View Single Post
  #11   Report Post  
Old October 7th 06, 11:37 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.policy
Slow Code Slow Code is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,113
Default Check the SWR on your HF antenna's.


On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 12:40:08 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:28:10 -0400, Chuck Harris wrote:


Actually top posting is a sign of *experience*. Us guys that were on the
internet back when it was run by darpa always top posted. That was because
we were running very slow lines, typically 110 to 300 baud, and
it was desirable
not to have to wait through the down load of a dozen copies of the

same quoted

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

My bull**** detector just went off real loud. Here is an authoritative
statement about ARPANET from one of Comer's books:

"Initially, most of the leased data circuits in the ARPANET operated
at 56 Kbps, a speed considered extremely fast in 1968 but slow by
current standards." -- Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP,
Volume One, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall (1995), page 57.


Yep, those were the *backbones* of ARPANET. We had *ONE* at the University
of Maryland back in the 1970s. That leased line cost thousands of dollars
per month, and was paid for by darpa. Compare that to the backbones of today
which are measured in terrabits per second. These 56K backbones were
connected to mainframe computers that acted as concentrators, and provided
connections to other mainframes, and to thousands of users on timesharing
systems. Yes, I have that right, *thousands* of users shared a single 56K
backbone.

Those users that were local to the concentrator (eg, in the computer room)
were connected to the mainframe by various speed RS-232 lines, but those who
were on remote dial up connections were connected by good old bell 103,
110 to 300 baud modems.

300 baud, my ass! You should have been on a time sharing machine
connected directly to the 56K ARPANET,


Yep, we were on timesharing machines, Univac 1106's, 1108's, and 1140's,
and as I said, thousands of users shared a single 56K leased line into
Darpanet. Do the math, if you can't, I'll help you:

56K/1000 = 56 bps.


So you think that 1000 users at your location were always using
ARPANET simultaneously? Please don't tell me that someone gave you an
engineering degree, because you obviously didn't understand the course
work.

If there were *only* 1000 users vying for the net at the same time, they
could each pump 56bps into the backbone. But there were many many more
than that, and they weren't always needing the net all of the time.
(hence the name concentrator)


Don't try to bull**** someone who has forgotten more about the subject
than you have yet to learn.


Riiiight! Just because you can look up darpa on a wiki somewhere, doesn't
mean you can understand what you have read.


Comer's books on TCP/IP are standards, and they don't involve a wiki.
They happen to be in my library of reference textbooks, and they
happen to be standard references kept in all university libraries.

The claim about slow speeds on ARPANET and Usenet is quite stupid.
ARPANET and Usenet did not exist at the same time. ARPANET didn't use
TCP/IP protocol, and it gave way to what is now called the Internet
when TCP/IP became the standard packet delivery protocol. Shortly
after that, the message posting system called Usenet was formalized to
run on the Internet and on several other message delivery systems
(such as UUCP). So your reference to ARPANET is simply irrelevant.
ARPANET and Usenet never coexisted, making the claims about 300 bps
and other speed limitations total BS intended to impress the ignorant.

Enough said. Conversation ended. You don't seem to be worth any
followup messages until you do some additional reading.

SC