🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:56:58 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:


>>   "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.

We don't have to care whether it was magic, only that it WAS
there and only removed through additional effort.


>
>>  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.

yeah, removing it vs not.  More work.
As I already mentioned, they don't have to officially test
anything.  In fact, since it already worked, and since it
does still work, these random ideas about support are
irrelevant.


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

I made no such claim.
Rather, you were trying to imply there is some problem.


>
>>  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.


And?
Who said any different?


>
>
>>>>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.

Again, I have never argued not to use TCP/IP for internet.
The key thing you keep overlooking is that not all things on
a lan need routing. 

It is NOT a choice of "one or the other, every single person
must use only one protocol for everything".

Rather, multiple protocols exist for different reasons.  The
bottom line is that using TCP/IP when one doesnt' need ANY
of the TCP/IP specific features, is the worst possible
choice.  If you need the features, use it.

>
>> 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.

I have one of those multi-functio knifes.  It does a lot of
things too, but most things it does poorly compared to the
right tool for the job.  



>
>
>>>>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.

You choose based on things that are not applicable to all
situations, and the result being use of a protocol that is
overweight and slower.


>
>
>> 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.

You are entiteled to use whatever you want... apparently, so
long as it's only TCP/IP.



>>>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.

Who is they?
Microsoft?

I have not claimed even once that Microsoft should spend
another moment on it.  However, spending a moment to remove
features is counter-productive.  That's not all "this
argument is about" though, as you are also trying to argue
the use of TCP/IP when it's inferior for the tasks as well
as when it's needed.



>
>>  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.

You keep getting it backwards.  If the horse and buggy were
faster than a car, and worked reliably with no maintenance,
more people would use it.  Netbeui is faster, works
reliably, and no maintenance.  It is simply better because
of it's simplicity.

Suppose you're going out to dinner tonight.  You could take
your wallet, a gun, hammer, rope, candles, and a whole lot
of stuff you won't need.  With these 100 lbs. of gear,
certainly you're ready for a whole lot more situations than
just dining- do you carry all that stuff with you or would
you prefer to be unencumbered and able to move around faster
and/or with less effort?   When one doesn't need the
features of TCP/IP, the situation is similar.



>
>It's just nonsense.

Yes, completely uncalled for to pick a bloated protocol when
it's not needed.


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

Whatever you want to do, go right ahead.
Those who use other protocols than just TCP/IP, don't really
have any concerns about "shit on the road".



>
>>>>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.

Sounds like a whole lot of work to end up with lower
performance.  

If you need TCP/IP, use it.  


>>>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.

This must mean your time & effort. I can see that 90% of it
would be the mental block you have against anything but
TCP/IP, so yes, it would take a lot of time- time I don't
care to spend.


>
>>  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.

In your opinion.
Use whatever.  Pretend it's a good choice even if it has
only detriments in some applications.  It seems that mostly,
you personally don't have a use, and therefore assume nobody
else does.  




>> 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.

I can see that the world should only have in it what you
like.  


>
>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.

Then don't use it.
Let us know if someone tries to force you to use it.