On Sun, 15 May 2022 07:58:44 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t5oflu$kkm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:51:42 on Sat, 14 May
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Sat, 14 May 2022 09:33:19 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <t5jaok$dee$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:57:08 on Thu, 12 May
>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>So have desktop computers. They're still desktop computers.
>>>
>>>I was in someone's office the other day, and their desktop computer was
>>>small enough they actually had it on the desktop. Mine have always been
>>>so big they needed to go on the floor under the desk.
>>
>>I used numerous Sun workstations in the 90s and 00s and they always fitted
>>on a desk. Nice machines, shame the company continued charging stupid money
>>for them so naturally companies legged it to x64 and Linux for *nix systems.
>>Then to the surprise of no one Sun went bust. Oh well.
>>
>>>>Wow, private groups! Truly it is magic and never been seen before!
>>>>Oh, wait...
>>>
>>>The thing about WhatsApp is that it introduced features not available in
>>>Facebook or Twitter.
>>
>>Never used Facebook and gave up on Twitter long ago.
>
>I largely gave up on Twitter not long after they scrapped Tweetdeck and
>turned it into a ticker stream, not a managed communications platform.
>However, it's still useful as a source of very specific information,
>such as railway operational incidents (most recently the Coatbridge
>derailment as an example).
>
>If you are excluding yourself from Facebook, you are missing out on a
>very rich source of information within their moderated groups. There's

I very much doubt its anything that can't be found via google or on wikipedia.

>nothing on the web that can match "Mainline Steam Specials Around The
>UK" for example, today awash with photos/videos from yesterday's various

There are hundreds of train related channels on youtube. I'll pass.

>tours. And I don't know of an alternative platform with so much about
>retro-computing.

Google retro computing youtube.

>It's also my primary means of communicating with friends/ex-colleagues

email for ex-colleagues. Phone and pub for friends.

Am 16.05.2022 um 17:51 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Sun, 15 May 2022 07:41:50 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t5ofg9$hjv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:48:41 on Sat, 14 May
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 09:25:04 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t5jb1t$i00$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:02:06 on Thu, 12 May
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:20:00 +0100
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which a web request isn't necessarily. Not only can the DNS resolve to any
>>>>> number of IP addresses (hence servers) but even when you do connect you can
>>>>> be redirected elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> That latter process is symptomatic of the connectivity being a cloud. I
>>>> thought you were trying to argue it wasn't?
>>>
>>> You're mistaken. All I'm arguing is that "cloud" is just terminology for
>>> stuff that already existed long before it was dreamt up.
>>
>> I fundamentally disagree because the kind of cloud-hosted services like
>> AWS, Dropbox, and Google Mail/Docs/Calendar simply didn't exist, in the
>> era before the term "cloud services" was coined (mid 90's).
>
> Thats like saying the web didn't exist until facebook came along.

Can we just agree on the following:

1) "Cloud Services according to Muttley" are hollow terminology for
stuff that already existed long before the word "Cloud service" was
dreamed up
2) Everything that did not exists before the year 2000 is by definition
above not relevant for a "Cloud service according to Muttley"

3) All concepts that distinguish a "cloud service according to Rolf and
Roland" from 1990's technology fail to describe the concept of a "Cloud
service according to Mottley" (see 1 above)

In message <t5trum$11rt$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:51:50 on Mon, 16 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 15 May 2022 07:41:50 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t5ofg9$hjv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:48:41 on Sat, 14 May
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Sat, 14 May 2022 09:25:04 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <t5jb1t$i00$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:02:06 on Thu, 12 May
>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:20:00 +0100
>>>>>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:
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which a web request isn't necessarily. Not only can the DNS resolve to any
>>>>>number of IP addresses (hence servers) but even when you do connect you can
>>>>>be redirected elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>That latter process is symptomatic of the connectivity being a cloud. I
>>>>thought you were trying to argue it wasn't?
>>>
>>>You're mistaken. All I'm arguing is that "cloud" is just terminology for
>>>stuff that already existed long before it was dreamt up.
>>
>>I fundamentally disagree because the kind of cloud-hosted services like
>>AWS, Dropbox, and Google Mail/Docs/Calendar simply didn't exist, in the
>>era before the term "cloud services" was coined (mid 90's).
>
>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).

I rather doubt the public think of Facebook as "a web site", however,
it's always been more like a self-contained app. I blame the BBC for
indoctrinating the public into using the expression "web site", and more
particularly conflating the web and all Internet services. "Email us at
our website" still makes my teeth grate.

In other news, an ftp server is still a website - it's a site on the
World Wide Web - and confusingly browsers will often give you a tree of
folders to explore.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t5tviu$jf5$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:53:49 on Mon, 16 May
2022, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>Am 16.05.2022 um 17:51 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> On Sun, 15 May 2022 07:41:50 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t5ofg9$hjv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:48:41 on Sat, 14 May
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 09:25:04 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t5jb1t$i00$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:02:06 on Thu, 12 May
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:20:00 +0100
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which a web request isn't necessarily. Not only can the DNS
>>>>>>resolve to any
>>>>>> number of IP addresses (hence servers) but even when you do
>>>>>>connect you can
>>>>>> be redirected elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> That latter process is symptomatic of the connectivity being a cloud. I
>>>>> thought you were trying to argue it wasn't?
>>>>
>>>> You're mistaken. All I'm arguing is that "cloud" is just terminology for
>>>> stuff that already existed long before it was dreamt up.
>>>
>>> I fundamentally disagree because the kind of cloud-hosted services like
>>> AWS, Dropbox, and Google Mail/Docs/Calendar simply didn't exist, in the
>>> era before the term "cloud services" was coined (mid 90's).
>> Thats like saying the web didn't exist until facebook came along.
>
>Can we just agree on the following:
>
>1) "Cloud Services according to Muttley" are hollow terminology for
>stuff that already existed long before the word "Cloud service" was
>dreamed up
>2) Everything that did not exists before the year 2000 is by definition
>above not relevant for a "Cloud service according to Muttley"
>
>3) All concepts that distinguish a "cloud service according to Rolf and
>Roland" from 1990's technology fail to describe the concept of a "Cloud
>service according to Mottley" (see 1 above)

I'm not sure I can unpick all that, but you are missing the point that
my position is that the Internet was perceived as a cloud, long before
the term 'cloud services' entered the marketing vocabulary (to Muttley's
dismay), as a result of Google promoting its newly introduced products
in 2005/6
--
Roland Perry

In message <t5ts8a$16n3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:56:59 on Mon, 16 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 15 May 2022 07:58:44 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t5oflu$kkm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:51:42 on Sat, 14 May
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Sat, 14 May 2022 09:33:19 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <t5jaok$dee$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:57:08 on Thu, 12 May
>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>So have desktop computers. They're still desktop computers.
>>>>
>>>>I was in someone's office the other day, and their desktop computer was
>>>>small enough they actually had it on the desktop. Mine have always been
>>>>so big they needed to go on the floor under the desk.
>>>
>>>I used numerous Sun workstations in the 90s and 00s and they always fitted
>>>on a desk. Nice machines, shame the company continued charging stupid money
>>>for them so naturally companies legged it to x64 and Linux for *nix systems.
>>>Then to the surprise of no one Sun went bust. Oh well.
>>>
>>>>>Wow, private groups! Truly it is magic and never been seen before!
>>>>>Oh, wait...
>>>>
>>>>The thing about WhatsApp is that it introduced features not available in
>>>>Facebook or Twitter.
>>>
>>>Never used Facebook and gave up on Twitter long ago.
>>
>>I largely gave up on Twitter not long after they scrapped Tweetdeck and
>>turned it into a ticker stream, not a managed communications platform.
>>However, it's still useful as a source of very specific information,
>>such as railway operational incidents (most recently the Coatbridge
>>derailment as an example).
>>
>>If you are excluding yourself from Facebook, you are missing out on a
>>very rich source of information within their moderated groups. There's
>
>I very much doubt its anything that can't be found via google or on wikipedia.

I get pinged with news of local traffic jams within minutes, and videos
of railtours within hours. I don't think anyone updates wikipedia at
that kind of rate (nor does it very often contain videos).

"via Google" is ambiguous, but I presume you mean 'as a search engine'.
It can only index things which exist, and unless there's a spiderable
website(sic) with the content on it, you are out of luck. The whole
point being that a great deal of content nowadays is either only posted
to Facebook, or is first posted to Facebook, and a very small fraction
re-posted elsewhere.

>>nothing on the web that can match "Mainline Steam Specials Around The
>>UK" for example, today awash with photos/videos from yesterday's various
>
>There are hundreds of train related channels on youtube. I'll pass.

Yes, quite a few people post video to Youtube channels, but it's not
curated in quite the way Facebook groups are.

>>tours. And I don't know of an alternative platform with so much about
>>retro-computing.
>
>Google retro computing youtube.

Again, it's not curated very well into different platforms, and
surprisingly is only videos. Not discussions. And the investment
involved in someone creating and publishing a video on YouTube severely
restricts the range available.

Anyway, as you obviously think YouTube is the bee's knees, please reply
to this posting of mine via YouTube.

>>It's also my primary means of communicating with friends/ex-colleagues
>
>email for ex-colleagues. Phone and pub for friends.

Sadly, I can't read the emails colleagues send each other, and hence get
updated on the chatter (whether I want to join the conversation or not).
Most of my friends are spread all over the world (for example today one
who is stuck at Newark airport en-route to Germany). Another is on a
canal boat somewhere in the Midlands.

I don't have time to place hundreds of phone calls each day to ask them
"what's new". Not least because they'd soon get fed up with it.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 16 May 2022 18:53:49 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>Am 16.05.2022 um 17:51 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> Thats like saying the web didn't exist until facebook came along.
>
>Can we just agree on the following:
>
>1) "Cloud Services according to Muttley" are hollow terminology for
>stuff that already existed long before the word "Cloud service" was
>dreamed up

Exactly.

>2) Everything that did not exists before the year 2000 is by definition
>above not relevant for a "Cloud service according to Muttley"

?

>3) All concepts that distinguish a "cloud service according to Rolf and
>Roland" from 1990's technology fail to describe the concept of a "Cloud
>service according to Mottley" (see 1 above)

??

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. The TLD is meaningless these
days as far as the actual location of the servers is concerned.

>I rather doubt the public think of Facebook as "a web site", however,
>it's always been more like a self-contained app. I blame the BBC for
>indoctrinating the public into using the expression "web site", and more
>particularly conflating the web and all Internet services. "Email us at

Unfortunately a lot of the media are guilty of that. It doesn't help that
probably 99% of the general public couldn't tell you the difference between
the two anyway.

>In other news, an ftp server is still a website - it's a site on the
>World Wide Web - and confusingly browsers will often give you a tree of
>folders to explore.

No its not. Its a service on port 21 that uses an entirely different protocol.

On Tue, 17 May 2022 07:04:11 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm not sure I can unpick all that, but you are missing the point that
>my position is that the Internet was perceived as a cloud, long before

Was it? I thought the point of it was a multiply redundant network for
the military. Sadly that part of it seems to have long gone to the wayside
as recent outages demonstrate.

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.

>website(sic) with the content on it, you are out of luck. The whole
>point being that a great deal of content nowadays is either only posted
>to Facebook, or is first posted to Facebook, and a very small fraction
>re-posted elsewhere.

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.

>>>nothing on the web that can match "Mainline Steam Specials Around The
>>>UK" for example, today awash with photos/videos from yesterday's various
>>
>>There are hundreds of train related channels on youtube. I'll pass.
>
>Yes, quite a few people post video to Youtube channels, but it's not
>curated in quite the way Facebook groups are.

Works for me.

>surprisingly is only videos. Not discussions. And the investment
>involved in someone creating and publishing a video on YouTube severely
>restricts the range available.

Investment? You mean a go-pro, video editing software and some spare time?

>Anyway, as you obviously think YouTube is the bee's knees, please reply
>to this posting of mine via YouTube.

I could reply more easily via youtube than farcebook.

>>email for ex-colleagues. Phone and pub for friends.
>
>Sadly, I can't read the emails colleagues send each other, and hence get

And they probably don't want you to otherwise they'd have cc'd you in.

>I don't have time to place hundreds of phone calls each day to ask them
>"what's new". Not least because they'd soon get fed up with it.

Not really friends then are they.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t590ih$2b7$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:01:53 on Sun, 8 May 2022,
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> I’m doing some volunteering work for a centre on Arran, about 8 miles from
>> the metropolis of Brodick. The only provider is BT - there’s a community
>> broadband operation but they only work in the south end of the island - and
>> the best BT can offer, even after replacing the old buried cable from the
>> pole to the premises, is 20 Mbps down,3.6 Mbps up; IIRC they say “up to 24
>> Mbps”. That’s FTTC and looking at some published stuff that seems to
>> imply >1 mile to the cabinet, which probably puts it in the next
>> village.
>
> Yes, 20Mbps down is 1.6km, but it rather depends on the speed test,
> which can be somewhat inconsistent. +/- 10% experimental error gives:
>
> km Mbps.
> 1.4 22.0
> 1.5 21.0
> 1.6 19.8
> 1.7 19.0
> 1.8 18.0
>
> The cabinets are pretty obvious, so it should be possible to do a
> drive-by survey (using roads that appear likely to be cable-routes).

That’ll be The Road then!

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 <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.

Sam

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

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
>>
>>>> The only FTTP I can find with multi-hundred-Mbps upload is Cerberus
>>>> 900/200, and that's £160/mnth.
>>>
>>> Most (all?) of the FTTP altnet providers provide symmetric up and down,
>>
>> Not all, because I picked one of the most well known, and they don't.
>> Perhaps you could nominate one which does, just to satisfy my curiosity.
>> We could also see if they have a 500/500 product for as little as £35.
>> A lot of people would probably love something like that.
>>
> I believe I’ve mentioned CityFibre before. Probably the largest of the
> altnets and set to be the third biggest network behind OpenReach and Virgin
> Media. Note CityFibre are wholesalers.

CityFibre also do (or did) offer point to point dark fibre connections - we
used them for some connections between University buildings.

Sam

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

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.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t5vo9v$1av9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:01:51 on Tue, 17 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 17 May 2022 07:04:11 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>>I'm not sure I can unpick all that, but you are missing the point that
>>my position is that the Internet was perceived as a cloud, long before
>
>Was it?

Yes,

>I thought the point of it was a multiply redundant network for
>the military.

That's verging on an urban myth, but multi-homed commercial sites were
commonplace from the 90's. Then there's pretty much everything to do
with the need for BGP.

But don't get in a flap about it (people not instantly getting that
joke, kindly leave the room).

>Sadly that part of it seems to have long gone to the wayside
>as recent outages demonstrate.

Such as? The ones in the news recently have been sabotaged satellite
up-links. And not many people carry satellite phones which can connect
to multiple providers.
--
Roland Perry

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.

>The TLD is meaningless these days as far as the actual location of the
>servers is concerned.

But people with a need to know (such as a regulatory requirement) can be
told where they are. And although automatic network-based geolocation is
pretty much snake-oil, the fact that for example, the usenet server I
use is connected to:

ae1.3122.edge9.Frankfurt1.level3.net

Is good enough for me as confirmation it's in Germany (admin office is
in Berlin).

>>I rather doubt the public think of Facebook as "a web site", however,
>>it's always been more like a self-contained app. I blame the BBC for
>>indoctrinating the public into using the expression "web site", and more
>>particularly conflating the web and all Internet services. "Email us at
>
>Unfortunately a lot of the media are guilty of that. It doesn't help that
>probably 99% of the general public couldn't tell you the difference between
>the two anyway.
>
>>In other news, an ftp server is still a website - it's a site on the
>>World Wide Web - and confusingly browsers will often give you a tree of
>>folders to explore.
>
>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.

What are getting confused about is the reason that "http-sites" aren't a
thing.
--
Roland Perry

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
(which I don't listen to in my office ether) have much in the way of
reliable up to the minute traffic news. They are too busy playing what
passes as music these days.

>>website(sic) with the content on it, you are out of luck. The whole
>>point being that a great deal of content nowadays is either only posted
>>to Facebook, or is first posted to Facebook, and a very small fraction
>>re-posted elsewhere.
>
>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.

Has YouTube go any videos of Sir Nigel Gresley's test run this morning,
yet?

>>>>nothing on the web that can match "Mainline Steam Specials Around The
>>>>UK" for example, today awash with photos/videos from yesterday's various
>>>
>>>There are hundreds of train related channels on youtube. I'll pass.
>>
>>Yes, quite a few people post video to Youtube channels, but it's not
>>curated in quite the way Facebook groups are.
>
>Works for me.

Apparently not, as you admit to being swamped by the number of videos.

>>surprisingly is only videos. Not discussions. And the investment
>>involved in someone creating and publishing a video on YouTube severely
>>restricts the range available.
>
>Investment? You mean a go-pro, video editing software and some spare time?

Yes. Not everyone has all of those.

>>Anyway, as you obviously think YouTube is the bee's knees, please reply
>>to this posting of mine via YouTube.
>
>I could reply more easily via youtube than farcebook.

OK, reply to this by 2pm, on YouTube. I can reply to Facebook in
seconds.

>>>email for ex-colleagues. Phone and pub for friends.
>>
>>Sadly, I can't read the emails colleagues send each other, and hence get
>
>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.

>>I don't have time to place hundreds of phone calls each day to ask them
>>"what's new". Not least because they'd soon get fed up with it.
>
>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.
--
Roland Perry

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.

>>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. Whether a browser supports
it or not is not part of the definition otherwise next you'll be telling us
Gopher is part of it too and if you're the expert you make out you'll
understand the irony.

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

Huh?

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.

>>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.

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

Yes - 6.

>>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. You do realise youtube has channels?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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. You it would seem, don't.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t5trum$11rt$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:51:50 on Mon, 16 May
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Sun, 15 May 2022 07:41:50 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t5ofg9$hjv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:48:41 on Sat, 14 May
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 09:25:04 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t5jb1t$i00$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:02:06 on Thu, 12 May
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:20:00 +0100
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which a web request isn't necessarily. Not only can the DNS resolve to any
>>>>>> number of IP addresses (hence servers) but even when you do connect you can
>>>>>> be redirected elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> That latter process is symptomatic of the connectivity being a cloud. I
>>>>> thought you were trying to argue it wasn't?
>>>>
>>>> You're mistaken. All I'm arguing is that "cloud" is just terminology for
>>>> stuff that already existed long before it was dreamt up.
>>>
>>> I fundamentally disagree because the kind of cloud-hosted services like
>>> AWS, Dropbox, and Google Mail/Docs/Calendar simply didn't exist, in the
>>> era before the term "cloud services" was coined (mid 90's).
>>
>> 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).
>
> I rather doubt the public think of Facebook as "a web site", however,
> it's always been more like a self-contained app. I blame the BBC for
> indoctrinating the public into using the expression "web site", and more
> particularly conflating the web and all Internet services. "Email us at
> our website" still makes my teeth grate.
>
> In other news, an ftp server is still a website - it's a site on the
> World Wide Web - and confusingly browsers will often give you a tree of
> folders to explore.

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.

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.

In message <t60iv4$dc1$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:52 on Tue, 17 May
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t5trum$11rt$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:51:50 on Mon, 16 May
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Sun, 15 May 2022 07:41:50 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t5ofg9$hjv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:48:41 on Sat, 14 May
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 09:25:04 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t5jb1t$i00$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:02:06 on Thu, 12 May
>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:20:00 +0100
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which a web request isn't necessarily. Not only can the DNS
>>>>>>>resolve to any
>>>>>>> number of IP addresses (hence servers) but even when you do
>>>>>>>connect you can
>>>>>>> be redirected elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That latter process is symptomatic of the connectivity being a cloud. I
>>>>>> thought you were trying to argue it wasn't?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're mistaken. All I'm arguing is that "cloud" is just terminology for
>>>>> stuff that already existed long before it was dreamt up.
>>>>
>>>> I fundamentally disagree because the kind of cloud-hosted services like
>>>> AWS, Dropbox, and Google Mail/Docs/Calendar simply didn't exist, in the
>>>> era before the term "cloud services" was coined (mid 90's).
>>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> I rather doubt the public think of Facebook as "a web site", however,
>> it's always been more like a self-contained app. I blame the BBC for
>> indoctrinating the public into using the expression "web site", and more
>> particularly conflating the web and all Internet services. "Email us at
>> our website" still makes my teeth grate.
>>
>> In other news, an ftp server is still a website - it's a site on the
>> World Wide Web - and confusingly browsers will often give you a tree of
>> folders to explore.
>
>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/

and I can see hyperlinks there on what looks like a web page

[1] actually, on reflection, the home page doesn't, but just one page
does http://perry.co.uk/avantix_for_dummies.html especially since I
added all the booking sites recently. But if I deleted that page,
it doesn't flip it into "not a website". Meanwhile I maintain the
site via an ftp client, uploading (mainly photos, but some
screengrabs) as the fancy takes me. And to kill two birds with one
stone I just uploaded:

<http://www.perry.co.uk/images/logitech-ftp-site-screengrab.jpg>

--
Roland Perry

In message <WtFwNvDAUJhiFAa8@perry.uk>, at 07:41:04 on Wed, 18 May 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:

>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/
>
>and I can see hyperlinks there on what looks like a web page
>
> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/logitech-ftp-site-screengrab.jpg>

And while much of that site hasn't been updated since 2015, it's clear
that someone did some uploading at 11pm on Monday this week.
--
Roland Perry

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.

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.
...
Notes on particular protocols follow. These URIs are frequently
referred to as URLs ... The schemes covered are:

http Hypertext Transfer Protocol

ftp File Transfer protocol

gopher Gopher protocol

mailto Electronic mail address

news Usenet news

telnet, rlogin and tn3270
Reference to interactive sessions

wais Wide Area Information Servers

file Local file access"
--
Roland Perry

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? IDTS

Sam

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