🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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.


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.