"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:30:44 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Right, there are mainframe computers these days as well,
but...can you name a current major computing platform that
isn't Unix, other than Windows?

Stratus' VOS. Though last I heard Stratus was considering a Linux
port. Not sure if they made that decision or not.

Dunno, I'm not familiar with it at all. We've got a Linux partition
on our IBM mainframe, which 5 years ago would have been unthinkable.

we have a windows 2k3, linux, and vos port all running on the same family of
hardware.

http://stratus.com.


regards,
charlie

On 16 Feb 2005 23:05:05 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Yeah, I saw that after I read this. Not sure of posting order, not
that it matters.

Truth be known, none of this OT/BS matters.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:47:43 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , Bruce Barnett
wrote:

If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.

Probably _better_ software, too...


But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?


I suspect in a saner world, something like CPM or Concurrent CPM would
have emerged victorious. CCPM was doing multi-tasking (or at least
multiple contexts) back when MSDOS was just happy to access disk drives
and run a single program.

Probably would have been more intelligent to have had a standards body
design the op system (or had one of the OS vendors offer their OS to said
body). Then multiple vendors could have competed to implement that OS.
While those kinds of things can lead to problems (mis-interpretations,
etc), it could also have had some significant benefits. Even if only a few
vendors survived future competitive thinning, the differences in
implementations would have reduced vulnerability to virus problems, since
it would be unlikely that the same holes would exist in all implemenations.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:10:48 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Since when has MickeySoft ever cared about standards?

When is the last time you had a problem finding a hardware driver that
actually worked, and who do you think drove the "standards" so that it is no
longer the monumental struggle it once was to get a peripheral to work with
different hardware and OS's?

How soon we forget ...
Boy I really wanted to avoid this stupid thread but this one is just
too much to stay out of it.

MS really drives standards huh? You mean like, for example,
technologies like Universal Serial Bus (USB) that they forced down the
throat of every PC mfr in late 1994 and 1995 (long before the hardware
was even tested and there was no software for it) and they couldn't
come up with useful drivers until 1998? Meanwhile, the BEST and still
the BEST implementation of USB came from Apple for the MAC and Apple
wasn't even part of the WinTel duopoly. USB power management STILL
doesn't work on Wintel boxes while iMacs have been able to wake up
from a USB mouse move since day one.

And how about networking. You could plug two or more Apple systems
together and they just worked years (maybe even a decade) before a
Windows box and you didn't have to worry about DHCP or DNS or network
driver levels or any other s**t.

These guys don't know about standards. They only know how to force
stuff on the consumer and if it's not quite ready, WTF, who cares?
They'll just end up selling another version of their OS that
supposedly fixes the s**t that wasn't working in the previous version
with no accountability.

takes a deep breath, looks around, and sheepishly climbs off his
soapbox...

TWS

In article ,
Abe wrote:
In article ,
Abe wrote:
To disable Javascript in IE6:
1. Click Tools.
2. Select Internet options
3. Click the Security tab.
4. Click the Internet icon.
5. Click the Custom level button.
6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets, and select the Disable
option.
7. Click OK twice.

BZZZZT! _That_ disables _JAVA_. *Not* Javascript. The two are *entirely*
different things, linked =only= by an 'apparent' (*misleadingly* so) common
root name.
BZZZZZT! right back. If you look at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;154036
and read the section: Internet Explorer 5.0, 5.01, 5.5, 6:
you'll see the note that says:
NOTE: In Internet Explorer, the term "Active scripting" or "ActiveX
scripting" refers to both Microsoft JScript scripting and Microsoft
Visual Basic Scripting Edition. When you complete this procedure, you
disable both types of scripts.

Sorry, Charlie, but you need to learn to read (or write) better. At the
place you cite, the 'b' step says:
"... click Disable under ACTIVE SCRIPTING AND Scripting of Java applets."
====================

*YOUR* directions mention *ONLY* the 'java applets' checkbox.

Following your directions _as_posted_ (disabling java applets *only),
*DOES*NOT* disable Javascript.

The BZZZT! _was_ accurate.

Note: The web-page you cite also _lies_ with regard to (at least some)
older versions of MSIE -- _even_though_ the "disable active scripting"
box was checked, IE *would* run both Javascript and ActiveX scripts
under proper provocation. Known to be fixed as of 5.5, Definite
problem with some installations of 4.x (all revisions), depending on
the patches applied. (both shops I just checked with went directly
from 4.x to 5.5, so no hard data on 5.0 or 5.0.1 available to me.)

-------------
I don't know why you continue to maintain that disabling active
scripting does not disable javascript.

Abe, you apparently lack reading comprehension skills.

I stated that AT A TIME IN THE PAST, under some circumstances, that MSIE's
'disable' box for "activie scripting" *did*not*function* as it was
intended to. This was a *bug* in the softare. You _do_ understand the word
"bug", don't you?

I stated that this bug _has_been_eliminated_ in later versions of the program.
If it is not obvious to you, this means I acknowledge that the newer versions
of MSIE _do_ properly "not process" javascript, when ACTIVE SCRIPTING is
disabled.


In MS terminology, disabling
scripting of java applets means disabling scripting of both java AND
javascript. I should know, as I work in the IIS group and test this
stuff regularly.

What you "know", and what *MICROSOFT* tells the world, are "incompatible".

Per the material on the Microsoft tech note that *you* were quoting as
reference earlier.. repeating, from _your_ sources:
"NOTE: In Internet Explorer, the term "Active scripting" or "ActiveX
scripting" refers to both Microsoft JScript scripting and Microsoft
Visual Basic Scripting Edition. When you complete this procedure, you
disable both types of scripts."

In MSIE version 6. (version id 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2) There are two
_separate_and_distinct_ sub-scections underthe "Scripting" section.
one for 'active scripting' (enable/disable/prompt)
one for 'scripting of Java applets' (enable/disable/prompt)


Now, why would MICROSOFT provide two _separate_ items, and publicly state
that their "javascript" is enabled/disabled by the *first* item, when *you*
KNOW that it is enabled/disabled byt the *second* one.

Note: "JScript" is Microsoft's *******ized varient of "javascript". The
one they got *sued* over their unauthorized changes to the language
(and *LOST* the suit -- had to restore the 'standard' functioning.)

I see only about two possibilities:
1) You really *do* know more about this than Microsoft. In which case
you should really share that superior knowledge with MS, so that they
can stop putting out "bad information" on their web-site. Can't imagine
why you'd ask MS for verification of something you know more about than
they do, though.
2) You don't understand that "active scripting", and "scripting of java
applets" are talking about *different* things.


In addition, when I inquired to the MS MVPs, I got
the following:
Q:
Is it possible for an end-user to disable Java Script in IE6? Where
would I do this in the UI?

Yes,
Under each security zone, look under Scripting / Active Scripting.
--
Michael Harris
Microsoft MVP Scripting

Do you note that Mr. Harris's directions, "Active Scripting", is *DIFFERENT*
than that which you claimed? to wit:

"6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets,..."

*IF*, as you claim, 'scripting of java applets' disables javascript,
_why_ does the other item 'active scripting' exist?

Do you note that Mr. Harris's directions, "Active Scripting", is *DIFFERENT*
than that which you claimed? to wit:

"6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets,..."

*IF*, as you claim, 'scripting of java applets' disables javascript,
_why_ does the other item 'active scripting' exist?
-------
That was my mistake. Harris's directions to disable active scripting
is correct.

I'm bowing out of this thread now.

"TWS" wrote in message

perspective challenged diatribe snipped

takes a deep breath, looks around, and sheepishly climbs off his
soapbox...

As well you should.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:31:54 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"TWS" wrote in message

perspective challenged diatribe snipped

takes a deep breath, looks around, and sheepishly climbs off his
soapbox...

As well you should.
If you want to defend MS as the great promoter of standards then I
suggest you bring some facts to the table. Until then keep your
shallow viewpoint to yourself.

As one who has the scars and continues to receive wounds from this
supposed purveyor of "Standardized" technologies I will be happy to
engage in a conversation on the matter fact for fact. Did you attend
the USB standardization meetings? Were you part of the back door
dialogs where the MDA (Marketing Discount Agreement) was the
argumentum ad baculum to convince sincere technologists to support
flawed proposals?

We have what we have because of marketing savvy and marketing force.
Let's not get carried away giving any credit beyond that. It is an
insult to those who sincerely tried to reach industry standards
consensus.

TWS

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

While those kinds of things can lead to problems (mis-interpretations,
etc), it could also have had some significant benefits. Even if only a
few
vendors survived future competitive thinning, the differences in
implementations would have reduced vulnerability to virus problems, since
it would be unlikely that the same holes would exist in all
implemenations.

Having seen what the boys from Ft Meade can do, I'm confident in asserting
that _any_ system is vulnerable to the infinite number of monkeys out there.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:18:11 GMT, TWS wrote:


Until then keep your
shallow viewpoint to yourself.

If everyone around here did that, the Wreck wouldn't last a week.



I think of Billy Gates as the Otto von Bismarck of consumer/small
business technology.

He took a polyglot group of self directed principalities and made them
speak a common language - essentially by using the brute force of the
marketplace.

Still, it amounts to a federated form of government v. the monarchical
style of Apple. And we know from history which form is thought to be
the most efficient.

The result is that we have a lingua franca that enables us to do
business with each other as transparently as possible. So, I will
continue to pass around my Excel spreadsheets and Word docs and
happily go about my business without fear of being misunderstood.


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On 16 Feb 2005 21:08:47 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

which of the just over 200 variants of Unix
is the "standard version" ????

They all are. A _good_ Unix sysadmin can speak to any of them
with a minimum of retraining between.

All the _good_ Unix sysadmins I know are religious bigots who won't
dirty their hands with BSD / anything other than BSD. And as for the
HP-UX / Solaris / SGI freakiness.

There's more to it than just DeadRat vs. Suse vs. Debian

"TWS" wrote in message
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:31:54 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"TWS" wrote in message

perspective challenged diatribe snipped

takes a deep breath, looks around, and sheepishly climbs off his
soapbox...

As well you should.

If you want to defend MS as the great promoter of standards then I
suggest you bring some facts to the table. Until then keep your
shallow viewpoint to yourself.

OK, my friend, let's look at just whose "viewpoints" are indeed "shallow".
We'll take them one by one, from your very first mistake: posting about
something of which you obviously have only limited knowledge, a point which
you indeed prove.

For someone who supposedly "attended meetings" on USB (which YOU brought up
and tried to shoehorn into context), you appear to have slept through most
of them.

MSFT was only a small part of the consortium that brought USB into being.
Try Compaq, NEC, Northern Telecom, IBM, Intel and Digital as "CO-DEVELOPERS"
of the USB protocol as we know it today, NOT as you suggest something MSFT
"tried to force down the throat ..." (sic).

(That is an actual, and inarguable, FACT!)

With regard to "Apple" and networking ... to suggest that AppleTalk is a
"networking standard" in the industry is as laughable as it is ridiculous.

(And that is a reality based FACT, which only a fool would argue against.)

But, where you really give yourself away is with your comments regarding
"DHCP" and "DNS":

DHCP is a protocol for IP NETWORKS and was created by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), the body responsible for Internet protocols,
NOT MSFT!

(That, again, is an inarguable FACT!)

The fact that Apple talk does not use DHCP is a red herring introduced by
you, as AppleTalk is NOT an ip network! (see above)

(Also an inarguable FACT!)

And without DNS, even a Apple/ Mac couldn't get anywhere on the Internet
without knowing the ip address of every machine it wanted to visit.

(Another, absolutely inarguable, FACT!)

Now, as I originally indicated .. judging from the factual errors in your
original diatribe, I'd say your "scars" are solely a figment of your
imagination, and well you should have been "sheepish", as you admitted, for
even stepping up on the soapbox with that kind of misinformation.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:18:11 GMT, TWS wrote:



Until then keep your
shallow viewpoint to yourself.


If everyone around here did that, the Wreck wouldn't last a week.



I think of Billy Gates as the Otto von Bismarck of consumer/small
business technology.

He took a polyglot group of self directed principalities and made them
speak a common language - essentially by using the brute force of the
marketplace.

Still, it amounts to a federated form of government v. the monarchical
style of Apple. And we know from history which form is thought to be
the most efficient.

The result is that we have a lingua franca that enables us to do
business with each other as transparently as possible. So, I will
continue to pass around my Excel spreadsheets and Word docs and
happily go about my business without fear of being misunderstood.


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)


I hesitate to disagree with someone whose illustrious namesake was my
boss for many years, but Microsoft's attitude to standards was (and
probably still is) quite simple : attend the meeting and if everyone
agrees to do it MS's way then fine, it becomes a standard. If not MS
goes away and does things its own way and to hell with the rest of the
world. More often than not, MS's way was NOT the best way.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:50:36 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:


I hesitate to disagree with someone whose illustrious namesake was my
boss for many years, but Microsoft's attitude to standards was (and
probably still is) quite simple : attend the meeting and if everyone
agrees to do it MS's way then fine, it becomes a standard. If not MS
goes away and does things its own way and to hell with the rest of the
world. More often than not, MS's way was NOT the best way.


It's worse than you think - my full name is Thomas J. Watson Jr.

As to what is best - it is often necessary in business to simply move
forward. In fact, that may be the essence of leadership - moving
forward.

The concept of what is best can be, and often is, discussed ad
nauseam.

Business is, like politics, the art of the possible.

Microsoft did not enter into a position of hegemony by being the best
engineers and designers. They got there by being the best business
people.

The benefits to someone like me are that I can count on sending an
Excel sheet to China and not worry about them being able to open it.
I can send a Word document to Germany without any fear of
incompatibility.

If the standards are de facto rather than de jure, and if they are
evolving, rather than fixed - so be it. The marketplace will continue
to define what is acceptable and smart businesses will continue to
address the concerns of the marketplace in the best way possible at
the time.




tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

If the standards are de facto rather than de jure, and if they are
evolving, rather than fixed - so be it. The marketplace will continue
to define what is acceptable and smart businesses will continue to
address the concerns of the marketplace in the best way possible at
the time.

You're simply amazing, Tom. Well said, succinct, and impossible to argue
with ... although some fool will undoubtedly try.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:19:07 +0000, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 21:08:47 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

which of the just over 200 variants of Unix
is the "standard version" ????

They all are. A _good_ Unix sysadmin can speak to any of them
with a minimum of retraining between.

All the _good_ Unix sysadmins I know are religious bigots who won't
dirty their hands with BSD / anything other than BSD.

Hm, you must know a different group of Unix guys than I do. Yeah,
there are the prima-donnas who will only work on their favorite
whatever, but that's a good thing to screen out in job interviews.

I mean, VI or EMACS, yeah, but if they recoil at hearing FreeBSD
and do the "I only do OPENBSD, thank you very much!" kind of
thing, then, well, the interview is effectively over. If the
response is "Well, I've done OpenBSD and NetBSD, and I understand
that Free differs in this, that, and another way, but I know where
the man pages are", then sure.

And as for the
HP-UX / Solaris / SGI freakiness.

Ehhh... it's all the same enough. I'm mostly Sun these days,
but have done a ton of all of 'em. Just fire up the
Unix Rosetta Stone when I forget what something is called or
where it is, or use the Purple Book, and we're good to go.

There's more to it than just DeadRat vs. Suse vs. Debian

I've got two of the three of those in production too. Right
tool for the right job, y'know?

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:58:17 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote:

I know what you mean there. But, I notice that www.tandem.com forwards
to compaq.com where it 404's. Are they still around, or did HP kill them
off, or ???

Still breathing. But they don't call it Tandem anymore; it's now "HP NonStop".
http://h20223.www2.hp.com/nonstopcom...0-0-0-121.aspx

Odd that they wouldn't bother fixing the forward at tandem.com though.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:35:14 -0600, MSCHAEF.COM wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
...
I used to have an Altair 680, but a... let's say person I know...
left it IN A LEAKY GARAGE and it got wrecked. Ask me how I feel
about that. No really, go ahead.

Argh..... that's awful.

Still haven't forgiven the *******, obviously. Some things just
can't be fixed, y'know?

If you want to defend MS as the great promoter of standards then I
suggest you bring some facts to the table. Until then keep your
shallow viewpoint to yourself.

OK, my friend, let's look at just whose "viewpoints" are indeed "shallow".
We'll take them one by one, from your very first mistake: posting about
something of which you obviously have only limited knowledge, a point which
you indeed prove.

For someone who supposedly "attended meetings" on USB (which YOU brought up
and tried to shoehorn into context), you appear to have slept through most
of them.
It is very easy to sleep through technical meetings where the
discussion is irrelevant because the answers are dictated in the back
room through force of the MDA.


MSFT was only a small part of the consortium that brought USB into being.
Try Compaq, NEC, Northern Telecom, IBM, Intel and Digital as "CO-DEVELOPERS"
of the USB protocol as we know it today, NOT as you suggest something MSFT
"tried to force down the throat ..." (sic).
What I cited, had you read my response, was that MS and Intel forced
PC suppliers to ship USB hardware before the technology was finished
or proven. A tremendous number of PC mfr service calls (in fact a
couple of class action lawsuits) were generated in 1995 through 1998
simply because the equipment had this USB feature that no one could
use. That is a fact.


(That is an actual, and inarguable, FACT!)
The fact is that USB is an industry consortium, set up by MS and
Intel, with very restricted rules regarding Intellectual Property (IP)
and process that prevented anyone who had significant IP to contribute
from participating without giving away the family jewels. In fact IBM
did not participate in the consortium, despite claims in the spec to
the contrary, for precisely this reason. That is a fact. There are
numerous other examples of this practice.

You will find that the MO is for MS to avoid participation in real
standards committees where the implementation is not guaranteed and
subject to public debate and, instead, takes one of two paths: either
publish the spec as a Windows specification - take it or leave it (and
if the industry is real lucky the specification accurately represents
their implementation which is rare), or set up a consortium where the
outcome is controlled and gives the appearance of a democratic
collaborative process.


With regard to "Apple" and networking ... to suggest that AppleTalk is a
"networking standard" in the industry is as laughable as it is ridiculous.

(And that is a reality based FACT, which only a fool would argue against.)
It is also a false argument since I never said AppleTalk is a
networking standard. I said that Apple shipped the ability to network
between devices without hassle long before MS ever did, using IETF
standards or otherwise. Maybe if you read what I said rather than
what you think I said we would actually get somewhere with this
discussion.


snip of more meaningless misinterpretation of what I said

TWS

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:21:23 -0500, Guess who wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 23:05:05 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Yeah, I saw that after I read this. Not sure of posting order, not
that it matters.

Truth be known, none of this OT/BS matters.

Yup.

"TWS" wrote in message

snip of more meaningless misinterpretation of what I said

Perhaps if you had known more about what you were attempting to say, and had
been more factual in presenting it, the outcome would have been different
for you.

As it is, _you_ introduced every single word of the irrelevant BS about
"AppleTalk", "USB", "DHCP", and "DNS" into the discussion, yet you remain
unable to defend a word of it.

End of story.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

I'm guessing your old man wasn't the one that worked
for the famous NCR company who later took "another"
job at a new company ????

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/hi...cade_1910.html

Tom Watson wrote:


It's worse than you think - my full name is Thomas J. Watson Jr.

Tom,
as others have stated, you have made your point clearly and succinctly
and, I might add, without personal assaults or misrepresentations of
someone else's position. You may want to remind me again that these
methods are part of the wreck 'process' but it is refreshing to see a
change from that behavior on occasion.

I said at the outset I should have stayed out of this discussion
because it is akin to the debate on why we have HF tools. We have MS
software and HF tools for the same reason - its what the market is
willing to buy without concern for the practices that produced those
products or where rewarding those practices will lead us in the
future. Debating the MS issue is the same as whining about the
decline of woodworking tool quality. Into the kill filter it goes...

Tom

With regard to "Apple" and networking ... to suggest that AppleTalk is a
"networking standard" in the industry is as laughable as it is ridiculous.

(And that is a reality based FACT, which only a fool would argue against.)

Appletalk is protocol #1 as defined in the PPP protocol configurations option
ID field..

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:01:51 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
.. .

While those kinds of things can lead to problems (mis-interpretations,
etc), it could also have had some significant benefits. Even if only a
few
vendors survived future competitive thinning, the differences in
implementations would have reduced vulnerability to virus problems, since
it would be unlikely that the same holes would exist in all
implemenations.

Having seen what the boys from Ft Meade can do, I'm confident in asserting
that _any_ system is vulnerable to the infinite number of monkeys out there.


I don't think I said anything differently, although I'm not sure what the
boys from Ft Meade have to do with malicious viruses floating around on the
internet. The point is, that when you have different implementations
floating around, then the exploits that take advantage of a specific
vulnerability (unless it is a shortcoming in the standard itself) will not
work on all implementations. Thus, instead of the homogeneous system we
have now in which all windows machines are vulnerable, for example, to the
blaster worm because of a specific buffer overflow, in a diverse market
place with different implementations of the same standard, it is likely
that only one of the implementations would be vulnerable to that particular
exploit. Doesn't mean other exploits wouldn't work on a different
implementation -- what it means is that not *all* systems would be
vulnerable to the "virus de jour". Seems much more robust to me.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

I don't think I said anything differently, although I'm not sure
what the
boys from Ft Meade have to do with malicious viruses floating around
on the
internet. The point is, that when you have different implementations
floating around, then the exploits that take advantage of a specific
vulnerability (unless it is a shortcoming in the standard itself)
will not
work on all implementations. Thus, instead of the homogeneous system
we
have now in which all windows machines are vulnerable, for example,
to the
blaster worm because of a specific buffer overflow, in a diverse
market
place with different implementations of the same standard, it is
likely
that only one of the implementations would be vulnerable to that
particular
exploit. Doesn't mean other exploits wouldn't work on a different
implementation -- what it means is that not *all* systems would be
vulnerable to the "virus de jour". Seems much more robust to me.


Of course a system that uses Code-Data-Separation will be immune
to ALL buffer overflow exploits. Microsoft's disdain for common
sense practices is largely why their software is vulnerable to
_so many_ security problems.

--

FF

"Bruce" wrote in message

With regard to "Apple" and networking ... to suggest that AppleTalk is
a
"networking standard" in the industry is as laughable as it is
ridiculous.

(And that is a reality based FACT, which only a fool would argue
against.)

Appletalk is protocol #1 as defined in the PPP protocol configurations
option
ID field..

PPP being basically an "encapsulation" protocol for point to point serial
communication, for configuring TCP/IP over PPP, and being "apples and
oranges" when it comes to AppleTalk network layer protocol, I am not sure
what your point is, nor what the relevance is, with regard to the statement
above?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:42:52 GMT, the inscrutable TWS
spake:

Tom,
as others have stated, you have made your point clearly and succinctly
and, I might add, without personal assaults or misrepresentations of
someone else's position. You may want to remind me again that these
methods are part of the wreck 'process' but it is refreshing to see a
change from that behavior on occasion.

I said at the outset I should have stayed out of this discussion
because it is akin to the debate on why we have HF tools. We have MS
software and HF tools for the same reason - its what the market is
willing to buy without concern for the practices that produced those
products or where rewarding those practices will lead us in the
future. Debating the MS issue is the same as whining about the
decline of woodworking tool quality. Into the kill filter it goes...

If you were concerned with the practices which go on behind the scenes
of big business, you'd never buy another processed item again, from
toothpaste to TP to bread to noodles to shoes, and everything between.
Big business has -always- been fraught with nastiness.

Best of luck, Tom.


--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---
www.diversify.com Complete Website Development

PPP being basically an "encapsulation" protocol for point to point serial
communication, for configuring TCP/IP over PPP, and being "apples and
oranges" when it comes to AppleTalk network layer protocol, I am not sure
what your point is, nor what the relevance is, with regard to the statement
above?



Basically there is no "networking standard". A lot of protocols, but with
infiniBand, firewire, Myranet, etc. there really is no "standard", just a
bunch of choices.

-Bruce

"Bruce" wrote in message

Basically there is no "networking standard". A lot of protocols, but with
infiniBand, firewire, Myranet, etc. there really is no "standard", just a
bunch of choices.

.... you might want to inform the IETF of that fact.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message

Basically there is no "networking standard". A lot of protocols, but with
infiniBand, firewire, Myranet, etc. there really is no "standard", just a
bunch of choices.

... you might want to inform the IETF of that fact.

Sure there's standards. The wonderful thing is there's so many of them

Allen

"Allen" wrote in message
In article
"Swingman" wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message

Basically there is no "networking standard". A lot of protocols, but
with
infiniBand, firewire, Myranet, etc. there really is no "standard",
just a
bunch of choices.

... you might want to inform the IETF of that fact.

Sure there's standards. The wonderful thing is there's so many of them

You're right about that, but more in a _local_ sense ... and they're
getting fewer all the time, thanks to the "mother of all networks", which
certainly has specific "standards" that dictate that 'if your local network
wants to play, you do it this way'.

IOW, disparate networking protocols, desiring to communicate over the global
Internet, better follow the "networking standards" found in the Internet
Protocol Standards Index.

So, in effect, the contention that there is no "networking standard" today
is arguably nearsighted in a global sense.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:41:57 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):

"Bruce" wrote in message

Basically there is no "networking standard". A lot of protocols, but with
infiniBand, firewire, Myranet, etc. there really is no "standard", just a
bunch of choices.

... you might want to inform the IETF of that fact.



They don't seem very interested in network standards.

"Bruce" wrote in message
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:41:57 -0700, Swingman wrote

"Bruce" wrote in message

Basically there is no "networking standard". A lot of protocols, but
with
infiniBand, firewire, Myranet, etc. there really is no "standard", just
a
bunch of choices.

... you might want to inform the IETF of that fact.


They don't seem very interested in network standards.

Actually, if they there were NOT, as you say, "interested in network
standards", your above *opinions* would never have appeared here ... think
about it. ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:05:26 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):

"Bruce" wrote in message
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:41:57 -0700, Swingman wrote

"Bruce" wrote in message

Basically there is no "networking standard". A lot of protocols, but
with
infiniBand, firewire, Myranet, etc. there really is no "standard", just
a
bunch of choices.

... you might want to inform the IETF of that fact.


They don't seem very interested in network standards.

Actually, if they there were NOT, as you say, "interested in network
standards", your above *opinions* would never have appeared here ... think
about it. ;)



Seem they are interested in "internet" standards.

Internet is a network, a network is not necessarily an internet.

I can network all sorts of devices with products from a wide range of
vendors. Are they capable of being hooked up to the internet? probably not
unless I adhere to internet standards. Are they still a network standard?
yup!

-Bruce

"Bruce" wrote in message

I can network all sorts of devices with products from a wide range of
vendors. Are they capable of being hooked up to the internet? probably not
unless I adhere to internet standards. Are they still a network standard?
yup!

Read what I said earlier about disparate networks, then tell me that being
bogged down in semantics is not causing your myopia.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:17:33 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):

"Bruce" wrote in message

I can network all sorts of devices with products from a wide range of
vendors. Are they capable of being hooked up to the internet? probably not
unless I adhere to internet standards. Are they still a network standard?
yup!

Read what I said earlier about disparate networks, then tell me that being
bogged down in semantics is not causing your myopia.

Hmmm, I googled "disparate" and got no hits. I jumped in on your statement
that Appletalk (ATCP) is not a standard when even the IETF has a working
group dedicated to it.

Of course it is outdated, but seeing how millions of machines and devices
worked with it for years as a network, calling it rediculous is akin to
calling RS232 ridiculous.

to suggest that AppleTalk is a
"networking standard" in the industry is as laughable as it is
ridiculous.

"Bruce" wrote in message ...
Swingman wrote

Read what I said earlier about disparate networks, then tell me that
being
bogged down in semantics is not causing your myopia.

Hmmm, I googled "disparate" and got no hits.

Hmmm .... Being bogged down in semantics AND admittedly having to go to
Google to bolster your arguments? ... no damn wonder you're struggling with
the concept.

For your future benefit, any dictionary will give you the definition of
"disparate":

1 : containing or made up of fundamentally different and often incongruous
elements

I jumped in on your statement
that Appletalk (ATCP) is not a standard when even the IETF has a working
group dedicated to it.

Not exactly, you came from left field with something totally irrelevant
about "PPP. Sounds like you got that from Google also.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

I htink I'd say my first word processor was a KayPro in '82, and it
cost something like $2800...but didn't have a thing on it supplied by
MS, that I am able to recall. OS was cp/m.

A place I worked in the late '60s had IBM word processors: what a gas
compared to our current machinery. Card punches and all.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:52:54 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):



Hmmm, I googled "disparate" and got no hits.

Hmmm .... Being bogged down in semantics AND admittedly having to go to
Google to bolster your arguments? ... no damn wonder you're struggling with
the concept.

For your future benefit, any dictionary will give you the definition of
"disparate":

1 : containing or made up of fundamentally different and often incongruous
elements

Gee, thanks. I was looking for the post you were referring too. Google
archives Usenet you know...


I jumped in on your statement
that Appletalk (ATCP) is not a standard when even the IETF has a working
group dedicated to it.

Not exactly, you came from left field with something totally irrelevant
about "PPP. Sounds like you got that from Google also.

No. I build systems implementing protocols from custom hardware. I tend to
dig into details since for something to work it needs to implement all the
details of the protocol.