The Myth Of Linux Community Support. 964
The keyboard and mouse inputs, and the application output is transferred
The Myth Of Linux Community Support. 967
An example that illustrates and supports an argument that is not under debate, in order to divert attention from the real argument, is most certainly a strawman. Haha! No it isn't...
The file system engine on the remote machine receives files to be saved and makes files or parts of files available to the remote machine. The protocol might be, say, nfs. Machine 'a' runs an nfs server, which converts nfs requests to the native filesystem available on the machine 'a', and answers and receives requests and data. Machine 'b' runs an nfs client, and sends and receives data and requests.
Insults - because you don't understand. There is aboslutely no fundamental difference here, but only if you understand networking, protocol stacks and how computers really work.
The Myth Of Linux Community Support. 965
It fits perfectly. "2. straw man, strawman -- (a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted)" That I-O is not under discussion...
If you can't see that they are the same thing, you have no business in networking.
The Myth Of Linux Community Support. 966
It does not mean 'example', which is why your usage is incorrect. Haha! Yes it is. Here's a clue for you: It needs xlibs, otherwise it cannot run the application and send the io...
You call this a strawman. Okay, perhaps you can tell me what you can do on a network which is *not* moving data between nodes.
I'll give you a hand, you can use connection oriented or connectionless networks - I don't mind which, in your examples.
Ahh - insults again. You have failed to address a single point which I've made, or answer a single question. You've used the word 'strawman' against even the most generic statements, which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the word strawman, as well as showing your lack of grasp in networking.
I've spent a lifetime designing global telecoms networks, and regularly get to meet people who think it's a lot more complicated than it is. This is usually because they lack a fundamental understanding, such that every new technology which comes along seems different. They're typically not much different at all, unless you don't understand how they really work, then they seem like magic. You appear to think that there's some magical difference here between two types of protocol.
-- Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk Cobol programmers are down in the dumps.