Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!DDN2.UUCP!NS-DDN From: NS-DDN@DDN2.UUCP.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: GOSIP vs TCP/IP Message-ID: <8703092033.AA16134@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Mon, 9-Mar-87 10:24:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8703092033.AA16134 Posted: Mon Mar 9 10:24:00 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Mar-87 05:21:57 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 31 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa I am compelled to respond to what I perceive is a rather low opinion of protocol vendors (which would include me, I guess). Granted, it's caveat emptor out there, and the low opinion is deserved IN GENERAL. But there are some vendors who are not money-grubbing capitalists to the extent that customer dissatisfaction is irrelevant. Indeed, all vendors implicitly understand this truth about any marketplace to some degree. The ones who lose sight of the fact that customers buy data flowing between their computers (not software) reap the inevitable consequences. My experience would indicate that a significant number of nodes don't want to employ network protocol experts. They would much rather find a cradle-to-grave network solution (sorry, I couldn't resist) that they can entrust with their data comm requirements. It's easier for managers to beat on one vendor than on one or more employees and one or more vendors. Yes, there is public domain software, but there are learning curves and other hidden costs associated with it, and you still need the hardware. The theory is that more than one vendor springs up to provide these services, each with approximately the same savoir faire and customer commitment. The choices available to the customer cause prices to be competitive. It's lack of alternatives which cause customer gouging. Believe it or not, we do have satisfied customers. And these are obviously my own personal opinions only, too. Dave Craig Network Solutions, Inc.