Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!PUCC!GETTES From: GETTES@PUCC.BITNET (Michael R. Gettes) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l Subject: Re: Standardized tools Message-ID: Date: 4 Feb 90 23:46:52 GMT Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies Organization: Princeton University, CIT Network Systems Lines: 17 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 4 Feb 90 11:52:06 EST from On Sun, 4 Feb 90 11:52:06 EST Andrew T. Robinson said: >By knowing what services you want to offer, you can define access methods >that are largely independent of implementation. Such specifications not only >make movement among protocol suites possible, but they do NOT inhibit >individual/organizational creativity in the development of network application >the way a "standard" set of tools does (if it looks like a duck, and quacks >like a duck, it's a duck). How true. But if the duck has babies instead of laying eggs, then you have a platypus, which is just a confused duck in my mind. BITNET could be seen as a platypus as well. We still have the "platypus and egg" problem even if we attempt to define services independent of standardization. I completely agree with this concept -- I only wish the concept could bloom within the confines of reality, but alas, some things are fantastical. Does the term "defacto" ring a bell? /mrg