Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Of Backbonisms and Misreading RFCs.
Message-ID: <8015@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Aug-87 04:35:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: mimsy.8015
Posted: Tue Aug 18 04:35:10 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Aug-87 07:37:55 EDT
References: <267@brandx.UUCP> <7200004@iaoobelix.UUCP> <289@brandx.rutgers.edu> <171@hobbes.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 31

In article <171@hobbes.UUCP> root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:
>  Internet	==> Internet Protocols	==> TCP/IP	==> Internetworking

This is valid for those who are on that Internet.  Other networks
may well have their own Internets; the name is really a fairly
obvious one for anyone to choose.  If you mean this particular
Internet, a better phrase is `ARPA Internet'.

>If you wish to refer to "WorldNet", why not use the name already in
>use for it:
>				"USENET"
>Usenet is *BY DEFINITION* the set of all sites which receive netnews.

... which makes it a subset of what I would call Worldnet.  There *are*
other networks (indeed, even other Internetworks) that connect to
USENET and/or the ARPA Internet; they, too, are a part of Worldnet.

Finally, one other bit of bad logic (from another article already
passed by):  Disallowing binaries and making binaries obsolete are
two different things entirely.  The former implies that no binaries
will be distributed, without implying any alternatives; the latter
implies that no binaries will be distributed, but also implies a
better alternative.

Bob Webber (with two Bs [looks like four to me, Bob :-) ]) is
actually a pretty smart guy.  I think he is being politically naive,
and perhaps a bit abrasive, but I would not recommend rejecting
all his ideas out of hand.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	seismo!mimsy!chris