Tom Watson wrote:


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

Gawd! You don't do meetings in black limos, do you?

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

or the illegal...

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.

or the ones that got away with murder...

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.

How true. The only bit I beg to differ with is: if something is a
"de facto standard" and it keeps evolving, then it is not a standard.
It's a monopoly. Although of course it may remain de facto.
The only reason you can send your Exel files to China and your
Word documents to Germany and be assured of them being opened is
that those two products are a monopoly. Not a standard.
There is a difference. There is no such thing as a "de facto standard"
in IT, it's an invention of the 80s.

And oh! yes: in China, probably you'd have a problem with the Exel
file:
they are going Linux and open software in a big way.

But I agree with you 100%: the marketplace defines what is acceptable
and the smart supply companies go with that. Best or worse is
highly relative in such a de-regulated environment. Is it good?
Dunno, but it seems to be working.

In article , says...
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.

Baloney.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=disparate
Two-point-seven *million* hits.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:29:20 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:


There were a whole series of other standalone systems between there as
well that were processor-based. They went in the $20k range or
thereabouts depending on printer options, etc.

There were entire companies dedicated to the business,
like Wang.

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


We have what we have because of marketing savvy and marketing force.

... and in the case of DRDOS, outright sabotage.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:13:51 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:


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.


But there is a pretty good chance that in a year or two it will
be opened by a spreadsheet program running under Linux...

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:15:44 -0700, Bruce wrote
(in article ):




Baloney.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=disparate
Two-point-seven *million* hits.


Hmmm.

lets see...

Google Groups: disparate group:rec.woodworking author:swingman

No hits.

Baloney back at ya!

On 20 Feb 2005 22:56:13 -0800, "Noons" wrote:


And oh! yes: in China, probably you'd have a problem with the Exel
file:
they are going Linux and open software in a big way.


... but they'll most likely use sotware that will be able to read &
write recent-version Excel-formatted files.

In article , Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:15:44 -0700, Bruce wrote
(in article ):




Baloney.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=disparate
Two-point-seven *million* hits.


Hmmm.

lets see...

Google Groups: disparate group:rec.woodworking author:swingman

You said you did a Google search on 'disparate'. Not on the combination of
that word, this group, that author.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Bruce" wrote in message

Hmmm.

lets see...

Google Groups: disparate group:rec.woodworking author:swingman

No hits.

Baloney back at eh!

Can't even do that right, eh?

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups... l=en&filter=0

http://tinyurl.com/5r95l

Enjoy your sandwich!

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

On 20 Feb 2005 22:56:13 -0800, "Noons" wrote:


Hi Noons. Good ta see yer voice.

And oh! yes: in China, probably you'd have a problem with the Exel
file:
they are going Linux and open software in a big way.


Nah. I deal with four different factories in Shanghai and send Excel
sheets back and forth all the time, without a problem.

Ya know why? Because it is the "defacto standard" for those who do
business with the West.

Bwahahaaaaa...hee....hee...gurgle gurgle...




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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:38:52 -0700, Doug Miller wrote
(in article ):

In article , Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:15:44 -0700, Bruce wrote
(in article ):




Baloney.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=disparate
Two-point-seven *million* hits.


Hmmm.

lets see...

Google Groups: disparate group:rec.woodworking author:swingman

You said you did a Google search on 'disparate'. Not on the combination of
that word, this group, that author.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Sorry Doug.
The context wasn't obvious
-Bruce

Tom Watson wrote:

Ya know why? Because it is the "defacto standard" for those who do
business with the West.

Bwahahaaaaa...hee....hee...gurgle gurgle...

LOL!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:58:33 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):

"Bruce" wrote in message

Hmmm.

lets see...

Google Groups: disparate group:rec.woodworking author:swingman

No hits.

Baloney back at eh!

Can't even do that right, eh?


http://groups-
beta.google.com/groups?q=%22disparate%22+group:rec.woodworking+a
uthor:swingman&start=0&safe=off&lr=lang_en&num=100 &hl=en&filter=0

http://tinyurl.com/5r95l

Enjoy your sandwich!



Well that's funky....
I tried Mozilla and google gave me the "omitted references" link. My regular
browser only showed the single reference.

My bad, thanks for the link.

Still, I think you have confused internet standards with network standards.
Internet protocols are what allow different networks (LANs) to link. Network
standards are inter-LAN of which AppleTalk was one of the most common until
supplanted by IP. Major bridge/router manufactures still support the various
flavors of AppleTalk (i.e. AT over ethernet, ftp, ppp, etc.)

-Bruce

"Bruce" wrote in message

Still, I think you have confused internet standards with network
standards.

Not at all ... there are two basic points which of which you appear to be
unawa

- In the industry, "network protocols" are also known and defined as
"network standards":

http://tinyurl.com/4b4qm

- The largest WAN (wide area network) in the world _is_ the Internet.

Therefore, your statement that:

Basically there is no "networking standard".
A lot of protocols ... there really is no "standard", just a
bunch of choices.

..... is provably erroneous by industry definition, and, has been often
stated here, nearsighted in its failure to recognize the implications of WAN
"protocols" as being indeed, "networking standards".

In short, it is you have been _proven_ to be "confused".

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

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:39:17 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:


The embedded market in terms of numbers of cpu's is far larger than the
desktop market (as you may well know). Last numbers I recall from
Embedded Systems Programming survey of embedded developers something
under 10% were using either of those as an OS for their or their
employers' product(s).

A lot of them are real-time applications running on hardware with
constrained memory, so that's understandable. Linux is beginning
to make inroads here.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:22:54 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):

"Bruce" wrote in message

Still, I think you have confused internet standards with network
standards.

Not at all ... there are two basic points which of which you appear to be
unawa

- In the industry, "network protocols" are also known and defined as
"network standards":

I agree. The key word here is network. A homogeneous unit in the common
interpretation (i.e. LAN) but extendable. The internet would be the extreme
extension of this interpretation if it was homogeneous.


http://tinyurl.com/4b4qm

- The largest WAN (wide area network) in the world _is_ the Internet.

Ok, I'll buy that.


Therefore, your statement that:

Basically there is no "networking standard".
A lot of protocols ... there really is no "standard", just a
bunch of choices.

My point with the quotes was that there is no _single_ standard. There are a
bunch of choices, some common (i.e. IP, AppleTalk, etc.) and some esoteric
(custom, one off implementations). You are not forced into a single format.


.... is provably erroneous by industry definition, and, has been often
stated here, nearsighted in its failure to recognize the implications of WAN
"protocols" as being indeed, "networking standards".

Internet (WAN) standards unite the various flavors of proprietary and open
sourced protocols. They are not necessarily derived to define lower protocols
as much as they are derived to allow these protocols to interoperate.


In short, it is you have been _proven_ to be "confused".

My beef is you go off falsely sounding like a networking expert with
statements like:

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 .

When you can't seem to explain why network equipment manufactures, OS
vendors, etc. support and allocate resource limited address space and
protocol identifiers for AppleTalk, a standard dating back to the 80's.

-Bruce

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:03:14 -0700, GregP wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:39:17 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:


The embedded market in terms of numbers of cpu's is far larger than the
desktop market (as you may well know). Last numbers I recall from
Embedded Systems Programming survey of embedded developers something
under 10% were using either of those as an OS for their or their
employers' product(s).

A lot of them are real-time applications running on hardware with
constrained memory, so that's understandable. Linux is beginning
to make inroads here.


We are (I am) abandoning VxWorks in favor of the 2.6 kernel for a large
project where the real time demands are more relaxed and our memory space is
large. In my case the wealth of networking options and support base for
communications far outweigh the more deterministic nature of former embedded
standards like VxWorks (who are adopting Linux for just this reason 8^).

-Bruce

"Bruce" wrote in message

I agree. The key word here is network.

No ****? ... did you think we were talking about reality TV?

http://tinyurl.com/4b4qm

- The largest WAN (wide area network) in the world _is_ the Internet.

Therefore, your statement that:

Basically there is no "networking standard".
A lot of protocols ... there really is no "standard", just a
bunch of choices.

My point with the quotes was that there is no _single_ standard.

But that is not what you said. And there is - the collection of protocols
for the global WAN called the Internet - you're being nearsighted if you
deny that.

.... is provably erroneous by industry definition, and, has been often
stated here, nearsighted in its failure to recognize the implications of
WAN
"protocols" as being indeed, "networking standards".

Internet (WAN) standards unite the various flavors of proprietary and open
sourced protocols. They are not necessarily derived to define lower
protocols
as much as they are derived to allow these protocols to interoperate.

You sound like you finally took the definition of "disparate" to heart and
learned something.

In short, it is you have been _proven_ to be "confused".

My beef is you go off falsely sounding like a networking expert with
statements like:

Sure thing, and in my ignorance manifested itself in calling you immediately
on your attempted, and irrelevant, introduction of "PPP" into the thread?

When you can't seem to explain why network equipment manufactures, OS
vendors, etc. support and allocate resource limited address space and
protocol identifiers for AppleTalk, a standard dating back to the 80's.

In your wildest 'thunking', could you understand it if I did?

As myopic as you been with this fixation on AppleTalk, particularly now that
with the introduction of "allocated" address space, a ridiculously broad
brushed theme to bolster your argument, I am not sure that you could.

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

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:03:14 -0500, GregP wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:39:17 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:


The embedded market in terms of numbers of cpu's is far larger than the
desktop market (as you may well know). Last numbers I recall from
Embedded Systems Programming survey of embedded developers something
under 10% were using either of those as an OS for their or their
employers' product(s).

A lot of them are real-time applications running on hardware with
constrained memory, so that's understandable. Linux is beginning
to make inroads here.

Interesting article at slashdot a bit ago, on this topic:
http://robots.net/article/1424.html

On 24 Feb 2005 16:16:55 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Interesting article at slashdot a bit ago, on this topic:
http://robots.net/article/1424.html


I didn't know that Linux had made such large inroads.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0500, GregP wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 16:16:55 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Interesting article at slashdot a bit ago, on this topic:
http://robots.net/article/1424.html

I didn't know that Linux had made such large inroads.

Well, it's good, it's free, and it runs on lots of hardware. What's not
to like?

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:29:14 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):

"Bruce" wrote in message

I agree. The key word here is network.

No ****? ... did you think we were talking about reality TV?

Reality seems to be a new concept to you?

http://tinyurl.com/4b4qm

- The largest WAN (wide area network) in the world _is_ the Internet.

Therefore, your statement that:

Basically there is no "networking standard".
A lot of protocols ... there really is no "standard", just a
bunch of choices.

My point with the quotes was that there is no _single_ standard.

But that is not what you said. And there is - the collection of protocols
for the global WAN called the Internet - you're being nearsighted if you
deny that.

No. Internet standards are not directly equal to network standards. There
are network standards that are not internet standards and vice versa. There
is also overlap. Think of the union of two sets in a Venn diagram.
There exists a number of accepted encapsulations (standards) for transport of
various standard protocols (yes, PPP is one).



Sure thing, and in my ignorance manifested itself in calling you immediately
on your attempted, and irrelevant, introduction of "PPP" into the thread?

Duh! PPP is a network standard. Check your network connection options
sometime.

When you can't seem to explain why network equipment manufactures, OS
vendors, etc. support and allocate resource limited address space and
protocol identifiers for AppleTalk, a standard dating back to the 80's.

In your wildest 'thunking', could you understand it if I did?

I think you can't back up your claim. You are avoiding it.


As myopic as you been with this fixation on AppleTalk, particularly now that
with the introduction of "allocated" address space, a ridiculously broad
brushed theme to bolster your argument, I am not sure that you could.

I suppose I have to explain port addressing and protocol definition headers
to you? Pick up a transport layer definition specification sometime. You'll
see lots of big words like "IP address" etc.

"Bruce" wrote in message

My point with the quotes was that there is no _single_ standard.

But that is not what you said. And there is - the collection of
protocols
for the global WAN called the Internet - you're being nearsighted if you
deny that.

No. Internet standards are not directly equal to network standards.

But you have already stated unequivocally that there are none ... make up
your mind.

I gave you an unimpeachable source definining "network standards". Thus far
you have provided no proof, except your muddled blatherings and flip flops,
to back up your claim.

Sure thing, and in my ignorance manifested itself in calling you
immediately
on your attempted, and irrelevant, introduction of "PPP" into the
thread?

Duh! PPP is a network standard. Check your network connection options
sometime.

But, you have previously claimed that there is "no networking standard" ...
which is it, Bruce?

Besides, in the context in which you used PPP, your use was clearly
irrelevant and what it really showed was a lack of depth of knowledge on the
subject.

When you can't seem to explain why network equipment manufactures, OS
vendors, etc. support and allocate resource limited address space and
protocol identifiers for AppleTalk, a standard dating back to the 80's.

In your wildest 'thunking', could you understand it if I did?

I think you can't back up your claim. You are avoiding it.

LOL ... my "claim" all along is that you are myopic in your understanding of
the concept of "network standards ... a fact which you have sufficiently
demonstrated by yourself.

As myopic as you been with this fixation on AppleTalk, particularly now
that
with the introduction of "allocated" address space, a ridiculously broad
brushed theme to bolster your argument, I am not sure that you could.

I suppose I have to explain port addressing and protocol definition
headers
to you? Pick up a transport layer definition specification sometime.
You'll
see lots of big words like "IP address" etc.

I am still waiting for you to explain the basis for your claim that there is
no "networking standard" ... so until you accomplish that, don't bother to
presume you can explain anything.

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

You are probably thinking of IEEE who designates worldwide standards.
e.g. IEEE 802.3 more commonly known as Ethernet.
The numerical specification refers to the date which this worldwide
networking specification was adopted - February, 1980 - almost a quarter
century! (the part to the left of the decimal refers to topology).

Mark

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"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

Mark wrote:

You are probably thinking of IEEE who designates worldwide standards.
....

You are probably thinking of ISO. IEEE is an American organization
only. While some IEEE standards may have been adopted as ISO standards,
IEEE is not a world standards organization.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:45:11 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):



No. Internet standards are not directly equal to network standards.

But you have already stated unequivocally that there are none ... make up
your mind.

If you would put on your glasses (you seem to bring up your myopia a lot) I
said there is no single network standard (singular). There are a bunch of
network standards to choose from.

I gave you an unimpeachable source definining "network standards". Thus far
you have provided no proof, except your muddled blatherings and flip flops,
to back up your claim.

Gee if you are still on the IETF thing, they weren't cohesive when AppleTalk
was created. I suppose you also claim that CSNET, BITNET, ARPANET, etc. are
not in anyway no-how network standards since they formed before IETF. Was it
Al Gore who created IETF by any chance????


Sure thing, and in my ignorance manifested itself in calling you
immediately
on your attempted, and irrelevant, introduction of "PPP" into the
thread?

Duh! PPP is a network standard. Check your network connection options
sometime.

But, you have previously claimed that there is "no networking standard" ...
which is it, Bruce?

Besides, in the context in which you used PPP, your use was clearly
irrelevant and what it really showed was a lack of depth of knowledge on the
subject.

Is PPP not a standard? Seems quite popular eh???



LOL ... my "claim" all along is that you are myopic in your understanding of
the concept of "network standards ... a fact which you have sufficiently
demonstrated by yourself.

You really don't understand what a standard is do you?



I am still waiting for you to explain the basis for your claim that there is
no "networking standard" ... so until you accomplish that, don't bother to
presume you can explain anything.

You really just can't accept that AppleTalk is a standard can you?

"Bruce" wrote in message
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:45:11 -0700, Swingman wrote

snip of Kerryesqe flip flops on the existence of "network standards"

You really don't understand what a standard is do you?

LOL! If you recall, it was I who had to provide a definition for YOU.

I am still waiting for you to explain the basis for your claim that
there is
no "networking standard" ... so until you accomplish that, don't bother
to
presume you can explain anything.

You really just can't accept that AppleTalk is a standard can you?

But, Bruce ...YOU clearly stated there are none.

But it is nice to see that your flip flops are an indication of sorts that
you are finally getting the point ... and once it was pointed out to you,
you even managed to grasp the concept of "disparate" and actually use the
concept in your argument, so you have obviously learned something thus far.

However, by industry definition, and has been often stated here, you have
been nearsighted in your failure to recognize the implications of global WAN
"protocols" as being indeed, "networking standards".

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

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 07:14:09 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):

"Bruce" wrote in message
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:45:11 -0700, Swingman wrote

snip of Kerryesqe flip flops on the existence of "network standards"

You really don't understand what a standard is do you?

LOL! If you recall, it was I who had to provide a definition for YOU.

Hah,

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/standard.html





I am still waiting for you to explain the basis for your claim that
there is
no "networking standard" ... so until you accomplish that, don't bother
to
presume you can explain anything.

You really just can't accept that AppleTalk is a standard can you?

But, Bruce ...YOU clearly stated there are none.

No. again if you could focus on more than one line at a time, I stated there
is no "network standard", just a bunch of choices (all of which are network
standards, including Appletalk) Are you advocating that only IP is permitted
on networks???

However, by industry definition, and has been often stated here, you have
been nearsighted in your failure to recognize the implications of global WAN
"protocols" as being indeed, "networking standards".

You still can't back up your claim that AppleTalk isn't a network standard
can you.

http://www.phys-iasi.ro/Library/RFCs/rfc2500.htm

"Bruce" wrote in message
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 07:14:09 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):

"Bruce" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:45:11 -0700, Swingman wrote

snip of Kerryesqe flip flops on the existence of "network standards"

You really don't understand what a standard is do you?

LOL! If you recall, it was I who had to provide a definition for YOU.

Hah,

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/standard.html

And exactly what was it that you couldn't understand about the following?

- In the industry, "network protocols" are also known and defined as
"network standards":
http://tinyurl.com/4b4qm

You still can't back up your claim that AppleTalk isn't a network standard
can you.

Once again, it was _you_ who said there are no "network standards".

What I said was that "WITH REGARD TO APPLE AND NETWORKING", AppleTalk is not
an "industry" standard ... it is not. It is a _proprietary_ group of
protocols. Protocols, AAMOF, whose use are being discontinued throughout the
networking industry, including most college and university networks. As just
one example see:

http://www.cit.cornell.edu/network-s...ackground.html


http://www.phys-iasi.ro/Library/RFCs/rfc2500.htm

LOL ... well, you have proved conclusively that you can, at last, Google
effectively, and can cut n' paste. However, that ability does little to
further your understanding of the issues.

When you take the time to read and comprehend what you posted, you will note
that it deals primarily with making AppleTalk, a proprietary, non TCP/IP,
non-compatible network, _compatible_ with the "networking standards" of the
largest WAN in existence.

Nice try, though ... ;)

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

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:32:24 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):


Once again, it was _you_ who said there are no "network standards".

Read what I said. I never said "network standards".


What I said was that "WITH REGARD TO APPLE AND NETWORKING", AppleTalk is not
an "industry" standard ... it is not. It is a _proprietary_ group of
protocols.


Gee, but you said protocols are indeed network standards...

It's not proprietary either. Third party hardware is common and it follows
the IEEE guidelines. It networked millions of computers in institutions
worldwide, interfaced well with other networks.. Gee just like a standard....

http://www.protocols.com/pbook/appletalk.htm

you still haven't proven Appletalk is not an industry standard. Even the IETF
considers Appletalk.


Protocols, AAMOF, whose use are being discontinued throughout the
networking industry, including most college and university networks. As just
one example see:

This is old news. however network equipment manufactures still support these
standard protocols and port address space and protocol header identifiers
still are reserved and defined.

http://www.cit.cornell.edu/network-s...ackground.html


http://www.phys-iasi.ro/Library/RFCs/rfc2500.htm

LOL ... well, you have proved conclusively that you can, at last, Google
effectively, and can cut n' paste. However, that ability does little to
further your understanding of the issues.

When you take the time to read and comprehend what you posted, you will note
that it deals primarily with making AppleTalk, a proprietary, non TCP/IP,
non-compatible network, _compatible_ with the "networking standards" of the
largest WAN in existence.

It's just protocol encapsulation. As I pointed out, equipment manufactures
take care of this. What is the deal with TCP/IP? It would be silly to force
everyone to use TCP/IP.


Nice try, though ... ;)

"Bruce" wrote in message

It's not proprietary either.

Take your pick from about 40,000 documents that prove you wrong, again.

http://tinyurl.com/5w5sd

you still haven't proven Appletalk is not an industry standard. Even the
IETF
considers Appletalk.

Sure it "considers" AppleTalk, but only in the sense to make it compatible.
Only an argumentative fool would call it an "industy standard" ... not one
single of your "equipment manufacturers" does ... they all specifically call
it what it is, "proprietary".

It's just protocol encapsulation.

Hmmm ... sounds like you've been reading my posts in this thread. Keep doing
that and you may actually learn something yet.

As I pointed out, equipment manufactures
take care of this.

Yep, and this is what one of the biggest "equipment manufacturer", Cisco,
calls AppleTalk:

http://tinyurl.com/6abf9.

"These data link layer implementations perform address translation and other
functions that allow proprietary AppleTalk protocols to communicate over
industry-standard interfaces, ..."

Note the repeated use of the word "proprietary" in the Cisco document.

Keep trying, Bruce ... your bull**** just ain't working.

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

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:17:03 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

Hey Swing, you ever read Das Glasperlenspiel?

It reminds me a lot of this thread.


...




Thomas J. Watson - WoodDorker

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

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

Hey Swing, you ever read Das Glasperlenspiel?

It reminds me a lot of this thread.

...

Ah yes, Magister Ludi ... a surfeit of "links".

"Disciples come no longer to be blessed,
Nor masters to invite an argument."

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

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:17:03 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):



Take your pick from about 40,000 documents that prove you wrong, again.

http://tinyurl.com/5w5sd

Proprietary is when a company develops and keeps secret some technology or IP
(that is intellectual property, not internet protocol just to be sure you
understand). They guard this as a company secret. If you understood the
computer industry you would get it.

Apple has had the protocol open to third party vendors to facilitate
deployment and acceptance. When a protocol is termed "proprietary" it is in
terms of a single entity directing development.



It's just protocol encapsulation.

Hmmm ... sounds like you've been reading my posts in this thread. Keep doing
that and you may actually learn something yet.

But you don't seem able to grasp that protocols exist to transport other
protocols (i.e. IP-internet protocol for the slow). You will find methods and
identifiers to tell other network stack levels what standard protocol is
being transported.

As I pointed out, equipment manufactures
take care of this.


Note the repeated use of the word "proprietary" in the Cisco document.

Sure! They are the developer. If it is non standard why would they even
bother eh? Look at Microsoft, they are the epitome of proprietary.

Keep trying, Bruce ... your bull**** just ain't working.

You just don't seem able to defend your claim that Appletalk is not a
networking standard. You just come up with a bunch of Dan Ratherian excuses
"it a lie but i'll tell it anyway"

"Bruce" wrote in message

It's just protocol encapsulation.

Hmmm ... sounds like you've been reading my posts in this thread. Keep
doing
that and you may actually learn something yet.

But you don't seem able to grasp that protocols exist to transport other
protocols

READ and you will see that it was I who pointed that out after the initial
reference to PPP in this thread.


As I pointed out, equipment manufactures
take care of this.


Note the repeated use of the word "proprietary" in the Cisco document.

Sure! They are the developer. If it is non standard why would they even
bother eh? Look at Microsoft, they are the epitome of proprietary.

Introducing another red herring won't help your argument ... stick to the
subject.

Keep trying, Bruce ... your bull**** just ain't working.

You just don't seem able to defend your claim that Appletalk is not a
networking standard.

AppleTalk is a set of proprietary network protocols ... it is not, as I have
repeatedly stated, an industry "standard".

You just come up with a bunch of Dan Ratherian excuses

"it a lie but i'll tell it anyway"

Well, his grammar is better than yours, but I agree you that you are
obstinately failing to recognize the truth of the matter.

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

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
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)

"Joe Wilding" wrote in message
news:1109708538.a8af24d94048f8bb04bf7881355313a4@t eranews...

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
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.

How did you end up with that moniker, Tawm? Last I knew, Col. Patterson
booted his butt out of National Cash Register when he got some crazy idea
about punching holes in paper cards. Then again, mid 60's at some kind of
company picnic in Dayton, one guy said "It used to be IBM, but now it's just
BM, because I left".

--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.

Joe Wilding wrote:

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...

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.

Hmm. And perhaps the essence of /good/ leadership lies in being
able to determine which of the possible directions for movement
really is "forward".

--
Morris Dovey
(Who didn't follow when "forward" was redefined from "producing
the best" to "staying out of the crosshairs".)

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 06:34:04 -0700, Swingman wrote
(in article ):


READ and you will see that it was I who pointed that out after the initial
reference to PPP in this thread.



You don't seem to grasp that PPP can both transport TCP/IP and be transported
over TCP/IP.


Introducing another red herring won't help your argument ... stick to the
subject.

Yeah right, you still are avoiding my initial question.



AppleTalk is a set of proprietary network protocols ... it is not, as I have
repeatedly stated, an industry "standard".


Suffering from CRS???? you said it's not a networking standard.

You just come up with a bunch of Dan Ratherian excuses

"it a lie but i'll tell it anyway"

Well, his grammar is better than yours, but I agree you that you are
obstinately failing to recognize the truth of the matter.

yeah right! You seem to agree with the 'Wrecks esteemed wordsmith Mr. Watson
that Excel is an industry standard (de-facto, which I would agree) but you
are based against AppleTalk??? You must have tried to network one too many MS
systems..

So, again...
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.)
Care to explain????