In a recent note, Jerry Whitteridge said: > Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:09:34 -0800 > > Paul, Given that the poster asked how he could do it, not what would be > the best if things were different I think our answers were not arrogant > but accurate. > On re-reading what I wrote, I see that it bears an unintended flavor of personal characterization. My apologies.
The arrogance should be attributed to the unilateral presumption by any particular network component that it is entitled to be the sole master of some function. An analogy: When I first read the owners' manual for the VT-100 terminal, I noticed that it had the option of NTSC video output. However, when used in a network of video sources, it was required that the VT-100 supply the time base for all the others (before the era of digital time base correction, most video sources had sync inputs; VT100 had only a sync output). I deem this arrogance on the part of the VT-100 design, but not anyone who finds it acceptable to use the VT-100 as a sync source. (But what if someone wanted _two_ VT-100s in his network?) > If this, If that doesn't fix the problem. If IBM might do something it's > still in the future, and were not discussing what IBM should do but > solving an existing question with the tools CURRENTLY available. > Charter notwithstanding, it's typical of threads in this forum, on Friday, to drift to what might be, what may soon be (such as STP), and especially, what used to be. > On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 09:59 -0700, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > > > This suggestion is effective but arrogant. Not everyone can be the boss. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
