🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:27:13 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:

>Curious George wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:46:07 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Curious George wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Curious George wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due.  AFAIK He has never
>>>>>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>>>>>>"certain situations".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a 
>>>>>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>>>>>>any real context like you seem to characterize here.  A simple
>>>>>>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>>>>>>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
>>>>>
>>>>>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Whatcha mean?  You've just claimed you discussed it with him?
>>>
>>>Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What was unclear?
>> 
>> 
>> Claiming responsibility for _your_ points does not deal with _his_ or
>> my assessment of them
>
>It does when I am the one who made the point and he didn't. E.g. It ain't 
>his point if it's mine.

Only that is a totally ineffective rebuttal to my post.

>> i.e. whether "more credit was given than is due"
>> as well as his "depth of comparison".
>
>Maybe you should deal with simply what's said instead of trying to count 
>how many angels are dancing on the pin head.

I wish you would take your own advice.  Hint: that means reading to
what I said before attempting to rebut it.

>You keep trying to attribute to Kony some kind of routing argument and I 
>simply pointed out that it was *I* who brought it up, as a failing of 
>Netbeui, and not Kony.

& he rebutted that you won't miss routing if it isn't needed.  Both
sides in a debate get to have "arguments."  Both of you contributed
points to a routability-based argument.  You're overly-possessive of a
regurgitation of a factoid.  That doesn't give you the corner market
on "argument." 

>It is a simple statement and a simple point.

Yes indeed.  Both are.  So?

>>>>Were you the first to bring it up?
>>>
>>>Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui.
>> 
>> 
>> So? (in our current context)
>
>The current context is who brought it up. I did, as failing of netbeui.

Wrong.  You should take your own advice and "deal with simply what's
said."  Clearly you've "checked out" of this discussion long ago.

>So... what was unclear?
>
>> 
>> 
>>>> It doesn't really matter in the
>>>>context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain
>>>>situations" & "not all."  You and he have cited routability as
>>>>evidence of his concession.  Indeed I can only find cursory mention:
>>>>
>>>><quote>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 04:43:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>>>>>that it's routable..  Once you remove that need, you're left
>>>>>with a slower protocol.  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>></quote>
>>>
>>>Well, you apparently missed part of the conversation.
>> 
>> 
>> Either my server is missing part of the thread or we're just not
>> understanding each other.  Sure that isn't the only post of his that
>> mentions routability, but I think this one pretty much sums up the
>> depth of his argument.  It was too repetitive to quote everything.
>
>You're stuck on 'routability' and it has nothing to do with his argument.
>
>> I think the problem here is I see him arguing basically 'sometimes you
>> don't need routability - NetBEUI & TCP are different tools for
>> different jobs - so lets talk about NetBEUI's advantages where its
>> needed'.
>
>He's never made any 'limited use' argument. I did.

You should "deal with simply what's said."  Do you see me claim that?

You argued the NetBEUI scenario he described was "limited use."  What
HE DESCRIBED.  Your discussion with him is connected even if you think
you invented the wheel with a regurgitation of the "routability"
factoid.

>He says Netbeui has desirable features.
>
>I say, even if so they are of limited use.
>
>Note that my argument is not his and his argument is not mine.

So?  That argument is a REBUTTAL.  You are not writing in a vacuum
i.e. both are contributing points on the topic.

You're awfully possessive of a regurgitation of a factoid.
Possessiveness doesn't answer or explain my points.  Remember me?  The
guy your responding to?

>>  And I'm observing 'sometimes not needing routability is
>> different than 'NetBEUI can't ever be used on networks that also
>> require routability'.
>
>An argument that no one made.

So I'm "no one" now?

>>  It doesn't really address limitations in any
>> _real_ context - not only the scarcity of that situation but also how
>> that changes with NetBIOS extensions which, in fact, demonstrate how
>> NetBEUI has long ago moved past this now synthetic "limited use"
>> scenario.'
>
>Netbios is not Netbeui 

Not completely.

NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3 carrier
protocol. It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the NetBIOS
API.

>and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from it's model

Nope.  It indeed adds/augments functionality.

>>  After all Some Guy's comment "I've never read anything
>> concrete that explains just what is wrong with netbuie -" started a
>> lot of this mess and it warrants deeper examination when posting under
>> it.
>
>His question was answered.

Mine weren't.

So you're happy with you're prior points in a discussion with someone
else- how nice for you.

>> I'm trying to probe & nudge at looking at what's been said a little
>> deeper & the success of answering that earlier key question, rather
>> than simply repeat repetition or agree or disagree.  Maybe I haven't
>> expressed this as articulately as I could, but there's a lot of that
>> blame that could be spread around - and what I'm trying to get at is
>> different than wholesale misinterpretation/ misreading - unless you
>> still think I'm missing the mark entirely.
>
>I think you're preoccupied with arguing about phraseology and how many 
>angels are dancing on the pin heads.

By "checking out" & ignoring "phraseology" you're missing meaning &
not realizing what you're "responding" to.  "Details" & "context" are
not "philosophy."  You should know the difference.  That kind of quip
is a cute distraction, though.

>> Are we clear now?  Is there really that much more _substance_ I've
>> missed from _his_ "limited use" discussion?
>
>The argument is quite simple. He says there are cases where netbeui is of 
>benefit and I'm arguing that, even if so, it is of such limited benefit in 
>limited circumstances to so few people that it does not justify the cost of 
>support.

That's doesn't add anything to what I said & is your debate with him.
Not mine with you.  You should try actually addressing the person to
whom you're allegedly responding.

>>>>>>NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP.  I
>>>>>>understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
>>>>>>can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
>>>>>>with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument 
>>>>>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the 
>>>>>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that
>>>>that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then
>>>>that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is
>>>>essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard.  It also is
>>>>common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been
>>>>discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons.
>>>
>>>You're trying to 'guess' what people said and meant, when it would seem you 
>>>missed it, and then argue with your own 'guess'.
>> 
>> 
>> Now _you_ lost _me_.
>> 
>> Listen to yourself for a moment (or rather you're repetition of Kony).
>> Why would I bother to 'guess' meaning & then post responses
>> criticizing my guess?  Why would I have to guess at all if the
>> arguments are clear & thorough?
>
>I've noticed you go to quite a lot of effort arguing about 'how it was 
>said' even after it's explained and that's been pretty much the 
>'discussion' in these last few go rounds with you trying to disassemble 
>each sentence and 'decode' trivial meanings.

Because I'm trying to get you back on track.  You've drifted off
somewhere with a dismissive attitude; I must not understand the thread
because you feel you finished debating with Kony.  You're right, I am
trying too hard.  It doesn't matter if I re-explain myself if you're
not interested.

>I brought up routing first (I.E. it wasn't a part of Kony's argument as he 
>wasn't the one who mentioned it.)

See, this is why you'd be better off paying more attention to
phraseology.

>Simple sentence. Simple meaning. Yet you've been 'debating' it with me.

No.  I'm trying to get you to rebut my points- the points at hand.
You're caught back there.  I've taken it the next step.

>>  Why is this the only group (actually
>> only 2 ppl), in my last decade of usenet, I'm being accused of this?
>
>Hell if I know. Maybe they call it something different.

Yeah.  It's called punishment for stupidly wandering into a
gen.HW.newbie group & giving the local know-it-alls the benefit of the
doubt & a soapbox.  Clearly my patience is a liability.

>> I'm glad you two speak the same language.  It's strange you do because
>> your back & forth with him sounded very familiar to me (minus some of
>> the anger perhaps).  Maybe Kony & I are always butting heads because
>> we just don't understand each other.  Since you speak Kony, maybe you
>> can translate? - or do we understand each other a little better now?
>
>You're confusing "understanding" what someone says with "agreement."

Again another sage piece of advice you should follow.

However the only thing wrong with your advice is it misjudges just how
much room there really is for "opinion" in factual descriptions of
technical details.

>>>Netbios over TCP/IP has nothing to do with it because routing is not needed 
>>>in the limited use.
>> 
>> 
>> Nothing to do with what, exactly?
>
>His argument that Netbeui has benefits.

True it isn't his argument but it does indeed have to do with his
argument.  That you feel you complete your discussion with Kony
doesn't really apply here.

>> "Limited use" today is a crock;  an academic hypothetical
>
>Since you insist on parsing semantics, pardon me, but that, as an 
>'absolute' statement, is itself a crock as very few things are 'universally 
>applicable to all situations'.
>
>Virtually everything is of 'limited use' so the issue, in a negative 
>context, becomes a comparison of limitations. In the positive it's a 
>comparison of capabilities.

Nice try.  But that's so pedantic you've lost the forrest for the
trees.  It's too silly to mock me effectively.

If we agree with you that when a computer has internet access it also
has TCP/IP and NetBEUI would be an addition to network overhead and
the comparison is between NetBEUI & TCP/IP- 

then tell me something, how many XP networks out there are strictly a
small local workgroup (<10 computers), with no internet, no apps
requiring TCP, & where faster transfers in NetBEUI are/could be
noticed/appreciated or whern NetBEUI is otherwise REQUIRED?  It's an
academic hypothetical & you indeed have argued the limitations of
NetBEUI benefits with equally strong language.  Its a crock.  A crock
to waste so much time on it like its real & realistic.  

>> - even if
>> Kony stubbornly wouldn't budge from repeatedly trying to shove it down
>> your throat.
>
>But again, as I mentioned above, you seem to want to argue about 
>phraseology rather than the subject matter. It was I who used the phrase 
>"limited use," and not Kony, because the 'limitations' of Netbeui was *my* 
>argument.

You've clearly "checked out" of this discussion long ago.

>>  Transfer speed & routability were major issues in the
>> comparison with TCP/IP.
>
>Lack of routability was a point I made.

And he responded to your assessment of routability being a limitation
by saying it doesn't matter when you don't need it.  You were indeed
engaged together in a routability-based discussion even though it
passed you by - I guess you were busy creaming yourself you could
repeat that "NetBEUI isn't routable...which is important."

>>  NetBIOS makes one of those issues basically
>> disappear and acknowledges that NetBEUI has long ago moved away from
>> this "limited use" model anyway.
>
>Netbios isn't Netbeui and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from anything.

Nope.  NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3
carrier protocol. It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the
NetBIOS API.  Historically, both terms have been interchangeable in
certain contexts.  Nevertheless they rely on each other.  NetBIOS is
not a separate & distinct protocol (it's not even really a protocol at
all).  Yes it indeed adds functionality.

>>  It therefore certainly has
>> _everything_ to do with YOUR criticism of his "fixation" on "limited
>> use".
>
>It might have had something to do with *my* argument, except that netbios 
>isn't netbeui, but the topic was what Kony's argument was and it has 
>nothing to do with that.

Nope  You missed it.
NetBEUI & NetBIOS are VERY closely related.  NetBIOS is effectively an
interface, an API, not even really a protocol.  So you can't complain/
infer it's some third disparate, unrelated protocol that screws up the
argument because it doesn't belong there.

>>  I suppose it does inject another variable, which may be seen as
>> a distraction or confusion, but how is it not germane _really_ to the
>> discussion of NetBEUI's strengths & limitations or a criticism of
>> "limited use"?
>
>Because the topic here was what Kony's argument was and his argument did 
>not depend on any form of 'routability' of the non routable Netbeui.

Nope.  It's a routability-based discussion insofar as a) his claims of
benefits depend on scenarios that do not require routability  b) he
responded to your assessment of routability as a limitation by saying
it doesn't mater when you don't need it.  c) You both then "took
sides" by repeating your high valuation of routability and his of
transfer speed.  I think you're word parsing needs a little work.
Maybe you shouldn't do it from memory after you've lost interest in a
thread.

>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to 
>>>>>>>consider it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a 
>>>>>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible, 
>>>>>>>protocol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine.  An then
>>>>>>there's also NetBIOS.  That's not reason enough to beat it down so
>>>>>>bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>You lost me here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS
>>>>doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently.  While
>>>>probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that
>>>>adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a
>>>>deficient protocol.
>>>
>>>Then you missed all that part too.
>> 
>> 
>> What part, exactly?  I only went up a couple responses - where are
>> you?
>
>I'm in Texas.

Wheh!  I thought you were in Konylandia (or maybe the Netherlands)

>>>> Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
>>>>opposite view as you.
>>>
>>>Clearly. Which was the point of how absurd conspiracy theories can get, 
>>>even to the point of missing the better 'conspiracy' because the typical 
>>>methodology is to simply find 'some' argument, no matter how obtuse or 
>>>outlandish, whether it's logical or not. It 'must' be pernicious so one 
>>>looks for the 'evidence' to justify the already determined conclusion and 
>>>since one starts with whatever conspiracy first came to mind it's likely to 
>>>be what's found since it's what one is seeking
>> 
>> 
>> At least we get each other here.
>
>Yippee ;)

Horray.


I agree with you're general perception that at this point we are
debating argument & reading comprehension rather than any kind of
worthwhile technical discussion.  I've continued with explanation to
break your "fixation" on simply regurgitating old points that don't
respond to my observations.  You want to regurgitate & move on & I
want to assess & fill in missing gaps of the debate.  Unfortunately
responding to assessment with simple regurgitation is pointless.  In
that context further explanation is equally pointless.  If I haven't
broken through yet I don't think I will 10 posts from now.

This whole thread has indeed been taken WAY too far in basic
"hardware" groups; it probably doesn't even belong here anyway.  Yes
killing NetBEUI is a no-brainer.  We've wasting a lot of time
agreeing.