PJORGENS@COLGATEU.BITNET (Peter Jorgensen - Micro Specialist) (06/21/89)
>The bottom line is not that IP or DECNET or OSI networks are easier >to install and manage than ATP. The point is that they could easily be >made that way using existing tools. It's a user interface issue, not >a protocol architecture issue. It would have taken a lot less effort >to build simple tools for IP to look as friendly as ATP compared to >the amount of work put into building an inferior protocol from scratch. So why haven't those simple tools been built??? I think that the point that is so consistantly missed by so many of "us experts" is that we are the types who are willing to put up with the hassles of assigning network ids, and "configuring systems" and remembering cryptic commands. But I think (and hope :)) it is one of Apple's goals to put us all out of business, at least at the local level. [Sure, the need for deep and dirty programmers is gonna continue at the development level, but it should be eradicated at the user level ASAP.] >Instead, Apple built something completely different. And all those >management tools and routing protocols and other things we use to >solve problems in the IP world can't be leveraged in the Apple world. Yes, "leveraged in the Apple world." What that means is that I (the expensive system programmer, consultant, etc.) am losing my leverage because this new product is making it possible for someone who is not so highly trained, motivated, and compulsive (we are, aren't we? ;) ) to set up a tiny network. Next thing you know, the same person will be able to set up a large network, and even connect to a huge network... should-a never invented the dial telephone. >Sure, maybe it's not so bad when dealing with tiny networks. But one >thing they certainly should have realized from networking experience >is that sucessful small systems all turn into large systems. If you >design with limited expectations, you outstrip the architecture >when users try and build larger systems. And all of us have to suffer >with the consequences. Yes, and that's called progress. Does anyone have an example of a system that was designed ONCE and has never outstripped it's architecture? What do we think version numbers were invented for? The only difference I see is that AppleTalk Phase ][ seems to be alot more compatible with phase I than any other major upgrade I've seen. I say, keep it up Apple! Peter Jorgensen Microcomputer specialist Colgate University - Hamilton, NY 13346 AppleLink - U0523 BITNET - PJORGENSEN@COLGATEU tel - 315-824-1000 ext 742 The opinions expressed above reflect the uncommon wisdom of the author, not the common wisdom of his employer.