Free Woodworking Report Available

Page 4 of 9  
"Bruce" wrote in message Swingman wrote

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

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:52:54 -0700, Swingman wrote

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

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Baloney. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=disparate Two-point-seven *million* hits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:15:44 -0700, Bruce wrote

Hmmm.
lets see...
Google Groups: disparate group:rec.woodworking author:swingman
No hits.
Baloney back at ya!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:38:52 -0700, Doug Miller wrote

Sorry Doug. The context wasn't obvious -Bruce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bruce" wrote in message

Can't even do that right, eh?
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22disparate%22+group:rec.woodworking+author:swingman&start=0&safe=off&lr=lang_en&num 0&hl=en&filter=0
http://tinyurl.com/5r95l
Enjoy your sandwich!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:58:33 -0700, Swingman wrote

beta.google.com/groups?q=%22disparate%22+group:rec.woodworking+a
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bruce" wrote in message

Not at all ... there are two basic points which of which you appear to be unaware:
- 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:

.... 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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:22:54 -0700, Swingman wrote

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.

Ok, I'll buy that.

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.

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.

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

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bruce" wrote in message

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

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.

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

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

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:29:14 -0700, Swingman wrote

Reality seems to be a new concept to you?

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).

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

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

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bruce" wrote in message

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.

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.

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.

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:45:11 -0700, Swingman wrote

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.

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????

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

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

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bruce" wrote in message

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

LOL! If you recall, it was I who had to provide a definition for 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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 07:14:09 -0700, Swingman wrote

Hah,
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/standard.html
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???

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bruce" wrote in message

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

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-services/appletalk/background.html

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:32:24 -0700, Swingman wrote

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

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.

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.

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bruce" wrote in message

Take your pick from about 40,000 documents that prove you wrong, again.
http://tinyurl.com/5w5sd

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".

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

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 bullshit just ain't working.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.