Subj : Re: Lightweight application
To   : comp.programming
From : Randy Howard
Date : Wed Aug 24 2005 12:27 am

HoopsBhoy wrote
(in article 
<1124836790.202647.23370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

> 
> Randy Howard wrote:
>> hoopsbhoy67@aol.com wrote
>> (in article
>> <1124822431.237493.326600@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>> 
>>> Cheers, so that's low memory useage on the server. That's a start :)
>>> 
>> 
>> If you are going to use google on Usenet, at least learn how to
>> use the interface so that context is not lost in your replies.
> 
> OK Usenet Nazi!

Just trying to help /you/ express yourself in a way that your 
readers would benefit.  I apologize if that was not your intent.

>> The 3GB number I used originally was not meant to be taken
>> seriously.
> 
> Well duh!

Then why did you appear to agree with it?

>> The real answer of what "lightweight" is depends upon the user
>> of the term, and the moving target of the underlying hardware
>> and system loads.  The typical approach is to just have your
>> marketing department use the term ceaselessly until people start
>> laughing at you, then you aren't lightweight after all.
>> 
> 
> Cheers for the unhelpful comments! You Usenet guys are ace!!

No need to be childish about it.  You asked a question, which 
you yourself admitted probably didn't have any concrete answers, 
then get upset when you get some.  What /are/ you looking for 
anyway?

If you can not express yourself clearly, it's hardly surprising 
that we can not determine how to respond.




-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

.