!!Hooray !!
A rebuttal that requires me to think deep about a response.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Caitlyn Máire Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: [issues] Standards?? PHOOEY!!!
> 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.
Consensus does not mean total agreement.
The standards for the TCP/IP protocol are indeed rigid, as they must be, to
be
usefull.
TCP/IP is still a protocol and has become the de-facto standard of the
internet
but is not yet the "Official" standard.
> > 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.
A semantic shift. If one item seems wrong it's all wrong.
If I don't adhere to the standards of C, C++ no one can use my 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.
The basis of market place standards is usually who got there firstest with
the mostest. ie; Unix TCP/IP
> 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.
Yes
In the LAN marketplace the winner has yet to be decided but is almost
certain.
But if I don't use your LAN why should I use your protocol?
> The only reason TCP/IP became the standard protocol for the Internet is
> because the Internet was built on UNIX.
See above.
> > > 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.
The standards are preventing me from making a 128 bit direct connection
to a video chip as a innovation. I don't have enough room on the worktable
for Four motherboards.
> > 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.
Huh??
> > > > 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"
Yes my head is bowed in shame for allowing a emotional pique to
respond in a inappropiate way. A direct response was the only valid way.
> I agree that was harsh, but you still failed to define a protocol. Care
to
> try again?
I hope my reponses above have helped my definition.
If not poke me 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.
I agree, with the exception to substitute the word easier for possible.
> 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.
The person I sold my business to has a real headache switching from OS/2
> > Well based standards are good for a less chaotic and more profitable
> > environment.
>
> Substitute "good for" with essential.
Well essential is a valid substitute.
> > 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.
These are incremental changes in response to market conditions.
I wouldn't want to put a Athlon in a standard PIII chip socket.
> > 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.
Innovation is not orderly. It is messy, confusing and upsetting to adjust
to.
It is NEW.
> > 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.
Your choice. This one is of a personal pride in a accomplishment
and is only intended for that.
> Regards,
> Caity
Congratulations on your new position and thank you for the rebuttal.
JoAnne Abbott C.E.T.
To meditate on;
Control is the delusion shared
by those too afraid of living.
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
