Au contraire! I have no personal experience with either of these
organizations, but I must object to your logic. Since your specific example
refers to sending e-mail messages, why would you care if the latency for
sending network packets is slightly slower with the other organizations? In
fact, the throughput could actually be higher to the other sites. Your sample
size is decidedly small and statistically not significant.
Despite all the technical mumbo jumbo, your example is analagous to saying
you'd rather sleep with your next door neighbor instead of a hottie who lives
across town because you can get to the former place sooner.
Bob
8-)
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 18:02:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Jonathan Kochmer <jonathan@amazon.com>
Subject: God's service providers (was Re: God's Login
To: KMO <kmo@halcyon.com>
cc: joke@amazon.com
In-Reply-To: <3298E1EC.315A@halcyon.com>
On a similar note: if you're going to email god, and want the best
possible performance, communicate with heaven.com, and not heaven.org or
heaven.net:
jonathan@anaconda[25]>ping heaven.com
PING heaven.com (198.182.200.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 198.182.200.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=246 time=67 ms
64 bytes from 198.182.200.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=246 time=68 ms
64 bytes from 198.182.200.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=246 time=63 ms
64 bytes from 198.182.200.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=246 time=51 ms
jonathan@anaconda[24]>ping heaven.org
PING heaven.org (192.156.196.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.156.196.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=95 ms
64 bytes from 192.156.196.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=244 time=95 ms
64 bytes from 192.156.196.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=244 time=140 ms
64 bytes from 192.156.196.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=244 time=96 ms
jonathan@anaconda[24]>ping heaven.net
PING heaven.net (198.69.28.2): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 198.69.28.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=130 ms
64 bytes from 198.69.28.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=124 ms
64 bytes from 198.69.28.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=127 ms
64 bytes from 198.69.28.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=130 ms