In message <t60g5d$r2o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:49:01 on Tue, 17 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 17 May 2022 12:54:30 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t5vopf$1i5k$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:10:07 on Tue, 17 May
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 07:21:17 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>I get pinged with news of local traffic jams within minutes, and videos
>>>
>>>I find local radio and the satnav works quite well for that.
>>
>>I don't have a car parked in my office, nor do local radio stations
>
>If you're in an office you can google the traffic on your computer.

But if busy (for example as you claimed to be yesterday), do you Google
it every hour or to just to be on the safe side?

The thing about Facebook groups is you get pushed relevant things that
take almost no time/effort to follow up.

The thing this morning (came in about 7am) was the collapse of the GN
service due to signal failure near Cambridge. NRES is lying that it's
been fixed, incidentally, because there's a knock on effect for some
services still (eg the 10:53 Ely-KGX has been cancelled).

>>>There are already far more videos on youtube and iplayer that I want to watch
>>>than I've got time for so no great loss.
>>
>>"Too many videos" is exactly why the curated groups on Facebook are such
>>a good idea. You can select the ones you are specifically interested in.
>
>ITYM select the ones other people think I might be interested in,
>having got rid of quite a few that I actually would be. I'm not into
>curated (AKA censored) content.

Curated means *indexed* not censored. It's extremely rare for Facebook
postings to be deleted by the admins - usually because they are abusive
comments.

>>Has YouTube go any videos of Sir Nigel Gresley's test run this morning,
>>yet?
>
>Yes - 6.

I couldn't see any at lunchtime, but several have appeared now.

>>>Works for me.
>>
>>Apparently not, as you admit to being swamped by the number of videos.
>
>You're not making any sense. You say I should join facebook so I can select
>from a limited choice of videos when I've already got more to watch than I've
>got time for on youtube.

Immediacy and the on-topic-ness which matters (to me, anyway).

>You do realise youtube has channels?

Yes, but they tend to be "videos belonging to one particular
contributor". I'm not sure it's easy for other people to contribute to
such channels on spec, which you'd need for a channel focussing on one
particular topic.

>>>Investment? You mean a go-pro, video editing software and some spare time?
>>
>>Yes. Not everyone has all of those.
>
>Then they won't be able to make decent videos regardless of the platform.

You can upload videos to Facebook in a couple of clicks (usually from
your phone). Most of the time those are adequate.

>>>I could reply more easily via youtube than farcebook.
>>
>>OK, reply to this by 2pm, on YouTube. I can reply to Facebook in
>>seconds.
>
>Sadly I was working at 2pm , unlike you it seems.

You see to have plenty of time to post here all day. (And I'm
semi-retired, and don't work any afternoons).

>>>And they probably don't want you to otherwise they'd have cc'd you in.
>>
>>They are happy to "cc" several hundred on every Facebook posting. That's
>>not even vaguely scaleable to email for the senders, let alone the
>>recipients getting bombarded.
>
>No one has several hundred friends so use a sensible example.

It's commonplace for people with a suitable temperament. And of course
using social media helps to *keep* in contact.

>>>Not really friends then are they.
>>
>>They are friends going about their business (or leisure). *I* wouldn't
>>want a hundred a day phoning me on the off chance there was something
>>interesting going on.
>>
>>You are stuck in a previous century, I'm afraid.
>
>No, I just have real friends.

Who are also presumably stuck in the previous century if your only way
of keeping in touch is down the pub.

>You it would seem, don't.

They are real enough, thanks.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t62ct9$eq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:45 on Wed, 18 May 2022,
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t5ba04$7g1$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:00 on Mon, 9 May 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t5aobq$qbf$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:54:02 on Mon, 9 May 2022,
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 18:03:44 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <t53foa$lbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:44:10 on Fri, 6 May
>>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 14:56:52 +0100
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <p99a7h1hses2g7a0tiul6q3bs8nio1ahk6@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>14:40:34 on
>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 6 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In what sense is the "cloud" not a line? It still consists of
>>>>>>>>>>>> physically
>>>>>>>>>>>> connected components despite the marketing name.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Might there not be satellite, microwave or WiFi links along the way?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Shush! I wasn't going to raise that. However, especially on bad
>>>>>>>>>> connections, the packets might not even be flowing through all
>>>>>>>>>> the same routers from one second to the next.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Cloud" is nothing more than marketdroid terminology for the internet.
>>>>>>>>> The latter sounds techy and scary, the former warm and fluffy
>>>>>>>>> and doesn't
>>>>>>>>> scare off the dimwit techno illiterates in the boardroom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again, you fail to distinguish between the cloud-services/cloud
>>>>>>>> storage, and the stuff which connects it all together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which, I will repeat, was never referred to as a cloud until cloud
>>>>>>> services
>>>>>>> came along.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm. When I was putting together X.25 systems a long, long time ago we
>>>>>> always used a cloud symbol in documents and informally called the X.25
>>>>>> network the cloud. I'd almost forgotten that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we always drew switched networks, or anything else where the topology
>>>>> was unknown or irrelevant, as a cloud, but any reference to the name was
>>>>> always incidental and informal. I’m pretty sure you won’t find
>>>>> any formal
>>>>> documentation referring to the network as a/the cloud except in passing.
>>>>
>>>> Could you bracket that assertion within some dates?
>>>
>>> Late 80s to around the turn of the millennium.
>>>
>>> FWIW I would still understand “the cloud” to mean the services provided
>>> rather than the means of accessing them.
>>
>> Sure, but I'm talking about *a* cloud. As was pointed out earlier, "The
>> Cloud" is the trading name of a public wifi network.
>
>So when people talk about storing their data in the cloud they’re referring
>to that wifi network?

No, that's just a clash of a concept and a tradename. No-one would talk
about storing their data "in the O2" for example (unless they worked in
the Dome, of course).

--
Roland Perry

In message <t60fph$kvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:41 on Tue, 17 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 17 May 2022 12:43:18 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t5vo4c$186a$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:58:52 on Tue, 17 May
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 06:43:26 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <t5trum$11rt$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:51:50 on Mon, 16 May

>>>>>Thats like saying the web didn't exist until facebook came along.
>>>>
>>>>The web existed long before (however Facebook is a classic example of a
>>>>cloud service - users have no idea what country, let alone server, is
>>>>hosting their material).
>>>
>>>You could say the same for most large websites.
>>
>>In the sense that a lot are hosted on AWS etc yes.
>
>In the sense of most large corporation websites which were usually hosted in
>their home countries regardless of the tld on the end long before AWS came
>along.

Bearing in mind that tlds have two categories: gTLD and ccTLD, the
former says nothing about the location of the company or the server, and
while the latter in many cases are restricted to registrants whose admin
offices are in the relevant territory [including .us, which is rarely
seen in the wild] I'm unaware of many regulatory restrictions on the
location of servers.

In passing, I'll note that Nominet has muddied the waters a lot by
allowing .uk to become territory-agnostic, especially as (a) we here are
all UK folks and (b) .uk has traditionally been the most popular ccTLD
by number of registrations, although lately overtaken and number 4.

Yes, it's true that for convenience the majority of corporations will
host their traditional servers in their own country (Russia is the only
one I can think of, which demands it) although some will have gravitated
to data centres in better-connected nearby countries.

It's unlikely though that a hypothetical Luxembourg company deciding to
host its servers at nearby and much better connected [LU-CIX wasn't
founded until 2009] Frankfurt, would start using a .de domain name.
Since 2010, a .lu registrant no longer has to be based in Luxembourg.

In other news, I continue to be fascinated by the "Pointless quiz"
classic of Bouvet Island, which despite being uninhabited somehow
managed to get delegated a ccTLD at a time when at least the admin
contact (if not any of the registrants) was supposed to be a local
resident.

>>>No its not. Its a service on port 21 that uses an entirely different
>>>protocol.
>>
>>You'll have to explain to Tim Berners-Lee that including ftp (and
>>others) in the list of possible URLs was a mistake. But it's a bit late
>>now.
>
>FTP is not part of the web which is an HTTP service.

I've answered that in detail in a posting yesterday, but it certainly
clarifies the widespread confusion (which you share) that "The Web" is
only http.

I rather suspect that when you download updates from microsoft.com
they'll be arriving by ftp, despite MS having retired their
public-facing ftp-server user interface some time around 2015.

>>What are getting confused about is the reason that "http-sites" aren't a
>>thing.
>
>Huh?

You've no doubt heard of ftp-sites, so by analogy perhaps there should
be http-sites as well. But in fact
--
Roland Perry

In message <tR$+i5iq6dhiFAfG@perry.uk>, at 07:07:38 on Thu, 19 May 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>In message <t60fph$kvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:41 on Tue, 17 May
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 12:43:18 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <t5vo4c$186a$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:58:52 on Tue, 17 May
>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 06:43:26 +0100
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In message <t5trum$11rt$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:51:50 on Mon, 16 May
>
>>>>>>Thats like saying the web didn't exist until facebook came along.
>>>>>
>>>>>The web existed long before (however Facebook is a classic example of a
>>>>>cloud service - users have no idea what country, let alone server, is
>>>>>hosting their material).
>>>>
>>>>You could say the same for most large websites.
>>>
>>>In the sense that a lot are hosted on AWS etc yes.
>>
>>In the sense of most large corporation websites which were usually hosted in
>>their home countries regardless of the tld on the end long before AWS came
>>along.
>
>Bearing in mind that tlds have two categories: gTLD and ccTLD, the
>former says nothing about the location of the company or the server,
>and while the latter in many cases are restricted to registrants whose
>admin offices are in the relevant territory [including .us, which is
>rarely seen in the wild] I'm unaware of many regulatory restrictions on
>the location of servers.
>
>In passing, I'll note that Nominet has muddied the waters a lot by
>allowing .uk to become territory-agnostic, especially as (a) we here
>are all UK folks and (b) .uk has traditionally been the most popular
>ccTLD by number of registrations, although lately overtaken and number 4.
>
>Yes, it's true that for convenience the majority of corporations will
>host their traditional servers in their own country (Russia is the only
>one I can think of, which demands it) although some will have
>gravitated to data centres in better-connected nearby countries.
>
>It's unlikely though that a hypothetical Luxembourg company deciding to
>host its servers at nearby and much better connected [LU-CIX wasn't
>founded until 2009] Frankfurt, would start using a .de domain name.
>Since 2010, a .lu registrant no longer has to be based in Luxembourg.
>
>In other news, I continue to be fascinated by the "Pointless quiz"
>classic of Bouvet Island, which despite being uninhabited somehow
>managed to get delegated a ccTLD at a time when at least the admin
>contact (if not any of the registrants) was supposed to be a local
>resident.
>
>>>>No its not. Its a service on port 21 that uses an entirely different
>>>>protocol.
>>>
>>>You'll have to explain to Tim Berners-Lee that including ftp (and
>>>others) in the list of possible URLs was a mistake. But it's a bit late
>>>now.
>>
>>FTP is not part of the web which is an HTTP service.
>
>I've answered that in detail in a posting yesterday, but it certainly
>clarifies the widespread confusion (which you share) that "The Web" is
>only http.
>
>I rather suspect that when you download updates from microsoft.com
>they'll be arriving by ftp, despite MS having retired their
>public-facing ftp-server user interface some time around 2015.
>
>>>What are getting confused about is the reason that "http-sites" aren't a
>>>thing.
>>
>>Huh?
>
>You've no doubt heard of ftp-sites, so by analogy perhaps there should
>be http-sites as well. But in fact

.... the public is sufficiently unaware of non-http sites on the web,
that they assume every site on the web is http. And thus conflate the
two.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 18 May 2022 09:29:13 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t6273a$mlb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:26:35 on Wed, 18 May
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:41:04 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <t60iv4$dc1$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:52 on Tue, 17 May
>>>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>It really is not. ftp servers were around long before the www was thought
>>>>of. An ftp server can be accessed via the public Internet, but that does
>>>>not make it a website. Don’t conflate access via the Internet (with a
>
>>>>capital I) with something being on the www. The key point of a
>>>>website/server is you can easily hop to another site via a hyperlink, hence
>>>>the web nomenclature. This is not *simply* achieved using ftp.
>>>
>>>It's true that ftp servers were round before "the web" and there could
>>>even be some which aren't connected to The Internet (rather than
>>>accessed via proprietary dial-up modems), but then we could have http
>>>servers in that latter class too. It's also possible to have an http
>>>site "on the web" containing no hyperlinks[1] - my personal site is like
>>>that (but it does have a URL).
>>>
>>>Your comments above conflate a whole bunch of concepts, which is why I
>>>try to keep it simple - the WWW is defined via the concept of URIs and
>>>URLs, and one category of them is documented to point at ftp servers.
>>>
>>>There aren't that many still alive and kicking, but here's one:
>>>
>>> ftp://ftp.logitech.com/pub/techsupport/
>>
>>So what? You do spout a lot of rubbish sometimes. Plenty of browsers used to
>>support "hyperlinks" to telnet servers, does that make telnet part of the web?
>
>>Your definition is anything that can be a hyperlink - which by definition is
>>any service - is part of them web. Ie the entire TCP internet is part of the
>>web. Bollocks.
>
>Ahem (from URI rfc):
>
> "The web is considered to include objects accessed using an
> extendable number of protocols, existing, invented for the web
> itself, or to be invented in the future.

RFCs arn't the last word and this one is rubbish. The web is hypertext driven
by HTTP. End. If you include every service then it simply becomes a pseudonym
for the internet.

> file Local file access"

That one is just farcical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web

"The information in the Web is transferred via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (
HTTP)"

"Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989 while working at CERN."

You can't invent something that already existed if that RFC definition is
correct.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 10:45:54 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t60g5d$r2o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:49:01 on Tue, 17 May
>>Then they won't be able to make decent videos regardless of the platform.
>
>You can upload videos to Facebook in a couple of clicks (usually from
>your phone). Most of the time those are adequate.

Have you ever watched youtube? An awful lot of stuff from phones but they're
usually rubbish and with the issue of people not realising the phone should
be held in landscape aspect.

>>Sadly I was working at 2pm , unlike you it seems.
>
>You see to have plenty of time to post here all day. (And I'm
>semi-retired, and don't work any afternoons).

If you check my posting times you'll find they generally happen once or twice
a day in the space of 5 mins.

>>No one has several hundred friends so use a sensible example.
>
>It's commonplace for people with a suitable temperament. And of course

No it isn't. You're confusing friends with aquaintances and colleagues.

>>No, I just have real friends.
>
>Who are also presumably stuck in the previous century if your only way
>of keeping in touch is down the pub.

Where did I say only? Its the preferable way.

>>You it would seem, don't.
>
>They are real enough, thanks.

Says it all.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:07:38 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t60fph$kvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:41 on Tue, 17 May
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>In the sense of most large corporation websites which were usually hosted in
>>their home countries regardless of the tld on the end long before AWS came
>>along.
>
>Bearing in mind that tlds have two categories: gTLD and ccTLD, the
>former says nothing about the location of the company or the server, and
>while the latter in many cases are restricted to registrants whose admin
>offices are in the relevant territory [including .us, which is rarely
>seen in the wild] I'm unaware of many regulatory restrictions on the
>location of servers.
>
>In passing, I'll note that Nominet has muddied the waters a lot by
>allowing .uk to become territory-agnostic, especially as (a) we here are
>all UK folks and (b) .uk has traditionally been the most popular ccTLD
>by number of registrations, although lately overtaken and number 4.

I'd have thought .tv was one of the most popular and has been territory
agnostic for donkeys years as its a nice little earner for Tuvalu.

>>FTP is not part of the web which is an HTTP service.
>
>I've answered that in detail in a posting yesterday, but it certainly
>clarifies the widespread confusion (which you share) that "The Web" is
>only http.

It is only http.

>I rather suspect that when you download updates from microsoft.com
>they'll be arriving by ftp, despite MS having retired their
>public-facing ftp-server user interface some time around 2015.

I don't use Windows, never have except at work. But what has that got to
do with the web? Just because a URL can point at a service doesn't mean that
service is a web service.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t62ct9$eq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:45 on Wed, 18 May 2022,
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t5ba04$7g1$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:00 on Mon, 9 May 2022,
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t5aobq$qbf$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:54:02 on Mon, 9 May 2022,
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 18:03:44 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <t53foa$lbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:44:10 on Fri, 6 May
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 14:56:52 +0100
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <p99a7h1hses2g7a0tiul6q3bs8nio1ahk6@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>> 14:40:34 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 6 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In what sense is the "cloud" not a line? It still consists of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> physically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> connected components despite the marketing name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Might there not be satellite, microwave or WiFi links along the way?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Shush! I wasn't going to raise that. However, especially on bad
>>>>>>>>>>> connections, the packets might not even be flowing through all
>>>>>>>>>>> the same routers from one second to the next.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Cloud" is nothing more than marketdroid terminology for the internet.
>>>>>>>>>> The latter sounds techy and scary, the former warm and fluffy
>>>>>>>>>> and doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> scare off the dimwit techno illiterates in the boardroom.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once again, you fail to distinguish between the cloud-services/cloud
>>>>>>>>> storage, and the stuff which connects it all together.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which, I will repeat, was never referred to as a cloud until cloud
>>>>>>>> services
>>>>>>>> came along.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm. When I was putting together X.25 systems a long, long time ago we
>>>>>>> always used a cloud symbol in documents and informally called the X.25
>>>>>>> network the cloud. I'd almost forgotten that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we always drew switched networks, or anything else where the topology
>>>>>> was unknown or irrelevant, as a cloud, but any reference to the name was
>>>>>> always incidental and informal. I’m pretty sure you won’t find
>>>>>> any formal
>>>>>> documentation referring to the network as a/the cloud except in passing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you bracket that assertion within some dates?
>>>>
>>>> Late 80s to around the turn of the millennium.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW I would still understand “the cloud” to mean the services provided
>>>> rather than the means of accessing them.
>>>
>>> Sure, but I'm talking about *a* cloud. As was pointed out earlier, "The
>>> Cloud" is the trading name of a public wifi network.
>>
>> So when people talk about storing their data in the cloud they’re referring
>> to that wifi network?
>
> No, that's just a clash of a concept and a tradename. No-one would talk
> about storing their data "in the O2" for example (unless they worked in
> the Dome, of course).

But similarly they don’t store their data in the Internet, but in services
which are accessed via the Internet.

Perhaps we are talking past each other because you regard networked
services as being part of the network (“The Network Is The Computer”)
whereas I don’t.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t5j6ah$4jv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:41:21 on Thu, 12 May
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 13:13:33 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t5bd2u$1h04$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:47:42 on Mon, 9 May
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Mon, 9 May 2022 13:07:20 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t5aloe$90b$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:09:34 on Mon, 9 May
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> Once again, you fail to distinguish between the cloud-services/cloud
>>>>>>> storage, and the stuff which connects it all together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I'm not. The internet would be meaningless without computers attached to
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, but the original idea was point-to-point connections (even if
>>>>> with diverse routing in between). Web servers being a box you could go
>>>>> and look at, and browsers running on the box in front of you.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Web servers didn't appear until the 90s, ~20 years after the Internet.
>>>
>>> So what, if it make you happier say "ftp server".
>>
>> Ftp servers don't load balance (AFAIK).
>
> I didn't suggest they did. In fact the reverse, I'm using it as an
> example of point-to-point client-server.
>
>>>> RPC and NFS were devised in the 80s and cover everything "cloud" does with
>>>> detail differences.
>>>
>>> They didn't give access to distributed services, mainly because *they*
>>> hadn't been invented yet.
>>
>> Errm, RPC is how distributed services work.
>
> Oh look, a connectivity cloud:
> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PtEkcBRO6dk/maxresdefault.jpg

With services attached to it! Note that the cloud only includes the
transmission network, not the end stations.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 19/05/2022 10:30, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:07:38 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t60fph$kvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:41 on Tue, 17 May
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> In the sense of most large corporation websites which were usually hosted in
>>> their home countries regardless of the tld on the end long before AWS came
>>> along.
>>
>> Bearing in mind that tlds have two categories: gTLD and ccTLD, the
>> former says nothing about the location of the company or the server, and
>> while the latter in many cases are restricted to registrants whose admin
>> offices are in the relevant territory [including .us, which is rarely
>> seen in the wild] I'm unaware of many regulatory restrictions on the
>> location of servers.
>>
>> In passing, I'll note that Nominet has muddied the waters a lot by
>> allowing .uk to become territory-agnostic, especially as (a) we here are
>> all UK folks and (b) .uk has traditionally been the most popular ccTLD
>> by number of registrations, although lately overtaken and number 4.
>
> I'd have thought .tv was one of the most popular and has been territory
> agnostic for donkeys years as its a nice little earner for Tuvalu.

Apparently, Tokelau has the most domains [1] but .ru is the "most
popular" for Reach & Traffic, whatever that means. [2]
Plenty of ccTLDs are used internationally. Here are the "top" 11, i.e.
the domains that one middleman would most like to sell you. [3]

[1]
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/266721/sales-of-cc-top-level-domains/>
[2]
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/265677/number-of-internet-top-level-domains-worldwide/>
[3]
<https://blacknight.blog/top-11-cctlds-with-international-usage-outside-their-countries-for-your-start-up.html>
In [2], I assume .ca is a typo for 1.1%.

In message <t652o2$mln$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:30:42 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:07:38 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t60fph$kvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:41 on Tue, 17 May
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>In the sense of most large corporation websites which were usually hosted in
>>>their home countries regardless of the tld on the end long before AWS came
>>>along.
>>
>>Bearing in mind that tlds have two categories: gTLD and ccTLD, the
>>former says nothing about the location of the company or the server, and
>>while the latter in many cases are restricted to registrants whose admin
>>offices are in the relevant territory [including .us, which is rarely
>>seen in the wild] I'm unaware of many regulatory restrictions on the
>>location of servers.
>>
>>In passing, I'll note that Nominet has muddied the waters a lot by
>>allowing .uk to become territory-agnostic, especially as (a) we here are
>>all UK folks and (b) .uk has traditionally been the most popular ccTLD
>>by number of registrations, although lately overtaken and number 4.
>
>I'd have thought .tv was one of the most popular

There are tens of millions of registrations in .uk and .de; there aren't
tens of millions of TV stations on the entire planet (even if they all
decided to use that vanity TLD).

>and has been territory
>agnostic for donkeys years as its a nice little earner for Tuvalu.
>
>>>FTP is not part of the web which is an HTTP service.
>>
>>I've answered that in detail in a posting yesterday, but it certainly
>>clarifies the widespread confusion (which you share) that "The Web" is
>>only http.
>
>It is only http.

Against overwhelming evidence, much of it written by the chap credited
with inventing the WWW! You are a very brave dissident.

Next you'll be telling me that all websites start www.<something>

So I suppose news.google.com is their usenet server????

>>I rather suspect that when you download updates from microsoft.com
>>they'll be arriving by ftp, despite MS having retired their
>>public-facing ftp-server user interface some time around 2015.
>
>I don't use Windows, never have except at work.

<sigh>

I rather suspect that when people download updates from microsoft.com
they'll be arriving by ftp, despite MS having retired their
public-facing ftp-server user interface some time around 2015.

>But what has that got to do with the web? Just because a URL can point
>at a service doesn't mean that service is a web service.

Apart from Tim B-L saying it does.

--
Roland Perry

In message <t6527g$eti$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:21:52 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 18 May 2022 09:29:13 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t6273a$mlb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:26:35 on Wed, 18 May
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:41:04 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <t60iv4$dc1$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:52 on Tue, 17 May
>>>>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>It really is not. ftp servers were around long before the www was thought
>>>>>of. An ftp server can be accessed via the public Internet, but that does
>>>>>not make it a website. Don’t conflate access via
>>>>>the Internet (with a
>>
>>>>>capital I) with something being on the www. The key point of a
>>>>>website/server is you can easily hop to another site via a hyperlink, hence
>>>>>the web nomenclature. This is not *simply* achieved using ftp.
>>>>
>>>>It's true that ftp servers were round before "the web" and there could
>>>>even be some which aren't connected to The Internet (rather than
>>>>accessed via proprietary dial-up modems), but then we could have http
>>>>servers in that latter class too. It's also possible to have an http
>>>>site "on the web" containing no hyperlinks[1] - my personal site is like
>>>>that (but it does have a URL).
>>>>
>>>>Your comments above conflate a whole bunch of concepts, which is why I
>>>>try to keep it simple - the WWW is defined via the concept of URIs and
>>>>URLs, and one category of them is documented to point at ftp servers.
>>>>
>>>>There aren't that many still alive and kicking, but here's one:
>>>>
>>>> ftp://ftp.logitech.com/pub/techsupport/
>>>
>>>So what? You do spout a lot of rubbish sometimes. Plenty of browsers used to
>>>support "hyperlinks" to telnet servers, does that make telnet part of
>>>the web?
>>
>>>Your definition is anything that can be a hyperlink - which by definition is
>>>any service - is part of them web. Ie the entire TCP internet is part of the
>>>web. Bollocks.
>>
>>Ahem (from URI rfc):
>>
>> "The web is considered to include objects accessed using an
>> extendable number of protocols, existing, invented for the web
>> itself, or to be invented in the future.
>
>RFCs arn't the last word and this one is rubbish. The web is hypertext driven
>by HTTP. End. If you include every service then it simply becomes a pseudonym
>for the internet.
>
>> file Local file access"
>
>That one is just farcical.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web
>
>"The information in the Web is transferred via the Hypertext Transfer
>Protocol (
>HTTP)"
>
>"Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989 while working at CERN."
>
>You can't invent something that already existed if that RFC definition is
>correct.

And wikipedia knows more about this than the person who invented it?

Hey, I have this bridge for sale.
--
Roland Perry

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:07:38 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t60fph$kvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:41 on Tue, 17 May
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> In the sense of most large corporation websites which were usually hosted in
>>> their home countries regardless of the tld on the end long before AWS came
>>> along.
>>
>> Bearing in mind that tlds have two categories: gTLD and ccTLD, the
>> former says nothing about the location of the company or the server, and
>> while the latter in many cases are restricted to registrants whose admin
>> offices are in the relevant territory [including .us, which is rarely
>> seen in the wild] I'm unaware of many regulatory restrictions on the
>> location of servers.
>>
>> In passing, I'll note that Nominet has muddied the waters a lot by
>> allowing .uk to become territory-agnostic, especially as (a) we here are
>> all UK folks and (b) .uk has traditionally been the most popular ccTLD
>> by number of registrations, although lately overtaken and number 4.
>
> I'd have thought .tv was one of the most popular and has been territory
> agnostic for donkeys years as its a nice little earner for Tuvalu.
>
>>> FTP is not part of the web which is an HTTP service.
>>
>> I've answered that in detail in a posting yesterday, but it certainly
>> clarifies the widespread confusion (which you share) that "The Web" is
>> only http.
>
> It is only http.

<cough> https </cough>

Yes, it’s HTTP commands but it’s sufficiently different to have its own URL
scheme defined.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 19/05/2022 10:51, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t6527g$eti$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:21:52 on Thu, 19 May
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 09:29:13 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t6273a$mlb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:26:35 on Wed, 18 May
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:41:04 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t60iv4$dc1$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:52 on Tue, 17 May
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> It really is not. ftp servers were around long before the www was
>>>>>> thought
>>>>>> of. An ftp server can be accessed via the public Internet, but
>>>>>> that does
>>>>>> not make it a website. Don’t conflate access via the
>>>>>> Internet (with a
>>>
>>>>>> capital I) with something being on the www. The key point of a
>>>>>> website/server is you can easily hop to another site via a
>>>>>> hyperlink, hence
>>>>>> the web nomenclature. This is not *simply* achieved using ftp.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's true that ftp servers were round before "the web" and there could
>>>>> even be some which aren't connected to The Internet (rather than
>>>>> accessed via proprietary dial-up modems), but then we could have http
>>>>> servers in that latter class too. It's also possible to have an http
>>>>> site "on the web" containing no hyperlinks[1] - my personal site is
>>>>> like
>>>>> that (but it does have a URL).
>>>>>
>>>>> Your comments above conflate a whole bunch of concepts, which is why I
>>>>> try to keep it simple - the WWW is defined via the concept of URIs and
>>>>> URLs, and one category of them is documented to point at ftp servers.
>>>>>
>>>>> There aren't that many still alive and kicking, but here's one:
>>>>>
>>>>> ftp://ftp.logitech.com/pub/techsupport/
>>>>
>>>> So what? You do spout a lot of rubbish sometimes. Plenty of browsers
>>>> used to
>>>> support "hyperlinks" to telnet servers, does that make telnet part
>>>> of the web?
>>>
>>>> Your definition is anything that can be a hyperlink - which by
>>>> definition is
>>>> any service - is part of them web. Ie the entire TCP internet is
>>>> part of the
>>>> web. Bollocks.
>>>
>>> Ahem (from URI rfc):
>>>
>>>  "The web is considered to include objects accessed using an
>>>   extendable number of protocols, existing, invented for the web
>>>   itself, or to be invented in the future.
>>
>> RFCs arn't the last word and this one is rubbish. The web is hypertext
>> driven
>> by HTTP. End. If you include every service then it simply becomes a
>> pseudonym
>> for the internet.
>>
>>>   file                    Local file access"
>>
>> That one is just farcical.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web
>>
>> "The information in the Web is transferred via the Hypertext Transfer
>> Protocol (
>> HTTP)"
>>
>> "Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989 while working at
>> CERN."
>>
>> You can't invent something that already existed if that RFC definition is
>> correct.
>
> And wikipedia knows more about this than the person who invented it?
>
> Hey, I have this bridge for sale.

I tend to agree that Wikipedia needs to be used with caution, so to
balance I suggest that other sources agree in this case:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tim-Berners-Lee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/berners_lee_tim.shtml
https://webfoundation.org/about/sir-tim-berners-lee/

--
Colin

The word"cloud" has many meanings, depending on cntext. In message
<t654b8$asp$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:00 on Thu, 19 May 2022, Sam
Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t5j6ah$4jv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:41:21 on Thu, 12 May
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 13:13:33 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t5bd2u$1h04$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:47:42 on Mon, 9 May
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Mon, 9 May 2022 13:07:20 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t5aloe$90b$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:09:34 on Mon, 9 May
>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>> Once again, you fail to distinguish between the cloud-services/cloud
>>>>>>>> storage, and the stuff which connects it all together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No I'm not. The internet would be meaningless without computers
>>>>>>>attached to
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, but the original idea was point-to-point connections (even if
>>>>>> with diverse routing in between). Web servers being a box you could go
>>>>>> and look at, and browsers running on the box in front of you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? Web servers didn't appear until the 90s, ~20 years after the
>>>>>Internet.
>>>>
>>>> So what, if it make you happier say "ftp server".
>>>
>>> Ftp servers don't load balance (AFAIK).
>>
>> I didn't suggest they did. In fact the reverse, I'm using it as an
>> example of point-to-point client-server.
>>
>>>>> RPC and NFS were devised in the 80s and cover everything "cloud" does with
>>>>> detail differences.
>>>>
>>>> They didn't give access to distributed services, mainly because *they*
>>>> hadn't been invented yet.
>>>
>>> Errm, RPC is how distributed services work.
>>
>> Oh look, a connectivity cloud:
>> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PtEkcBRO6dk/maxresdefault.jpg
>
>With services attached to it! Note that the cloud only includes the
>transmission network, not the end stations.

In UK law, the network includes any servers connected to it; but putting
that on one side, "cloud services" are delivered by distributed servers,
attached to the cloud connectivity delivered by what's popularly known
as "The Internet".

--
Roland Perry

In message <t652g1$io6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:26:25 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 18 May 2022 10:45:54 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t60g5d$r2o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:49:01 on Tue, 17 May
>>>Then they won't be able to make decent videos regardless of the platform.
>>
>>You can upload videos to Facebook in a couple of clicks (usually from
>>your phone). Most of the time those are adequate.
>
>Have you ever watched youtube?

Many times, including yesterday. I even have my own channel. What's your
channel called?

> An awful lot of stuff from phones but they're usually rubbish and with
>the issue of people not realising the phone should be held in landscape
>aspect.

Indeed it is, but the majority I see on Facebook (if that's what you are
unsuccessfully trying to discredit by association) isn't.

>>>Sadly I was working at 2pm , unlike you it seems.
>>
>>You see to have plenty of time to post here all day. (And I'm
>>semi-retired, and don't work any afternoons).
>
>If you check my posting times you'll find they generally happen once or twice
>a day in the space of 5 mins.

So we'll get some respite after your 9.30am binge today?

>>>No one has several hundred friends so use a sensible example.
>>
>>It's commonplace for people with a suitable temperament. And of course
>
>No it isn't. You're confusing friends with aquaintances and colleagues.

Not as much as you are disassociating people who were once acquaintances
and colleagues, from what are now friends.

>>>No, I just have real friends.
>>
>>Who are also presumably stuck in the previous century if your only way
>>of keeping in touch is down the pub.
>
>Where did I say only? Its the preferable way.

What's your most commonplace way?

>>>You it would seem, don't.
>>
>>They are real enough, thanks.
>
>Says it all.

While I no longer get/send about two hundred Xmas cards a year like I
did in the 90's, modern technology allows to me to keep in much more
frequent contact with larger numbers.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t654b7$asp$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:00 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t62ct9$eq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:45 on Wed, 18 May 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t5ba04$7g1$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:00 on Mon, 9 May 2022,
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t5aobq$qbf$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:54:02 on Mon, 9 May 2022,
>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 18:03:44 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <t53foa$lbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:44:10 on Fri, 6 May
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 14:56:52 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <p99a7h1hses2g7a0tiul6q3bs8nio1ahk6@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>>> 14:40:34 on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 6 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In what sense is the "cloud" not a line? It still consists of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connected components despite the marketing name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Might there not be satellite, microwave or WiFi links
>>>>>>>>>>>>>along the way?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Shush! I wasn't going to raise that. However, especially on bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> connections, the packets might not even be flowing through all
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same routers from one second to the next.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Cloud" is nothing more than marketdroid terminology for the
>>>>>>>>>>>internet. The latter sounds techy and scary, the former warm
>>>>>>>>>>>and fluffy and doesn't scare off the dimwit techno
>>>>>>>>>>>illiterates in the boardroom.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you fail to distinguish between the cloud-services/cloud
>>>>>>>>>> storage, and the stuff which connects it all together.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which, I will repeat, was never referred to as a cloud until
>>>>>>>>>cloud services came along.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm. When I was putting together X.25 systems a long, long time ago we
>>>>>>>> always used a cloud symbol in documents and informally called the X.25
>>>>>>>> network the cloud. I'd almost forgotten that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, we always drew switched networks, or anything else where
>>>>>>>the topology was unknown or irrelevant, as a cloud, but any
>>>>>>>reference to the name was always incidental and informal. I’m
>>>>>>>pretty sure you won’t find any formal documentation referring
>>>>>>>to the network as a/the cloud except in passing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you bracket that assertion within some dates?
>>>>>
>>>>> Late 80s to around the turn of the millennium.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW I would still understand “the cloud” to mean the services
>>>>>provided rather than the means of accessing them.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but I'm talking about *a* cloud. As was pointed out earlier, "The
>>>> Cloud" is the trading name of a public wifi network.
>>>
>>> So when people talk about storing their data in the cloud they’re
>>>referring to that wifi network?
>>
>> No, that's just a clash of a concept and a tradename. No-one would talk
>> about storing their data "in the O2" for example (unless they worked in
>> the Dome, of course).
>
>But similarly they don’t store their data in the Internet,

Whoever said they did? You've caught the Muttley-virus which can't
distinguish between cloud[hosted] services, and the cloud connecting
those services with their users.

>but in services which are accessed via the Internet.
>
>Perhaps we are talking past each other because you regard networked
>services as being part of the network (“The Network Is The Computer”)
>whereas I don’t.

The network providing the services is BellHead. I'm very much a NetHead
where the services are provided at the end points by an essentially dumb
[apart from its ability to route] network.
--
Roland Perry

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t5vt0g$q6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:22:08 on Tue, 17 May
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t5bi40$84b$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:13:36 on Mon, 9 May 2022,
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> And it’s not all about UHD TV. There are many cases where a high speed
>>>>> instantaneous connection is very useful.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, see discussions about people "on the line"(sic) to BBC Radio 4
>>>> with every third word dropping out.
>>>
>>> There are two main reasons/characteristics for increasing line speed. One
>>> is increasing the total capacity for bulk traffic, the other is to decrease
>>> latency for real time applications such as voice or video conferencing.
>>
>> Latency is one thing, dropouts another.
>
> I think you’ll find most of the dropouts you are referring to are down to
> poorly configured WiFi, rather than the onwards wired connection. Most end
> users have no conception of local channel congestion, sharing the
> frequencies with other unlicensed uses, etc etc. And if it’s not WiFi it’s
> down to trying to run the call, either directly or using an over the top
> service like WhatsApp, over a marginal cellular link.

There are two main reasons for dropouts, too. One is links going down,
either momentarily which is often the case with WiFi and other unreliable
media, or permanently causing traffic to reroute and, often, packets to be
lost while the paths[1] reconverge[2]. The other is congestion - either a
poorly engineered network[3] or unexpected traffic - so packets get lost.
Poorly configured WiFi is also, as you say, a possibility. Most real time
traffic uses protocols which are resilient to loss and will continue after
a brief outage.

[1] I say “path” because if I said “route” you might think I was talking
about layer 3 routing protocols but I would also include handoff of WiFi
connections between access points (layer 1) and variants of spanning tree
(layer 2). There can also be loss and reestablishment of connection at
higher layers of the networking stack but AFAIK they’re unlikely to be used
in a way that would cause momentary glitches in audio or video streams.

[2] I couldn’t think of a term which covers all the different ways in which
a connection can be lost and remade.

[3] For instance a bottleneck where offered traffic is more than the
capacity of the link, for instance the mismatch in speed between typical
WiFi and typical broadband, but it might be somewhere within an ISP’s
network, and of course it would depend entirely on the offered traffic at
the time.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <t654fq$cj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:00:26 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 19/05/2022 10:30, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:07:38 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t60fph$kvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:41 on Tue, 17 May
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> In the sense of most large corporation websites which were usually
>>>>hosted in
>>>> their home countries regardless of the tld on the end long before AWS came
>>>> along.
>>>
>>> Bearing in mind that tlds have two categories: gTLD and ccTLD, the
>>> former says nothing about the location of the company or the server, and
>>> while the latter in many cases are restricted to registrants whose admin
>>> offices are in the relevant territory [including .us, which is rarely
>>> seen in the wild] I'm unaware of many regulatory restrictions on the
>>> location of servers.
>>>
>>> In passing, I'll note that Nominet has muddied the waters a lot by
>>> allowing .uk to become territory-agnostic, especially as (a) we here are
>>> all UK folks and (b) .uk has traditionally been the most popular ccTLD
>>> by number of registrations, although lately overtaken and number 4.
>> I'd have thought .tv was one of the most popular and has been
>>territory
>> agnostic for donkeys years as its a nice little earner for Tuvalu.
>
>Apparently, Tokelau has the most domains [1] but .ru is the "most
>popular" for Reach & Traffic, whatever that means. [2]

I think that just means they have lots of botnets, and keep having to
register new names as the old ones get blocked.

>Plenty of ccTLDs are used internationally. Here are the "top" 11, i.e.
>the domains that one middleman would most like to sell you. [3]
>
>[1]
><https://www.statista.com/statistics/266721/sales-of-cc-top-level-domain
>s/>
>[2]
><https://www.statista.com/statistics/265677/number-of-internet-top-level
>-domains-worldwide/>
>[3]
><https://blacknight.blog/top-11-cctlds-with-international-usage-outside-
>their-countries-for-your-start-up.html>
>In [2], I assume .ca is a typo for 1.1%.

--
Roland Perry

In message <t655f9$1fl$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:17:13 on Thu, 19 May
2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 19/05/2022 10:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t6527g$eti$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:21:52 on Thu, 19 May
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 09:29:13 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t6273a$mlb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:26:35 on Wed, 18 May
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:41:04 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t60iv4$dc1$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:52 on Tue, 17 May
>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> It really is not. ftp servers were around long before the www
>>>>>>>was thought
>>>>>>> of. An ftp server can be accessed via the public Internet, but
>>>>>>>that does
>>>>>>> not make it a website. Don’t conflate access
>>>>>>>via the Internet (with a
>>>>
>>>>>>> capital I) with something being on the www. The key point of a
>>>>>>> website/server is you can easily hop to another site via a
>>>>>>>hyperlink, hence
>>>>>>> the web nomenclature. This is not *simply* achieved using ftp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's true that ftp servers were round before "the web" and there could
>>>>>> even be some which aren't connected to The Internet (rather than
>>>>>> accessed via proprietary dial-up modems), but then we could have http
>>>>>> servers in that latter class too. It's also possible to have an http
>>>>>> site "on the web" containing no hyperlinks[1] - my personal site
>>>>>>is like
>>>>>> that (but it does have a URL).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your comments above conflate a whole bunch of concepts, which is why I
>>>>>> try to keep it simple - the WWW is defined via the concept of URIs and
>>>>>> URLs, and one category of them is documented to point at ftp servers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There aren't that many still alive and kicking, but here's one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ftp://ftp.logitech.com/pub/techsupport/
>>>>>
>>>>> So what? You do spout a lot of rubbish sometimes. Plenty of
>>>>>browsers used to
>>>>> support "hyperlinks" to telnet servers, does that make telnet part
>>>>>of the web?
>>>>
>>>>> Your definition is anything that can be a hyperlink - which by
>>>>>definition is
>>>>> any service - is part of them web. Ie the entire TCP internet is
>>>>>part of the
>>>>> web. Bollocks.
>>>>
>>>> Ahem (from URI rfc):
>>>>
>>>>  "The web is considered to include objects accessed using an
>>>>   extendable number of protocols, existing, invented for the web
>>>>   itself, or to be invented in the future.
>>>
>>> RFCs arn't the last word and this one is rubbish. The web is
>>>hypertext driven by HTTP. End. If you include every service then it
>>>simply becomes a pseudonym for the internet.
>>>
>>>>   file                    Local file access"
>>>
>>> That one is just farcical.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web
>>>
>>> "The information in the Web is transferred via the Hypertext
>>>Transfer Protocol (
>>> HTTP)"
>>>
>>> "Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989 while working
>>>at CERN."
>>>
>>> You can't invent something that already existed if that RFC definition is
>>> correct.

>> And wikipedia knows more about this than the person who invented it?
>> Hey, I have this bridge for sale.
>
>I tend to agree that Wikipedia needs to be used with caution, so to
>balance I suggest that other sources agree

Agree with what? That T B-L documented the WWW is a no-brainer.

>in this case:

>https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tim-Berners-Lee

I don't know what that says which contradicts (rather than re-inforces)
that notion that the web makes information/files available, regardless
of transfer protocol or whether the files in question are pages of html.

>https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/berners_lee_tim.shtml

All that mentions is hypertext, which is cross-referencing of material,
again using various protocols and formats (of which I posted the seminal
description already).

>https://webfoundation.org/about/sir-tim-berners-lee/

While I'm sure this is going to be controversial, I regard the WWW as
something which was discovered, rather than invented. A bit like Newton
and his laws of motion. Had he never been born, someone else would have
done similar work sooner or later. Indeed there were implementations of
linked information in the wild previously.

Berners-Lee was fortunate enough to be working for institutions with the
money and connectivity to make it to the big-time (and to write academic
papers about it, which many engineers in the private sector never did).
And there's no harm in that, it accelerated its wider adoption.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t60ji4$hmk$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:47:00 on Tue, 17 May
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t5vt0g$q6p$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:22:08 on Tue, 17 May
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t5bi40$84b$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:13:36 on Mon, 9 May 2022,
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> And it’s not all about UHD TV. There are many cases where a high speed
>>>>> instantaneous connection is very useful.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, see discussions about people "on the line"(sic) to BBC Radio 4
>>>> with every third word dropping out.
>>>
>>> There are two main reasons/characteristics for increasing line speed. One
>>> is increasing the total capacity for bulk traffic, the other is to decrease
>>> latency for real time applications such as voice or video conferencing.
>>
>> Latency is one thing, dropouts another.
>
>I think you’ll find most of the dropouts you are referring to are down to
>poorly configured WiFi, rather than the onwards wired connection. Most end
>users have no conception of local channel congestion, sharing the
>frequencies with other unlicensed uses, etc etc. And if it’s not WiFi it’s
>down to trying to run the call, either directly or using an over the top
>service like WhatsApp, over a marginal cellular link.

I think I already posted that the "victims" of these dropouts are
typically senior spokespersons for their organisations, working from
home for the last couple of years, and unlikely to be suffering from
systemic issues of that kind.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t656te$u80$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:50 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>> Latency is one thing, dropouts another.
>>
>> I think you’ll find most of the dropouts you are referring to are down to
>> poorly configured WiFi, rather than the onwards wired connection. Most end
>> users have no conception of local channel congestion, sharing the
>> frequencies with other unlicensed uses, etc etc. And if it’s not WiFi it’s
>> down to trying to run the call, either directly or using an over the top
>> service like WhatsApp, over a marginal cellular link.
>
>There are two main reasons for dropouts, too. One is links going down,
>either momentarily which is often the case with WiFi and other unreliable
>media, or permanently causing traffic to reroute and, often, packets to be
>lost while the paths[1] reconverge[2]. The other is congestion - either a
>poorly engineered network[3] or unexpected traffic - so packets get lost.

Even if this were the case, the thing that's "dodgy" is a cloud, and not
"a line".
--
Roland Perry

On 19/05/2022 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t654fq$cj9$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:00:26 on Thu, 19 May
> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>> On 19/05/2022 10:30, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:07:38 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t60fph$kvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:41 on Tue, 17 May
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> In the sense of most large corporation websites which were usually
>>>>> hosted in
>>>>> their home countries regardless of the tld on the end long before
>>>>> AWS came
>>>>> along.
>>>>
>>>> Bearing in mind that tlds have two categories: gTLD and ccTLD, the
>>>> former says nothing about the location of the company or the server,
>>>> and
>>>> while the latter in many cases are restricted to registrants whose
>>>> admin
>>>> offices are in the relevant territory [including .us, which is rarely
>>>> seen in the wild] I'm unaware of many regulatory restrictions on the
>>>> location of servers.
>>>>
>>>> In passing, I'll note that Nominet has muddied the waters a lot by
>>>> allowing .uk to become territory-agnostic, especially as (a) we here
>>>> are
>>>> all UK folks and (b) .uk has traditionally been the most popular ccTLD
>>>> by number of registrations, although lately overtaken and number 4.
>>>  I'd have thought .tv was one of the most popular and has been territory
>>> agnostic for donkeys years as its a nice little earner for Tuvalu.
>>
>> Apparently, Tokelau has the most domains [1] but .ru is the "most
>> popular" for Reach & Traffic, whatever that means. [2]
>
> I think that just means they have lots of botnets, and keep having to
> register new names as the old ones get blocked.

Perhaps so. Also, Russia is encouraging its citizens to visit
CompliantShill.ru rather than EvilWesterner.com, in a half-hearted
attempt at emulating the Great Firewall.

>> Plenty of ccTLDs are used internationally.  Here are the "top" 11, i.e.
>> the domains that one middleman would most like to sell you. [3]
>>
>> [1]
>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/266721/sales-of-cc-top-level-domain
>> s/>
>> [2]
>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/265677/number-of-internet-top-level
>> -domains-worldwide/>
>> [3]
>> <https://blacknight.blog/top-11-cctlds-with-international-usage-outside-
>> their-countries-for-your-start-up.html>
>> In [2], I assume .ca is a typo for 1.1%.
>

On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:11:07 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:07:38 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t60fph$kvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:41 on Tue, 17 May
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> In the sense of most large corporation websites which were usually hosted
>in
>>>> their home countries regardless of the tld on the end long before AWS came
>>>> along.
>>>
>>> Bearing in mind that tlds have two categories: gTLD and ccTLD, the
>>> former says nothing about the location of the company or the server, and
>>> while the latter in many cases are restricted to registrants whose admin
>>> offices are in the relevant territory [including .us, which is rarely
>>> seen in the wild] I'm unaware of many regulatory restrictions on the
>>> location of servers.
>>>
>>> In passing, I'll note that Nominet has muddied the waters a lot by
>>> allowing .uk to become territory-agnostic, especially as (a) we here are
>>> all UK folks and (b) .uk has traditionally been the most popular ccTLD
>>> by number of registrations, although lately overtaken and number 4.
>>
>> I'd have thought .tv was one of the most popular and has been territory
>> agnostic for donkeys years as its a nice little earner for Tuvalu.
>>
>>>> FTP is not part of the web which is an HTTP service.
>>>
>>> I've answered that in detail in a posting yesterday, but it certainly
>>> clarifies the widespread confusion (which you share) that "The Web" is
>>> only http.
>>
>> It is only http.
>
><cough> https </cough>
>
>Yes, it’s HTTP commands but it’s sufficiently different to have its own URL
>
>scheme defined.

Its HTTP over SSL. Everything else is the same.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:50:25 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t652o2$mln$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:30:42 on Thu, 19 May
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>I've answered that in detail in a posting yesterday, but it certainly
>>>clarifies the widespread confusion (which you share) that "The Web" is
>>>only http.
>>
>>It is only http.
>
>Against overwhelming evidence, much of it written by the chap credited

What evidence?

>with inventing the WWW! You are a very brave dissident.

Which bit?

>Next you'll be telling me that all websites start www.<something>
>
>So I suppose news.google.com is their usenet server????

It doesn't matter what it is. If its accessed using HTTP its part of the
web, if it isn't then it isn't.

If the web is extended to mean the entire internet then what do you call
the HTTP part?

>>>I rather suspect that when you download updates from microsoft.com
>>>they'll be arriving by ftp, despite MS having retired their
>>>public-facing ftp-server user interface some time around 2015.
>>
>>I don't use Windows, never have except at work.
>
><sigh>
> I rather suspect that when people download updates from microsoft.com
> they'll be arriving by ftp, despite MS having retired their
> public-facing ftp-server user interface some time around 2015.

I have no idea, nor do I care or see the slightest relevance to the point.

>>But what has that got to do with the web? Just because a URL can point
>>at a service doesn't mean that service is a web service.
>
>Apart from Tim B-L saying it does.

Cite. The URL is part of the web, the access method isn't.