdraw your remarks about the
first two authorities statements...you are.....I cant say it here...I think
you know what I am thinking...for gods sake...you shot yourself and papajohn
and mr brown in the foot, as well as all the other morons who added their
little contribution...now go away and live with it. You proved my point
better than I had, I did not need to go look for proof one way or
another...I already knew the remark was stupid as were the people who tried
to support it.
Additional Qualification for being an mvp.......inability to accept they are
ever wrong.....put this one at the top of the list...
J
John Kelly
Hello again,
Exactly what are you an mvp of?
Exactly what are you an mvp of?
D
Dana Cline - MVP
No, the use of the program across a network implies multi user, otherwise
To me, network aware does Not Imply multi-user capabilities. I see the two
as separate and distinct.
Not twisting your words...twisting (in particular) quotes from my posts.
Where you take a snippet that by itself supports your position while
ignoring the rest of the remark when it does not support your position.
No, as I stated in the beginning, my agenda was to attempt to find out just
what exactly "network aware" meant. All I found is that it means different
things to different people. Name one? OK, by some definitions, the fact that
the program can use a UNC path makes it network aware. Happy?
I must have missed that...was that the message that was mysteriously deleted
after one response? To set your mind at ease, I have not been tutored in
what to say to you. There is no conspiracy, no grand collaboration going on
behind the scenes.
I'll repeat my statement since the details matter here. Network operating
system software handles file locking and user permissions. Period. In
particular, I'm thinking about NT and its siblings although Linux also
supports it. Record locking is NOT handled by the OS...but SQL Server
handles record locking just fine, so it must be network aware, right?
Well, we only have your word for that. No one else has chipped in pro or
con...
Which is fine as I didn't come here for glory.
I'm sure PapaJohn is perfectly capable of defending himself if he desires.
Me, I just came for enlightenment. Which I have achieved.
Dana Cline - MVP
what is the point please tell.
To me, network aware does Not Imply multi-user capabilities. I see the two
as separate and distinct.
Explain what you mean by twisted words...you are implying I
assume that I have twisted some words somewhere...please show where I have
once deviated from the statement that Movie Maker is NOT network aware.
Not twisting your words...twisting (in particular) quotes from my posts.
Where you take a snippet that by itself supports your position while
ignoring the rest of the remark when it does not support your position.
Name any one, but surely the directness of your first statement must have
been made from knowledge, Yes? or are you now admitting that your whole
agenda was in fact to continue the debate even though you know nothing on
the subject.
No, as I stated in the beginning, my agenda was to attempt to find out just
what exactly "network aware" meant. All I found is that it means different
things to different people. Name one? OK, by some definitions, the fact that
the program can use a UNC path makes it network aware. Happy?
I did not hear any denial when I stated that you had clearly
been tutored in what to say...even though, from memory, one of the things
you asked was to do with TCP/IP and not networks
I must have missed that...was that the message that was mysteriously deleted
after one response? To set your mind at ease, I have not been tutored in
what to say to you. There is no conspiracy, no grand collaboration going on
behind the scenes.
You are now reduced to maybe's if's and perhaps's....I still await your
reply to the question of which server software as described by you a few
messages back that could look after the needs of Movie Maker
I'll repeat my statement since the details matter here. Network operating
system software handles file locking and user permissions. Period. In
particular, I'm thinking about NT and its siblings although Linux also
supports it. Record locking is NOT handled by the OS...but SQL Server
handles record locking just fine, so it must be network aware, right?
To those people who have a passable knowledge of the subject, you did very
badly, believe me, very very badly.
Well, we only have your word for that. No one else has chipped in pro or
con...
Again, you have failed to cover yourself in any kind of glory.
Which is fine as I didn't come here for glory.
I can understand why you would want to defend one of your
own....nepotism is it?? its similar if not exactly so.
I'm sure PapaJohn is perfectly capable of defending himself if he desires.
Me, I just came for enlightenment. Which I have achieved.
Dana Cline - MVP