Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!amdcad!ncpjmw From: ncpjmw@amdcad.AMD.COM (Mike Wincn) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Starlan/Ethernet compatibility Message-ID: <26135@amdcad.AMD.COM> Date: 27 Jun 89 02:43:06 GMT References: <2009@wasatch.utah.edu> <2230006@hprnd.HP.COM> <1989Jun22.155454.7396@utzoo.uucp> <26097@amdcad.AMD.COM> <1989Jun26.163706.1078@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: ncpjmw@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Wincn) Organization: Advanced Micro Devices Lines: 85 In article <1989Jun26.163706.1078@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >I prefer solutions which don't involve serious technical compromises; last >I heard, any twisted-pair 10Mbps network did. (I admit to not being familiar >with the twisted-pair-Ethernet-proposal-of-the-week.) I don't understand what you consider a 'serious technical compromise', unless you are truly concerned with getting to your office from home with exclusive use of twisted pairs. Every communication medium has some kind of limitation, and the market generally decides which best suits the application (or, if you prefer, which causes the least pain). The last thing an end user needs is a plethora of differnet choices with none of them compatible. If no one was interested in compatibility, standards would all be ignored. It has been stated that 10BASE-T is intended to circumvent the less cost- effective (and thus 'painful') choices of Tolken-Ring and COAX Ethernet. It has also been stated that a strong market already exists for Twisted Pair LAN (though perhaps not mentioned in this newsgroup). [...comments about cost effective twisted pair from his home to his office, deleted..] > >It was a satire on your argument, which essentially read "the usual standards >don't solve *my* problem, therefore a new standard is needed". I make no such claim. My point is that there a many vendors who already offer a version of Twst.Pr. Ethernet, and many others who are ready to do so. From many reports there exists a strong market desire for such media access method. As long as there are going to be many players it makes perfect sense to me that they should all be compatible at some minimal level. We could all wait for the market to decide what that minimal level is, but we then may never be able to take advantage of the reduced interconnect cost. We could wait for some one vendor to 'invent' or 'discover' classes of media access, like 10BASE-T, but then we would have to wait to discover precisely _what_ will be offered and place trust in diligence and accuracy of ONE feasibility study (when and _IF_ such study was done). >>I have yet to hear of any system that completed the standards development >>process and wound up not functional... > >I can think of some that have never been implemented in their full form. >I can think of others that are widely implemented, except that everybody >ignores the stupid parts and does things right instead. I don't know what >you consider "not functional", but these come close. And people whose >opinions I consider reliable are seriously worried about some of the current >mania, especially in Europe, for standardizing things that have never been >tried and whose practicality is very unclear. No one is restricted from deviating from a standard. Any vendor can offer any product or combination of products he so chooses in any form that his manufacturing process allows. Given a choice between a 'compliant' product and a 'non-compliant' product, or 'standard' and 'non-standard', which do you think most end users prefer? Does it make sense to you that we SHOULDN'T invoke a process that weeds out those schemes "...whose practicality is very unclear" ? Go back and re-read Pat Thaler's comments on IEEE's standards process. 'Not functional' means 'doesn't work', even in its most basic form. Clearly, if some standard exists for a system which doesn't work, buyers are free to take their dollars (yen, guilders, marks, etc.) elsewhere. No one system is completely perfect or satisfies all needs, else we'd only HAVE one. You're looking for one or two perfect media access methods? I have some advice for you: Get used to disappointment. You want exclusive use of COAX and Tolken Ring? Hang on a little longer - there'll be plenty of spare hardware for you to buy. >There is also no shortage of standards that are functional, but verifiably >inferior in essentially every way to the previous de-facto standards. Okay, I'll bite... verify it. [...] >My contention is not that LAN standards are unnecessary, but that at >10 Mbps we have enough -- indeed, too many -- of them already. We would >be better served by one or two *good* ones than by standardizing every >variation anyone's marketing department can think of. ...and there once were people who thought that the world was flat, and that there was no need to consider any other possibility. Mike Wincn ncpjmw@amdcad.AMD.COM (408) 749-3156 The opinions expressed are my own, not necessarily those of my employer, nor those of 802.3 Committee or 10BASE-T Task Force.