🚀 go-pugleaf

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 i.e. whether "more credit was given than is due"
as well as his "depth of comparison".

>> Were you the first to bring it up?
>
>Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui.

So? (in our current context)

>>  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.

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'.  And I'm observing 'sometimes not needing routability is
different than 'NetBEUI can't ever be used on networks that also
require routability'.  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.'  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.

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.

Are we clear now?  Is there really that much more _substance_ I've
missed from _his_ "limited use" discussion?


>>>>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?  Why is this the only group (actually
only 2 ppl), in my last decade of usenet, I'm being accused of this?

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?

>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?

"Limited use" today is a crock; an academic hypothetical - even if
Kony stubbornly wouldn't budge from repeatedly trying to shove it down
your throat.  Transfer speed & routability were major issues in the
comparison with TCP/IP.  NetBIOS makes one of those issues basically
disappear and acknowledges that NetBEUI has long ago moved away from
this "limited use" model anyway.  It therefore certainly has
_everything_ to do with YOUR criticism of his "fixation" on "limited
use".  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"?

>> <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?

>>  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.