Hi,
>
> A protocol is a generalised consensus of the way something is done.
>
You mean to say that TCP/IP (a networking protocol) is just a consensus?
Not hardly. I dare say protocols have *and must have* rigid definitions of
how things are done in order to work. They are not even necessarily
achieved by consensus. Plus, there is no consensus for TCP/IP. Just ask
Novell, if you doubt me.
> A standard is so many meters, liters or lines of code.
Code, as defined in program code? Again, I would disagree sharply. Many
companies have standards for ergonomics, for example, to insure the health
and well being of their workers. Standards have nothing to do with code.
>
> I have no difficulty with the implementation or maintenance of protocols
> as I have said, they are agreements.
No, they aren't. Protocols are defined with no agreement whatsoever.
Standards are based on marketplace factors and occasionally consensus.
Sorry, but you've got your definitions absolutely backwards.
For example, there was no agreement on what a LAN protocol should be.
Novell pushed IPX/SPX, the UNIX world had TCP/IP, IBM had multiple
proprietary protocols, Banyan had it's own, many peer-ro-peer networks used
to use ArcNet, Microsoft used to push NetBEUI, and so on. There still isn't
consensus. The only reason Novell even bothered with IP support is because
their customers demanded it. Each company or community unilaterally defined
their own protocol. The marketplace then reduced the number in actual use,
but there are still several.
The only reason TCP/IP became the standard protocol for the Internet is
because the Internet was built on UNIX.
>
> > But absolutely _noone_ is stopping you from innovating on your own
> > machine,
>
> Don't know where this came from.
I think it came from your original argument that standards prevent
innovation. They do not.
>
> After 40 years in the market place I no longer have the desire for
> flagellation.
>
You know, with 40 years experience, I would think you would have a better
understanding of how these things come about.
> > > JoAnne Abbott C.E.T. MSEE, DSM
Since we're throwing out credentials:
Caitlyn M. Martin
Senior Network Engineer
IBM Global Services
...for one more day. My new title is much more impressive, but it makes me
sound like a "suit" rather than the engineer I am.
>
> Yes it was intended to be a sarcastic subtle poke for the remark that I
> "Dont know jack shit"
I agree that was harsh, but you still failed to define a protocol. Care to
try again?
>
> The constant clamor for more standards and the finger pointing when a
> standard is violated seems to me to be more of a noise of someone is
> doing something that makes my work harder. All without stating why this
> is bad except that it violates a standard.
No, standards make your work possible. Anarchy would make it impossible.
Again, if I choose to violate standards on my network, how do you
communicate with it? As an about-to-be CTO, when I make decisions which
vendor to purchase from, I want one that allows me to communicate
effectively with other networks or devices within my network. I would tend
to avoid vendors that either violate standards or have proprietary
standards.
For example, a lot of companies invested in OS/2, and now they have major
conversion headaches as the OS dies. IBM's microchannel architecture for
the PS/2 was another good example. If I bought PS/2s instead of industry
standard PCs, I was stuck buying expensive proprietary upgrades and
extensions to the boxes. Thanks, but no more technological cul de sacs for
me.
>
> Well based standards are good for a less chaotic and more profitable
> environment.
Substitute "good for" with essential.
>
> Even the best standards (inhibit, straitjacket, prevent) (choose one or
add
> yours) innovation.
No, they don't. As new innovation comes along, the standards change to
adapt to the new technologies. Take a look at chip sockets or PC memory, if
you want good, recent examples.
>
> Standards are for the past or present. Innovation is for the future.
>
No, standards are also for the future. They allow innovation to be done in
an orderly way, allowing for backward compatibility and leveraging
investments. If you innovate in a way that requires me to throw out all
I've done, I am unlikely to buy your "innovation", and even if it is
technically superior, it will likely die, just like MicroChannel, OS/2, and
Beta tape. All were technically superior.
>
> JoAnne Abbott C.E.T.
I can put letters after my name too. I choose not too. The only reason I
could see to do so on a list like this is an attempt to browbeat people into
accepting your views.
Regards,
Caity
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
