🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> 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.

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.

It is a simple statement and a simple point.


>>>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.

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.

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.

>  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.

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

>  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.


> 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.


> 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.


>>>>>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.

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.)

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

>  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.

> 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."


>>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.

> 
> "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.

> - 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.

>  Transfer speed & routability were major issues in the
> comparison with TCP/IP.

Lack of routability was a point I made.

>  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.

>  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.

>  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.


>>><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.

>>> 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 ;)