"Jon" wrote in message
et...
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?

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you to
the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they are
taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot continue
or he will be in trouble. A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

declared for all the world to hear...
I've never heard or read about any cases. Care to cite any recent ones
for my benefit?

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you to
the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they are
taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot continue
or he will be in trouble. A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

Links? Evidence?
--
Regards
Jon

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

Matt, again....It was in the original concept.

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.

It was obvious what they were up to. The big corporations should have not
been on the committees as it was clear they had another agenda.

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.

It was. It was widly adopted in the late 1980s.

Realistically that was never going to work in any useful way

Matt you are botty talking.

and so attempts were made to incorporate TCP/IP features into OSI

That was there from the start as transitional feature to upgrade large nets.

Finally, NIST suggested that the DoD drop the "OSI only" requirement in
1994.

After the Internet took off like a rocket.

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

It wasn't at all. It was a realisation that the Internet had rocketed away
leaving the rest behind and that inferior TCP/IP has become a defacto
standard by more luck than anything.

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 delivered and working and was being amended as time went on by useful
feedback.

It was envisaged that networks would be private nets. No one really thought
anyone would be so daft to use the open and unpoliced Internet to connect up
their companies. They did. All sorts of security software came out,
firewalls and the likes, and most of it was easily breached. They used the
Internet because it was there and cheap.

If the Internet had been run on OSI soon enough it would be the standard
today. Seamless plug and play.

Rubbish. There is very little X.25 left in corporate networks any
longer.

You will be surprised. Lots still in government circles around the world.

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.

It worked well. Many used it on LANs as well. The IR did, although running
TCP/IP over OSI.

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.

Didn't it? I recall looking a Windows desktop machines running OSI, 1000s of
them, on WANs and LANs.

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.

Whatever that means. Er, er, it was be teh standard.

Realistically, it was doomed to failure from the outset.

It wasn't. It was a success and even BMW implemeted OSI all over the world.

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.

Only in LANs running Ethernet which were mainly all in one building. The
next round of updates to the building could have OSI all through.

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.

They were and many did. You may have been working for a company with its
head up its bum, but others were more aware of the big picture and OSI (open
system) made sense and still does.

The death knell had sounded long before 1993 for OSI in terms of an
alternative to TCP/IP.

Nonsense. I recall many companies when updating would implement OSI and have
TCP/IP over it in preparation when for the next stage of updates. Many ran
OSI on their own backbone and TCP/IP on the smaller LANs.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:59:54 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-08-01 08:15:17 +0100, Steve Firth said:

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.

Do you mean the US or UK one?

UK. Like X25, it's one of those pups sold to government by over-eager
academics that then gets enshrined and ends up costing the taxpayer big
money because no bugger understands it and nothing can be bought off the
shelf.

Change over to TCP/IP has been a revelation to some of the old hands. "You
mean you can just buy that in a shop? You plug it in and it works? You only
paid 50 quid???"

etc.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:12:39 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you to
the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they are
taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot continue
or he will be in trouble. A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

Make your mind up you simpleton. You claimed to have already contacted the
police, now you say you're just parroting something from Radio 4.

On 2006-08-01 08:15:17 +0100, Steve Firth said:

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.

Do you mean the US or UK one?

Really the point I was making was that from 1995 onwards, the U.S.
federal procurement changed the requirements to remove the requirement
to use GOSIP.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip146-2.htm

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I've never heard or read about any cases. Care to cite any recent ones
for my benefit?

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you
to the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they
are taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot
continue or he will be in trouble.

'Can't continue'? I am continuing and don't appear to have had the boys in
blue breaking down the door...

A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

It must be true, then.

However, like much else, you simply didn't understand what was said.

--
*Marathon runners with bad footwear suffer the agony of defeat*

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

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:19:07 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I've never heard or read about any cases. Care to cite any recent ones
for my benefit?

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you
to the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they
are taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot
continue or he will be in trouble.

'Can't continue'? I am continuing and don't appear to have had the boys in
blue breaking down the door...

Meanwhile in Milton Keynes the CID are ****ing themselves laughing having
just had a call from the local village idiot.

On 2006-08-01 10:55:03 +0100, Steve Firth said:

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:59:54 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-08-01 08:15:17 +0100, Steve Firth said:

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.

Do you mean the US or UK one?

UK. Like X25, it's one of those pups sold to government by over-eager
academics that then gets enshrined and ends up costing the taxpayer big
money because no bugger understands it and nothing can be bought off the
shelf.

Change over to TCP/IP has been a revelation to some of the old hands. "You
mean you can just buy that in a shop? You plug it in and it works? You only
paid 50 quid???"

etc.

I see.

Desktop ATM was another one....

On 2006-08-01 10:52:53 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
On 2006-08-01 00:44:49 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


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

Matt, no. It was in the original concept.

Wrong.

Matt, again....It was in the original concept.

I am not going to waste time debating that one with you. It's only
necessary to look at the series of transport TPs to realise that
connection-oriented was the original intent.




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.

It was obvious what they were up to. The big corporations should have
not been on the committees as it was clear they had another agenda.

That's complete nonsense as well, although arguably had they not been,
the whole thing would have come to an end a lot quicker than it did.
The large corporations have a part to play just the same as anybody else.



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.

It was. It was widly adopted in the late 1980s.

No it wasn't. When I think back, less than 5% of organisations that
I talked to at the time had the remotest interest in using it once it
was realised that it was not going to come to fruition in less than
geological time.

At the end of the day, people have work to do and businesses to run.




Realistically that was never going to work in any useful way

Matt you are botty talking.

and so attempts were made to incorporate TCP/IP features into OSI

That was there from the start as transitional feature to upgrade large nets.



Finally, NIST suggested that the DoD drop the "OSI only" requirement in 1994.

After the Internet took off like a rocket.

The whole thing with the DoD moving away from OSI began in 1990 when
they came to the realisation that they were going to go on waiting for
a very long time for products. I was involved in several RFP
responses at the time and do know what happened.



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

It wasn't at all. It was a realisation that the Internet had rocketed
away leaving the rest behind and that inferior TCP/IP has become a
defacto standard by more luck than anything.

It was essentially the absence of bureaucracy that is the largest
factor in that, together with technologies being adopted and adapted by
use rather than being mandated from ivory tower committees.



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 delivered and working and was being amended as time went on by
useful feedback.

Too little. Too late.


It was envisaged that networks would be private nets.

To a large extent, they still are.


No one really thought anyone would be so daft to use the open and
unpoliced Internet to connect up their companies. They did.

Some do in part. Most use private circuits and increasingly, VPN
services that are not run over the public internet..



All sorts of security software came out, firewalls and the likes, and
most of it was easily breached.

That would have happened regardless of the technology. Once one has a
connection to a public network (any public network) the potential
exists for security breach.


They used the Internet because it was there and cheap.

If the Internet had been run on OSI soon enough it would be the
standard today. Seamless plug and play.

Academic, because it was never going to happen.




Rubbish. There is very little X.25 left in corporate networks any longer.

You will be surprised. Lots still in government circles around the world.

Costing a fortune to run because the expertise in them is rapidly
disappearing. It's difficult to find anyone with technical background
aged under about 35 who knows much about X.25.




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.

It worked well. Many used it on LANs as well. The IR did, although
running TCP/IP over OSI.

I don't think that the IR can be held up as a shining example of doing
anything that is competent or worthwhile.



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.

Didn't it? I recall looking a Windows desktop machines running OSI,
1000s of them, on WANs and LANs.

A pointless exercise.



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.

Whatever that means. Er, er, it was be teh standard.

.... and the market moved faster than the outdated way of establishing
standards through ISO.



Realistically, it was doomed to failure from the outset.

It wasn't. It was a success and even BMW implemeted OSI all over the world.

I meant commercially it was doomed to be a failure. Outside
government circles, one would be hard pressed to come up with more than
a handful of companies who used it.



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.

Only in LANs running Ethernet which were mainly all in one building.
The next round of updates to the building could have OSI all through.

Wrong. The first commercial IP WAN routers came out in the early to
mid 80s. I know, because I installed some of them.



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.

They were and many did. You may have been working for a company with
its head up its bum, but others were more aware of the big picture and
OSI (open system) made sense and still does.

Do tell me how many major league companies have made a long term
commercial success out of selling OSI products.





The death knell had sounded long before 1993 for OSI in terms of an
alternative to TCP/IP.

Nonsense. I recall many companies when updating would implement OSI and
have TCP/IP over it in preparation when for the next stage of updates.
Many ran OSI on their own backbone and TCP/IP on the smaller LANs.

Do name some.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Well I suppose if you know in advance you are going to get kicked for
abuse, it would probably not be wise to pay too much since you wan't get
chance to use it! The alternative is he is just a tight wad ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2006-08-01, Andy Hall wrote:


Nonsense. I recall many companies when updating would implement OSI and
have TCP/IP over it in preparation when for the next stage of updates.
Many ran OSI on their own backbone and TCP/IP on the smaller LANs.

Do name some.

I'll be amused if he can. I've been
working in IT since the early
seventies,

System Admin eh.

and the only contact I've had with X.25 has been tearing
it out and replacing it with TCP/IP.

You experience is very limited, probably working just for one company that
uses a one system.

Andy Hall wrote:

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.

Not only that, but the DOS implimentations of the stacks at the time
were to all intents and purposes unusable anyway due to their massive
memory footprint. With the stack loaded there was not enough left to run
most of the major applications of the day.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:10:35 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Reading around Usenet, he *always* goes for the pikey solution for himself.
Examples include his hunt for the cheapest, nastiest laminate floor. His
use of an undersized combi which needs an electric booster heater
(laughable after all his rants about combis here). His dumbfounded lack of
knowledge about what SDS is followed within weeks by him becoming an
instant expert on SDS who bought a pikey SDS drill from Aldi or one of the
other German **** shops.

"Jon" wrote in message
et...
declared for all the world to hear...
I've never heard or read about any cases. Care to cite any recent ones
for my benefit?

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you to
the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they are
taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot
continue
or he will be in trouble. A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

Links? Evidence?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/archers/

:-)

cheers,
clive

On 1 Aug 2006 11:27:15 GMT, Huge wrote:

Can you even buy X.25 equipment
any more?

No, and TBH even when you could, you couldn't because no NIC was actually a
complete implementation of X.25 and IIRC several of the cards were mutually
incompatible because of non-overlapping implementations.

As with all other old ****, there's still some about in government circles
but it's being ripped out because even the government blanches at shelling
out £800 a day consultancy fees to fix it.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:43:13 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
[snip]

and the only contact I've had with X.25 has been tearing
it out and replacing it with TCP/IP.

You experience is very limited,

Drivel you're a ****wit. You're a brainless, useless waste of protoplasm.
There are things growing on the bottom of ships that have more right to
oxygen than you do. You don't even know who you are talking to, you talk
****e that you glean from websites and catalogues and that you barely
understand. The only times that you get anything right are when you ask a
question via one of your sock puppets then repeat the answers you are given
by the adults in this group as if they were your own words.

You are apparently too stupid to realise what a laughing stock you are.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-08-01 10:52:53 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-08-01 00:44:49 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


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

Matt, no. It was in the original concept.

Wrong.

Matt, again....It was in the original concept.

I am not going to waste time debating that one with you.

Matt, very wise as you have lost.

It was obvious what they were up to. The big corporations should have
not been on the committees as it was clear they had another agenda.

That's complete nonsense as well,

Matt, not at all.

Not quite. The main reason was that the OSI protocol suite was going
to be "two years away" since about 1986.

It was. It was widly adopted in the late 1980s.

No it wasn't.

Matt, it was. Not in your backwards company it probably wasn't.

When I think back, less than 5% of organisations that I talked to at the
time had the remotest interest in using it

Most don't understand networks or protocols anyway. Speak to the top guys
and their knowledge is limited.

once it was realised that it was not going to come to fruition in less
than geological time.

Matt, it was already there with many using it, although not in you backward
company.

After the Internet took off like a rocket.

The whole thing with the DoD moving away from OSI began in 1990

Strange that I was working withj US government agencies in 1991 and the aim
was OSI. Matt, you must stop making things up.

It wasn't at all. It was a realisation that the Internet had rocketed
away leaving the rest behind and that inferior TCP/IP has become a
defacto standard by more luck than anything.

It was essentially the absence of bureaucracy that is the largest factor
in that, together with technologies being adopted and adapted by use
rather than being mandated from ivory tower committees.

OSI was for sale. Wanted a Windows PC OSI stack? They were there.

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 delivered and working and was being amended as time went on by
useful feedback.

Too little. Too late.

As I said, they never anticipated the meteoric rise of the Internet. If they
did they would have insisted it be on OSI in the late 1980s. The Internet
was a curio used by geeks in unis and by fellas with bears and mussies. The
odd commercial organisation knobbed on the Internet and found it a useful
comms tool to gain know-how in research matters from unis.

The industry was full of ignorance of OSI too. Most didn't care as long as
something worked not looking to the future just fire fighting most of the
time, having team of people just keep keeping a system up with bits of
string. Every time they updated it costed a fortune, whereas with an open
system it would have been easy. They just didn't know. Ignorance and
negative propaganda by the likes of IBM, etc, didn't help either. Your
ignorance of OSI is typical.

It was envisaged that networks would be private nets.

To a large extent, they still are.

They are? Look at how many small companies use the Internet to communicate
to their offices and outside.

No one really thought anyone would be so daft to use the open and
unpoliced Internet to connect up their companies. They did.

Some do in part. Most use private circuits and increasingly, VPN
services that are not run over the public internet..

VPNs over the Internet is very popular. It give them the impression it is
their own private network, but it is on an open public network that an smart
hacker can get into.

All sorts of security software came out, firewalls and the likes, and
most of it was easily breached.

That would have happened regardless of the technology. Once one has a
connection to a public network (any public network) the potential exists
for security breach.

Many private networks have only one point into the public work which can be
easily policed and shored up.

They used the Internet because it was there and cheap.

If the Internet had been run on OSI soon enough it would be the standard
today. Seamless plug and play.

Academic, because it was never going to happen.

Matt, you missed the point...again.

Rubbish. There is very little X.25 left in corporate networks any
longer.

You will be surprised. Lots still in government circles around the
world.

Costing a fortune to run because the expertise in them is rapidly
disappearing. It's difficult to find anyone with technical background
aged under about 35 who knows much about X.25.

There is still a hell of a lot of it around. It works and does what they
want. Why spend a fortune to stand still?

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.

It worked well. Many used it on LANs as well. The IR did, although
running TCP/IP over OSI.

I don't think that the IR can be held up as a shining example of doing
anything that is competent or worthwhile.

They had one of the most advanced network and computer systems in the world.
Private companies would come and look at what they had done. Most was
modular. Many functions that are now off the shelf they pioneered and had
it bespoke written. The software on the PCs could be updated, including the
OS from one central point in the country overnight. Propagated out to the
servers. When the users logged on it took half and hour to update the lot
onto each PC and all ready to go. 1000s of them all at once. All by one
system admin man with a beard or mussie. They pioneered network computers,
diskless machines that stored nothing. Bill Gates tried to bring one out
saying he had invented it. A bootstrap pulled in the OS and user profile
and ran it from RAM. Users only saved on a server disk. Later a user could
be down country and get his own profile from his own server too. All
seemless to the user who though it was like a normal PC at home. The
government spent a lot of money ensuring that it got its money and reduced
maintenance costs of the system drastically. When the system was framed out
to EDS, the Yanks were quite amazed at what they saw, thinking only the
Yanks had advanced systems.

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.

Didn't it? I recall looking a Windows desktop machines running OSI, 1000s
of them, on WANs and LANs.

A pointless exercise.

Matt, what a stupid comment.

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.

Whatever that means. Er, er, it was be the standard.

... and the market moved faster than the outdated way of establishing
standards through ISO.

OSI was advanced, open system plug and play. The market moved fast not
because TCP/IP was good, it isn't. It was because one element, the Internet
used it. Nothing else.

An open system is still be talked about, as TCP/IP will not stay forever. It
should have sent 15 years ago.

Realistically, it was doomed to failure from the outset.

It wasn't. It was a success and even BMW implemeted OSI all over the
world.

I meant commercially it was doomed to be a failure.

It wasn't doomed to be a failure at all, it projected to take off. All
routers could handle OSI. Companies were producing OSI stacks to work on
any machine or OS. The EU/NIST were funding testing tools to be produced to
test OSI implementations to aid the companies developing products. The
Japanese were buying into it big time too.

Outside government circles, one would be hard pressed to come up with more
than a handful of companies who used it.

Once the government agencies used it and a handful of large companies, and
it was to "official", then it would have zoomed ahead. The WWW pushed it
into the background.

Only in LANs running Ethernet which were mainly all in one building. The
next round of updates to the building could have OSI all through.

Wrong. The first commercial IP WAN routers came out in the early to mid
80s. I know, because I installed some of them.

Few used TCP/IP on WANs. TCP/IP was regarded as an Ethernet protocol.
Ironically the Internets backbone was mainly on X.25 with TCP/IP running
over.

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.

They were and many did. You may have been working for a company with its
head up its bum, but others were more aware of the big picture and OSI
(open system) made sense and still does.

Do tell me how many major league companies have made a long term
commercial success out of selling OSI products.

Missed the point again Matt. OSI was gaining ground not in a competition
because it was to be the open system standard. The WWW using TCP/IP killed
it.

The big looser was the end user especially the smaller companies. Many have
spent fortunes on network and mismatched computer crap. OSI on the network
side would have made life very much easier and cheaper for them. Only big
rip-off companies gain by the current setup.

The companies against OSI had a vested interst in TCP/IP and would all thye
could to stop this opne a free protocval being implemented.

The death knell had sounded long before 1993 for OSI in terms of an
alternative to TCP/IP.

Nonsense. I recall many companies when updating would implement OSI and
have TCP/IP over it in preparation when for the next stage of updates.
Many ran OSI on their own backbone and TCP/IP on the smaller LANs.

Do name some.

I mentioned one large German car company who were looking ahead...as the
Germans do. They liked the concept and what they saw. No one expected the
WWW to throw a spanner in the works. Oh and a number of large Japanese
companies, I recall a number of large Japanese companies were heavily into
OSI too. The Japs were very keen on the idea.

"Jon" wrote in message
et...
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.

I don't know, never checked. Not interested. On the day they started to
charge I couldn't use it so moved to another. Simple.

"Jon" wrote in message
et...
declared for all the world to hear...
I've never heard or read about any cases. Care to cite any recent ones
for my benefit?

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you to
the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they are
taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot
continue
or he will be in trouble. A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

Links? Evidence?

What? Dr Watson?

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:59:54 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-08-01 08:15:17 +0100, Steve Firth said:

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.

Do you mean the US or UK one?

UK. Like X25, it's one of those pups sold to government by over-eager
academics

X.25 was the standard packet switched protocal used all over the world by
the PTTs.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:12:39 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you to
the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they are
taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot
continue
or he will be in trouble. A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

Make your mind up

Brainless, I contacted the police. Very nice they were. Your wicked ways may
come to an end.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:19:07 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I've never heard or read about any cases. Care to cite any recent ones
for my benefit?

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you
to the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they
are taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot
continue or he will be in trouble.

'Can't continue'? I am continuing and don't appear to have had the boys
in
blue breaking down the door...

Meanwhile in Milton Keynes the CID are ****ing themselves laughing having
just had a call from the local village idiot.

Have you moved to MK?

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:54:55 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Simple.

That sums up Drivel more than adequately.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:59:57 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:12:39 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you to
the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they are
taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot
continue
or he will be in trouble. A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

Make your mind up

Brainless, I contacted the police. Very nice they were. Your wicked ways may
come to an end.

Well Drivel, I look forward to finding out more about you in that case,
since you cannot make anonymous accusations to the police.

If you care to give me the collar number and name of the police officer you
spoke to as well as your crime reference number and date I shall call them
and make myself available for interview.

But we both know that you will not provide this information because you are
full of ****.

declared for all the world to hear...
Links? Evidence?

What?

Prove your assertions with some evidence, or people will not take you
seriously*

Dr Watson?

I'm an AVG man myself.

*If there are any left that is.
--
Regards
Jon

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Brainless, I contacted the police. Very nice they were. Your wicked
ways may come to an end.

Well Drivel, I look forward to finding out more about you in that case,
since you cannot make anonymous accusations to the police.

Yup. Even if he'd been accused of the worse crime imaginable they'd take
no action as Dr Drivel doesn't exist.

If you care to give me the collar number and name of the police officer
you spoke to as well as your crime reference number and date I shall
call them and make myself available for interview.

Me too. Although I've already spoken to a high ranking policeman who is a
neighbour and he had a good laugh...

But we both know that you will not provide this information because you
are full of ****.

At least **** has its uses.

--
*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Why pay for Usenet access when lots give it for free. Madness. But I
suggest you pay the most expensive you can find.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

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.

Not only that, but the DOS implimentations of the stacks at the time were
to all intents and purposes unusable anyway due to their massive memory
footprint. With the stack loaded there was not enough left to run most of
the major applications of the day.

You got something right for change. How that MS Windows/DOS crap ever made
it is mystery. MSWindows/DOS and TCP/IP deserve each other.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

Reading around Usenet,

You have been Googling.

he *always* goes for the pikey solution for himself.

An appalling derogatory racist remark.

Examples include his hunt for the
cheapest, nastiest laminate floor.

I have top quality stuff here. The business.

His use of an undersized combi
which needs an electric booster heater
(laughable after all his rants about combis here).

What are you on about? You made that up.

His dumbfounded lack of
knowledge about what SDS is
followed within weeks by him becoming an
instant expert on SDS

I am an expert on SDS.

who bought a pikey

An appalling derogatory racist remark.

SDS drill from Aldi

Great second drill.

or one of the
other German **** shops.

Kress are the business.

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Jon" wrote in message
et...
declared for all the world to hear...
I've never heard or read about any cases. Care to cite any recent ones
for my benefit?

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you
to
the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they are
taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot
continue
or he will be in trouble. A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

Links? Evidence?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/archers/

What happened?

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:43:13 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
[snip]

and the only contact I've had with X.25 has been tearing
it out and replacing it with TCP/IP.

You experience is very limited,

Drivel you're a ****wit.

An appalling racist abusive remark.

snip rambling babble

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:59:57 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:12:39 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you
to
the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they are
taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot
continue
or he will be in trouble. A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

Make your mind up

Brainless, I contacted the police. Very nice they were. Your wicked ways
may
come to an end.

Well Drivel, I look forward to finding
out more about you in that case,
since you cannot make anonymous
accusations to the police.

You have been in trouble with the police before, haven't you?

"Jon" wrote in message
et...
declared for all the world to hear...
Links? Evidence?

What?

Prove your assertions with some evidence, or people will not take you
seriously*

Dr Watson?

I'm an AVG man myself.

*If there are any left that is.

There are lots of seriouslys left.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 15:00:07 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Why pay for Usenet access when lots give it for free.

Tiscali don't.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 15:11:28 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

You have been in trouble with the police before, haven't you?

No Drivel, I work for the police.

Now substantiate your tale give the crime reference number, collar number
of the officer dealing with the incident, their surname and the contact
number. I'll accept the force enquiry centre number or the number of your
local police station.

If you fail to give those details, as you have already, you show yourself
up for a bul****ter.

If you fail to give those details a second time you show yourself to be a
liar, a coward and a malicious complainer.

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

Me too. Although I've already spoken to a high ranking policeman

Can you give us his name please?

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 15:00:07 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Why pay for Usenet access when lots give it for free.

Tiscali don't.

Don't what?

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 15:11:28 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

You have been in trouble with the police before, haven't you?

No Drivel, I work for the police.

Now substantiate your tale

Are the detective on this case? Are you a secret agent as well?

declared for all the world to hear...
Why pay for Usenet access when lots give it for free.

Tiscali don't.

Don't what?

At a guess, "give it [usenet access] for free" maybe?
--
Regards
Jon