In article , Steve Firth
writes

Are so monumentally stupid that you can't understand what an IP address is?

Yes, he is. This thread is a real laugh; it shows his total lack of
clue with regard to IP addresses and much else besides.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....ad/4c4da291181
461bc/afcc660179faff8c?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#afcc660179 faff8c

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Harassment, stalking, provocation, etc, on the "Internet", which covers
Usenet, is treated with equal seriousness as telephone, letter or
personal face-to-face. It is against the criminal law which the police
enforce. I have sent you a personal email.

I sent an email to:


Which you have now taken off your footer in the past day. The email was
rejected.

This thread has suddenly changed into one of the most amusing ones I've read
for ages. You're displaying an astounding level of stupidity, far beyond
your previous tedious efforts.

I've never met Dave. I've never had any dealings with him. I've got just as
much information as you have about him. Yet I'm willing to bet a reasonable
sum that I can email him - something that you've miserably failed to do.

But why bother? Email is so boring - it means nobody else can laugh at what
you're writing. What was in that personal email?

Please, please call the police. Keep us up to date on the progress of your
case.

clive

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Oh - and please take it further. Sue
me if you wish.

Mr Plowman. Suing is civil law. You are breaking the criminal law. This
was confirmed to me by the police. There are countless threads where you
have no contribution and your only posts are to respond to me in a
provocative manner. This clearly points to harassment, provocation,
etc. A criminal act. What makes it worse, and reinforces the
harassment, is that you have ignored requests to stop your actions.

You are now aware that your actions are against the criminal law, not
civil.


I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you make your complaint. What will
you say when asked for your name?
You are right round the twist of course, but it does raise interesting
issues about whether you can harass someone who doesn't exist in any
real sense of the word. If I lure Dr.Drivel to a secluded spot and beat
his brains in, then I guess any previous online exchanges might have
legal significance but, without his personal details, there is no one to
harass.

In message ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

I have a Prius.

snip senility

I have to snip more senile drivel. Sad but people should not have to
put up this sort of tripe, so snipping is the only way.

If only someone had done that to your father


--
geoff

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , John
Rumm writes

Remember only dribble has had his account kicked for abuse.

Many times.

Not once. I have kicked few ISPs into touch though for poor service or
charging too much.

How is the job at JM uni? Let's hope it stays that way.

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Harassment, stalking, provocation, etc, on the "Internet", which covers
Usenet, is treated with equal seriousness as telephone, letter or
personal face-to-face. It is against the criminal law which the police
enforce. I have sent you a personal email.

I sent an email to:


Which you have now taken off your footer in the past day. The email was
rejected.

This thread has suddenly changed into one of the most amusing ones I've
read for ages. You're displaying an astounding level of stupidity,

...and this man walks around with aname like Clive? Wow!

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Oh - and please take it further. Sue
me if you wish.

Mr Plowman. Suing is civil law. You are breaking the criminal law. This
was confirmed to me by the police. There are countless threads where you
have no contribution and your only posts are to respond to me in a
provocative manner. This clearly points to harassment, provocation, etc.
A criminal act. What makes it worse, and reinforces the harassment, is
that you have ignored requests to stop your actions.

You are now aware that your actions are against the criminal law, not
civil.


I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you make your complaint. What will
you say when asked for your name?
You are right round the twist of course,

...and this one lives in the middle of nowhere by himself. This si what
solitude does.

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

It's quite interesting in an anorak sort of way to look at some posting
statistics to uk.d-i-y over any period of time. For example, the last 14
days. (which my newsreader is set to keep all posts for).

Dribble made:-
280 posts.
103 - being generous - with something to say on the thread or drift.
177 of the 'snip rubbish' etc type with nothing whatsoever about the
thread.

My newsreader shows 490 posts in this thread, with 282 being visible.
The rest have been auto-killfiled; they're all posted by Drivel and his
sockpuppets. The man's a colossal waste of oxygen and disk space.

You are clearly odd. I hope the job at JM uni is going well. Let's keep it
that way. They may like to know what you have been doing on their time and
equipment.

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Firth
writes

Are so monumentally stupid that
you can't understand what an
IP address is?

Yes, he is.

A systems admin man . The know-it-alls who know nothing. No one likes them.

"Clive George" wrote in message
...

I can email him - something that you've miserably failed to do.

Sound was used.

Please, please call the police. Keep us up to date on the progress of your
case.

Find out about the law Clivie. Is that what they call you?

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Mr Plowman I am not joking.

Dribble, you are loosing the plot rapidly. You have single handedly (in
your various alternate personalities) posted more crap to this group
than any other single poster by a clear and large margin.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"raden" wrote in message
...

If only someone had done that to your father

Maxie, that was good one. Where have you been? Magaluf, larger louting?
Spill the beans Maxie.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Mr Plowman I am not joking.

Dribble,

snip total and utter personal abusive nonsense

Chav or John White or whatever you are today, you wouldn't know crap from
wisdom if it slapped you in the face. An Essex trait I suppose.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Mr Plowman I am not joking.

No - you're a joke.

You are not doing yourself any favours, as the police agree that your
actions are unlawful, that span many, many years. It is all there on
Google, which I have taken dumps.

Have you taken 'dumps' of your own replies to my carefully considered and
worded posts to you designed to draw out any knowledge you may have rather
than just internet downloads? The ones which say 'snip drivel' etc?

What you have done is not harmless
banter at all.

Aw, diddums. Get your nurse to kiss you better. If she has a mask handy.

You have taken no heed to decist by a number of group members and one of
your posts openly said you would not and continue in the same manner.

I am my own man and do what *I* like - not what I'm 'told' to do by you or
your sockpuppets.

Harassment, stalking, provocation, etc, on the "Internet", which covers
Usenet, is treated with equal seriousness as telephone, letter or
personal face-to-face. It is against the crimianl law which the police
enfirce.

Let's hope they 'enfirce' it well. The illiterate deserve help as much as
any.

I have sent you a personal email.

I have one from you asking if I've received 'a few' from you, which I've
not. And I treat all mails from those too afraid to give their name as
spam and bin them.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, try management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"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. 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.

very clearly that the boot is on the other foot.

Lord Hall's or Matt's foot?

The ISO protocol stack never really stood a realistic chance of broad
adoption. That became apparent as early as the early to mid 80s.

Balls Matt. It was in vogue and was heavily funded until the w.w.w. came
in.

No it wasn't.

Matt, it was and even after.

There was never any realistic likelihood of widespread ISO protocol
deployment.

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

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.

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. 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.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Oh - and please take it further. Sue
me if you wish.

Mr Plowman. Suing is civil law. You are breaking the criminal law.

Ah - the barrack room lawyer too.

This was confirmed to me by the police.

Then let them take action. I shall have a field day and make sure it's
plastered all over the meja. They love a good laugh.

There are countless threads where you have no contribution and your only
posts are to respond to me in a provocative manner.

Dear boy, for every one where this *might* be the case there will be 10
from you where it definitely is. And to countless others too.

This clearly points to harassment, provocation, etc. A criminal act.

How can you harass someone who doesn't exist? Did you ask the police that?

What makes it worse, and reinforces the harassment, is that you have
ignored requests to stop your actions.

'Requests' from your sockpuppets are treated with the contempt they
deserve. Others are free to killfile my posts - the sensible thing for
anyone to do, if they don't want to read them.

You are now aware that your actions are against the criminal law, not
civil.

I think I'll take that statement in the same vein as all your other posts
- with a *large* pinch of salt. And would be most surprised if the police
even spoke to you given their inability to process real crime.

--
*Gun Control: Use both hands.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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 very clearly that the boot is on the
other foot.


You don't know the difference between OSI and ISO. That is clear.

Boot on other foot or foot in mouth? I think you've managed both here
quite well.



The ISO protocol stack never really stood a realistic chance of broad
adoption. That became apparent as early as the early to mid 80s.

Balls Matt. It was in vogue and was heavily funded until the w.w.w. came in.

No it wasn't. There was never any realistic likelihood of widespread
ISO protocol deployment. The bureaucratic standards committees knocked
most of the nails into its coffin.




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. Use of RFC1918 address space, the handing back
to the registries of large unused blocks of address space and classless
interdomain routing have meant that there is not a short to medium term
issue with IP version 4 address space.

Deployment of IP version 6 is happening but is not of the highest
priority for carriers and ISPs in most parts of the world.

The message
from Huge contains these words:

Every time I defend
Dr Drivel I am accused of being him

That'll be because you *are* him. Everyone, and I mean everyone, else
thinks Drivel is a ****wit.

I may now be in a minority of one but I still don't think Timegoesby is
Dribble, just that he is his brother. There has to be a family
connection because their style is so similar but the questions TGB asks
generally display a level of ignorance and comprehension even deeper
than Dribbles.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...

I may now be in a minority of one

Roger, there is only one of you. Thank God for that. I hope you didn't
breed.

"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.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Oh - and please take it further. Sue
me if you wish.

Mr Plowman. Suing is civil law. You
are breaking the criminal law.

Ah - the barrack room lawyer too.

No. From the police.

This was confirmed to me by the police.

Then let them take action.

They may. They take it very seriously now.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

snip abuse and meandering babble

I have sent you a personal email.

I have one from you asking if I've
received 'a few' from you, which I've
not. And I treat all mails from those
too afraid to give their name as
spam and bin them.

Shame.

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. There are connection based and connectionless network layers.



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.

The situation was exactly the opposite way around. Most of the OSI
devotees came from telco backgrounds and the use of X.25. They
naturally gravitated towards a connection oriented protocol and this is
why 4 out of the 5 TP transport classes require a connection oriented
network layer.
Performance was poor and so TP4 is able to use a connectionless or
connection oriented network layer. Unsurprisingly, TP4 is based on
TCP.




very clearly that the boot is on the other foot.

Lord Hall's or Matt's foot?

The ISO protocol stack never really stood a realistic chance of broad
adoption. That became apparent as early as the early to mid 80s.

Balls Matt. It was in vogue and was heavily funded until the w.w.w. came in.

No it wasn't.

Matt, it was and even after.

There was never any realistic likelihood of widespread ISO protocol deployment.

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.



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?



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.



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.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
They may. They take it very seriously now.

More than anyone on here takes you now I'd guess. You've made yourself a
laughing stock.

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , John
Rumm writes


Remember only dribble has had his account kicked for abuse.


Many times.

I liked the one where (IIRC individual.net) they not only revoked his
account, but posted cancels to all the hundreds of "snip drivel"
messages he had littered the thread with! ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"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.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

I liked the one where (IIRC individual.net) they not only revoked his
account,

Nope Individual started to charge and I wouldn't pay.

You are silly.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

They may. They take it very seriously now.

More than

snip meandering babble

Mr Plowman, once again, "They take it very seriously now". I hope that has
sunk in. It better had. You should not underestimate the seriousness of the
police in these matters theses day. It is clear you though only ISPs had
authority. No, not the case, they step in now and are stamping down, with
new laws on unsocial behaviour, and the Internet is far from exempt.

Please do respond to me. Just stop throwing abuse and babbling. Just let
what I have written sink in. You do yourself no favours.

On 2006-07-31 23:16:12 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...


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.

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



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. The market moved on and left them behind.




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.

Not for very long.



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..

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


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.

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

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
They may. They take it very seriously now.

More than

snip meandering babble

Ok, I've done it.

--
*The most common name in the world is Mohammed *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Doctor Drivel wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

I liked the one where (IIRC individual.net) they not only revoked his
account,


Nope Individual started to charge and I wouldn't pay.

Funny how they canceled all your posts like they do for all the other
spammers.

Why did dfncis.de kick you then?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

I liked the one where (IIRC individual.net) they not only revoked his
account,

Nope, Individual started to charge and I wouldn't pay.

Funny how they canceled all your posts like they do for all the other
spammers.

They probably did to all who wouldn't pay.

Why did dfncis.de kick you then?

No one kicked me off anything. I wouldn't pay. No one has ever kicked me
off anything.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:15:08 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

He come from where they used to make Dysons you know.

If you mean me, then I don't come from anywhere near where they used to
make Dysons.

On 2006-08-01 00:44:49 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"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.

Wrong.



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.

Nit picking is the inevitable outcome of committees, government
involvement and attempts at international standardisation. The
procedures are inevitably lengthy. It is not reasonable to lay that at
the door of IBM or any other individual participant.



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.

Not quite. The main reason was that the OSI protocol suite was going
to be "two years away" since about 1986. The U.S. government DoD
attempted to mandate it in the form of GOSIP for all environments from
1990 onwards. That never happened and so the first bodge was to come
up with something that would allow OSI to be run over TCP/IP.
Realistically that was never going to work in any useful way and so
attempts were made to incorporate TCP/IP features into OSI - TP4 is one
example of that (note that it can run on a *connectionless* network
layer. Finally, NIST suggested that the DoD drop the "OSI only"
requirement in 1994.

Essentially, this was a political fudge that saved red faces among
those that had embarked on the OSI bandwagon, allowing them to change
position.

WWW substantial growth was from 1993 onwards, and may have been one
contributor to the demise of OSI in US government use, but it is clear
that the main reason was the continuing delays and lack of
deliverability of anything from the OSI committees.




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.

Rubbish. There is very little X.25 left in corporate networks any
longer. There is still quite a lot of frame relay, but that is
disappearing rapidly as telcos migrate customers to alternative
technologies.




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.

This was all completely theoretical because of lack of performance and
deliverability.


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).

All of which is irrelevant because it never went anywhere.



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.

OSI wasn't implemented fast enough because of the standardisation
approach that was taken. Realistically, it was doomed to failure
from the outset. I can remember making that prediction in about 1988
or 89 when there were a few government tenders around looking for GOSIP
implementation. TCP/IP adoption was already well underway in the
commercial world from about 1986 onwards. One could argue that WWW
growth was a significant factor later on, but I can't think of anybody
seriously intending to implement OSI from about 1988 onwards. The
death knell had sounded long before 1993 for OSI in terms of an
alternative to TCP/IP.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:00:31 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

The U.S. government DoD
attempted to mandate it in the form of GOSIP for all environments from
1990 onwards. That never happened

Um, not quite. I've been using GOSIP for the last few years and it's only
now that the network in question is to be converted to TCP/IP.

Roger wrote:
The message
from Huge contains these words:

Every time I defend
Dr Drivel I am accused of being him

That'll be because you *are* him. Everyone, and I mean everyone, else
thinks Drivel is a ****wit.

I may now be in a minority of one but I still don't think Timegoesby is
Dribble, just that he is his brother. There has to be a family
connection because their style is so similar but the questions TGB asks
generally display a level of ignorance and comprehension even deeper
than Dribbles.

Thats just when the valium kicks in..

declared for all the world to hear...
Then let them take action.

They may. They take it very seriously now.

I've never heard or read about any cases. Care to cite any recent ones
for my benefit?
--
Regards
Jon

declared for all the world to hear...
I liked the one where (IIRC individual.net) they not only revoked his
account,

Nope Individual started to charge and I wouldn't pay.

So did they or did they not cancel your messages? I also used
individual.net and didn't fancy paying but my posts are still there.

You are silly.

On what do you base that?
--
Regards
Jon

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

I liked the one where (IIRC individual.net) they not only revoked his
account,

Nope, Individual started to charge and I wouldn't pay.

Funny how they canceled all your posts like they do for all the other
spammers.

They probably did to all who wouldn't pay.

Why did dfncis.de kick you then?

No one kicked me off anything. I wouldn't pay. No one has ever kicked
me off anything.

Seems part of the split personality. Constantly recommending the most
expensive solution for any problem to *others*, but too mean to pay for
news and e-mail.

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

declared for all the world to hear...
Funny how they canceled all your posts like they do for all the other
spammers.

They probably did to all who wouldn't pay.

They did not. I've just looked and all of mine are still there.
--
Regards
Jon