[Smaug] Zero tolerance for P2P?

CERisE...mass consumer of bazooka gum cerise at littlegreenmen.armory.com
Sun, 12 May 2002 01:58:52 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 11 May 2002, Rick Moen wrote:

> Indeed.  So, for example, two MS-Windows 98 boxes might in that sense
> both be regarded as "servers", in that they can both publish SMB/CIFS.
> Thus, peers:  Peer-to-peer, in contrast to the client-server model.
> > That is not P2P by definition.
> Folks, this guy is saying that one MS-Windows 98 box pulling files off
> another MS-Windows 98 box isn't peer-to-peer.  And he _doesn't_ appear
> to be joking.  And I don't believe it's a full moon.
> Where do we _get_ these people?

   Your idiocy is astounding.
   Server: A computer which acts to handle requests for resources for a
client or clients.
   Client: A computer which wishes to use another computer's resources.
   SMB: _Server_ message block.
   Server using SMB.  Client using the SMB protocol.  Files are sent
server to client.  There is a clear hierarchy.
   Really, you might as well claim that all transactions are therefore
peer to peer.  After all, the only thing stopping my Wyse 60 from serving
anything to my computer is its lack of resources.  Wait a second!  Of
course!  It *is* serving keystrokes.  It's a server!  My termimnal is a
   Now back to your regularly scheduled reality.  A server is a server.  A
client is a client.  They're well defined in SMB.  If you don't believe
so, Rick, then you ought to read up.  If I'm not mistaken, that's 3 OSes
which you've professed ability in and clearly demonstrated the opposite.
   Save the group some messages, Rick.  When you write back indignantly,
say it to my email instead of the whole group.