Free Woodworking Report Available

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

Reply to
Swingman
Loading thread data ...

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.

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.

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

Dave Hinz

Reply to
Dave Hinz

Reply to
Dave Hinz

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

Reply to
Dave Hinz

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.

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.

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.

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.

TWS

Reply to
TWS

Yup.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

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.

Reply to
Swingman

Reply to
Pat Barber

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

Reply to
TWS

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

Reply to
Bruce

The converse may not be true in the future (i.e. if the person in China uses pirated software).

See the Trusted Computing FAQ

formatting link

Reply to
Bruce Barnett

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 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to
Mark & Juanita

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.

Reply to
fredfighter

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?

Reply to
Swingman

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

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.

Reply to
Larry Jaques

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

Reply to
Bruce

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

Reply to
Swingman

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

Allen

Reply to
Allen

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.

Reply to
Swingman

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

They don't seem very interested in network standards.

Reply to
Bruce

HomeOwnersHub website 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.