 Re: Phase V: it's not just the UI, U know.
On Aug 25, 9:31 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert"
wrote:
> Rich Alderson wrote:
> > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
>
> >> Somehow, I can't get excited about a product that solves problems I
> >> didn't have when it was introduced, and which, ten or so years later, I
> >> still don't have. SMTP and POP may be "obsolete" but they have been
> >> delivering mail for the last 25 years or so and may be good for another
> >> ten or twenty years. DECnet Phase IV may be obsolete but it does the
> >> job I need done!
>
> > SMTP is a bit over 25 years old, POP just over 20.
>
> > Just keeping things straight.
>
> Make that about 26 years old for SMTP. RFC 821 is dated August 1982!
And in 1982 my then employers still had RSX (32kw address space) as
did many other companies. They may well have had a few VT100s by that
time, but when VT200s were introduced in 1983 they optionally had 20mA
current loop, as Teletype interface compatibility still wasn't that
unusual a requirement. OK I was a few years off with POP (sorry, it
was a while ago).
Dedicated routers weren't just a Cisco concept, though I can't quickly
find any references to the ancient DEC routers which lived in the
first DEC office I visited (which was indeed in the days of X.25 and
dedicated DDCMP lines). Host-based routing in the world of DECnet and
OSI has been (is?) a bit of a passing phase, whether the router of the
day is one of the originals whose name I forget, which filled a few
feet high of 19" rack next to the Gandalf terminal switch, or one a
little bit more recent which takes up two inches width on a DEChub 90
backplane next to the Gandalf-replacement DECserver 90.
These days lots of homes have their own IP router, some of them are
made by Linksys/Cisco, but I'm still not sure what the connection
between the enterprise market and the high volume/low margin market
is. Do IBM think they need a "low cost" (ie low margin) product for
any of their markets, or have they explicitly departed from the "low
margin" market (hello Lenovo) and stuck to what they think they're
traditionally good at (high value high margin, just like Cisco
Classic)? (Incidentally, wasn't getting rid of IBM SNA one of the real
drivers behind OSI?)
 |