🚀 go-pugleaf

kony wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:41:18 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>>There is no good reason NOT to support it to the extent that
>>>it works.  There is no good reason not to support ANY
>>>protocol, even one completely home-grown, to the extend that
>>>it installs in same manner and is supported though whatever
>>>features it, itself, supports in a standardized manner.  
>>
>>That is simply silly. 'Support', of any kind, costs time and effort and 
>>when the return doesn't justify it then one doesn't do it.
> 
> 
> Nope,

Yes, "support" takes effort.

>   "Support" was already there in Win9x and 2K.

It didn't appear by magic and I'll bet you expected it to work because the 
magic word "supported" was there.

>  It
> requires more time to remove it than leave it alone, so far
> as functionality is concerned.

Poppycock. You simply remove that protocol from the default list. And 
that's a hell of a lot easier than testing the stupid thing as the O.S. 
evolves.

And since you claim it doesn't 'work' it would obviously take time and 
effort to *make* it 'work'.

>  If they want to drop active
> technical support policies for implementing it, that is
> another story and understandable.

They did that. Which also included testing the thing.


>>>Perhaps it's only antiquated in your and MS's minds.
>>
>>It's antiquated by comparing it's capabilities to the alternatives.
> 
> 
> Again, no.

Again, yes.

> Adding features that someone doesn't need,

Show me how the internet, or any network with any complexity at all, will 
work with a non routable protocol.

> does not in
> itself antiquate something that is better for the user's
> needs.  Again it seems to come back to the idea that what
> you want, specifically, should suddenly make what someone
> else wants, irrelevant.

Nonsense. What it comes down to is supporting useful protocols and also 
wasting time and effort supporting one that has limited usefulness and that 
adds not one thing which the current protocols don't also offer.


>>>Certainly not so to anyone who uses it.
>>
>>Neither are buggy whips, to those who 'use them'. but there's little reason 
>>to 'support' them in "horseless carriages."
> 
> 
> So apparently you are choosing the buggy whip.  It has more
> versatility than a car, since it whips animals and
> unfortunately slaves (at the time).  You choose this instead
> of the faster alternative. 

I'm not choosing buggy whips, it's you who are promoting them.


> When one does not need the TCP/IP features, it's simply
> counter-productive and illogical to use it when those very
> features make it slower.

No, it isn't.


>>> That doesn't even
>>>begin to mean someone else shouldn't use something that
>>>suits their needs more than your own personal alternative
>>>would.
>>
>>They're free to use it. They'll just have to provide their own 'support', 
>>or a third party who might be interested.
> 
> 
> Yep, but that has nothing to do with "antiquated".

I didn't say it did. This argument is about their freedom to use it.

>  What
> will antiquate Netbeui is when an alternative exceeds it's
> performance but also is non-routable.   In other words,
> TCP/IP can never possible be the thing that antiquates it,
> because both exist for different reasons.

That like saying the horseless carriage will only antiquate the horse and 
buggy when it does exactly the same thing, including drop shit on the road.

It's just nonsense.

And you trying to make a 'feature' of dropping shit on the road doesn't 
make it so.

>>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>>>that it's routable..
>>
>>Ain't no 'little' thing.
> 
> 
> Right- BUT if you don't need to route, perhaps even don't
> WANT to route, then it is not only a feature that one
> wouldn't miss, they choose to avoid it and reap the
> performance gain from doing without.

Just because some yahoo can't figure out how to configure TCP/IP, run a 
firewall, use IPX if he wants to unbind ports, or any number of 
alternatives, doesn't mean Microsoft has to 'support' a piece of junk like 
Netbeui.


>>Not to mention it's universally supported across virtually every platform 
>>on the planet instead of a single O.S..
> 
> 
> .. which is completely irrelevant in fixed scenarios where
> no routing is needed.

No, it isn't 'irrelevant'. It takes time and effort to make things work, as 
well as to 'support' them, and it's absurd to expend that effort on 
protocols that add nothing.

>  Nobody is arguing to abandon TCP/IP
> for uses where it is needed, only to use the right tool for
> the job.

Netbeui isn't the 'right tool' for ANY job, just as buggy whips aren't the 
'right tool' to control your car motor, regardless of how much you pine for 
the horse and buggy days and the 'simplicity' of whipping them to make them go.


>>> Once you remove that need, you're left
>>>with a slower protocol.  
>>
>>Remove it and you've got an antiquated, severely limited, protocol.
> 
> 
> It is senseless to suggest use of a protocol with more
> features when none of those features are needed and it's
> slower because of them.

What's senseless is to expect anyone to continue 'supporting' a protocol 
that has such limited use.

And it doesn't matter if, in your opinion, paper tape "does the job" 
either. It isn't supported. Neither is data on audio cassette tapes. Oh, 
and Netbeui.