Free Woodworking Report Available

Actually, if they there were NOT, as you say, "interested in network standards", your above *opinions* would never have appeared here ... think about it. ;>)

Reply to
Swingman
Loading thread data ...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:05:26 -0700, Swingman wrote (in article ):

Seem they are interested in "internet" standards.

Internet is a network, a network is not necessarily an internet.

I can network all sorts of devices with products from a wide range of vendors. Are they capable of being hooked up to the internet? probably not unless I adhere to internet standards. Are they still a network standard? yup!

-Bruce

Reply to
Bruce

Read what I said earlier about disparate networks, then tell me that being bogged down in semantics is not causing your myopia.

Reply to
Swingman

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:17:33 -0700, Swingman wrote (in article ):

Hmmm, I googled "disparate" and got no hits. I jumped in on your statement that Appletalk (ATCP) is not a standard when even the IETF has a working group dedicated to it.

Of course it is outdated, but seeing how millions of machines and devices worked with it for years as a network, calling it rediculous is akin to calling RS232 ridiculous.

Reply to
Bruce

Hmmm .... Being bogged down in semantics AND admittedly having to go to Google to bolster your arguments? ... no damn wonder you're struggling with the concept.

For your future benefit, any dictionary will give you the definition of "disparate":

1 : containing or made up of fundamentally different and often incongruous elements

Not exactly, you came from left field with something totally irrelevant about "PPP. Sounds like you got that from Google also.

Reply to
Swingman

I htink I'd say my first word processor was a KayPro in '82, and it cost something like $2800...but didn't have a thing on it supplied by MS, that I am able to recall. OS was cp/m.

A place I worked in the late '60s had IBM word processors: what a gas compared to our current machinery. Card punches and all.

Reply to
Charlie Self

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:52:54 -0700, Swingman wrote (in article ):

Gee, thanks. I was looking for the post you were referring too. Google archives Usenet you know...

No. I build systems implementing protocols from custom hardware. I tend to dig into details since for something to work it needs to implement all the details of the protocol.

Reply to
Bruce

Gawd! You don't do meetings in black limos, do you? :)

or the illegal...

or the ones that got away with murder...

continue

How true. The only bit I beg to differ with is: if something is a "de facto standard" and it keeps evolving, then it is not a standard. It's a monopoly. Although of course it may remain de facto. The only reason you can send your Exel files to China and your Word documents to Germany and be assured of them being opened is that those two products are a monopoly. Not a standard. There is a difference. There is no such thing as a "de facto standard" in IT, it's an invention of the 80s.

And oh! yes: in China, probably you'd have a problem with the Exel file: they are going Linux and open software in a big way.

But I agree with you 100%: the marketplace defines what is acceptable and the smart supply companies go with that. Best or worse is highly relative in such a de-regulated environment. Is it good? Dunno, but it seems to be working.

Reply to
Noons

Baloney.

formatting link
*million* hits.

Reply to
Doug Miller

There were entire companies dedicated to the business, like Wang.

Reply to
GregP

... and in the case of DRDOS, outright sabotage.

Reply to
GregP

But there is a pretty good chance that in a year or two it will be opened by a spreadsheet program running under Linux...

Reply to
GregP

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:15:44 -0700, Bruce wrote (in article ):

Hmmm.

lets see...

Google Groups: disparate group:rec.woodworking author:swingman

No hits.

Baloney back at ya!

Reply to
Bruce

... but they'll most likely use sotware that will be able to read & write recent-version Excel-formatted files.

Reply to
GregP

You said you did a Google search on 'disparate'. Not on the combination of that word, this group, that author.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Reply to
Doug Miller

Can't even do that right, eh?

formatting link
your sandwich!

Reply to
Swingman

Hi Noons. Good ta see yer voice.

Nah. I deal with four different factories in Shanghai and send Excel sheets back and forth all the time, without a problem.

Ya know why? Because it is the "defacto standard" for those who do business with the West.

Bwahahaaaaa...hee....hee...gurgle gurgle...

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

formatting link
(webpage)

Reply to
Tom Watson

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:38:52 -0700, Doug Miller wrote (in article ):

Sorry Doug. The context wasn't obvious

-Bruce

Reply to
Bruce

LOL!

Reply to
Noons

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:58:33 -0700, Swingman wrote (in article ):

formatting link
uthor:swingman&start=0&safe=off&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=en&filter=0

Well that's funky.... I tried Mozilla and google gave me the "omitted references" link. My regular browser only showed the single reference.

My bad, thanks for the link.

Still, I think you have confused internet standards with network standards. Internet protocols are what allow different networks (LANs) to link. Network standards are inter-LAN of which AppleTalk was one of the most common until supplanted by IP. Major bridge/router manufactures still support the various flavors of AppleTalk (i.e. AT over ethernet, ftp, ppp, etc.)

-Bruce

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.