🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <28088@bu-cs.BU.EDU> kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England) writes:
>In article <25980@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes:
>> [polite, relatively information-less comment that we suffer the same
>>problems]
>>				Peter Desnoyers
>
>	Here is evidence of what I am speaking of in my follow-up on
>the upcoming AppleTalk crisis.  Apple (or at least P Desnoyers) does
>not understand that the solution to the AppleTalk problem is not more
>nodes on EtherTalk.
>
Give me a break. At least wait for me to say something which you can
then mis-interpret, rather than divining my opinions from thin air. I
don't work on Appletalk. I don't know what they've promised to deliver
in their upgrade. I don't want to repeat gossip and half-remembered
presentations and have it picked up as fact.

>	More nodes on EtherTalk will simply encourage people to put
>large EtherTalk nets on top of their TCP/IP nets and then -watch out!-
                      ^^^^^^^^^
That's a weird place to put them - encapsulating appletalk in ethernet
in tcp in ip in ethernet... :-)

Anyway, so much for flaming. Perhaps Kent should read up on OSI, ISDN,
and a few other topics before he goes around expressing the view that
TCP and IP represent the be-all and end-all of network development.

				Peter Desnoyers