🚀 go-pugleaf

kony wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:26:07 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:29:15 GMT, Curious George
>>><cg@email.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:14:05 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I've never read anything concrete that explains just what is wrong
>>>>>>with netbuie
>>>>>
>>>>>You just listed one. It's non-routable.
>>>>
>>>>don't forget all the mindless network chatter.
>>>
>>>
>>>It has a smaller footprint on a network than TCPIP so it's a
>>>bit irrelevant.
>>
>>That is only true under limited circumstances 
> 
> 
> Transferring data with it instead of TCPIP would be one of
> those, fairly popular circumstances.
> 
> 
>>... 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,

An idle network doesn't need any protocol at all so the point is moot.

However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually 
bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic.

> the
> focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
> Of course there are far larger gains seen from things like
> moving from 10Mb to 100Mb, but there's not a lot of point in
> itemizing every possible network performance limiter when
> the topic was already isolating one parameter.

I have no idea what the point in there was supposed to be if it wasn't 
that, in the overall scheme of things, any 'efficiencies' imagined for 
netbeui don't justify keeping it.