"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-31 23:16:12 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

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

Once they realised how dreadfully slow connection oriented was and that it
was unnecessary anyway.

Matt, no. It was in the original concept.

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.

There were all kinds of people on them. The problem was that through
having to use lengthy and bureaucratic procedures, progress was incredibly
slow.

Nope. The IBMers slowed everything down nit-picking a small point in a
layer for ever more. They deliberately were dragging their feet.

The market moved on and left them behind.

The market was way behind. Only the Internet and www took off like a
rocket, mainly the www. That sealed it as there was too much of the TCP/IP
crap around.

Uncle Sam was going OSI.

Not for very long.

After the www skyrocketed, Sam dropped it.

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

Quite a number of large companies used X.25 because that was a standard
telco offering and could be used internally as well.

It worked, was seamless and was fast enough for the time. The all knew it
had to go, and frame relay (X.24 without the checking to make it faster),
etc were implemented too. Many organisation are still on X.25 and replaced
with faster hardware. They have no problems at all on faster speeds and
have no desires to change over.

There was an initial assumption that it would migrate, in modified form to
more substantial networks. This never went anywhere because progress was
too slow and the market passed it all by.

The 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.

No it wouldn't. IP based networks were well established before Mr
Berners-Lee came along.

You are slow. They were to be replaced by OSI in major organisations and
makers would push OSI too, then private users would adopt OSI as they went
along, but www/Internet used TCP/IP. Companies like REtix had off the shelf
OSI stacks for ethernet, token ring, token bus, for UNIX boxes and PCs
runing Windows too (well DOS then was doing the work). OSI wasn't
implemented fast enough because the Internet wasn't regarded as that
important at the time. The www made it important. Before that it was for
nerds and fellas with beards and mussies.