"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-31 22:28:52 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-31 16:34:27 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

One version split it into the 7 layer OSI stack, when it looked as
if OSI was going to be the way forward, which it was and should have
been.

Another blunder. You seem not to know the difference between the OSI
*model* and the ISO *stack*.

Matt, you haven't a clue. I have had this with you a long time ago and
it was clear you didn't have a clue about OSI.

Actually, you just demonstrated

Matt, it is clear you haven't a clue, or half at best. OSI was primarily
a "connectionless" protocol, which you didn't know.

More rubbish.

Matt...no......

Its selling point was that it was connectionless. No handshake, which
takes time and resources, you just send. It anticipated reliable fast
infrastructure. Although at the last minute they brought out a
connection oriented protocol for situations where a handshake was
essential.

This is complete tosh.

Matt...no......

The situation was exactly the opposite way around.

Matt...no......

Most of the OSI devotees came from telco backgrounds and the use of X.25.

Matt...no......

They naturally gravitated towards a connection oriented protocol

Matt...no...... Conectionless was one of the key points.

Performance was poor

At the time because of the poor infrastructure, which everyone knew was
being upgraded by the minute.

very clearly that the boot is on the other foot.

Lord Hall's or Matt's foot?

Matt, there was as all the governments and the EU were pushing it. Even
in the US NISK were involved.

That would certainly have killed it if the committees hadn't.

The committees had scum like IBM on them, which they should not have had.

Then an inferior TCP/IP was adopted which didn't have enough scope for
all the addresses, as it was a cobbled together improvise in the first
place.

That is also rubbish.

Nonsense Matt. Read Tenambaum, well the earlier versions. All sorts of
clever IP address jiggery pokery was formulated to keep the crock going.
The only people who pushed TCP/IP were private companies who had a vested
interest in keeping OSI out.

Like the U.S. Department of Defense for example. When did Uncle Sam
outsource that to private enterprise?

Uncle Sam was going OSI.

TCP/IP was put together in Snowbird near Salt Lake City. I've been to the
hotel where a bunch of students zipped up this inadequate 5 layer stack
on backs of envelopes. OSI was deemed to be carrying too much baggage in
the headers ay the time.

... and so it does. This is why it is so little used. Some telephone
switch equipment still uses it, but it's unusual to find it other than
that.

It was used by BMW extensively, British government departments used it too,
along with European and US..

Today with high speed networks this is not a problem. It was stated that
it would be fine when infrastructure caught up. You could also have null
layers if you liked to speed it up.

Th rapid spread of the Internet and the w.w.w., which had not adopted OSI
as it was still being implemeted in various government departments and
had not quite reached the rest, killed OSI. Nothing else. It was too
late to turn back the TCP/IP protocol. If the www had been two years
later it probably would have had an OSI protocol stack.

No it wouldn't.

It would have.