• To: "Jeff Lowery" <jlowery@s...>
• Subject: Re: RE: Is there a technical issue?
• From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@h...>
• Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:39:21 -0500
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <879123D97A01D711B0F500508B4464E4027747@g...>
• Reply-to: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@h...>

> So, I go home, replace the bulb.  But I just spent $6, wasted time and gas,
> just because some dimbulb engineer decided a phillips head screw just wasn't
> the ticket. No, had to be torx.

The same arguments were made against phillips head screws when they were
introduced.  Torx greatly aids manufacturing.  The surface area within the Torx
socket is much greater than phillips and allen types.  This means it'll be a lot
more forgiving during manufacture and most future repair intervals.  Torx is now
well over 20 years old yet some folks still don't get it.  Parallels to XML are
certainly apt.  And buying a crappy set of cheap Torx tools is also apt.  Using
crappy XML tools...

> But my old phillips will still work until the day I die.

Blasphemy!  Slotted-head screws RULE!  <grin/>

• References:
  • RE: Is there a technical issue?
    • From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Is there a technical issue?
• Next by Date: Re: bohemians, gentry
• Previous by thread: RE: Is there a technical issue?
• Next by thread: RE: Is there a technical issue?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread