Has anyone else seen WinSock Error 10055 WSAENOBUFS when working with .NET Remoting? 

.NET is a great abstraction layer, arguably the best, but I tell ya, I spend more time with Packet Sniffers and running around at the levels of:

A. Threading
2. Sockets

than I ever used to...it feels like these two core OS areas are being stressed more now that .NET enables us to built software bigger, better, faster.  Our abstraction layer is creaking under the heavy load of either my creativity or my ignorance.

In a glorious follow up to the Cringely Quasi-Punditry Fiasco, yet another lame editoral has been written.  A weak editorial with ridiculous conclusions published by an uninformed insta-pundit on the crowning social acheivement of mankind, the Internet?  Yes, it's true! 

Carl Franklin mentioned today (yes, legendary Internet D.J. "NET Rocks" Carl Franklin) that he was a bit disgusted with a quote from a one-page article called "Te.Netive" (lame title, IMHO, like a bad vanity license plate that you spend too much time thinking about) Opportunities by Greg Gonzalez in the January 2003 issue of Developer Market News ("Resources & Solutions for Technology Marketing Professionals").  It came in the mail to him today. 
 
Gonzalez is comparing Java to .NET in a broad way, and arrives at this conclusion:

"Microsoft chose, in its feature-rich and all-inclusive way, to accommodate virtually all languages in its CLR. Many older high-level languages, like C, inherently let the programmer do whatever she wants to do in memory. So to be compatible (with languages like C), Microsoft decided to allow a wide-open memory model. So, .Net is, by nature, vulnerable to attack."

Carl and I agree is just wrong, and shows a great ignorance on the part of the author.  Carl was going to write a letter to the publisher.  But he says he'd rather send several.  Please visit Carl's site and send him any responses you may have to this letter, and he'll forward them appropriately.