On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:50:27 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Matt wrote:
Nope. The best of power generation and transmission equipment,
localised power stations and the picture is very different.

How do you get the fuel to those localised power stations? Magic?

Via the normal gas distribution network.

The normal gas distribution network would allow local generation of
electricity without alteration? I find that very hard to believe.

It's a reality today particularly in new public sector builds such as
hospitals, schools and communal housing projects where the heat can be
utilised locally (even for absorption cooling) The electricity
generated either supports the building demand or exports out on the
local distribution network.

Obviously not via a standard
U6 meter Use of system charges are very similar though for gas
and electricity. Dribble is almost on the mark though.

In what way? He's theorizing what may be possible. Crystal ball time
again.

No, staggering as it may seem he's only stating what is happening in a
small but increasing way right now here in the UK.

Local generation is only an advantage when the waste heat is used. If it
gets dumped like in the majority of large scale remote generation then
all the benefits disappear.

Indeed. However, more *major* investment needed. Which has to be paid for.
And as we all know the customer pays in the end.

Not really major investment. By having more local gas generation you
increase demand on the gas distribution networks which depending on
location *may* need to be improved, but in so doing you also reduce
the requirements for improving electricity distribution networks (as
long as the load is local)


--

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:28:43 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"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?

What are you, thick?

That was a rhetorical question by the way.

declared for all the world to hear...
Drivel you're a ****wit.

An appalling racist abusive remark.

In what way is calling someone a ****wit racist?

Black or white, yellow or brown. You are still a ****wit. Race doesn't
come into it.
--
Regards
Jon

"Jon" wrote in message
et...
declared for all the world to hear...
Drivel you're a ****wit.

An appalling racist abusive remark.

In what way is calling someone a ****wit racist?

Black or white, yellow or brown. You are still a ****wit. Race doesn't
come into it.

You are one of the uk.d-i-y Lunatic Association members with a personality
problem (most have one). He comes on recently then starts giving abuse. It
happens all the time: John White, Matt and few other have all cropped up.
Easy to spot. We will all guess which one you a Frith, Plowman, Rumm (oh
he is John White), Lord Hall (oh he is Matt). This is fun.

"Jon" wrote in message
t...
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?

Ah, Mr Frith.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Me too. Although I've already spoken to a high ranking policeman

Can you give us his name please?

The second we have yours.

But I'd have to ask his permission first out of common courtesy.

It would do no harm to give the police station and details of those you
allegedly spoke to, as Mr Firth has asked?

--
*I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

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

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:28:43 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"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?

snip abuse

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-08-01 13:58:44 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"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.

No ****, Sherlock.

No ****. He never knew that.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-08-01 13:48:33 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"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.

In a conversation like this with you, there is nothing *to* lose

Matt, you have been "laced".

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.

That depends on who you mean by the "top guys". Either way, it is
unlikely that you would have come into contact with any of them.

Matt, stop guessing.

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.

Perhaps you would like to drop John Chambers an email and see if he shares
your view.

I doubt he would be backward you were.

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 with US government agencies in 1991 and the
aim was OSI.

Doing what?

Matt, er, er networks and things.

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.

In some way. Unfortunately for the vendors, few people were buying which
is why there is little left in that arena.

Matt, they were buying. It wasn't on he market long enough before the WWW.

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.

Don't be silly.

Matt, you are very ignorant of OSI.

You don't have the feintest clue of what you are talking about. It
doesn't come from reading books and surfing the web, I'm afraid.

Matt, I was there, while your bunch had heads up botties.

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.

.. and your point is?

Matt, read again.

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.

You're surfing well. Care to mention the major technologies used for
doing this and their specific security vulnerabilities?

Matt is this a quiz? You are not fit to the Quizzing Quizzer, as your
knowledge of networks is limited.

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.

You don't say. I never knew that before.

Matt, I never thought you did.

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?

or to go round in circles like you seem to be doing......

Matt, I was on about the future with an open system, not standing still with
a crock like 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).

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.

Not really.

Matt, it was.

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.

That was one of the promises.

And it delivered and would have been the whole 9 yards if the WWW didn't
take off.

The market moved fast not because TCP/IP was good, it isn't.

I don't think anybody has said it is.

Matt??

It was because one element, the Internet used it. Nothing else.

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

Possibly not. However, for the moment TCP/IP is as open as it gets. It
doesn't need a big bureaucracy to achieve that.

It is a rather crap protocol. Please look up protocol.

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.

Oh no they couldn't. Some were nowhere near powerful enough

Nonsense!! All of them had an OSI option.

Companies were producing OSI stacks to work on any machine or OS.

Didn't get them far though did it?

The WWW took off. I keep telling you this but it doesn't sink in.

The EU/NIST were funding testing tools to be produced to test OSI
implementations to aid the companies developing products.

If the EU was funding it then one knows it has no commercial viability.

Matt, the test tool for companies to use. Read again.

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.

Rubbish.

'fraid so.


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.

Answer the question

Answered.

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.

No they didn't. OSI would have mae life horrendous, allowing for all
sorts of vendor lockins.

Vendor lockins on an open system? Matt, oh Matt. The idea was to be vendor
independent. Boy!

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.

TCP/IP is an open and free protocol set.

A poor one though.

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.

There was no spanner,

There was, the WWW.

and this was not the sequence of events.

It was.

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.

and ??

Along came the WWW and it took off like a rocket.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:32:33 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"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?

No surprise you're a liar.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:46:35 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip abuse

You are a proven liar and a coward.

Steve Firth wrote:
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.
Its the contrast between designed by committee to be perfect, never
needing to be changed, and designed by a group of engineers to work, and
subsequently refined time and again to make it work better.

Huge wrote:
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, and the only contact I've had with X.25 has been tearing
it out and replacing it with TCP/IP. Can you even buy X.25 equipment
any more?


Yes..at a high price from specialised places.

On 2006-08-01 13:58:44 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"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.

No ****, Sherlock.

I've lost count of how many X.25 products for which I arranged
certifications with PTTs.

That was more than 20 years ago, however.....

Huge wrote:
On 2006-07-31, 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.

Crumbs, I'm not sure this is feasible. I didn't think IQs went *negative*?


I think so.

Consider. An IQ of 100 is the normalized intelligence of an adult.

An IQ of 0 is the normalized intelligence of an infant at 0 years old.

negative IQ is the intelligence of a single celled organism like a
spermatazoa, nine months before birth.

On 2006-08-01 12:27:15 +0100, Huge said:

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, and the only contact I've had with X.25 has been tearing
it out and replacing it with TCP/IP. Can you even buy X.25 equipment
any more?

Quite.

It was reasonably popular in the early to mid 80s, but even then was
regarded as "legacy", mainly because telcos charged by the packet in
most cases (and they were small).

Occasionally one sees the odd information feed around carrying
specialised data for a specific industry sector, but that's about it.

I think it's still supported in IOS, but probably only through not
having ripped it out

On 2006-08-01 12:57:05 +0100, Steve Firth said:

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.

There are still a few PADs around and I believe it's still supported in
IOS, for example.

On 2006-08-01 13:48:33 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"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.

In a conversation like this with you, there is nothing *to* lose



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.

That depends on who you mean by the "top guys". Either way, it is
unlikely that you would have come into contact with any of them.




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.

Perhaps you would like to drop John Chambers an email and see if he
shares your view.




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.

Doing what?



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.

In some way. Unfortunately for the vendors, few people were buying
which is why there is little left in that arena.



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.

Don't be silly.

You don't have the feintest clue of what you are talking about. It
doesn't come from reading books and surfing the web, I'm afraid.




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.

... and your point is?




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.

You're surfing well. Care to mention the major technologies used for
doing this and their specific security vulnerabilities?



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.

You don't say. I never knew that before.



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?

or to go round in circles like you seem to be doing......




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.

Not really. There is no value. Who cares?



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.

That was one of the promises. There were way too many variants and
options for it to have ever stood a chance of wide adoption.

The market moved fast not because TCP/IP was good, it isn't.

I don't think anybody has said it is.

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.

Possibly not. However, for the moment TCP/IP is as open as it gets.
It doesn't need a big bureaucracy to achieve that.




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.

Oh no they couldn't. Some were nowhere near powerful enough

Companies were producing OSI stacks to work on any machine or OS.

Didn't get them far though did it?

The EU/NIST were funding testing tools to be produced to test OSI
implementations to aid the companies developing products.

If the EU was funding it then one knows it has no commercial viability.


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.

Rubbish.


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.

Answer the question


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.

No they didn't. OSI would have mae life horrendous, allowing for all
sorts of vendor lockins.



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.

TCP/IP is an open and free protocol set. Anybody can read the spec and
implement it.



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.

There was no spanner, and this was not the sequence of events.


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.

and ??

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
snip abuse

190

--
*We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart?

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

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:46:35 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip abuse

You are

snip abuse

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 20:54:45 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:46:35 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip abuse

You are a proven liar and a coward.

snip abuse

It's not abuse, it's purely descriptive. You claimed to have gone to the
police to make a complaint about posts in this newsgroup. You clearly have
done no such thing that makes you a liar, and it makes you a coward.

Now grow up or **** off.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:44:18 +0100, Jon wrote:

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?

Indeed, so Drivel isn't getting Usenet access for free, as he knows.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:44:18 +0100, Jon wrote:

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?

Indeed, so Drivel isn't getting Usenet access for free, as he knows.

I am. I don't pay for it. I only use it for this group and I may follow
Maxie over to DIYNot which is web based. Plantpots would be thrown off
there.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 20:54:45 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:46:35 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip abuse

You are a proven liar and a coward.

snip abuse

It's not abuse,

It was abuse.

snip further abuse

declared for all the world to hear...
At a guess, "give it [usenet access] for free" maybe?

Ah, Mr Frith.

Sorry to disappoint Dr D, but I'm very much my own man. I formed the
opinion that you are a ****wit (see elsewhere in this thread) based on
what I've read of your postings.
--
Regards
Jon

declared for all the world to hear...
I am. I don't pay for it. I only use it for this group and I may follow
Maxie over to DIYNot which is web based.

Do you need a hand finding the way out?
--
Regards
Jon

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:29:01 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Indeed, so Drivel isn't getting Usenet access for free, as he knows.

I am. I don't pay for it.

Oh so you're abusing someone else's Internet connection are you?

You dig yourself deeper with every word you utter.

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:29:48 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 20:54:45 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:46:35 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip abuse

You are a proven liar and a coward.

snip abuse

It's not abuse, it's purely descriptive. You claimed to have gone to the
police to make a complaint about posts in this newsgroup. You clearly
have done no such thing that makes you a liar, and it makes you a
coward.

It was abuse.

It's not abuse to point out that a liar and a coward is a liar and a
coward.

Now grow up or **** off.

On 2006-08-01 17:44:57 +0100, Huge said:

On 2006-08-01, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-08-01 12:27:15 +0100, Huge said:

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, and the only contact I've had with X.25 has been tearing
it out and replacing it with TCP/IP. Can you even buy X.25 equipment
any more?

Quite.

It was reasonably popular in the early to mid 80s, but even then was
regarded as "legacy", mainly because telcos charged by the packet in
most cases (and they were small).

Occasionally one sees the odd information feed around carrying
specialised data for a specific industry sector, but that's about it.

Which reminds me, Reuters Select Feed used to be X.25, but it's
been some years since I had anything to do with that, so it may well
no longer be. Certainly, the feed handler promptly converted it
to TCP/IP, so the customer never saw it.

Mmm... I was thinking of some of the older financial data feeds - IIRC
in some of the commodity markets...

On 2006-08-01 18:22:15 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:



Along came the WWW and it took off like a rocket.

Sorry. I don't have more time to waste on your nonsense.

Jon wrote:

declared for all the world to hear...

Drivel you're a ****wit.


An appalling racist abusive remark.


In what way is calling someone a ****wit racist?

Black or white, yellow or brown. You are still a ****wit. Race doesn't
come into it.

The irony is, when I posted this nice picture of dribble the snappy
dresser, he claimed that was racist as well:

http://www.internode.co.uk/temp/dr-yuppy.jpg



--
Cheers,

John.

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

Andy Hall wrote:

Mmm... I was thinking of some of the older financial data feeds - IIRC
in some of the commodity markets...

There was a time you could get access to Electronic Yellow Pages (later
became Yell) on X25 as well...



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:05:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

There was a time you could get access to Electronic Yellow Pages (later
became Yell) on X25 as well...

Ha newbie, we used to access it over a 1200/75 modem and were glad.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
snip abuse

You are

snip abuse

191

--
*Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.*

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

"Jon" wrote in message
et...
declared for all the world to hear...
At a guess, "give it [usenet access] for free" maybe?

Ah, Mr Frith.

Sorry to disappoint Dr D, but I'm very much my own man.

I doubt it very much. You are an Association member (affiliated). People
who are fresh in the group then start abuse towards me after no exchange
with me are 100% of the time idiot Association members trying it on again.
Why do they do it? Mr Frith? Plowman? Matt, Rumm? Tomlinson? Wade? Points
about you, give you away too.

"Jon" wrote in message
et...
declared for all the world to hear...
I am. I don't pay for it. I only use it for this group and I may follow
Maxie over to DIYNot which is web based.

Do you need a hand finding the way out?

Definitely a Lunatic Association member. 100%. Who are you going to be
next week? Give us a clue?

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:29:01 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Indeed, so Drivel isn't getting Usenet access for free, as he knows.

I am. I don't pay for it.

Oh so you're abusing

snip insulting abuse

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:29:48 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 20:54:45 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:46:35 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

snip abuse

You are a proven liar and a coward.

snip abuse

It's not abuse, it's purely descriptive. You claimed to have gone to the
police to make a complaint about posts in this newsgroup. You clearly
have done no such thing that makes you a liar, and it makes you a
coward.

It was abuse.

It's not abuse

it was abuse

You are an abusive person.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-08-01 18:22:15 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:

Along came the WWW and it took off like a rocket.

Sorry. I don't have more time to waste on your nonsense.

That is good. Amazing. After all this time you just didn't know.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Jon wrote:

declared for all the world to hear...

Drivel you're a ****wit.


An appalling racist abusive remark.


In what way is calling someone a ****wit racist?

Black or white, yellow or brown. You are still a ****wit. Race doesn't
come into it.

The irony is, when I posted this nice picture of dribble the snappy
dresser, he claimed that was racist as well:

http://www.internode.co.uk/temp/dr-yuppy.jpg

You are definitely a racist.