🚀 go-pugleaf

Curious George wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:40:54 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Curious George wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless 
>>>>protocol and it's attendant burdens.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't let 'em suck you in.  He thinks having the last word = being
>>>right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.
>>
>>Kony and I get into debates from time to time and I have no problem with that.
> 
> 
> As have I and many others.  Problem is these things tend to degrade to
> something much less than a "debate."  Exchanging valid arguments is
> one thing.  Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
> simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.
> 
> 
>>>>You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited, 
>>>>and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a 
>>>>hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value' 
>>>>of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still 
>>>>isn't worth the hundred bucks.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
>>>in the face.  He thinks a single transfer between two computers
>>>somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
>>>scale & management, etc.  Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
>>>these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups.  Even more spending a dollar to save a
>>>penny
>>
>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to 
>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack 
>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of 
>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
> 
> 
> 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

> 
> 
>>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.

>  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.