[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gzz] 22nd (hh)
From: |
hemppah |
Subject: |
Re: [Gzz] 22nd (hh) |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:37:26 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1 |
Quoting Tuomas Lukka <address@hidden>:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:13:45AM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> > Quoting Tuomas Lukka <address@hidden>:
> >
> >
> > > > One thing also which came in my mind another day was that perhaps I
> > > should
> > > > critical perspective when evaluating existing p2p systems. By doing
> that,
> > > > there should not be so much pages in M.T. (not a review). Comments ?
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.
> > >
> >
> > Ah, words missing again. Sorry for that.
> >
> > I simply meant that perhaps I should take a more critical perspective on
> > existing p2p systems instead of doing a review-like summary of existing
> systems
> > (e.g. what is good, what is bad and why etc.) ?
>
> What's the difference?
>
Perhaps there could less pages in M.T. ;).
To be serious, as I said last friday I found quite similar paper from the net as
my M.T is. The paper which I found *is* review-like summary of existing p2p
systems. I just thought that it would be benefitical thing to look things from
*another* perspective.
But on the another hand, the difference between (deep) review and critical
analysis might be quite insignificant.
-Hermanni
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/