Install win xp over a network
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: VGA clock setting?
Next: SATA II Harddisks ?
From: kony on 12 Aug 2005 20:55 On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:17:00 GMT, Curious George <cg(a)email.net> wrote: >>It is a simple statement and a simple point. > >Yes indeed. Both are. So? So you're wasting everyone's time beause we didn't pretend you're always right.
From: David Maynard on 12 Aug 2005 23:49 Curious George wrote: > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:27:13 -0500, David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> > wrote: > > >>Curious George wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:46:07 -0500, David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Curious George wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Curious George wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never >>>>>>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to >>>>>>>>>"certain situations". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a >>>>>>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in >>>>>>>any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple >>>>>>>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and >>>>>>>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing. >>>>>> >>>>>>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Whatcha mean? You've just claimed you discussed it with him? >>>> >>>>Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What was unclear? >>> >>> >>>Claiming responsibility for _your_ points does not deal with _his_ or >>>my assessment of them >> >>It does when I am the one who made the point and he didn't. E.g. It ain't >>his point if it's mine. > > > Only that is a totally ineffective rebuttal to my post. I don't know how it gets any simpler than it wasn't his point means it wasn't his point. >>>i.e. whether "more credit was given than is due" >>>as well as his "depth of comparison". >> >>Maybe you should deal with simply what's said instead of trying to count >>how many angels are dancing on the pin head. > > > I wish you would take your own advice. Hint: that means reading to > what I said before attempting to rebut it. I did. Why I am not sure because it's you seem to invent arguments where there are none and insist that your microscopically dissected and syntactically tortured 'analysis' of what someone says is what they said no matter how much the author clarifies his own opinion. Clinton pondered what the meaning of 'is' is but you would argue the galactic significance to the shape of the dot. >>You keep trying to attribute to Kony some kind of routing argument and I >>simply pointed out that it was *I* who brought it up, as a failing of >>Netbeui, and not Kony. > > > & he rebutted that you won't miss routing if it isn't needed. Which makes it clear that "routability" is irrelevant to the 'features' he espoused for Netbeui. > Both > sides in a debate get to have "arguments." No kidding? Who'd a thunk it? > Both of you contributed > points to a routability-based argument. And the "routability-based argument" was mine. His 'argument' was that routability did not apply to *his* case. Wise argument too as Netbeui is unroutable. > You're overly-possessive of a > regurgitation of a factoid. That doesn't give you the corner market > on "argument." No, it's simply that you've decided 'routability' is a key component of Kony's argument and will apparently hold to that position even if God himself came down and told you otherwise. I brought up routing and Kony's 'argument' was it didn't apply to the case he was making and, so, irrelevant. You will now, no doubt, argue about the 'relevancy' of irrelevancy. >>It is a simple statement and a simple point. > > > Yes indeed. Both are. So? His case for the benefits of Netbeui had nothing to do with being routable because Netbeui isn't. >>>>>Were you the first to bring it up? >>>> >>>>Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui. >>> >>> >>>So? (in our current context) >> >>The current context is who brought it up. I did, as failing of netbeui. > > Wrong. You should take your own advice and "deal with simply what's > said." Clearly you've "checked out" of this discussion long ago. No but I'm about to because arguing with you about nothing is fruitless. >>So... what was unclear? >> >> >>> >>>>>It doesn't really matter in the >>>>>context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain >>>>>situations" & "not all." You and he have cited routability as >>>>>evidence of his concession. Indeed I can only find cursory mention: >>>>> >>>>><quote> >>>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 04:43:40 GMT, kony <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is >>>>>>that it's routable.. Once you remove that need, you're left >>>>>>with a slower protocol. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>></quote> >>>> >>>>Well, you apparently missed part of the conversation. >>> >>> >>>Either my server is missing part of the thread or we're just not >>>understanding each other. Sure that isn't the only post of his that >>>mentions routability, but I think this one pretty much sums up the >>>depth of his argument. It was too repetitive to quote everything. >> >>You're stuck on 'routability' and it has nothing to do with his argument. >> >> >>>I think the problem here is I see him arguing basically 'sometimes you >>>don't need routability - NetBEUI & TCP are different tools for >>>different jobs - so lets talk about NetBEUI's advantages where its >>>needed'. >> >>He's never made any 'limited use' argument. I did. > > > You should "deal with simply what's said." Do you see me claim that? > > You argued the NetBEUI scenario he described was "limited use." What > HE DESCRIBED. Your discussion with him is connected even if you think > you invented the wheel with a regurgitation of the "routability" > factoid. Believe whatever you want. You're going to anyway, regardless. >>He says Netbeui has desirable features. >> >>I say, even if so they are of limited use. >> >>Note that my argument is not his and his argument is not mine. > > > So? That argument is a REBUTTAL. You are not writing in a vacuum > i.e. both are contributing points on the topic. A waste of time stating the obvious. > You're awfully possessive of a regurgitation of a factoid. > Possessiveness doesn't answer or explain my points. Remember me? The > guy your responding to? Remember the topic? What Kony's case was? >>> And I'm observing 'sometimes not needing routability is >>>different than 'NetBEUI can't ever be used on networks that also >>>require routability'. >> >>An argument that no one made. > > > So I'm "no one" now? This whole thing began with me trying to clarify what Kony's position was after you made a sort of 'accusation'. So, yes, in that context you're "no one" as you're not Kony. >>> It doesn't really address limitations in any >>>_real_ context - not only the scarcity of that situation but also how >>>that changes with NetBIOS extensions which, in fact, demonstrate how >>>NetBEUI has long ago moved past this now synthetic "limited use" >>>scenario.' >> >>Netbios is not Netbeui > > > Not completely. > > NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3 carrier > protocol. It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the NetBIOS > API. Netbios is an API and Netbeui is a network protocol >>and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from it's model > > > Nope. It indeed adds/augments functionality. Non sequitur. The 'functionality' Netbeui adds is the same 'model' it always was and has not 'moved', away or otherwise. >>> After all Some Guy's comment "I've never read anything >>>concrete that explains just what is wrong with netbuie -" started a >>>lot of this mess and it warrants deeper examination when posting under >>>it. >> >>His question was answered. > > > Mine weren't. Not my job. > So you're happy with you're prior points in a discussion with someone > else- how nice for you. Yes, thank you. >>>I'm trying to probe & nudge at looking at what's been said a little >>>deeper & the success of answering that earlier key question, rather >>>than simply repeat repetition or agree or disagree. Maybe I haven't >>>expressed this as articulately as I could, but there's a lot of that >>>blame that could be spread around - and what I'm trying to get at is >>>different than wholesale misinterpretation/ misreading - unless you >>>still think I'm missing the mark entirely. >> >>I think you're preoccupied with arguing about phraseology and how many >>angels are dancing on the pin heads. > > > By "checking out" & ignoring "phraseology" you're missing meaning & > not realizing what you're "responding" to. "Details" & "context" are > not "philosophy." You should know the difference. That kind of quip > is a cute distraction, though. It's potentially important when one does so for illumination but you don't. You do it simply for the sake of arguing. It becomes a debate of the obscure and irrelevant. >>>Are we clear now? Is there really that much more _substance_ I've >>>missed from _his_ "limited use" discussion? >> >>The argument is quite simple. He says there are cases where netbeui is of >>benefit and I'm arguing that, even if so, it is of such limited benefit in >>limited circumstances to so few people that it does not justify the cost of >>support. > > > That's doesn't add anything to what I said & is your debate with him. > Not mine with you. You should try actually addressing the person to > whom you're allegedly responding. I think you're so lost in 'debating' that you haven't any idea what the topic was. All I did was tell you that your assertion "He thinks a single transfer between two computers somehow translates to "network" behavior generally and regardless of scale & management, etc." miss stated the case he made. >>>>>>>NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I >>>>>>>understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really >>>>>>>can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks >>>>>>>with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other. >>>>>> >>>>>>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument >>>>>>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the >>>>>>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that >>>>>that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then >>>>>that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is >>>>>essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard. It also is >>>>>common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been >>>>>discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons. >>>> >>>>You're trying to 'guess' what people said and meant, when it would seem you >>>>missed it, and then argue with your own 'guess'. >>> >>> >>>Now _you_ lost _me_. >>> >>>Listen to yourself for a moment (or rather you're repetition of Kony). >>>Why would I bother to 'guess' meaning & then post responses >>>criticizing my guess? Why would I have to guess at all if the >>>arguments are clear & thorough? >> >>I've noticed you go to quite a lot of effort arguing about 'how it was >>said' even after it's explained and that's been pretty much the >>'discussion' in these last few go rounds with you trying to disassemble >>each sentence and 'decode' trivial meanings. > > Because I'm trying to get you back on track. You've drifted off > somewhere with a dismissive attitude; I'm seem dismissive because you want to debate with me about what the meaning of my debate was. I was there. I was in it. And I was simply telling you what transpired so you'd better understand but now you want to 'debate' whether what happened is what happened. > I must not understand the thread > because you feel you finished debating with Kony. I did. Or he did. One or the other. > You're right, I am > trying too hard. It doesn't matter if I re-explain myself if you're > not interested. If you're trying to 'explain' to me that I don't know what happened in my debate then no, I'm not interested because I already know. >>I brought up routing first (I.E. it wasn't a part of Kony's argument as he >>wasn't the one who mentioned it.) > > > See, this is why you'd be better off paying more attention to > phraseology. No, it's where you'd be better off if you'd accept that I know what the hell the debate I was in was about. >>Simple sentence. Simple meaning. Yet you've been 'debating' it with me. > > > No. I'm trying to get you to rebut my points- the points at hand. > You're caught back there. I've taken it the next step. Could you please be a little more vague? Because I almost got a meaning in that. Next step? Two step? Polka? Waltz? >>> Why is this the only group (actually >>>only 2 ppl), in my last decade of usenet, I'm being accused of this? >> >>Hell if I know. Maybe they call it something different. > > > Yeah. It's called punishment for stupidly wandering into a > gen.HW.newbie group & giving the local know-it-alls the benefit of the > doubt & a soapbox. Clearly my patience is a liability. Clearly. No sense in arguing about it. >>>I'm glad you two speak the same language. It's strange you do because >>>your back & forth with him sounded very familiar to me (minus some of >>>the anger perhaps). Maybe Kony & I are always butting heads because >>>we just don't understand each other. Since you speak Kony, maybe you >>>can translate? - or do we understand each other a little better now? >> >>You're confusing "understanding" what someone says with "agreement." > > > Again another sage piece of advice you should follow. It's not 'advice' it's a statement about your 'surprise' that I can understand Kony yet disagree. > > However the only thing wrong with your advice is it misjudges just how > much room there really is for "opinion" in factual descriptions of > technical details. No, it doesn't. You expressed 'strangeness' at my apparent 'understanding' of Kony yet going "back & forth with him." I can understand him but not agree with it. In fact, it's dern difficult to debate, productively anyway, if you don't 'understand' the other. And if anyone need proof of it they can read this thread. >>>>Netbios over TCP/IP has nothing to do with it because routing is not needed >>>>in the limited use. >>> >>> >>>Nothing to do with what, exactly? >> >>His argument that Netbeui has benefits. > > > True it isn't his argument but it does indeed have to do with his > argument. No, it doesn't. It has to do with *your* argument. > That you feel you complete your discussion with Kony > doesn't really apply here. What that has to do with the price of eggs is anyone's guess. >>>"Limited use" today is a crock; an academic hypothetical >> >>Since you insist on parsing semantics, pardon me, but that, as an >>'absolute' statement, is itself a crock as very few things are 'universally >>applicable to all situations'. >> >>Virtually everything is of 'limited use' so the issue, in a negative >>context, becomes a comparison of limitations. In the positive it's a >>comparison of capabilities. > > > Nice try. But that's so pedantic you've lost the forrest for the > trees. It's too silly to mock me effectively. It may seem pedantic but it's true. > If we agree with you that when a computer has internet access it also > has TCP/IP Would seem to be the common case. > and NetBEUI would be an addition to network overhead and > the comparison is between NetBEUI & TCP/IP- > > then tell me something, how many XP networks out there are strictly a > small local workgroup (<10 computers), with no internet, no apps > requiring TCP, & where faster transfers in NetBEUI are/could be > noticed/appreciated or whern NetBEUI is otherwise REQUIRED? It's an > academic hypothetical & you indeed have argued the limitations of > NetBEUI benefits with equally strong language. Its a crock. A crock > to waste so much time on it like its real & realistic. Then we agree on this point and if you had said it with enough detail, like just then, so that I had a clue what you meant then we could have avoided this little go round. >>>- even if >>>Kony stubbornly wouldn't budge from repeatedly trying to shove it down >>>your throat. >> >>But again, as I mentioned above, you seem to want to argue about >>phraseology rather than the subject matter. It was I who used the phrase >>"limited use," and not Kony, because the 'limitations' of Netbeui was *my* >>argument. > > > You've clearly "checked out" of this discussion long ago. And 'which' discussion is that? >>> Transfer speed & routability were major issues in the >>>comparison with TCP/IP. >> >>Lack of routability was a point I made. > > > And he responded to your assessment of routability being a limitation > by saying it doesn't matter when you don't need it. Yes, which makes routability irrelevant to his argument. Not to mine but to his. > You were indeed > engaged together in a routability-based discussion even though it > passed you by How does one get it through your head that when someone says "not in my case" that it means "not in my case?" > - I guess you were busy creaming yourself you could > repeat that "NetBEUI isn't routable...which is important." And you're busy creaming yourself that Kony is talking about the virtues of routing netbios over TCP/IP when he's said his case isn't routed and the topic is the Netbeui protocol. >>> NetBIOS makes one of those issues basically >>>disappear and acknowledges that NetBEUI has long ago moved away from >>>this "limited use" model anyway. >> >>Netbios isn't Netbeui and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from anything. > > > Nope. NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3 > carrier protocol. No, Netbeui is a network protocol and Netbios is an API. > It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the > NetBIOS API. It was created to support Netbios but Netbeui is a network protocol and Netbios can be packaged otherwise, as in Netbios over TCP/IP. > Historically, both terms have been interchangeable in > certain contexts. Yes, people have historically misused the terms but it's important to know which is which when the topic is network protocols and not APIs. > Nevertheless they rely on each other. NetBIOS is > not a separate & distinct protocol (it's not even really a protocol at > all). Yes it indeed adds functionality. "Adds functionality" is a non sequitur. You claimed "Netbeui" had "long ago moved away from this "limited use" model anyway" and Netbeui has done no such thing. It's just as limited as it always was, which is why support for it was dropped. Netbios is still there, riding on TCP/IP. >>> It therefore certainly has >>>_everything_ to do with YOUR criticism of his "fixation" on "limited >>>use". >> >>It might have had something to do with *my* argument, except that netbios >>isn't netbeui, but the topic was what Kony's argument was and it has >>nothing to do with that. > > > Nope You missed it. > NetBEUI & NetBIOS are VERY closely related. Were. Pretty hard to make that case when one is still there and the other isn't. > NetBIOS is effectively an > interface, an API, not even really a protocol. There's no 'not even really' to it. It's not a network protocol and never has been. It's an API. > So you can't complain/ > infer it's some third disparate, unrelated protocol that screws up the > argument because it doesn't belong there. I not only "can't," I never have. Netbios is an API. Netbeui is a network protocol and the debate with Kony was about MS dropping support for Netbeui. >>> I suppose it does inject another variable, which may be seen as >>>a distraction or confusion, but how is it not germane _really_ to the >>>discussion of NetBEUI's strengths & limitations or a criticism of >>>"limited use"? >> >>Because the topic here was what Kony's argument was and his argument did >>not depend on any form of 'routability' of the non routable Netbeui. > > > Nope. It's a routability-based discussion insofar as a) his claims of > benefits depend on scenarios that do not require routability Which immediately removes any consideration of routability from being relevant to his argument. > b) he > responded to your assessment of routability as a limitation by saying > it doesn't mater when you don't need it. Which immediately removes any consideration of routability from being relevant to his argument. *You* want it to be relevant because it's *your* argument. > c) You both then "took > sides" by repeating your high valuation of routability and his of > transfer speed. Put simply, no. Once the 'not needed' case was made my case was that his supposed Netbeui benefit was of limited scope and value. > I think you're word parsing needs a little work. I'm more interested in the meaning. > Maybe you shouldn't do it from memory after you've lost interest in a > thread. Maybe you should stop trying to discover the 'hidden meaning' of the obvious. >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to >>>>>>>>consider it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a >>>>>>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible, >>>>>>>>protocol. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then >>>>>>>there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so >>>>>>>bad. >>>>>> >>>>>>You lost me here. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS >>>>>doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently. While >>>>>probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that >>>>>adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a >>>>>deficient protocol. >>>> >>>>Then you missed all that part too. >>> >>> >>>What part, exactly? I only went up a couple responses - where are >>>you? >> >>I'm in Texas. > > Wheh! I thought you were in Konylandia (or maybe the Netherlands) > > >>>>>Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the >>>>>opposite view as you. >>>> >>>>Clearly. Which was the point of how absurd conspiracy theories can get, >>>>even to the point of missing the better 'conspiracy' because the typical >>>>methodology is to simply find 'some' argument, no matter how obtuse or >>>>outlandish, whether it's logical or not. It 'must' be pernicious so one >>>>looks for the 'evidence' to justify the already determined conclusion and >>>>since one starts with whatever conspiracy first came to mind it's likely to >>>>be what's found since it's what one is seeking >>> >>> >>>At least we get each other here. >> >>Yippee ;) > > > Horray. > > > I agree with you're general perception that at this point we are > debating argument & reading comprehension rather than any kind of > worthwhile technical discussion. I've continued with explanation to > break your "fixation" on simply regurgitating old points that don't > respond to my observations. The reason for that is that you insist on telling me that when someone says "it doesn't matter to my case" that they not only mean it matters but their entire case depends on using it. > You want to regurgitate & move on & I > want to assess & fill in missing gaps of the debate. Well, if you want to "fill in missing gaps of the debate" then we need to start a different discussion because this one was about me trying to clarify to you what Kony's argument was, not make new ones for him. > Unfortunately > responding to assessment with simple regurgitation is pointless. In > that context further explanation is equally pointless. If I haven't > broken through yet I don't think I will 10 posts from now. You haven't 'broken through' because it would seem that, in the midst of all this, you somewhere decided to sail off in another direction. > This whole thread has indeed been taken WAY too far in basic > "hardware" groups; it probably doesn't even belong here anyway. Yes > killing NetBEUI is a no-brainer. We've wasting a lot of time > agreeing. Agreed
From: Curious George on 13 Aug 2005 02:23 On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:49:52 -0500, David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: >>>His question was answered. >> >> >> Mine weren't. > >Not my job. LOL Hello. Remember me? The guy whose points you're trying to rebut? When you're ready to take your own advice and ready to start reading & engaging the person you are posting a response to - instead of this mindless & prejudicial silliness - I'll be around to discuss subjects in the appropriate groups. Cheers
From: David Maynard on 13 Aug 2005 03:55
Curious George wrote: > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:49:52 -0500, David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> > wrote: > > >>>>His question was answered. >>> >>> >>>Mine weren't. >> >>Not my job. > > > LOL > > Hello. Remember me? The guy whose points you're trying to rebut? What I did was fill you in on Kony's argument but you wanted to argue that the case he made wasn't the case he made. Then you wanted to argue that the supposed 'original question', not by Kony, wasn't answered, as if that has anything to do with Kony's case, and when that didn't fly (lord knows where it was supposed to fly to) you tossed in "mine weren't." Not that you had asked any discernible questions, spending most of your effort explaining how no one knows what they said or meant. I'm sure it all somehow made sense to you but on this end it's you fluttering hither and yon to anything with no apparent purpose other than to simply argue and it's not my job, even if it were possible, to 'answer' mythical questions invented just to make another argument. Ironically, my 'non responsive' response there was intended to prevent adding more arguments to the already absurd mix but now you want to argue that I'm not arguing, while snipping out the only matter of real substance that was just discussed: what Netbeui and Netbios are. And the ultimate irony of all, you agreed with my case about Netbeui yet STILL wanted to argue with me about it. > When you're ready to take your own advice and ready to start reading & > engaging the person you are posting a response to You're confusing 'engage' with 'capitulate'. > - instead of this > mindless & prejudicial silliness - I'll be around to discuss subjects > in the appropriate groups. How about we cut down on the arguments by not arguing with things we agree on? > > Cheers |