Free Woodworking Report Available

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 ):

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

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

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

No s*it? ... 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.

Interesting article at slashdot a bit ago, on this topic:

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 ):

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.

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.

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

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 ):

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?

No. The IETF is the Internet Engineering Task Force. They are the ones responsible for numbering RFC's, which specify how the Internet should operate.

RFC's are Request For Comments, and the standards are described in # RFC 1123 - Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support # RFC 1122 - Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers

It's filled with words such as SHOULD, MAY and MUST.

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".

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

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.

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:

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 ... ;>)

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

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....

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.

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

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:

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

Keep trying, Bruce ... your bullshit just ain't working.

Hey Swing, you ever read Das Glasperlenspiel?

It reminds me a lot of this thread.

:)...

Thomas J. Watson - WoodDorker

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)