 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Right. My point was that if companies are just left to their own
>> devices, they will all invent and deploy incompatible technologies.
>
> Not really. One network will be bigger, and others will make their stuff
> compatible so they can connect to the network. Or you build interface
> converters.
Or you have the network equivilent of "format wars" while the few
biggest networks try to out-grow each other and win the game...
> Wow, good thing the internet uses ethernet everywhere, and we never had
> these dial-up modems, ADSL, or cable modems to deal with.
Fortunately, somebody invented IP. Before that happened, it was crazy
out there...
>> For something like washing machines, the fact that one machine is
>> "incompatible" with another is largely irrelevant. For anything which
>> could be described as a "network", compatibility is usually a Big Deal.
>
> Which is exactly why the companies tend not to deploy incompatible
> technologies, once a sufficiently good technology has proven itself.
Really? How would company X know that company Y is using a given technology?
> The main reason the telephone networks in the USA were monopolies is
> they were analog, and you had to carefully design the routing so that
> long distance calls didn't go thru so many switches that you lost all
> quality.
Similar constraints probably apply to things like water or electricity
distribution.
>> The other problem is assigned numbers. Can you imagine if there were
>> three different postal services, each of which assigns completely
>> different postcodes to the same addresses?
>
> FedEx and UPS and GPS driving directions and such all use the postal
> address. Why wouldn't they? Why would UPS go to the trouble of making up
> their own sets of addresses?
Yeah, because the postal address already existed in the first place. If
the post office hadn't existed first...
>> Even if the format of a
>> postcode is standardised, you still need a single entity to assign them.
>
> Because ethernet MAC addresses and worldwide telephone numbers are all
> managed by the same entity.
?
>> (Still, I guess it's plausible that you could have a single entity in
>> charge of *planning* a service, and have the service actually
>> *performed* by several independant companies...)
>
> Hey, welcome to Bellcore. Have a nice visit.
Um... OK?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Similar arguments go for things like power distribution, or rail
>> networks.
>
> Rail networks aren't a monopoly. They didn't even have compatible rails
> for a long time, since it wasn't really that much of a problem to switch
> cars.
In which country?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> When I was a child my computer had booted before the picture came on :-)
Heh. Makes me chuckle when I think about how many seconds it takes for a
C64 to bootstrap.
About 0.2.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Or you have the network equivilent of "format wars" while the few
> biggest networks try to out-grow each other and win the game...
Yep. But again that's going to win/lose on lots of features, one of which is
how well the formats match what people want at the time.
The sad part is when a format gets entrenched and then people change how the
work to a way that the entrenched mechanisms don't support well.
> Fortunately, somebody invented IP. Before that happened, it was crazy
> out there...
Not especially. And IP didn't win. IP addresses a very small part of the
networking stack. X.25 was around first, and had nationwide networks
interconnected before IP was around. There was ISDN, SNA, and DecNet, and
that was pretty much it.
Now there's SONET and ATM, which is what carries most IP traffic.
> Really? How would company X know that company Y is using a given
> technology?
I'm pretty sure it's not hard to figure out what technology your
competition in network services is using. You think it's difficult to figure
out what coding an iPhone uses over the air, for example?
> Similar constraints probably apply to things like water or electricity
> distribution.
Yes. Around here at least, it's space underneath the roads to actually run
the pipes. Indeed, a huge amount of network monopoly power comes from
having access to the land to run the network. That's why telegraph
companies were all owned by railroads.
> Yeah, because the postal address already existed in the first place. If
> the post office hadn't existed first...
Exactly, yes. But not because the post office was a monopoly.
>>> Even if the format of a
>>> postcode is standardised, you still need a single entity to assign them.
>>
>> Because ethernet MAC addresses and worldwide telephone numbers are all
>> managed by the same entity.
>
> ?
Why would post codes need a monopoly if phone numbers, IP addresses, and MAC
addresses don't?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Similar arguments go for things like power distribution, or rail
>>> networks.
>>
>> Rail networks aren't a monopoly. They didn't even have compatible
>> rails for a long time, since it wasn't really that much of a problem
>> to switch cars.
>
> In which country?
The USA.
Anyone who builds a large network after there's already a clear winner
somewhere else is likely to adopt the same standards, or at least recognise
that there's going to be a need for standards.
Did the UK have analog cell phones, out of curiousity?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> When I was a child my computer had booted before the picture came on :-)
>
> Heh. Makes me chuckle when I think about how many seconds it takes for a
> C64 to bootstrap.
>
> About 0.2.
Yeah, it astounded a friend of mine who was a VAX-head when I hit the reset
switch on the back of a Kaypro CP/M machine. "Was that an interrupt? That
was quick." "No, that was a cold boot."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Heh. Makes me chuckle when I think about how many seconds it takes for a
> C64 to bootstrap.
> About 0.2.
Yeah, with all that hardware it has to initialize and the boot loaders it
has to load from hard disks, it's a miracle.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Or you have the network equivilent of "format wars" while the few
>> biggest networks try to out-grow each other and win the game...
>
> Yep. But again that's going to win/lose on lots of features, one of
> which is how well the formats match what people want at the time.
>
> The sad part is when a format gets entrenched and then people change how
> the work to a way that the entrenched mechanisms don't support well.
The sad part is that the format that wins is usually the least
technically sophisticated.
>> Fortunately, somebody invented IP. Before that happened, it was crazy
>> out there...
>
> Not especially. And IP didn't win. IP addresses a very small part of the
> networking stack.
What IP does is provide a single language for networking. Any networking
technology that has a standardised way of carrying IP can potentially be
interconnected with any other such technology.
IP over Avian Carrier, anyone?
From what little I remember, before that we had IPX and SPX and
AppleTalk and Ethernet and Token Ring and none of it worked together.
>> Really? How would company X know that company Y is using a given
>> technology?
>
> I'm pretty sure it's not hard to figure out what technology your
> competition in network services is using. You think it's difficult to
> figure out what coding an iPhone uses over the air, for example?
Er, YES. (?!)
>> Similar constraints probably apply to things like water or electricity
>> distribution.
>
> Yes. Around here at least, it's space underneath the roads to actually
> run the pipes.
Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me...
And besides, why waste time and energy laying a dozen sets of cables
when one will do?
>> Yeah, because the postal address already existed in the first place.
>> If the post office hadn't existed first...
>
> Exactly, yes. But not because the post office was a monopoly.
So if the post office hadn't been a monopoly, and there had been a dozen
different postal companies all start at the same time, they would have
all used the same postcodes?
> Why would post codes need a monopoly if phone numbers, IP addresses, and
> MAC addresses don't?
Are you telling me that IP addresses don't involve a monopoly?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Did the UK have analog cell phones, out of curiousity?
Uh... I *think* so. For a while, at least. But back then, only rich
playboy execs could afford them. (And they were *huge* anyway...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:09:00 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The sad part is that the format that wins is usually the least
> technically sophisticated.
Actually, that's quite pragmatic more than sad; often you find that the
requirements come down to the lowest common denominator. Implementing
things that are more esoteric tend to not happen because they aren't
likely to be widely utilized.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
