Maarten Koopmans wrote: >Hi Petr, > >I don't want just positive reports, but the thing is that I was pretty sure >that it was not Rugby, and well, I am sort of proud of it, so I kind of.... >well you read it. > >You are right, I was not nice at least, sorry.... >Did you win with ice hockey ? ;-) > No, we saved our win for the final match ;-)
>I don't get why you have to change things now. >Rugby/http uses (and always has) rebols standard read, so... > hmm, I will try once again tomorrow. I don't know why is bypass ommited if I have "127.0.0.1" specified in my user.r file. However - I got one error with Rugby today, and the port output showed host number of my local IP, but not 127.0.0.1. But I am not 100% sure now, so I will try to test tomorrow once again. >I don't know what is going on. System administration in your company? >[I know we suffer from that sometimes] > Yes, I know. I was just suprised that I ran four interpreters from the same directory, using the same config user.r file. >httpr simply does open/copy/close, so... > I will try once again tomorrow morning .... >I don't understand Holger's reply regarding Rugby's architecture. Don't they >advertise with the fact that all scripts run the same on all platforms? > Well, it was not like that. From what I remember Holger was saying something like there is no difference in TCP layer inside Rebol, so it has to be a) Rugby b) OS. And I think it is definitely OS. W9x has imo delayed ACK, and if Rebol is internally sending only one packet at a time, OS waits a) till the timeout period runs out b) till the second packet arrives .... and only then sends ACK ... But I can be wrong, so don't draw any conclusion yet ... It would be interesting though, if more folks could run proposed Rugby test using W9x systems .... Cheers, -pekr- >--Maarten > -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
