19 Jul
2008
19 Jul
'08
6:34 p.m.
Eric Smith wrote:
Ray Arachelian wrote:
Yes, you've gone back further than I have, so your version of original
is older than mine, good for you. :-)
If that were the case, there would be no reason to name hosts (or cnames
to hosts) based on their role. Somehow I doubt that any large company
used a single machine to handle all if their internet traffic which most
certainly included an ftp support site, usenet, mail, etc. Whether
Apple, DEC, Xerox or Sun. Yes, perhaps in the very early days that was
feasible, but not a bit later, not right around 1994 when we started
seeing www.domainname.tld hosts.
I think it goes back to the original idea of
using a separate server
for each service.
That certainly was NOT the original idea. When the protocols were
being developed, computers were big and expensive, and you generally
only got one, which you had to use for all your services.