> Today we have transparent proxies, reverse caches, global DNS redirectors, > and all sorts of other amusing Things. You can say they're not part of the > architecture. But what does it mean? They're there because the > functionality needs to be there and otherwise wasn't. The same could be > said about NATs, as bad as they are. Remember Ritchie's famous quote, "you > can fill a void and it could still suck"? The fact is X is here as opposed > to something better. no argument about that. so now that these things are here and we understand their deficiencies, let's work on something better! Keith
- "redesign[ing] the architecture of the... Sean Doran
- Re: "redesign[ing] the architectu... Keith Moore
- Re: "redesign[ing] the archit... Dave Crocker
- Re: "redesign[ing] the architectu... Eliot Lear
- Re: "redesign[ing] the archit... Keith Moore
- Re: "redesign[ing] the architectu... Vernon Schryver
- Re: "redesign[ing] the architectu... Vernon Schryver
- Re: "redesign[ing] the archit... Keith Moore
- Re: "redesign[ing] the architectu... Eliot Lear
- Re: "redesign[ing] the archit... Keith Moore
- Re: "redesign[ing] the architectu... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: "redesign[ing] the archit... Keith Moore
- Re: "redesign[ing] the architectu... Bob Braden
- Re: "redesign[ing] the architectu... narakamath