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.
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 04:28:07 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> 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.
> 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 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'.
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, 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.
> 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.
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:12:02 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:
>> 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.
It's still valid because "chatter" that isn't exceeding
network bandwidth potential in conjunction with other
traffic or increasing latency is not a negative thing.
>
>However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually
>bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic.
"Bombard" is a bit strong, but even so, we don't have to
care what it's doing with the network is idle, only that
during actual transfers, it's faster, and that speed
difference in actual transfers is the significant parameter.
>
>> 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.
>
No, it was tha there are other ways to get more gain if one
were to change only ONE thing, though such an artificial
limit isn't reasonable to assume either.
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:12:02 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> It's still valid because "chatter" that isn't exceeding
> network bandwidth potential in conjunction with other
> traffic or increasing latency is not a negative thing.
No, it's a meaningless thing, was my point, because no one gives a tinker's
dam about the 'efficiency' of doing nothing, e.g. an "idle network."
>>However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually
>>bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic.
>
>
> "Bombard" is a bit strong, but even so, we don't have to
> care what it's doing with the network is idle,
"Idle" is a useless state to debate about.
> only that
> during actual transfers, it's faster, and that speed
> difference in actual transfers is the significant parameter.
However, when there are things to do a protocol that takes up bandwidth
even when IT is 'idle' is not a good thing and network admins fight that
problem all the time.
>>>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.
>>
>
>
> No, it was tha there are other ways to get more gain if one
> were to change only ONE thing, though such an artificial
> limit isn't reasonable to assume either.
Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
protocol and it's attendant burdens.
You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
isn't worth the hundred bucks.
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:
<snip>
>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
>protocol and it's attendant burdens.
Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.
>You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
>and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
>hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
>of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
>isn't worth the hundred bucks.
That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
penny
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 05:31:45 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
>>protocol and it's attendant burdens.
>
>Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
>right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.
Curious George wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
>>protocol and it's attendant burdens.
>
>
> Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
> right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.
Kony and I get into debates from time to time and I have no problem with that.
>>You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
>>and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
>>hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
>>of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
>>isn't worth the hundred bucks.
>
>
> That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
> in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
> somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
> scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
> these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
> penny
Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
for a 100 bucks analogy.
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:40:54 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:
>Curious George wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
>>>protocol and it's attendant burdens.
>>
>>
>> Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
>> right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.
>
>Kony and I get into debates from time to time and I have no problem with that.
As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
something much less than a "debate." Exchanging valid arguments is
one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.
>>>You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
>>>and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
>>>hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
>>>of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
>>>isn't worth the hundred bucks.
>>
>>
>> That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
>> in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
>> somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
>> scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
>> these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
>> penny
>
>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
"certain situations".
>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>for a 100 bucks analogy.
If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
maintains, is indeed also a factor.
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:59:47 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:
>As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
>something much less than a "debate."
Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
opposing view.
>Exchanging valid arguments is
>one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
>simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.
Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?
I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
situations?
>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
>
>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>"certain situations".
You really should pay more attention to my posts then, I
certainly did mention routablity previously.
>
>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>
>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
>the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
>answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>maintains, is indeed also a factor.
I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
default?
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:40:54 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Curious George wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
>>>>protocol and it's attendant burdens.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
>>>right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.
>>
>>Kony and I get into debates from time to time and I have no problem with that.
>
>
> As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
> something much less than a "debate." Exchanging valid arguments is
> one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
> simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.
>
>
>>>>You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
>>>>and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
>>>>hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
>>>>of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
>>>>isn't worth the hundred bucks.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
>>>in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
>>>somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
>>>scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
>>>these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
>>>penny
>>
>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
>
>
> I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
> acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
> "certain situations".
I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>
>
>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>
>
> If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
> proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior
According to the typical MS 'forcing' conspiracy theory it doesn't need to
be 'superior' ;) Just being 'their stuff' is sufficient.
> than why not "force" NETBUI on
> the market, esp the small network consumer market?
Of course. Amusing how MS gets accused of 'forcing' their own stuff and
then gets accused of 'forcing' NOT their own stuff.
> Certainly the
> answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
> numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
> maintains, is indeed also a factor.
Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
consider it.
Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
protocol.
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:59:47 GMT, Curious George
> <cg@email.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
>>something much less than a "debate."
>
>
> Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
> as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
> opposing view.
>
>
>>Exchanging valid arguments is
>>one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
>>simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.
>
>
> Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?
> I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
> arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
> situations?
>
>
>>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
>>
>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>"certain situations".
>
>
> You really should pay more attention to my posts then, I
> certainly did mention routablity previously.
>
>
>
>>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>>
>>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
>>the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
>>answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>>maintains, is indeed also a factor.
>
>
> I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
> dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
> Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
> they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
> default?
That argument is nonsense as Netbeui hasn't been a 'default' protocol for
multiple generations. Which is no wonder because you were TOLD that Netbeui
was going away before Win98 hit the streets.
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:14:42 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:
>> I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
>> dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
>> Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
>> they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
>> default?
>
>That argument is nonsense as Netbeui hasn't been a 'default' protocol for
>multiple generations. Which is no wonder because you were TOLD that Netbeui
>was going away before Win98 hit the streets.
>
>So what's your next conspiracy theory?
>
I didn' realize that making XP networking easier for new
users was a conspiracy theory. I was told Netbeui was going
away? It seems more like it was supported at the time.
kony wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:14:42 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
>>>dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
>>>Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
>>>they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
>>>default?
>>
>>That argument is nonsense as Netbeui hasn't been a 'default' protocol for
>>multiple generations. Which is no wonder because you were TOLD that Netbeui
>>was going away before Win98 hit the streets.
>>
>>So what's your next conspiracy theory?
>>
>
>
> I didn' realize that making XP networking easier for new
> users was a conspiracy theory.
It isn't, but you tried to make it one nonetheless.
> I was told Netbeui was going
> away?
Yes. Whether you paid attention or not is another matter.
> It seems more like it was supported at the time.
It was. And it's common practice to announce end of life *before* support
is pulled. Otherwise it's not much of a warning, now is it?
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 02:47:55 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:59:47 GMT, Curious George
><cg@email.net> wrote:
>
>
>>As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
>>something much less than a "debate."
>
>Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
>as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
>opposing view.
It's never too late to criticize someone for not making sense - like
you're doing now. There's no logical conflict with continuing to
argue/explaing something for the duration of flawed attempts at
counter-arguments, and at the same criticizing the very same argument
style which, esp several post in, frequently floods a thread with crap
& defensiveness instead of insight, just like this (now) silly thread.
There's no reason why an internet "debate" can't or shouldn't have
mostly valid arguments with little repetition and of varying
persuasiveness.
>>Exchanging valid arguments is
>>one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
>>simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.
>
>Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?
Nope. You're again proving my point. Unable to develop more
convincing arguments or tolerate criticism, you're still just
generating text, getting defensive, and making no sense.
>I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
>arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
>situations?
If you put something out there and it turns out to be wrong, then suck
it up and move on. If its being challenged and you can make it more
convincing then do so. Believing your right no matter what and
getting mad instead of more clear/convincing is just plain stupid,
delusional & a waste of bandwidth. Just because you haven't
challenged me very successfully in the past doesn't mean I can never
acknowledge when I'm wrong or missing details. It happens- you're
just not there.
>>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
>>
>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>"certain situations".
>
>You really should pay more attention to my posts then, I
>certainly did mention routablity previously.
Mention? Indeed little more.
and? So? Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP takes advantage of the
routability of these communication devices and is routable. You've
been talking down any impact from protocol combinations and talking up
the benefits of NETBUI. That you "mentioned" routability doesn't
really impeach that observation - or at least it doesn't do it very
well.
>>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>>
>>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
>>the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
>>answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>>maintains, is indeed also a factor.
>
>I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
>dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
>Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
>they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
>default?
The interface for configuring networking has been pretty standard or
at least closely related to/since the Win 95,NT days. Nothing's been
dummed down, really. It's only that some backwards-compatibility for
an EOL protocol is limited/problematic. It's not like 2000 came by
default with NETBIOS and no TCP-IP by default.
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:
<snip>
>> I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>> acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>> "certain situations".
>
>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
remember:
<quote>
>... 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, the
focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
</quote>
and it's supposed context to "chatter"
>>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>>
>>
>> If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>> proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior
>
>According to the typical MS 'forcing' conspiracy theory it doesn't need to
>be 'superior' ;) Just being 'their stuff' is sufficient.
>
>> than why not "force" NETBUI on
>> the market, esp the small network consumer market?
>
>Of course. Amusing how MS gets accused of 'forcing' their own stuff and
>then gets accused of 'forcing' NOT their own stuff.
Indeed
>> Certainly the
>> answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>> numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>> maintains, is indeed also a factor.
>
>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>consider it.
>
>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>protocol.
Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
bad.
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 07:56:34 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:
<snip>
>It's never too late to criticize someone for not making sense.
That's a pretty short-sighted thing for you to write
considering that you had ample opportunity to argue
logically in past discussions but kept drifting off.
Did you REALLY think waiting awhile them using even fewer
facts did anything more than look pathetic?
You're not criticizing for any reason but your bruised ego.
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 07:56:35 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:
>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
Who pushed it? Again we see your departure from reality.
NOBODY has been pushing NetBEUI. If I suggested it's
faster to use a calculator than an abacus, that doesn't mean
I'm "pushing" either.
If your arguments weren't half delusional you might find
fewer disagreements.
Curious George wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>"certain situations".
>>
>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>
>
> I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
> any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
> reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
> grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.
> NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
> understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
> can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
> with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.
> remember:
>
> <quote>
>
>>... 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, the
> focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
>
> </quote>
>
> and it's supposed context to "chatter"
>
>
>
>>>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>>>
>>>
>>>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>>>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior
>>
>>According to the typical MS 'forcing' conspiracy theory it doesn't need to
>>be 'superior' ;) Just being 'their stuff' is sufficient.
>>
>>
>>>than why not "force" NETBUI on
>>>the market, esp the small network consumer market?
>>
>>Of course. Amusing how MS gets accused of 'forcing' their own stuff and
>>then gets accused of 'forcing' NOT their own stuff.
>
>
> Indeed
>
>
>>> Certainly the
>>>answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>>>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>>>maintains, is indeed also a factor.
>>
>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>consider it.
>>
>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>protocol.
>
>
> Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>
> Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
> there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
> bad.
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:
>Curious George wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>>"certain situations".
>>>
>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>>
>>
>> I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>> any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>> reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>> grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
>
>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.
Whatcha mean? You've just claimed you discussed it with him?
Were you the first to bring it up? It doesn't really matter in the
context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain
situations" & "not all." You and he have cited routability as
evidence of his concession. Indeed I can only find cursory mention:
>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>that it's routable.. Once you remove that need, you're left
>with a slower protocol.
</quote>
>> NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
>> understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
>> can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
>> with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
>
>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.
If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that
that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then
that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is
essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard. It also is
common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been
discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons.
<snip>
>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>>consider it.
>>>
>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>>protocol.
>>
>>
>> Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>>
>> Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
>> there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
>> bad.
>
>You lost me here.
It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS
doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently. While
probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that
adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a
deficient protocol. Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
opposite view as you.
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Curious George wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>>>"certain situations".
>>>>
>>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>>>any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>>>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>>>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
>>
>>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.
>
>
> Whatcha mean? You've just claimed you discussed it with him?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What was unclear?
> Were you the first to bring it up?
Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui.
> It doesn't really matter in the
> context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain
> situations" & "not all." You and he have cited routability as
> evidence of his concession. Indeed I can only find cursory mention:
>
> <quote>
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 04:43:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>>that it's routable.. Once you remove that need, you're left
>>with a slower protocol.
>
>
> </quote>
Well, you apparently missed part of the conversation.
>>>NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
>>>understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
>>>can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
>>>with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
>>
>>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
>>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
>>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.
>
>
> If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that
> that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then
> that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is
> essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard. It also is
> common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been
> discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons.
You're trying to 'guess' what people said and meant, when it would seem you
missed it, and then argue with your own 'guess'.
Netbios over TCP/IP has nothing to do with it because routing is not needed
in the limited use.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>>>consider it.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>>>protocol.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
>>>there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
>>>bad.
>>
>>You lost me here.
>
>
> It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS
> doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently. While
> probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that
> adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a
> deficient protocol.
Then you missed all that part too.
> Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
> opposite view as you.
Clearly. Which was the point of how absurd conspiracy theories can get,
even to the point of missing the better 'conspiracy' because the typical
methodology is to simply find 'some' argument, no matter how obtuse or
outlandish, whether it's logical or not. It 'must' be pernicious so one
looks for the 'evidence' to justify the already determined conclusion and
since one starts with whatever conspiracy first came to mind it's likely to
be what's found since it's what one is seeking
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:46:07 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:
>Curious George wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Curious George wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>>>>"certain situations".
>>>>>
>>>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>>>>any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>>>>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>>>>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
>>>
>>>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.
>>
>>
>> Whatcha mean? You've just claimed you discussed it with him?
>
>Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What was unclear?
Claiming responsibility for _your_ points does not deal with _his_ or
my assessment of them i.e. whether "more credit was given than is due"
as well as his "depth of comparison".
>> Were you the first to bring it up?
>
>Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui.
So? (in our current context)
>> It doesn't really matter in the
>> context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain
>> situations" & "not all." You and he have cited routability as
>> evidence of his concession. Indeed I can only find cursory mention:
>>
>> <quote>
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 04:43:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>>>that it's routable.. Once you remove that need, you're left
>>>with a slower protocol.
>>
>>
>> </quote>
>
>Well, you apparently missed part of the conversation.
Either my server is missing part of the thread or we're just not
understanding each other. Sure that isn't the only post of his that
mentions routability, but I think this one pretty much sums up the
depth of his argument. It was too repetitive to quote everything.
I think the problem here is I see him arguing basically 'sometimes you
don't need routability - NetBEUI & TCP are different tools for
different jobs - so lets talk about NetBEUI's advantages where its
needed'. And I'm observing 'sometimes not needing routability is
different than 'NetBEUI can't ever be used on networks that also
require routability'. It doesn't really address limitations in any
_real_ context - not only the scarcity of that situation but also how
that changes with NetBIOS extensions which, in fact, demonstrate how
NetBEUI has long ago moved past this now synthetic "limited use"
scenario.' After all Some Guy's comment "I've never read anything
concrete that explains just what is wrong with netbuie -" started a
lot of this mess and it warrants deeper examination when posting under
it.
I'm trying to probe & nudge at looking at what's been said a little
deeper & the success of answering that earlier key question, rather
than simply repeat repetition or agree or disagree. Maybe I haven't
expressed this as articulately as I could, but there's a lot of that
blame that could be spread around - and what I'm trying to get at is
different than wholesale misinterpretation/ misreading - unless you
still think I'm missing the mark entirely.
Are we clear now? Is there really that much more _substance_ I've
missed from _his_ "limited use" discussion?
>>>>NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
>>>>understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
>>>>can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
>>>>with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
>>>
>>>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
>>>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
>>>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.
>>
>>
>> If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that
>> that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then
>> that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is
>> essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard. It also is
>> common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been
>> discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons.
>
>You're trying to 'guess' what people said and meant, when it would seem you
>missed it, and then argue with your own 'guess'.
Now _you_ lost _me_.
Listen to yourself for a moment (or rather you're repetition of Kony).
Why would I bother to 'guess' meaning & then post responses
criticizing my guess? Why would I have to guess at all if the
arguments are clear & thorough? Why is this the only group (actually
only 2 ppl), in my last decade of usenet, I'm being accused of this?
I'm glad you two speak the same language. It's strange you do because
your back & forth with him sounded very familiar to me (minus some of
the anger perhaps). Maybe Kony & I are always butting heads because
we just don't understand each other. Since you speak Kony, maybe you
can translate? - or do we understand each other a little better now?
>Netbios over TCP/IP has nothing to do with it because routing is not needed
>in the limited use.
Nothing to do with what, exactly?
"Limited use" today is a crock; an academic hypothetical - even if
Kony stubbornly wouldn't budge from repeatedly trying to shove it down
your throat. Transfer speed & routability were major issues in the
comparison with TCP/IP. NetBIOS makes one of those issues basically
disappear and acknowledges that NetBEUI has long ago moved away from
this "limited use" model anyway. It therefore certainly has
_everything_ to do with YOUR criticism of his "fixation" on "limited
use". I suppose it does inject another variable, which may be seen as
a distraction or confusion, but how is it not germane _really_ to the
discussion of NetBEUI's strengths & limitations or a criticism of
"limited use"?
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>>>>consider it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>>>>protocol.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
>>>>there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
>>>>bad.
>>>
>>>You lost me here.
>>
>>
>> It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS
>> doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently. While
>> probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that
>> adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a
>> deficient protocol.
>
>Then you missed all that part too.
What part, exactly? I only went up a couple responses - where are
you?
>> Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
>> opposite view as you.
>
>Clearly. Which was the point of how absurd conspiracy theories can get,
>even to the point of missing the better 'conspiracy' because the typical
>methodology is to simply find 'some' argument, no matter how obtuse or
>outlandish, whether it's logical or not. It 'must' be pernicious so one
>looks for the 'evidence' to justify the already determined conclusion and
>since one starts with whatever conspiracy first came to mind it's likely to
>be what's found since it's what one is seeking
Curious George wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:46:07 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Curious George wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Curious George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>>>>>"certain situations".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>>>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>>>>>any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>>>>>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>>>>>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
>>>>
>>>>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.
>>>
>>>
>>>Whatcha mean? You've just claimed you discussed it with him?
>>
>>Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What was unclear?
>
>
> Claiming responsibility for _your_ points does not deal with _his_ or
> my assessment of them
It does when I am the one who made the point and he didn't. E.g. It ain't
his point if it's mine.
> i.e. whether "more credit was given than is due"
> as well as his "depth of comparison".
Maybe you should deal with simply what's said instead of trying to count
how many angels are dancing on the pin head.
You keep trying to attribute to Kony some kind of routing argument and I
simply pointed out that it was *I* who brought it up, as a failing of
Netbeui, and not Kony.
It is a simple statement and a simple point.
>>>Were you the first to bring it up?
>>
>>Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui.
>
>
> So? (in our current context)
The current context is who brought it up. I did, as failing of netbeui.
So... what was unclear?
>
>
>>> It doesn't really matter in the
>>>context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain
>>>situations" & "not all." You and he have cited routability as
>>>evidence of his concession. Indeed I can only find cursory mention:
>>>
>>><quote>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 04:43:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>>>>that it's routable.. Once you remove that need, you're left
>>>>with a slower protocol.
>>>
>>>
>>></quote>
>>
>>Well, you apparently missed part of the conversation.
>
>
> Either my server is missing part of the thread or we're just not
> understanding each other. Sure that isn't the only post of his that
> mentions routability, but I think this one pretty much sums up the
> depth of his argument. It was too repetitive to quote everything.
You're stuck on 'routability' and it has nothing to do with his argument.
> I think the problem here is I see him arguing basically 'sometimes you
> don't need routability - NetBEUI & TCP are different tools for
> different jobs - so lets talk about NetBEUI's advantages where its
> needed'.
He's never made any 'limited use' argument. I did.
He says Netbeui has desirable features.
I say, even if so they are of limited use.
Note that my argument is not his and his argument is not mine.
> And I'm observing 'sometimes not needing routability is
> different than 'NetBEUI can't ever be used on networks that also
> require routability'.
An argument that no one made.
> It doesn't really address limitations in any
> _real_ context - not only the scarcity of that situation but also how
> that changes with NetBIOS extensions which, in fact, demonstrate how
> NetBEUI has long ago moved past this now synthetic "limited use"
> scenario.'
Netbios is not Netbeui and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from it's model
> After all Some Guy's comment "I've never read anything
> concrete that explains just what is wrong with netbuie -" started a
> lot of this mess and it warrants deeper examination when posting under
> it.
His question was answered.
> I'm trying to probe & nudge at looking at what's been said a little
> deeper & the success of answering that earlier key question, rather
> than simply repeat repetition or agree or disagree. Maybe I haven't
> expressed this as articulately as I could, but there's a lot of that
> blame that could be spread around - and what I'm trying to get at is
> different than wholesale misinterpretation/ misreading - unless you
> still think I'm missing the mark entirely.
I think you're preoccupied with arguing about phraseology and how many
angels are dancing on the pin heads.
> Are we clear now? Is there really that much more _substance_ I've
> missed from _his_ "limited use" discussion?
The argument is quite simple. He says there are cases where netbeui is of
benefit and I'm arguing that, even if so, it is of such limited benefit in
limited circumstances to so few people that it does not justify the cost of
support.
>>>>>NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
>>>>>understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
>>>>>can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
>>>>>with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
>>>>
>>>>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
>>>>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
>>>>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.
>>>
>>>
>>>If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that
>>>that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then
>>>that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is
>>>essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard. It also is
>>>common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been
>>>discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons.
>>
>>You're trying to 'guess' what people said and meant, when it would seem you
>>missed it, and then argue with your own 'guess'.
>
>
> Now _you_ lost _me_.
>
> Listen to yourself for a moment (or rather you're repetition of Kony).
> Why would I bother to 'guess' meaning & then post responses
> criticizing my guess? Why would I have to guess at all if the
> arguments are clear & thorough?
I've noticed you go to quite a lot of effort arguing about 'how it was
said' even after it's explained and that's been pretty much the
'discussion' in these last few go rounds with you trying to disassemble
each sentence and 'decode' trivial meanings.
I brought up routing first (I.E. it wasn't a part of Kony's argument as he
wasn't the one who mentioned it.)
Simple sentence. Simple meaning. Yet you've been 'debating' it with me.
> Why is this the only group (actually
> only 2 ppl), in my last decade of usenet, I'm being accused of this?
Hell if I know. Maybe they call it something different.
> I'm glad you two speak the same language. It's strange you do because
> your back & forth with him sounded very familiar to me (minus some of
> the anger perhaps). Maybe Kony & I are always butting heads because
> we just don't understand each other. Since you speak Kony, maybe you
> can translate? - or do we understand each other a little better now?
You're confusing "understanding" what someone says with "agreement."
>>Netbios over TCP/IP has nothing to do with it because routing is not needed
>>in the limited use.
>
>
> Nothing to do with what, exactly?
His argument that Netbeui has benefits.
>
> "Limited use" today is a crock; an academic hypothetical
Since you insist on parsing semantics, pardon me, but that, as an
'absolute' statement, is itself a crock as very few things are 'universally
applicable to all situations'.
Virtually everything is of 'limited use' so the issue, in a negative
context, becomes a comparison of limitations. In the positive it's a
comparison of capabilities.
> - even if
> Kony stubbornly wouldn't budge from repeatedly trying to shove it down
> your throat.
But again, as I mentioned above, you seem to want to argue about
phraseology rather than the subject matter. It was I who used the phrase
"limited use," and not Kony, because the 'limitations' of Netbeui was *my*
argument.
> Transfer speed & routability were major issues in the
> comparison with TCP/IP.
Lack of routability was a point I made.
> NetBIOS makes one of those issues basically
> disappear and acknowledges that NetBEUI has long ago moved away from
> this "limited use" model anyway.
Netbios isn't Netbeui and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from anything.
> It therefore certainly has
> _everything_ to do with YOUR criticism of his "fixation" on "limited
> use".
It might have had something to do with *my* argument, except that netbios
isn't netbeui, but the topic was what Kony's argument was and it has
nothing to do with that.
> I suppose it does inject another variable, which may be seen as
> a distraction or confusion, but how is it not germane _really_ to the
> discussion of NetBEUI's strengths & limitations or a criticism of
> "limited use"?
Because the topic here was what Kony's argument was and his argument did
not depend on any form of 'routability' of the non routable Netbeui.
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>>>>>consider it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>>>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>>>>>protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
>>>>>there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
>>>>>bad.
>>>>
>>>>You lost me here.
>>>
>>>
>>>It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS
>>>doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently. While
>>>probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that
>>>adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a
>>>deficient protocol.
>>
>>Then you missed all that part too.
>
>
> What part, exactly? I only went up a couple responses - where are
> you?
I'm in Texas.
>>> Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
>>>opposite view as you.
>>
>>Clearly. Which was the point of how absurd conspiracy theories can get,
>>even to the point of missing the better 'conspiracy' because the typical
>>methodology is to simply find 'some' argument, no matter how obtuse or
>>outlandish, whether it's logical or not. It 'must' be pernicious so one
>>looks for the 'evidence' to justify the already determined conclusion and
>>since one starts with whatever conspiracy first came to mind it's likely to
>>be what's found since it's what one is seeking
>
>
> At least we get each other here.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:27:13 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:
>Curious George wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:46:07 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Curious George wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Curious George wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>>>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>>>>>>"certain situations".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>>>>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>>>>>>any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>>>>>>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>>>>>>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
>>>>>
>>>>>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Whatcha mean? You've just claimed you discussed it with him?
>>>
>>>Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What was unclear?
>>
>>
>> Claiming responsibility for _your_ points does not deal with _his_ or
>> my assessment of them
>
>It does when I am the one who made the point and he didn't. E.g. It ain't
>his point if it's mine.
Only that is a totally ineffective rebuttal to my post.
>> i.e. whether "more credit was given than is due"
>> as well as his "depth of comparison".
>
>Maybe you should deal with simply what's said instead of trying to count
>how many angels are dancing on the pin head.
I wish you would take your own advice. Hint: that means reading to
what I said before attempting to rebut it.
>You keep trying to attribute to Kony some kind of routing argument and I
>simply pointed out that it was *I* who brought it up, as a failing of
>Netbeui, and not Kony.
& he rebutted that you won't miss routing if it isn't needed. Both
sides in a debate get to have "arguments." Both of you contributed
points to a routability-based argument. You're overly-possessive of a
regurgitation of a factoid. That doesn't give you the corner market
on "argument."
>It is a simple statement and a simple point.
Yes indeed. Both are. So?
>>>>Were you the first to bring it up?
>>>
>>>Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui.
>>
>>
>> So? (in our current context)
>
>The current context is who brought it up. I did, as failing of netbeui.
Wrong. You should take your own advice and "deal with simply what's
said." Clearly you've "checked out" of this discussion long ago.
>So... what was unclear?
>
>>
>>
>>>> It doesn't really matter in the
>>>>context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain
>>>>situations" & "not all." You and he have cited routability as
>>>>evidence of his concession. Indeed I can only find cursory mention:
>>>>
>>>><quote>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 04:43:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>>>>>that it's routable.. Once you remove that need, you're left
>>>>>with a slower protocol.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>></quote>
>>>
>>>Well, you apparently missed part of the conversation.
>>
>>
>> Either my server is missing part of the thread or we're just not
>> understanding each other. Sure that isn't the only post of his that
>> mentions routability, but I think this one pretty much sums up the
>> depth of his argument. It was too repetitive to quote everything.
>
>You're stuck on 'routability' and it has nothing to do with his argument.
>
>> I think the problem here is I see him arguing basically 'sometimes you
>> don't need routability - NetBEUI & TCP are different tools for
>> different jobs - so lets talk about NetBEUI's advantages where its
>> needed'.
>
>He's never made any 'limited use' argument. I did.
You should "deal with simply what's said." Do you see me claim that?
You argued the NetBEUI scenario he described was "limited use." What
HE DESCRIBED. Your discussion with him is connected even if you think
you invented the wheel with a regurgitation of the "routability"
factoid.
>He says Netbeui has desirable features.
>
>I say, even if so they are of limited use.
>
>Note that my argument is not his and his argument is not mine.
So? That argument is a REBUTTAL. You are not writing in a vacuum
i.e. both are contributing points on the topic.
You're awfully possessive of a regurgitation of a factoid.
Possessiveness doesn't answer or explain my points. Remember me? The
guy your responding to?
>> And I'm observing 'sometimes not needing routability is
>> different than 'NetBEUI can't ever be used on networks that also
>> require routability'.
>
>An argument that no one made.
So I'm "no one" now?
>> It doesn't really address limitations in any
>> _real_ context - not only the scarcity of that situation but also how
>> that changes with NetBIOS extensions which, in fact, demonstrate how
>> NetBEUI has long ago moved past this now synthetic "limited use"
>> scenario.'
>
>Netbios is not Netbeui
Not completely.
NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3 carrier
protocol. It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the NetBIOS
API.
>and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from it's model
Nope. It indeed adds/augments functionality.
>> After all Some Guy's comment "I've never read anything
>> concrete that explains just what is wrong with netbuie -" started a
>> lot of this mess and it warrants deeper examination when posting under
>> it.
>
>His question was answered.
Mine weren't.
So you're happy with you're prior points in a discussion with someone
else- how nice for you.
>> I'm trying to probe & nudge at looking at what's been said a little
>> deeper & the success of answering that earlier key question, rather
>> than simply repeat repetition or agree or disagree. Maybe I haven't
>> expressed this as articulately as I could, but there's a lot of that
>> blame that could be spread around - and what I'm trying to get at is
>> different than wholesale misinterpretation/ misreading - unless you
>> still think I'm missing the mark entirely.
>
>I think you're preoccupied with arguing about phraseology and how many
>angels are dancing on the pin heads.
By "checking out" & ignoring "phraseology" you're missing meaning &
not realizing what you're "responding" to. "Details" & "context" are
not "philosophy." You should know the difference. That kind of quip
is a cute distraction, though.
>> Are we clear now? Is there really that much more _substance_ I've
>> missed from _his_ "limited use" discussion?
>
>The argument is quite simple. He says there are cases where netbeui is of
>benefit and I'm arguing that, even if so, it is of such limited benefit in
>limited circumstances to so few people that it does not justify the cost of
>support.
That's doesn't add anything to what I said & is your debate with him.
Not mine with you. You should try actually addressing the person to
whom you're allegedly responding.
>>>>>>NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
>>>>>>understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
>>>>>>can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
>>>>>>with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
>>>>>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
>>>>>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that
>>>>that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then
>>>>that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is
>>>>essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard. It also is
>>>>common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been
>>>>discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons.
>>>
>>>You're trying to 'guess' what people said and meant, when it would seem you
>>>missed it, and then argue with your own 'guess'.
>>
>>
>> Now _you_ lost _me_.
>>
>> Listen to yourself for a moment (or rather you're repetition of Kony).
>> Why would I bother to 'guess' meaning & then post responses
>> criticizing my guess? Why would I have to guess at all if the
>> arguments are clear & thorough?
>
>I've noticed you go to quite a lot of effort arguing about 'how it was
>said' even after it's explained and that's been pretty much the
>'discussion' in these last few go rounds with you trying to disassemble
>each sentence and 'decode' trivial meanings.
Because I'm trying to get you back on track. You've drifted off
somewhere with a dismissive attitude; I must not understand the thread
because you feel you finished debating with Kony. You're right, I am
trying too hard. It doesn't matter if I re-explain myself if you're
not interested.
>I brought up routing first (I.E. it wasn't a part of Kony's argument as he
>wasn't the one who mentioned it.)
See, this is why you'd be better off paying more attention to
phraseology.
>Simple sentence. Simple meaning. Yet you've been 'debating' it with me.
No. I'm trying to get you to rebut my points- the points at hand.
You're caught back there. I've taken it the next step.
>> Why is this the only group (actually
>> only 2 ppl), in my last decade of usenet, I'm being accused of this?
>
>Hell if I know. Maybe they call it something different.
Yeah. It's called punishment for stupidly wandering into a
gen.HW.newbie group & giving the local know-it-alls the benefit of the
doubt & a soapbox. Clearly my patience is a liability.
>> I'm glad you two speak the same language. It's strange you do because
>> your back & forth with him sounded very familiar to me (minus some of
>> the anger perhaps). Maybe Kony & I are always butting heads because
>> we just don't understand each other. Since you speak Kony, maybe you
>> can translate? - or do we understand each other a little better now?
>
>You're confusing "understanding" what someone says with "agreement."
Again another sage piece of advice you should follow.
However the only thing wrong with your advice is it misjudges just how
much room there really is for "opinion" in factual descriptions of
technical details.
>>>Netbios over TCP/IP has nothing to do with it because routing is not needed
>>>in the limited use.
>>
>>
>> Nothing to do with what, exactly?
>
>His argument that Netbeui has benefits.
True it isn't his argument but it does indeed have to do with his
argument. That you feel you complete your discussion with Kony
doesn't really apply here.
>> "Limited use" today is a crock; an academic hypothetical
>
>Since you insist on parsing semantics, pardon me, but that, as an
>'absolute' statement, is itself a crock as very few things are 'universally
>applicable to all situations'.
>
>Virtually everything is of 'limited use' so the issue, in a negative
>context, becomes a comparison of limitations. In the positive it's a
>comparison of capabilities.
Nice try. But that's so pedantic you've lost the forrest for the
trees. It's too silly to mock me effectively.
If we agree with you that when a computer has internet access it also
has TCP/IP and NetBEUI would be an addition to network overhead and
the comparison is between NetBEUI & TCP/IP-
then tell me something, how many XP networks out there are strictly a
small local workgroup (<10 computers), with no internet, no apps
requiring TCP, & where faster transfers in NetBEUI are/could be
noticed/appreciated or whern NetBEUI is otherwise REQUIRED? It's an
academic hypothetical & you indeed have argued the limitations of
NetBEUI benefits with equally strong language. Its a crock. A crock
to waste so much time on it like its real & realistic.
>> - even if
>> Kony stubbornly wouldn't budge from repeatedly trying to shove it down
>> your throat.
>
>But again, as I mentioned above, you seem to want to argue about
>phraseology rather than the subject matter. It was I who used the phrase
>"limited use," and not Kony, because the 'limitations' of Netbeui was *my*
>argument.
You've clearly "checked out" of this discussion long ago.
>> Transfer speed & routability were major issues in the
>> comparison with TCP/IP.
>
>Lack of routability was a point I made.
And he responded to your assessment of routability being a limitation
by saying it doesn't matter when you don't need it. You were indeed
engaged together in a routability-based discussion even though it
passed you by - I guess you were busy creaming yourself you could
repeat that "NetBEUI isn't routable...which is important."
>> NetBIOS makes one of those issues basically
>> disappear and acknowledges that NetBEUI has long ago moved away from
>> this "limited use" model anyway.
>
>Netbios isn't Netbeui and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from anything.
Nope. NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3
carrier protocol. It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the
NetBIOS API. Historically, both terms have been interchangeable in
certain contexts. Nevertheless they rely on each other. NetBIOS is
not a separate & distinct protocol (it's not even really a protocol at
all). Yes it indeed adds functionality.
>> It therefore certainly has
>> _everything_ to do with YOUR criticism of his "fixation" on "limited
>> use".
>
>It might have had something to do with *my* argument, except that netbios
>isn't netbeui, but the topic was what Kony's argument was and it has
>nothing to do with that.
Nope You missed it.
NetBEUI & NetBIOS are VERY closely related. NetBIOS is effectively an
interface, an API, not even really a protocol. So you can't complain/
infer it's some third disparate, unrelated protocol that screws up the
argument because it doesn't belong there.
>> I suppose it does inject another variable, which may be seen as
>> a distraction or confusion, but how is it not germane _really_ to the
>> discussion of NetBEUI's strengths & limitations or a criticism of
>> "limited use"?
>
>Because the topic here was what Kony's argument was and his argument did
>not depend on any form of 'routability' of the non routable Netbeui.
Nope. It's a routability-based discussion insofar as a) his claims of
benefits depend on scenarios that do not require routability b) he
responded to your assessment of routability as a limitation by saying
it doesn't mater when you don't need it. c) You both then "took
sides" by repeating your high valuation of routability and his of
transfer speed. I think you're word parsing needs a little work.
Maybe you shouldn't do it from memory after you've lost interest in a
thread.
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>>>>>>consider it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>>>>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>>>>>>protocol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
>>>>>>there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
>>>>>>bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>You lost me here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS
>>>>doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently. While
>>>>probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that
>>>>adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a
>>>>deficient protocol.
>>>
>>>Then you missed all that part too.
>>
>>
>> What part, exactly? I only went up a couple responses - where are
>> you?
>
>I'm in Texas.
Wheh! I thought you were in Konylandia (or maybe the Netherlands)
>>>> Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
>>>>opposite view as you.
>>>
>>>Clearly. Which was the point of how absurd conspiracy theories can get,
>>>even to the point of missing the better 'conspiracy' because the typical
>>>methodology is to simply find 'some' argument, no matter how obtuse or
>>>outlandish, whether it's logical or not. It 'must' be pernicious so one
>>>looks for the 'evidence' to justify the already determined conclusion and
>>>since one starts with whatever conspiracy first came to mind it's likely to
>>>be what's found since it's what one is seeking
>>
>>
>> At least we get each other here.
>
>Yippee ;)
Horray.
I agree with you're general perception that at this point we are
debating argument & reading comprehension rather than any kind of
worthwhile technical discussion. I've continued with explanation to
break your "fixation" on simply regurgitating old points that don't
respond to my observations. You want to regurgitate & move on & I
want to assess & fill in missing gaps of the debate. Unfortunately
responding to assessment with simple regurgitation is pointless. In
that context further explanation is equally pointless. If I haven't
broken through yet I don't think I will 10 posts from now.
This whole thread has indeed been taken WAY too far in basic
"hardware" groups; it probably doesn't even belong here anyway. Yes
killing NetBEUI is a no-brainer. We've wasting a lot of time
agreeing.
Curious George wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:27:13 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Curious George wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:46:07 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Curious George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Curious George wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>>>>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>>>>>>>"certain situations".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>>>>>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>>>>>>>any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>>>>>>>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>>>>>>>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Whatcha mean? You've just claimed you discussed it with him?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What was unclear?
>>>
>>>
>>>Claiming responsibility for _your_ points does not deal with _his_ or
>>>my assessment of them
>>
>>It does when I am the one who made the point and he didn't. E.g. It ain't
>>his point if it's mine.
>
>
> Only that is a totally ineffective rebuttal to my post.
I don't know how it gets any simpler than it wasn't his point means it
wasn't his point.
>>>i.e. whether "more credit was given than is due"
>>>as well as his "depth of comparison".
>>
>>Maybe you should deal with simply what's said instead of trying to count
>>how many angels are dancing on the pin head.
>
>
> I wish you would take your own advice. Hint: that means reading to
> what I said before attempting to rebut it.
I did. Why I am not sure because it's you seem to invent arguments where
there are none and insist that your microscopically dissected and
syntactically tortured 'analysis' of what someone says is what they said no
matter how much the author clarifies his own opinion.
Clinton pondered what the meaning of 'is' is but you would argue the
galactic significance to the shape of the dot.
>>You keep trying to attribute to Kony some kind of routing argument and I
>>simply pointed out that it was *I* who brought it up, as a failing of
>>Netbeui, and not Kony.
>
>
> & he rebutted that you won't miss routing if it isn't needed.
Which makes it clear that "routability" is irrelevant to the 'features' he
espoused for Netbeui.
> Both
> sides in a debate get to have "arguments."
No kidding? Who'd a thunk it?
> Both of you contributed
> points to a routability-based argument.
And the "routability-based argument" was mine. His 'argument' was that
routability did not apply to *his* case. Wise argument too as Netbeui is
unroutable.
> You're overly-possessive of a
> regurgitation of a factoid. That doesn't give you the corner market
> on "argument."
No, it's simply that you've decided 'routability' is a key component of
Kony's argument and will apparently hold to that position even if God
himself came down and told you otherwise.
I brought up routing and Kony's 'argument' was it didn't apply to the case
he was making and, so, irrelevant.
You will now, no doubt, argue about the 'relevancy' of irrelevancy.
>>It is a simple statement and a simple point.
>
>
> Yes indeed. Both are. So?
His case for the benefits of Netbeui had nothing to do with being routable
because Netbeui isn't.
>>>>>Were you the first to bring it up?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui.
>>>
>>>
>>>So? (in our current context)
>>
>>The current context is who brought it up. I did, as failing of netbeui.
>
> Wrong. You should take your own advice and "deal with simply what's
> said." Clearly you've "checked out" of this discussion long ago.
No but I'm about to because arguing with you about nothing is fruitless.
>>So... what was unclear?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>It doesn't really matter in the
>>>>>context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain
>>>>>situations" & "not all." You and he have cited routability as
>>>>>evidence of his concession. Indeed I can only find cursory mention:
>>>>>
>>>>><quote>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 04:43:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>>>>>>that it's routable.. Once you remove that need, you're left
>>>>>>with a slower protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>></quote>
>>>>
>>>>Well, you apparently missed part of the conversation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Either my server is missing part of the thread or we're just not
>>>understanding each other. Sure that isn't the only post of his that
>>>mentions routability, but I think this one pretty much sums up the
>>>depth of his argument. It was too repetitive to quote everything.
>>
>>You're stuck on 'routability' and it has nothing to do with his argument.
>>
>>
>>>I think the problem here is I see him arguing basically 'sometimes you
>>>don't need routability - NetBEUI & TCP are different tools for
>>>different jobs - so lets talk about NetBEUI's advantages where its
>>>needed'.
>>
>>He's never made any 'limited use' argument. I did.
>
>
> You should "deal with simply what's said." Do you see me claim that?
>
> You argued the NetBEUI scenario he described was "limited use." What
> HE DESCRIBED. Your discussion with him is connected even if you think
> you invented the wheel with a regurgitation of the "routability"
> factoid.
Believe whatever you want. You're going to anyway, regardless.
>>He says Netbeui has desirable features.
>>
>>I say, even if so they are of limited use.
>>
>>Note that my argument is not his and his argument is not mine.
>
>
> So? That argument is a REBUTTAL. You are not writing in a vacuum
> i.e. both are contributing points on the topic.
A waste of time stating the obvious.
> You're awfully possessive of a regurgitation of a factoid.
> Possessiveness doesn't answer or explain my points. Remember me? The
> guy your responding to?
Remember the topic? What Kony's case was?
>>> And I'm observing 'sometimes not needing routability is
>>>different than 'NetBEUI can't ever be used on networks that also
>>>require routability'.
>>
>>An argument that no one made.
>
>
> So I'm "no one" now?
This whole thing began with me trying to clarify what Kony's position was
after you made a sort of 'accusation'. So, yes, in that context you're "no
one" as you're not Kony.
>>> It doesn't really address limitations in any
>>>_real_ context - not only the scarcity of that situation but also how
>>>that changes with NetBIOS extensions which, in fact, demonstrate how
>>>NetBEUI has long ago moved past this now synthetic "limited use"
>>>scenario.'
>>
>>Netbios is not Netbeui
>
>
> Not completely.
>
> NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3 carrier
> protocol. It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the NetBIOS
> API.
Netbios is an API and Netbeui is a network protocol
>>and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from it's model
>
>
> Nope. It indeed adds/augments functionality.
Non sequitur. The 'functionality' Netbeui adds is the same 'model' it
always was and has not 'moved', away or otherwise.
>>> After all Some Guy's comment "I've never read anything
>>>concrete that explains just what is wrong with netbuie -" started a
>>>lot of this mess and it warrants deeper examination when posting under
>>>it.
>>
>>His question was answered.
>
>
> Mine weren't.
Not my job.
> So you're happy with you're prior points in a discussion with someone
> else- how nice for you.
Yes, thank you.
>>>I'm trying to probe & nudge at looking at what's been said a little
>>>deeper & the success of answering that earlier key question, rather
>>>than simply repeat repetition or agree or disagree. Maybe I haven't
>>>expressed this as articulately as I could, but there's a lot of that
>>>blame that could be spread around - and what I'm trying to get at is
>>>different than wholesale misinterpretation/ misreading - unless you
>>>still think I'm missing the mark entirely.
>>
>>I think you're preoccupied with arguing about phraseology and how many
>>angels are dancing on the pin heads.
>
>
> By "checking out" & ignoring "phraseology" you're missing meaning &
> not realizing what you're "responding" to. "Details" & "context" are
> not "philosophy." You should know the difference. That kind of quip
> is a cute distraction, though.
It's potentially important when one does so for illumination but you don't.
You do it simply for the sake of arguing. It becomes a debate of the
obscure and irrelevant.
>>>Are we clear now? Is there really that much more _substance_ I've
>>>missed from _his_ "limited use" discussion?
>>
>>The argument is quite simple. He says there are cases where netbeui is of
>>benefit and I'm arguing that, even if so, it is of such limited benefit in
>>limited circumstances to so few people that it does not justify the cost of
>>support.
>
>
> That's doesn't add anything to what I said & is your debate with him.
> Not mine with you. You should try actually addressing the person to
> whom you're allegedly responding.
I think you're so lost in 'debating' that you haven't any idea what the
topic was.
All I did was tell you that your assertion "He thinks a single transfer
between two computers somehow translates to "network" behavior generally
and regardless of scale & management, etc." miss stated the case he made.
>>>>>>>NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
>>>>>>>understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
>>>>>>>can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
>>>>>>>with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
>>>>>>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
>>>>>>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that
>>>>>that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then
>>>>>that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is
>>>>>essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard. It also is
>>>>>common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been
>>>>>discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons.
>>>>
>>>>You're trying to 'guess' what people said and meant, when it would seem you
>>>>missed it, and then argue with your own 'guess'.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now _you_ lost _me_.
>>>
>>>Listen to yourself for a moment (or rather you're repetition of Kony).
>>>Why would I bother to 'guess' meaning & then post responses
>>>criticizing my guess? Why would I have to guess at all if the
>>>arguments are clear & thorough?
>>
>>I've noticed you go to quite a lot of effort arguing about 'how it was
>>said' even after it's explained and that's been pretty much the
>>'discussion' in these last few go rounds with you trying to disassemble
>>each sentence and 'decode' trivial meanings.
>
> Because I'm trying to get you back on track. You've drifted off
> somewhere with a dismissive attitude;
I'm seem dismissive because you want to debate with me about what the
meaning of my debate was. I was there. I was in it. And I was simply
telling you what transpired so you'd better understand but now you want to
'debate' whether what happened is what happened.
> I must not understand the thread
> because you feel you finished debating with Kony.
I did. Or he did. One or the other.
> You're right, I am
> trying too hard. It doesn't matter if I re-explain myself if you're
> not interested.
If you're trying to 'explain' to me that I don't know what happened in my
debate then no, I'm not interested because I already know.
>>I brought up routing first (I.E. it wasn't a part of Kony's argument as he
>>wasn't the one who mentioned it.)
>
>
> See, this is why you'd be better off paying more attention to
> phraseology.
No, it's where you'd be better off if you'd accept that I know what the
hell the debate I was in was about.
>>Simple sentence. Simple meaning. Yet you've been 'debating' it with me.
>
>
> No. I'm trying to get you to rebut my points- the points at hand.
> You're caught back there. I've taken it the next step.
Could you please be a little more vague? Because I almost got a meaning in
that. Next step? Two step? Polka? Waltz?
>>> Why is this the only group (actually
>>>only 2 ppl), in my last decade of usenet, I'm being accused of this?
>>
>>Hell if I know. Maybe they call it something different.
>
>
> Yeah. It's called punishment for stupidly wandering into a
> gen.HW.newbie group & giving the local know-it-alls the benefit of the
> doubt & a soapbox. Clearly my patience is a liability.
Clearly.
No sense in arguing about it.
>>>I'm glad you two speak the same language. It's strange you do because
>>>your back & forth with him sounded very familiar to me (minus some of
>>>the anger perhaps). Maybe Kony & I are always butting heads because
>>>we just don't understand each other. Since you speak Kony, maybe you
>>>can translate? - or do we understand each other a little better now?
>>
>>You're confusing "understanding" what someone says with "agreement."
>
>
> Again another sage piece of advice you should follow.
It's not 'advice' it's a statement about your 'surprise' that I can
understand Kony yet disagree.
>
> However the only thing wrong with your advice is it misjudges just how
> much room there really is for "opinion" in factual descriptions of
> technical details.
No, it doesn't. You expressed 'strangeness' at my apparent 'understanding'
of Kony yet going "back & forth with him."
I can understand him but not agree with it. In fact, it's dern difficult to
debate, productively anyway, if you don't 'understand' the other.
And if anyone need proof of it they can read this thread.
>>>>Netbios over TCP/IP has nothing to do with it because routing is not needed
>>>>in the limited use.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing to do with what, exactly?
>>
>>His argument that Netbeui has benefits.
>
>
> True it isn't his argument but it does indeed have to do with his
> argument.
No, it doesn't. It has to do with *your* argument.
> That you feel you complete your discussion with Kony
> doesn't really apply here.
What that has to do with the price of eggs is anyone's guess.
>>>"Limited use" today is a crock; an academic hypothetical
>>
>>Since you insist on parsing semantics, pardon me, but that, as an
>>'absolute' statement, is itself a crock as very few things are 'universally
>>applicable to all situations'.
>>
>>Virtually everything is of 'limited use' so the issue, in a negative
>>context, becomes a comparison of limitations. In the positive it's a
>>comparison of capabilities.
>
>
> Nice try. But that's so pedantic you've lost the forrest for the
> trees. It's too silly to mock me effectively.
It may seem pedantic but it's true.
> If we agree with you that when a computer has internet access it also
> has TCP/IP
Would seem to be the common case.
> and NetBEUI would be an addition to network overhead and
> the comparison is between NetBEUI & TCP/IP-
>
> then tell me something, how many XP networks out there are strictly a
> small local workgroup (<10 computers), with no internet, no apps
> requiring TCP, & where faster transfers in NetBEUI are/could be
> noticed/appreciated or whern NetBEUI is otherwise REQUIRED? It's an
> academic hypothetical & you indeed have argued the limitations of
> NetBEUI benefits with equally strong language. Its a crock. A crock
> to waste so much time on it like its real & realistic.
Then we agree on this point and if you had said it with enough detail, like
just then, so that I had a clue what you meant then we could have avoided
this little go round.
>>>- even if
>>>Kony stubbornly wouldn't budge from repeatedly trying to shove it down
>>>your throat.
>>
>>But again, as I mentioned above, you seem to want to argue about
>>phraseology rather than the subject matter. It was I who used the phrase
>>"limited use," and not Kony, because the 'limitations' of Netbeui was *my*
>>argument.
>
>
> You've clearly "checked out" of this discussion long ago.
And 'which' discussion is that?
>>> Transfer speed & routability were major issues in the
>>>comparison with TCP/IP.
>>
>>Lack of routability was a point I made.
>
>
> And he responded to your assessment of routability being a limitation
> by saying it doesn't matter when you don't need it.
Yes, which makes routability irrelevant to his argument. Not to mine but to
his.
> You were indeed
> engaged together in a routability-based discussion even though it
> passed you by
How does one get it through your head that when someone says "not in my
case" that it means "not in my case?"
> - I guess you were busy creaming yourself you could
> repeat that "NetBEUI isn't routable...which is important."
And you're busy creaming yourself that Kony is talking about the virtues of
routing netbios over TCP/IP when he's said his case isn't routed and the
topic is the Netbeui protocol.
>>> NetBIOS makes one of those issues basically
>>>disappear and acknowledges that NetBEUI has long ago moved away from
>>>this "limited use" model anyway.
>>
>>Netbios isn't Netbeui and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from anything.
>
>
> Nope. NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3
> carrier protocol.
No, Netbeui is a network protocol and Netbios is an API.
> It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the
> NetBIOS API.
It was created to support Netbios but Netbeui is a network protocol and
Netbios can be packaged otherwise, as in Netbios over TCP/IP.
> Historically, both terms have been interchangeable in
> certain contexts.
Yes, people have historically misused the terms but it's important to know
which is which when the topic is network protocols and not APIs.
> Nevertheless they rely on each other. NetBIOS is
> not a separate & distinct protocol (it's not even really a protocol at
> all). Yes it indeed adds functionality.
"Adds functionality" is a non sequitur. You claimed "Netbeui" had "long ago
moved away from this "limited use" model anyway" and Netbeui has done no
such thing. It's just as limited as it always was, which is why support for
it was dropped.
Netbios is still there, riding on TCP/IP.
>>> It therefore certainly has
>>>_everything_ to do with YOUR criticism of his "fixation" on "limited
>>>use".
>>
>>It might have had something to do with *my* argument, except that netbios
>>isn't netbeui, but the topic was what Kony's argument was and it has
>>nothing to do with that.
>
>
> Nope You missed it.
> NetBEUI & NetBIOS are VERY closely related.
Were. Pretty hard to make that case when one is still there and the other
isn't.
> NetBIOS is effectively an
> interface, an API, not even really a protocol.
There's no 'not even really' to it. It's not a network protocol and never
has been. It's an API.
> So you can't complain/
> infer it's some third disparate, unrelated protocol that screws up the
> argument because it doesn't belong there.
I not only "can't," I never have. Netbios is an API. Netbeui is a network
protocol and the debate with Kony was about MS dropping support for Netbeui.
>>> I suppose it does inject another variable, which may be seen as
>>>a distraction or confusion, but how is it not germane _really_ to the
>>>discussion of NetBEUI's strengths & limitations or a criticism of
>>>"limited use"?
>>
>>Because the topic here was what Kony's argument was and his argument did
>>not depend on any form of 'routability' of the non routable Netbeui.
>
>
> Nope. It's a routability-based discussion insofar as a) his claims of
> benefits depend on scenarios that do not require routability
Which immediately removes any consideration of routability from being
relevant to his argument.
> b) he
> responded to your assessment of routability as a limitation by saying
> it doesn't mater when you don't need it.
Which immediately removes any consideration of routability from being
relevant to his argument.
*You* want it to be relevant because it's *your* argument.
> c) You both then "took
> sides" by repeating your high valuation of routability and his of
> transfer speed.
Put simply, no.
Once the 'not needed' case was made my case was that his supposed Netbeui
benefit was of limited scope and value.
> I think you're word parsing needs a little work.
I'm more interested in the meaning.
> Maybe you shouldn't do it from memory after you've lost interest in a
> thread.
Maybe you should stop trying to discover the 'hidden meaning' of the obvious.
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>>>>>>>consider it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>>>>>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>>>>>>>protocol.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
>>>>>>>there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
>>>>>>>bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You lost me here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS
>>>>>doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently. While
>>>>>probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that
>>>>>adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a
>>>>>deficient protocol.
>>>>
>>>>Then you missed all that part too.
>>>
>>>
>>>What part, exactly? I only went up a couple responses - where are
>>>you?
>>
>>I'm in Texas.
>
> Wheh! I thought you were in Konylandia (or maybe the Netherlands)
>
>
>>>>>Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
>>>>>opposite view as you.
>>>>
>>>>Clearly. Which was the point of how absurd conspiracy theories can get,
>>>>even to the point of missing the better 'conspiracy' because the typical
>>>>methodology is to simply find 'some' argument, no matter how obtuse or
>>>>outlandish, whether it's logical or not. It 'must' be pernicious so one
>>>>looks for the 'evidence' to justify the already determined conclusion and
>>>>since one starts with whatever conspiracy first came to mind it's likely to
>>>>be what's found since it's what one is seeking
>>>
>>>
>>>At least we get each other here.
>>
>>Yippee ;)
>
>
> Horray.
>
>
> I agree with you're general perception that at this point we are
> debating argument & reading comprehension rather than any kind of
> worthwhile technical discussion. I've continued with explanation to
> break your "fixation" on simply regurgitating old points that don't
> respond to my observations.
The reason for that is that you insist on telling me that when someone says
"it doesn't matter to my case" that they not only mean it matters but their
entire case depends on using it.
> You want to regurgitate & move on & I
> want to assess & fill in missing gaps of the debate.
Well, if you want to "fill in missing gaps of the debate" then we need to
start a different discussion because this one was about me trying to
clarify to you what Kony's argument was, not make new ones for him.
> Unfortunately
> responding to assessment with simple regurgitation is pointless. In
> that context further explanation is equally pointless. If I haven't
> broken through yet I don't think I will 10 posts from now.
You haven't 'broken through' because it would seem that, in the midst of
all this, you somewhere decided to sail off in another direction.
> This whole thread has indeed been taken WAY too far in basic
> "hardware" groups; it probably doesn't even belong here anyway. Yes
> killing NetBEUI is a no-brainer. We've wasting a lot of time
> agreeing.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:49:52 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:
>>>His question was answered.
>>
>>
>> Mine weren't.
>
>Not my job.
LOL
Hello. Remember me? The guy whose points you're trying to rebut?
When you're ready to take your own advice and ready to start reading &
engaging the person you are posting a response to - instead of this
mindless & prejudicial silliness - I'll be around to discuss subjects
in the appropriate groups.
Re: Install win xp over a network 
Linear Mode
