🚀 go-pugleaf

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?

Were you the first to bring it up?  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>


>> 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.

<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.  Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
opposite view as you.