dan@srs.UUCP (Dan Kegel) (01/01/70)
In article <319@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > I have proposed (elsewhere) to make the binary groups > pointless by creating a public domain C compiler. Public-domain C compilers exist, but binary groups live on. One reason people like binary groups is that some authors aren't willing to release their sources. - Dan Kegel
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (08/09/87)
In article <4091@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > As quoted from <13647@topaz.rutgers.edu> by webber@topaz.rutgers.edu (Webber): > +--------------- > | I take it that any net that transmits messages as boring as ibm pc > | binaries has no right to complain about the quality of the content of > | any other messages. You know, I always find it interesting that > | everyone wants everyone else to forward everything so that they can > | pick and chose the parts that interest just them. > +--------------- > > Why do I detect in this paragraph a rich and fruity smell, as of skunk? Who knows? Have you cleaned your keyboard recently? > Bob, you can't have it both ways (i.e. "don't allow binaries on any net I'm > on, but you damned better accept anything I submit"). Your article smacks > of hypocrisy. I never said `` don't allow binaries on the net ''. Doubtless you have been hanging around the backbone so long that you think everyone wishes to destroy anything that doesn't please them. I am a more tolerant sort. I have proposed (elsewhere) to make the binary groups pointless by creating a public domain C compiler. > ... to Bob Webber not wanting to carry comp.binaries.ibm.pc; I object to > Bob Webber trying to force people who WANT it _not_ to carry it. Then you object to a nonexistant thing. > ...binaries) carry. Thank you for enlightening us, O Great One! Well, obviously I have failed to enlighten you. Sigh. > I haven't got the RFC's; I suppose someone who can't ftp something from > another machine is subhuman. Don't bother replying to this, as your > statement above contains the assumption that I have access to every RFC, No. My statement assumed that anyone who would spout off about Internet being an SRI-NIC term exclusively would at least have gone to the effort to have consulted reasonable sources. RFC's can be distributed via many media other than ftp packets (as the rest of your note indicated). > However, I have a copy of RFC822 here, from the time it was posted to the > Usenet. The Preface makes it clear that the Internet is defined as the DoD > ARPA network; the terms are used interchangeably. This, of course, is not > enough, simply because it doesn't support Mr. Webber's claim. Wrong. RFC 822 is entitled: Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages. It superceeds RFC 773 entitled: Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Messages. It is clear from the preface that the usage of the term Internet is merely to indicate that ARPA mail regularly goes through networks other than the ARPA Network. ARPA in no way claimed title to the term Internet in this RFC than they claimed title to the term Network in RFC 773. So if this is the basis for your assumption that Internet is an ARPA term exclusively, then I am singularly unimpressed and will continue to use it for what was once called WorldNet. Is there any other arpaphile that thinks they can find an RFC that defends the notion that Internet applies only to ARPA? ------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher) (08/10/87)
+---- Webber writes the following in article <319@brandx.rutgers.edu> ---- | | So if this is the basis for your assumption that Internet is an ARPA | term exclusively, then I am singularly unimpressed and will continue | to use it for what was once called WorldNet. Is there any other | arpaphile that thinks they can find an RFC that defends the notion | that Internet applies only to ARPA? | | ------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber) Bob, you are underinformed about the state of things. Think, don't guess! You are a professor of Computer Science at Rutgers - that implies that you can (in theory :-) think. Internet ==> Internet Protocols ==> TCP/IP ==> Internetworking Re: RFC 799 (My online copies do not go back further) "... every internet host is uniquely identified by one or more 32-bit internet addresses and that the system is fully connected." "... all hosts can be assumed MTP-competent" UUCP-only sites are NOT fully connected, do NOT have unique 32 bit addresses, and are NOT MTP-competent. UUCP-only sites DO make up a majority of USENET. What this means, Bob, is that the Internet *BY DEFINITION* is made up of the set of hosts which comunicate to each other using the Internet Protocols (TCP/IP, SLIP, UDP, MTP, SMTP...) In past times, the ARPAnet was the only game in town. Now, though, there are many (over 200) other wide and local area networks which are interconnected with each other and the ARPAnet. The name for this whole sprawl which talks using the Internet Protocol is the Internet. You are partially right: the term "Internet" no longer refers to ONLY the ARPAnet. If you wish to refer to "WorldNet", why not use the name already in use for it: "USENET" Usenet is *BY DEFINITION* the set of all sites which receive netnews. (See "How to Use USENET Effectively" by Matt Bishop, and the other Usenet Docs provided with v2.11) **** Flame (Med Low) **** I'm sure that if I all of a sudden decided to call every 4 lane road in the country an "Interstate" that many would know "what I mean". I also know that these same people would be snickering and thinking that I didn't really know what I was talking about. If I heard them snickering and challenged them to find a reference work to prove that the DoT owned the name "Interstate" I'd be digging my own grave. If on top of all that I said that if they couldn't then I'd continue using it instead of using a term like "freeway" ... well, you get the picture. I'd begin to lose any credibility I had. Then, when I spoke up for something which I really knew something about no one would listen. Can you say Kill files and "Crying wolf"? **** Halon released: flames put out **** -- John Plocher uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!plocher plocher%uwspan.UUCP@uwvax.CS.WISC.EDU
trudel@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jonathan D.) (08/10/87)
In article <319@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > I never said `` don't allow binaries on the net ''. Doubtless you > have been hanging around the backbone so long that you think everyone > wishes to destroy anything that doesn't please them. I am a more > tolerant sort. I have proposed (elsewhere) to make the binary groups > pointless by creating a public domain C compiler. Doubtless you've been perverting your logic to suit yourself. Who started the whole discussion about "Making binary groups obsolete"??? In *all fairness*, can't you admit that if you make binary groups pointless that eliminating them is the next logical step in the process? (unless, of course, you like large numbers of pointless newsgroups). In a backwards way, you're indicating that you don't welcome binaries on the net, so you offer a way to *eliminate* them from the net. Even though "eliminate" has a different meaning than that of "disallow", we wind up with the same result. Is that difficult for you to understand? I believe that this is the point that is trying to surface here... -- Sometimes a fish needs a bicycle...
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (08/10/87)
In article <13824@topaz.rutgers.edu>, trudel@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jonathan D.) writes: > In article <319@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > > > I never said `` don't allow binaries on the net ''. Doubtless you > > have been hanging around the backbone so long that you think everyone > > wishes to destroy anything that doesn't please them. I am a more > > tolerant sort. I have proposed (elsewhere) to make the binary groups > > pointless by creating a public domain C compiler. > > Doubtless you've been perverting your logic to suit yourself. Who Well, first off, it isn't `my' logic. It is in the public domain. I believe that the original author was Gottlob Frege. As a constructivist, I too find it sometimes perverse, but I believe that I have been working within a fundamentally sound subset. Incidently, when you pervert your logic, whom do you do it to suit? > started the whole discussion about "Making binary groups obsolete"??? Well, I have been advocating that people archive these groups for quite some time so that questions like ``Who started ...'' could be simply answered. As near as I can recall, it all began when I indicated that binaries could be posted to talk.bizzare (something that has a grand tradition behind it). Also, I believe I was the first one to use that phrase in a Subject: line, but the net has been around for a long time, so there may have been another. > In *all fairness*, can't you admit that if you make binary groups > pointless that eliminating them is the next logical step in the > process? (unless, of course, you like large numbers of pointless > newsgroups). BINGO. You got it in just one shot. On odd numbered days I favour a large number of groups (some of which will inevitably be viewed as pointless by some people) and on even numbered days I favour getting rid of all the groups and having just one great big unmoderated group called ``news.'' Indeed elsewhere I have even said that I favour posting binaries to the net in certain cases (e.g., when the program was originally coded in machine code by the author -- machine code generated by compilers should only be posted to rec.humor). Besides their benefit as a place for machine code craftsmen, the binary groups also have some merit as a monument to a time when micros were so primitive that the only way for people on two different machines to exchange programs was as binaries (which were often configuration dependent). But then, I liked net.columbia, which was named as a monument to the past as well. ---- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
trudel@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jonathan D.) (08/10/87)
In article <324@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > > Doubtless you've been perverting your logic to suit yourself. Who > Well, first off, it isn't `my' logic. If you use it, it becomes yours, but since this isn't sci.philosophy.misc, I won't start a meta discussion of why... > > started the whole discussion about "Making binary groups obsolete"??? > Well, I have been advocating that people archive these groups for > quite some time so that questions like ``Who started ...'' could be > simply answered. As near as I can recall, it all began when I Bob, although I knew this fact, I wanted you to admit it. It seems that your beliefs change by the day. I'd just like to see you make a firm decision and stand by it. If you're going to propose something, I think a lot of people would like to see your implementation instead of your theory. > BINGO. You got it in just one shot. On odd numbered days I favour a > large number of groups (some of which will inevitably be viewed as > pointless by some people) and on even numbered days I favour getting > rid of all the groups and having just one great big unmoderated group > called ``news.'' Need I say more? If you're going to support the Usenet in some way, pick one, and stand by it. Note that I am not a spokesperson for Rutgers, and I don't know what the mythical "they" think about this... Jon -- Sometimes a fish needs a bicycle...
chris@mimsy.UUCP (08/18/87)
In article <171@hobbes.UUCP> root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: > Internet ==> Internet Protocols ==> TCP/IP ==> Internetworking This is valid for those who are on that Internet. Other networks may well have their own Internets; the name is really a fairly obvious one for anyone to choose. If you mean this particular Internet, a better phrase is `ARPA Internet'. >If you wish to refer to "WorldNet", why not use the name already in >use for it: > "USENET" >Usenet is *BY DEFINITION* the set of all sites which receive netnews. ... which makes it a subset of what I would call Worldnet. There *are* other networks (indeed, even other Internetworks) that connect to USENET and/or the ARPA Internet; they, too, are a part of Worldnet. Finally, one other bit of bad logic (from another article already passed by): Disallowing binaries and making binaries obsolete are two different things entirely. The former implies that no binaries will be distributed, without implying any alternatives; the latter implies that no binaries will be distributed, but also implies a better alternative. Bob Webber (with two Bs [looks like four to me, Bob :-) ]) is actually a pretty smart guy. I think he is being politically naive, and perhaps a bit abrasive, but I would not recommend rejecting all his ideas out of hand. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: seismo!mimsy!chris