26 Jul
2001
26 Jul
'01
12:13 a.m.
Folks,
I apologize if my last remark (regarding FDDI, Ford Festivas, and
using the right tool for the job) sounded snotty. I'm just trying to
stand up for my principles, that combined with the fact that I'm in a
bad mood probably didn't sound very nice. Sorry folks.
-Dave McGuire
26 Jul
26 Jul
7:51 a.m.
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Dave McGuire wrote:
I apologize if my last remark (regarding FDDI, Ford
Festivas, and
using the right tool for the job) sounded snotty. I'm just trying to
stand up for my principles, that combined with the fact that I'm in a
I agree; Ethernet is all well and good (cheap, etc) - but I doubt that too
many people would call it "elegant". Now FDDI (and other token-based
protocols) - I would call elegant. Especially when you want to do any
kind of worst-case analysis for real time or other sensitive applications.
The ethernet story is amusing. Here's a protocol (based on ALOHA, which
actually makes sense) that was initially bus-based that has since become
more-or-less point-to-point, at MUCH higher speeds, and yet the underlying
principles have never changed. So the whole point of ethernet has
basically been nill'ed out by going to entirely switched networks.
There comes a point to say "okay, time for something NEW".
Again, not that ethernet isn't great - it works all over the place. But
MAN - I am jealous of your 30-node FDDI network. Sweet.
- Dan
Dan Linder / dlinder @ uiuc.edu
Graduate Student, College of Engineering, Dept. of Computer Science
- Dept. of Computer Science Teaching Assistant
- DoRES Computer Accessibility Researcher
27 Jul
27 Jul
1:47 a.m.
Dan Linder skrev:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Dave McGuire wrote:
> I apologize if my last remark (regarding FDDI,
Ford Festivas, and
> using the right tool for the job) sounded snotty. I'm just trying to
> stand up for my principles, that combined with the fact that I'm in a
I agree; Ethernet is all well and good (cheap, etc) -
but I doubt that too
many people would call it "elegant". Now FDDI (and other token-based
protocols) - I would call elegant. Especially when you want to do any
kind of worst-case analysis for real time or other sensitive applications.
That certainly depends on your perception of elegance. I like the concept of
an "ether" which is shared amongst stations. Some might think that token-
passing mechanisms are overly involved. I simply say that one should use the
right tool for the right job.
The ethernet story is amusing. Here's a protocol
(based on ALOHA, which
actually makes sense) that was initially bus-based that has since become
more-or-less point-to-point, at MUCH higher speeds, and yet the underlying
principles have never changed. So the whole point of ethernet has
basically been nill'ed out by going to entirely switched networks.
I'm not that fond of the switching concept for that reason. It perverts the
original intentions of the architecture, in effect removing the common ether.
Still, I'm often dazzled by the thought that even in this day, we're using a
network architecture which was first devised in the mid-seventies. You can't
trace such a long mileage for much else in the computer world.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Life begins at '030. Fun begins at '040. Impotence begins at '86.
8377
days inactive
8378
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
dlinder＠uiuc.edu -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
optimus＠canit.se