🚀 go-pugleaf

kony wrote:

> 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.

If you'd try thinking for a few minutes instead of trying to 'invent' 
nonsense you'd realize they didn't decide to waste effort 'removing it' for 
no reason.

The simple fact is it costs money, more than to 'remove it', to trouble 
shoot and 'support' the damn thing for no good reason.


>>> 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.

Wrong. It has to be tested and validated to be 'left in' and that's a hell 
of a lot more work that removing the entry in the "add protocol" table.

> As I already mentioned, they don't have to officially test
> anything.

If you already mentioned it then you were just as wrong then as you are 
now. Support *means* it 'works'. And that means it must be "officially tested."

>  In fact, since it already worked, and since it
> does still work,

It was claimed it didn't work. If it works then there's no issue at all. 
Use it.

> these random ideas about support are
> irrelevant.

No it isn't because "support" is a warranty and an offer to provide, tada, 
'support' for problems you have when it doesn't.


>>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.

I never said there was a problem. I said there's no reason to 'support' a 
protocol that offers no significant value.


>>> 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?

You did by implying it's 'free' to "support" it.


>>>>>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. 

I'm not 'overlooking' anything. What you're 'overlooking' is it's less time 
and effort to support one protocol than 2 and that a couple of disgruntled 
yahoos who can't configure a network is not a "good reason" to 'support' 
the obsolete one.

> 
> It is NOT a choice of "one or the other,

Didn't say it was. I said it was a choice of 1 or TWO (or 2 vs 3, or 4 vs 
5, or any other ratio you chose). And that one is less effort than two and 
unless the second provides some exceedingly good reason over the other it's 
a waste of effort to continue 'support' for it.


> every single person
> must use only one protocol for everything".

Don't have to. Use IPX if you have a hankering for something 'different'.

> 
> Rather, multiple protocols exist for different reasons.

Correct. And there just ain't a good one for Netbeui.

>  The
> bottom line is that using TCP/IP when one doesnt' need ANY
> of the TCP/IP specific features, is the worst possible
> choice.

No, it isn't.

>  If you need the features, use it.

I do.

> 
> 
>>>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.  

Netbeui isn't the right tool.

>>>>>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.

And you argue useless things into 'features', then demand someone go to the 
time and effort to provide the useless along with the useful.


>>>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...

So are you.

> apparently, so
> long as it's only TCP/IP.

No one said you could 'only use TCP/IP'. You can use Netbeui all you like, 
however you like. Microsoft just isn't going to provide "support" for it.

>>>>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?

Anybody.

> Microsoft?
> 
> I have not claimed even once that Microsoft should spend
> another moment on it.

Yes, you have by arguing they should "support" it. You can whine all day 
long that 'support' is 'free' but the plain fact of the matter is it isn't.

>  However, spending a moment to remove
> features is counter-productive.

All they 'removed' was it's entry in the default list.

>  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.

I argued no such thing. What I said was Netbeui does not provide anything 
worth the support it would take.


>>> 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.

Sorry, but no. The whole problem is your erroneous presumption that 
"support" is somehow free.

>  If the horse and buggy were
> faster than a car, and worked reliably with no maintenance,
> more people would use it.

But it isn't.

>  Netbeui is faster, works
> reliably, and no maintenance.

False premise. It is *not* "no maintenance." And if it were then why do you 
give a tinker's dam whether it's 'supported' or not?

>  It is simply better because
> of it's simplicity.

False premise.

A buggy's "simplicity" does not make it 'simply better'.

> 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.

You're free to take a pocket knife to a gun fight if you like but I'm not 
going to 'support' it.

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

It's even sillier to insist on muzzle loading flintlocks.

Your premise is simply false. Show me how 'bloated' TCP/IP severely impacts 
a simple non routed network so that a user would have the slightest clue 
which was being used from the 'uncalled for bloat'.

And then they add their wireless router for the notebooks and, gee Marge, 
how come I can't see those machines?

>>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".

Netbeui is not the totality of "other protocols."

>>>>>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.

And if you think you 'need' Netbeui then use it. Just don't expect 
'support' from MS.


>>>>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.

No.

> 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.

You're not even in the ball park.


>>> 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.  

This has nothing to do with what 'I' use. It has to do with your strange 
notion that 'support' for a protocol is 'free'.


>>>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.  

Has nothing to do with what "I like." It has to do with why Microsoft 
should spend the time and effort to 'support' a protocol for no good reason.


>>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.

Let me know if someone tries to 'stop' you.