Sled, Yep exactly
Scott ford www.identityforge.com from my IPAD 'Infinite wisdom through infinite means' > On Nov 9, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Aled Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Digression. In my then neighborhood in London (UK), I was the only one who > bought Betamax, the quality was so much better than VHS as Gil said (but I > couldn't get too many movies!). It also had the advantage that my house was > one of the few that was not broken into and have their VCR stolen! > > Back on topic. SNA/SDLC - in my view, as robust as z/OS today in terms of > security etc. As Jon said, TCP won, but did we get 'the best'? I doubt it. > ALH > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> > To: IBM-MAIN <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 13:12 > Subject: SNA vs TCP/IP (was: z/OS is antique ...) > > >> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:49:40 -0800, Jon Perryman wrote: >> >> ... sad that he's bringing others to the dark side. >> ... >> * z/OS: SNA existed long before TCP/IP was available. SNA was a robust, > reliable and secure communications methodology. Once TCP was became > available, > we had the same situation as Betamax versus VHS. TCP won. > There's always a reason. Rarely is it an analogue of Gresham's Law, > to which one partisan attributed the triumph of UNIX over VMS ("Bad > software drives out good!") Betamax succumbed to the greater capacity > of VHS cartridges; a decisive advantage in the eyes of consumers at a > tipping point in time despite the higher quality of Beta in professionals' > view. For many years thereafter I saw Beta only in the kits of TV news > reporters on location. I think VHS had caught up in quality and Beta > in capacity, but both camps has too much capital investment to switch. > > So, why TCP/IP over SNA? > > o Price? > > o Openness of standards and implementations (price, again)? > > o Institutional bias against a perceived single-vendor solution > (openness, again)? > > o Structured name space (thereby larger and more easily > partitioned/distributed)? > > o DNS (name space, again)? > > Imagine an alterate universe without TCP/IP but an Internet > very simlar to ours; Google; Facebook; Skype; iTunes; > NetFlix; and all; all running (FSVO) smoothly on SNA. What > modifications or extensions had to be made to SNA to > accommodate this? > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
