Fully Electric Car available soon

Matt, it is clear you haven't a clue, or half at best. OSI was primarily a "connectionless" protocol, which you didn't know. Its selling point was that it was connectionless. No handshake, which takes time and resources, you just send. It anticipated reliable fast infrastructure. Although at the last minute they brought out a connection oriented protocol for situations where a handshake was essential.

Lord Hall's or Matt's foot?

Matt, it was and even after.

Matt, there was as all the governments and the EU were pushing it. Even in the US NISK were involved.

Nonsense Matt. Read Tenambaum, well the earlier versions. All sorts of clever IP address jiggery pokery was formulated to keep the crock going. The only people who pushed TCP/IP were private companies who had a vested interest in keeping OSI out.

TCP/IP was put together in Snowbird near Salt Lake City. I've been to the hotel where a bunch of students zipped up this inadequate 5 layer stack on backs of envelopes. OSI was deemed to be carrying too much baggage in the headers ay the time. Today with high speed networks this is not a problem. It was stated that it would be fine when infrastructure caught up. You could also have null layers if you liked to speed it up.

Th rapid spread of the Internet and the w.w.w., which had not adopted OSI as it was still being implemeted in various government departments and had not quite reached the rest, killed OSI. Nothing else. It was too late to turn back the TCP/IP protocol. If the www had been two years later it probably would have had an OSI protocol stack.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel
Loading thread data ...

Ah - the barrack room lawyer too.

Then let them take action. I shall have a field day and make sure it's plastered all over the meja. They love a good laugh.

Dear boy, for every one where this *might* be the case there will be 10 from you where it definitely is. And to countless others too.

How can you harass someone who doesn't exist? Did you ask the police that?

'Requests' from your sockpuppets are treated with the contempt they deserve. Others are free to killfile my posts - the sensible thing for anyone to do, if they don't want to read them.

I think I'll take that statement in the same vein as all your other posts

- with a *large* pinch of salt. And would be most surprised if the police even spoke to you given their inability to process real crime.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Actually, you just demonstrated very clearly that the boot is on the other foot.

Boot on other foot or foot in mouth? I think you've managed both here quite well.

No it wasn't. There was never any realistic likelihood of widespread ISO protocol deployment. The bureaucratic standards committees knocked most of the nails into its coffin.

That is also rubbish. Use of RFC1918 address space, the handing back to the registries of large unused blocks of address space and classless interdomain routing have meant that there is not a short to medium term issue with IP version 4 address space.

Deployment of IP version 6 is happening but is not of the highest priority for carriers and ISPs in most parts of the world.

Reply to
Andy Hall

The message from Huge contains these words:

I may now be in a minority of one but I still don't think Timegoesby is Dribble, just that he is his brother. There has to be a family connection because their style is so similar but the questions TGB asks generally display a level of ignorance and comprehension even deeper than Dribbles.

Reply to
Roger

Roger, there is only one of you. Thank God for that. I hope you didn't breed.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Matt...no......

Matt...no......

Matt...no......

Matt...no......

Matt...no...... Conectionless was one of the key points.

At the time because of the poor infrastructure, which everyone knew was being upgraded by the minute.

The committees had scum like IBM on them, which they should not have had.

Uncle Sam was going OSI.

It was used by BMW extensively, British government departments used it too, along with European and US..

It would have.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

No. From the police.

They may. They take it very seriously now.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Shame.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

More rubbish. There are connection based and connectionless network layers.

This is complete tosh.

The situation was exactly the opposite way around. Most of the OSI devotees came from telco backgrounds and the use of X.25. They naturally gravitated towards a connection oriented protocol and this is why 4 out of the 5 TP transport classes require a connection oriented network layer. Performance was poor and so TP4 is able to use a connectionless or connection oriented network layer. Unsurprisingly, TP4 is based on TCP.

That would certainly have killed it if the committees hadn't.

Like the U.S. Department of Defense for example. When did Uncle Sam outsource that to private enterprise?

... and so it does. This is why it is so little used. Some telephone switch equipment still uses it, but it's unusual to find it other than that.

No it wouldn't.

Reply to
Andy Hall

More than anyone on here takes you now I'd guess. You've made yourself a laughing stock.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Matt, no. It was in the original concept.

Nope. The IBMers slowed everything down nit-picking a small point in a layer for ever more. They deliberately were dragging their feet.

The market was way behind. Only the Internet and www took off like a rocket, mainly the www. That sealed it as there was too much of the TCP/IP crap around.

After the www skyrocketed, Sam dropped it.

It worked, was seamless and was fast enough for the time. The all knew it had to go, and frame relay (X.24 without the checking to make it faster), etc were implemented too. Many organisation are still on X.25 and replaced with faster hardware. They have no problems at all on faster speeds and have no desires to change over.

You are slow. They were to be replaced by OSI in major organisations and makers would push OSI too, then private users would adopt OSI as they went along, but www/Internet used TCP/IP. Companies like REtix had off the shelf OSI stacks for ethernet, token ring, token bus, for UNIX boxes and PCs runing Windows too (well DOS then was doing the work). OSI wasn't implemented fast enough because the Internet wasn't regarded as that important at the time. The www made it important. Before that it was for nerds and fellas with beards and mussies.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Mr Plowman, once again, "They take it very seriously now". I hope that has sunk in. It better had. You should not underestimate the seriousness of the police in these matters theses day. It is clear you though only ISPs had authority. No, not the case, they step in now and are stamping down, with new laws on unsocial behaviour, and the Internet is far from exempt.

Please do respond to me. Just stop throwing abuse and babbling. Just let what I have written sink in. You do yourself no favours.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Once they realised how dreadfully slow connection oriented was and that it was unnecessary anyway.

There were all kinds of people on them. The problem was that through having to use lengthy and bureaucratic procedures, progress was incredibly slow. The market moved on and left them behind.

Not for very long.

Quite a number of large companies used X.25 because that was a standard telco offering and could be used internally as well. There was an initial assumption that it would migrate, in modified form to more substantial networks. This never went anywhere because progress was too slow and the market passed it all by.

No it wouldn't. IP based networks were well established before Mr Berners-Lee came along.

Reply to
Andy Hall

Ok, I've done it.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Wrong.

Nit picking is the inevitable outcome of committees, government involvement and attempts at international standardisation. The procedures are inevitably lengthy. It is not reasonable to lay that at the door of IBM or any other individual participant.

Not quite. The main reason was that the OSI protocol suite was going to be "two years away" since about 1986. The U.S. government DoD attempted to mandate it in the form of GOSIP for all environments from

1990 onwards. That never happened and so the first bodge was to come up with something that would allow OSI to be run over TCP/IP. Realistically that was never going to work in any useful way and so attempts were made to incorporate TCP/IP features into OSI - TP4 is one example of that (note that it can run on a *connectionless* network layer. Finally, NIST suggested that the DoD drop the "OSI only" requirement in 1994.

Essentially, this was a political fudge that saved red faces among those that had embarked on the OSI bandwagon, allowing them to change position.

WWW substantial growth was from 1993 onwards, and may have been one contributor to the demise of OSI in US government use, but it is clear that the main reason was the continuing delays and lack of deliverability of anything from the OSI committees.

Rubbish. There is very little X.25 left in corporate networks any longer. There is still quite a lot of frame relay, but that is disappearing rapidly as telcos migrate customers to alternative technologies.

This was all completely theoretical because of lack of performance and deliverability.

All of which is irrelevant because it never went anywhere.

OSI wasn't implemented fast enough because of the standardisation approach that was taken. Realistically, it was doomed to failure from the outset. I can remember making that prediction in about 1988 or 89 when there were a few government tenders around looking for GOSIP implementation. TCP/IP adoption was already well underway in the commercial world from about 1986 onwards. One could argue that WWW growth was a significant factor later on, but I can't think of anybody seriously intending to implement OSI from about 1988 onwards. The death knell had sounded long before 1993 for OSI in terms of an alternative to TCP/IP.

Reply to
Andy Hall

Um, not quite. I've been using GOSIP for the last few years and it's only now that the network in question is to be converted to TCP/IP.

Reply to
Steve Firth

Thats just when the valium kicks in..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

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

Reply to
Huge

snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com declared for all the world to hear...

I've never heard or read about any cases. Care to cite any recent ones for my benefit?

Reply to
Jon

The police do take action now, whereas 5 years ago they would send you to the ISP and that was that. A part of the anti-social stance they are taking. The Internet is now not immune. The likes of Plowman cannot continue or he will be in trouble. A recent Radio 4 prog covered it.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

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.