Re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>

    > if Microsoft in particular were to commit to including a host-based
    > solution in the next version _and_ back-porting it to prior versions
    > via Windows Update. Without that commitment, I view any solution that
    > _requires_ host changes to be infeasible.

You can drop the "Without that commitment". It's very simple:

  Any solution that *requires* host changes is infeasible.

End of story.

(For one, earler versions of Windows don't use/support Windows Update, and a
lot of people have it turned off anyway, from paranoia/prudence/whatever. But
just in general, there's a lot of old stuff out there, not just Windows.)


    > I would not object to a solution that had _optional_ host changes that
    > improved performance, though.

This is the obvious strategy. The support for unmodified hosts has to work
(and note, "work" != "work well"), but for most new capabilities, it's
reasonable to say that you have to update your stuff to gain access to those
new capabilities.

	Noel

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg