Text 6164, 154 rader
Skriven 2005-03-27 00:38:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MARK LEWIS
Ärende: lan
===========

123c549e62ce
win95



Hello Mark - 

--8<--cut 

CA>>>> A set of webpages including screenshots of menus would
CA>>>> be best IMO. A 'before' set of menus as found in a fresh
CA>>>> install and then 'after' as they should look when
CA>>>> configured would be 

CA>>> > nice. 

ML>>> hummm... 

CA>> I know, sounds like too much trouble but they can be low
CA>> quality JPGs and "a picture is worth a thousand words" ya'
CA>> know? 

ML> yeah... but i can't even begin to count the times that my
ML> screen looked nothing like the one in the tutorial or even
ML> in some of the books ;) 

You think there are different menus when everyone is using XP
or W2K or W9x? 

ML> [trim] 

ML>>> yeah, that can be a problem... on the netmask stuff,
ML>>> that's TCP/IP related and would be located in areas that
ML>>> specialize in teaching about TCP/IP basics... 

CA>> Maybe so but do people really want to _study_ TCP/IP or do
CA>> they just want a direct/simple answer? 

ML> i dunno that there is a simple answer... 

ML> a netmask is, as it says, a mask... actually, you and i can
ML> consider it an AND mask... ya gotta go to the BIT level,
ML> too... the easy thing to remember is that 255.255.255.0
ML> lets everything in where the first three octets are the
ML> same... 

--8<--cut 

Saved to a text file. :-) 

I guessed that the "mask" of "netmask" referred to masking bits
but so many standard terms have been co-opted to other purposes
I wasn't sure. Now I know, thanks. :-) 

ML> this is all the "easy" stuff... "easy" because its only
ML> working with the last octect... but it is basically the
ML> same thing up thru the other octects... from what i've
ML> seen, if one wants to really learn all about netmasks and
ML> subnets and such, one is better off to take a networking
ML> class like a cisco certification class or similar... its
ML> either that or, like me, you keep plugging away at it until
ML> it really starts to fit and make sense 

ML> ;) 

I think you're probably right. 

ML>>> netbeui is used because that's what m$ designed their
ML>>> networking (network neighborhood) stuffs around... the
ML>>> big question is whether or not to use netbeui wrapped
ML>>> within tcp/ip packets... netbeui is not routable and thus
ML>>> cannot travel between different wiring networks... it
ML>>> needs a routable protocol like tcp/ip to carry it into
ML>>> different wiring networks... 

CA>> Define "wiring networks" please. 

ML> my phrasing... used to signify a network of machines
ML> physically connected by wires to one hub or stack of
ML> chained hubs... think of an office building where each
ML> floor may be its own network block... 

ML> 1st == 192.168.1.1 - 255 2nd == 192.168.2.1 - 255 3rd ==
ML> 192.168.3.1 - 255 4th == 192.168.4.1 - 255 etc... 

ML> all the machines on each floor can talk to each other (with
ML> a netmask of 255.255.255.0) but can't talk to other
ML> machines on other floor... there would have to be a router
ML> connection connecting the floors together for them to be
ML> able to communicate across the network boundaries... 

ML>>> i know that last part sounds confusing and that's where
ML>>> the use of a hub or switch comes in to play verses using
ML>>> a router... in most cases... 

I understand somewhat - well enough for a guy who won't use the
information any time soon. :-) 

CA>> Sounds like NetBEUI is a leftover from the "network wars"
CA>> when IBM was pushing token ring and others Novell or
CA>> Lantastic. :-) 

ML> lantastic was a netbios network as was personal netware ;)
ML> there were others, too, but i can't think of them at the
ML> moment... 

ML>>> m$ has also gone so far, in recent releases, as to not
ML>>> use netbeui stuffs... they are still using that method
ML>>> but now they are building the netbeui packets directly
ML>>> without using the netbeui protocol to do it for them...
ML>>> they are then taking these self-built packets and
ML>>> transporting them via tcp/ip... the overall effect is the
ML>>> same but the under the hood methods are much different... 

CA>> Sounds as though they are 'hiding' NetBEUI to me which
CA>> doesn't surprise me in the least. This nonstandard
CA>> methodology being forced onto users has gone _way_ past
CA>> the point of being competitive into the realm of egos and
CA>> arrogance IMO. 

ML> i can agree to a point... i can't say that they are
ML> "hiding" netbeui but i think they see the greater benefits
ML> of using tcp/ip since it is routable... i think part of the
ML> problem is that they still need some way to keep their
ML> stuff encapsulated to make it somewhat harder to snoop
ML> on... then again, it may be as simple as not wanting to
ML> rewrite all the guts of the networking stuff that's built
ML> around netbios when they only need to remove one network
ML> layer and fake that layer in one driver... 

ML> it may also be part of their propietary stuffness trying to
ML> keep things not working with other OS' so that folk will
ML> stay in the m$ henhouse... 

I think it is both the need to avoid rewrites _and_ a shot at
being proprietary. 

ML> i wonder what'll happen to m$ when billyboy passes on... 

Being somewhat autonomous he has a focus no normal person could
match. I guess it would depend on whether his replacement(s)
were autonomous as well. :-) 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>     <|                              |>  __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)