🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> 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.


> remember:
> 
> <quote>
> 
>>... and if you've got internet 
>>access you've got TCP/IP so regardless of how small the netbuei footprint 
>>is it's still an additional footprint, not a 'reduction'.
>>
> 
> 
> No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
> data with it.  Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem, the
> focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
> 
> </quote>
> 
> and it's supposed context to "chatter"
> 
> 
> 
>>>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value', 
>>>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny 
>>>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>>>
>>>
>>>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>>>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior
>>
>>According to the typical MS 'forcing' conspiracy theory it doesn't need to 
>>be 'superior' ;) Just being 'their stuff' is sufficient.
>>
>>
>>>than why not "force" NETBUI on
>>>the market, esp the small network consumer market?
>>
>>Of course. Amusing how MS gets accused of 'forcing' their own stuff and 
>>then gets accused of 'forcing' NOT their own stuff.
> 
> 
> Indeed
> 
> 
>>> Certainly the
>>>answer is in the question.  Yes support, including the already mind
>>>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>>>maintains, is indeed also a factor.
>>
>>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.