On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Tim Shoppa wrote:
Andrew Back wrote:
I vote we dispense with both, set up an FTAM
responder, build an OSI
network, and bury this pesky Internet.
This is sort-of like taking the most virulent strain of smallpox there
is, bottling it up, and then deciding what to do with it.
Harsh.
Some things were cool and are worth saving and
continuing to use.
Certainly talk, finger, etc., all the wonderfully simple TCP/IP services
fall into this category.
Other things (OSI networking and its implementation in DECNET Phase V)
should be preserved in the computer industry's equivalent of the
Holocaust Museum, or the CDC's smallpox samples, lest we ever forget.
They literally sucked and wasted billions of dollars of otherwise useful
effort from projects that could've used creativity and simplicity rather
than seven layers of crappy beauracracy on crappy beauracracy.
Well, thats one opinion. Personally I think these things embodied a lot of
good ideas and whilst sometimes a pain to set up can be interesting to
play with. Especially if you have done for a living and enjoy the odd trip
down memory lane. And surely this is not the 'pragmatic computing' mailing
list...
Harsh, but not entirely unwarranted. As one who implemented a lot of that stuff
I had mixed feelings about it. The X.400 P1 protocol itself seemed worthy, although
there was some unspecified behaviour, at least at that time. For the session
and transport protocols and some other issues I sometimes wanted to just throw
up my hands: seemed to be a lot of looking backwards rather than forwards as
to where networking was going. But I was young and naive and thought the
standards organisations knew what they were doing.
On the other hand a lack of (enforced) standards can lead to things like the
html/browser wars of the 90's and another monumental waste of time and effort.