Leonard Kleinrock On The Origins of Packet Switching

An Anonymous Coward writes: "From Ben Sullivan's Tech Blog (http://www.techblog.com). An email from Leonard Kleinrock on why he really was the brains behind packet switching. It's a first-hand account from Kleinrock in a blog. A neat little journalistic scoop for bloggers, and some insights for techheads on Internet history."

Comments

Hands Of Time

[The Lyrics Guy]

Squiggy - The Hands Of Time

The once steel towers of this land have gone and rusted away
The one strong ethics of the worker have been sold away
The dollar equals slavery, a master to which we're loyal
A civil war over greed on American soil

Wooaaaah another factory closes
Woooooah Nobody gives a fuck
Woooooah They sold our dreams away
Woooaaah Turn back the hands of time

America for us really means America for them
A nation full of traitors, on which we can't depend
Our once shining streets are being turned into a ghetto
The ball of destruction has been rolling since the get-go

Wooaaaah another factory closes
Woooooah Nobody gives a fuck
Woooooah They sold our dreams away
Woooaaah Turn back the hands of time

The rich and powerful take more as the day passes
While the blind and hopeless sit back on their asses
But I won't be another number, I won't be another dollar, I won't be another
scapegoat in the corperate scheme

We're gunna beat beat beat 'em down
We're gunna beat beat beat 'em down
We're gunna beat beat beat 'em down
We're gunna turn this place around

Wooaaaah another factory closes
Woooooah Nobody gives a fuck
Woooooah They sold our dreams away
Woooaaah Turn back the hands of time

Interesting...

[CyanideHD]

Good read.

Are you sure?

[propstoalldeadhomiez]

Gee, packet switching is a really important technology to the internet, That means, of course, that Al Gore invented packet switching!

Re:Are you sure?

[Frank White]

Dude! You got modded up! Did you have to suck off the whole staff, or just snot Hemos?

everyone knows...

[doooras]

"I invented packet switching"

-Al Gore

Re:everyone knows...

[Zeinfeld]

"I invented packet switching" -Al Gore

It is a shame that the GOP have to pay dweebs to sit in front of computers to repeat lies. Gore never claimed to invent the Internet.

Gore correctly and truthfully took credit for getting us the money to develop the Internet. He was also very helpful in the development of the Web. The endorsement of the Web by the Whitehouse had a massive effect on commercial use. It was also the final nail in the coffin for 'Interactive TV'.

Of course if a lie is repeated often enough people will eventually mistake it for the truth. This particular lie was invented because the GOP was frightened of the comparison between Gore who had achieve a lot and their empty suit of whom the best they could say was he would not interfere with his advisers.

Re:everyone knows...

[propstoalldeadhomiez]

Wasn't Al Gore's comment something along the lines of "I took the initiative in creating the internet" or a similar line? Personally I think this is misleading because the internet was developed by the Department of Defense, and later turned over to the National Science Foundation. Now perhaps he brought it into wide use, but I believe his comment was nonetheless misleading. The GOP, however, is no better and is just as misleading claiming Al Gore took credit for inventing the internet.

Re:everyone knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

I take away your +2 Funny mod points and award them to propstoalldeadhomiez. Why? Cause his comment, "Gee, packet switching is a really important technology to the internet, That means, of course, that Al Gore invented packet switching!" was modded down as "redundant". However, those of us good at math would realize that message #2946992 (his) comes before #2947001 (yours). Also, for those dumbass mods that don't know, "redundant" is the mod for karma-whoring cut-n-paste from the article posters. Just because he's a troll doesn't mean he should be modded unfairly. I sincerely hope that M2 catches that bastard who modded him down, and he gets bitchslapped into oblivion. Remember Signal_11? He was a karma whore, and you didn't like him, but that doesn't mean he should get modded down. You have a good evening.

Re:everyone knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

calm down, the two comments were probably posted at roughly the same time. #2946992 and 2947001 are 9 comments apart. that takes all of about four seconds on /. i'm sure it wasn't intentional.

Re:everyone knows...

[ZaBu911]

During the campaign of '00 scheduled debates, when Bush was preaching ridiculously incorrect numbers and Gore proved him wrong, Bush said the following:

"It appears that Gore has not only invented the internet but the Calculator as well."

That was a rather witty comeback. Being a president is about having a good sense of humor, eloquence, and people skills. The point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't take everything too seriously, or whatever.

Re:everyone knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that. However, the point I'm trying to make is the blanant anti-troll racism that just took place here. I mean, shit, it falls higher in the nesting! And not only that, but redundant should signify that somewhere in the article it said "Al Gore invented packet switching". CmdrTaco said this himself, I know. That comment was worth reading, and made my day brighter. It therefore shouldn't be redundant. Maybe today is just Sunday Bad Moderator Day.

Re:everyone knows...

[robsmama]

this one is the truth, not the parent, yet this post get -1 and the partne 3, informative. what a load of crap. that is exactly what gore said "I took the initiative in creating the internet." idiot slashcrappers.

MOM

Re:everyone knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that that was a total setup and giving bush credit for his speechwriters is probably what got us into this mess in the first place.

Re:everyone knows...

[Zeinfeld]

this one is the truth, not the parent, yet this post get -1 and the partne 3, informative. what a load of crap. that is exactly what gore said "I took the initiative in creating the internet." idiot slashcrappers.

There is a very determined group of people who want to project their particular version of events as 'the truth'. So someone at GOP spin control thinks the issue important enough to tell their people to log into slashdot, see ifthey have mod points and mod people down. And no, I am not making this up, they really do do that sorta thing these days, pretty pathetic eh?

Kinda makes the pissing contest between Kleinrock et. al. over who was the sole inventor of packet switching sound small beer. I mean who actually cares who did what? None of them invented the whole thing, the fact that there are three possible contenders points to the fact that however necessary the design step was, it would have been discovered somehow at that time. It is not like Hawking radiation or Einstein's relativity which could easily have waited several decades longer but for a flash of inspiration.

Re:everyone knows...

[nomadic]

Well, it was a better comeback than Bush's constant complaining about Gore's "Worshington math".

Re:everyone knows...

[Lars T.]

But it's not about being stupid. Tough luck America, you should have known better.

Re:everyone knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some Evil Moderators seem to be moderating the comment based on their political views instead of the comment itself.

Re:everyone knows...

[dillon_rinker]

Gore correctly and truthfully took credit for getting us the money to develop the Internet.

Right. I suppose you also believe that President Clinton did not perjure himself because he consciously defined "is" differently than his questioner.

Let's quote Al Gore...

"I took the initiative in creating the Internet." I'll grant that he didn't use the word "invent." I'll also suggest this analogy...

You work 70-hour weeks for a year to develop THE software technology that will rocket your startup into the ranks of the Fortune 500. Your manager goes to the CEO and says "I should be given money and power because I took the initiative in creating this new technology." Did he lie? According to you, no. Did he choose his words carefully so that the uninformed would be led to believe a mistruth? Absolutely.

Re:everyone knows...

[isdnip]

In Congress, "initiative" refers to a funding measure. Gore led the charge for the funding for the NSFnet. That was indeed an "initiative". And the NSFnet was *the* major Internet backbone after the ARPAnet and before commercialization.

Finding a different meaning of a word which doesn't apply is simply obfuscation.

Re:everyone knows...

[ahde]

so Gore "took" the funding measure?

Re:everyone knows...

[Alan Partridge]

Reagan could wisecrack too, didn't sop him being a chowderhead though did it?

Re:everyone knows...

[Alan Partridge]

yeah? so? it's nice to know that even geeks posess a trace of humanity.

Re:everyone knows...

[Inthewire]

Every day is Bad Moderator Day.
Maybe Sunday was Worse Moderator Day.

Re:everyone knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

"So someone at GOP spin control thinks the issue important enough to tell their people to log into slashdot, see ifthey have mod points and mod people down. And no, I am not making this up, they really do do that sorta thing these days, pretty pathetic eh?"

Prove it. Provide evidence for this claim, other than just "well, some anti-Gore stuff [which could have been posted by Naderines] appeared on /.".

Failing to do so, we can all conclude that you're a liar for saying "I am not making this up".

Not the first Time

[hugecyberpenis]

Of course, when you look at the sources of the articvle, many questions pop up: Is this the first time? I suggest that no, it isn't. Simply stating the obvious doesn't do anybody any good.

If you take the article as a whole, there are some interesting points made. But beyond that recognition, what is the overall affect? I have to say that the evidence points to nothing. I mean, what are we trying for here? A null hypothesis.

Take a look at these links for a more "balanced" viewpoint on the issue.

• Scientific American
• The Enterprise Mission
• techsoup

Re:Not the first Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Try a little harder next time, see Mr. Uptime for details.

Re:Not the first Time

[jguevin]

Uh, is this even a response to this topic? Vague language and links to the home pages of science and tech-related sites? What, that's really "+3 informative."

Does this make me a troll? I've never been one yet.

Re:Not the first Time

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, the mods are not that bright. They don't even check links or if the message is really saying something. The goal is being modded to +5, which I thought the original post was a very sorry attempt at that. I didn't think mods to be that gullible. Mods again proved me wrong. Hurrah for hugecyberpenis, showing us -again- the endless stupidity of moderators.

Re:Not the first Time

[cscx]

I'm guessing that the difference between "karma whore" and "troll" here is the prescence of a Scientific American link and the abscence of a goatse.cx link :o)

From last time

[oregon]

A previous discussion here.

Re:From last time

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be cynical or anything but this is another rewritting of history in favour of Americans, I wonder why? Maybe because Davies is now dead and can't argue from the grave, nice way to alienate the rest of the world don't you think?

Re:From last time

[kimihia]

Fortunately somebody remembered it! I thought I had deja vu!

crapahola

[The BOFH Troll]

guuzen ga ikutsumo kasanari atte
anata to deatte koi ni ochita
kikoe sou na kodou ga hazukashii yo
doushite watashi rashiku ha nai yo

kyou ga owatte mo ashita ga sugite mo itsumo soba ni ite
zutto sunao ni kawaranu futari shinjitai

anata to atta ano hi kara
donna toki ni demo subete o kanjirareru ki ga suru
tada anata ga iru dake de soba iru dake de
Forever You're My Only Feeling Heart

(You're My Only
You're My Only
My Only Feeling Heart)

yuu kure ga yokaze o hiyashite iku yo
anata to iru kara samuku nai yo
machi no iro ga kirei ni tomori dashite
watashi mo kawari hajimete iru yo

kumo ga haretete mo kono ue ni utsuru hoshi ha sukunakute
itsuka isshoni man ten no sora miagetai

kiseki ga okoru you na sonna
hoshizora no shita de anata to onaji michi o aruite
futari ga shinji au koto ga aishi au koto ne
Forever You're My Only Feeling Heart
You're My Only Feeling Heart
You're My Only Feeling Heart

(You're My Only
My Only Feeling Heart)

Re:crapahola

[Anonymous Coward]

watashi wa anata o aishi masu.

Re:crapahola

[The Lyrics Guy]

Sir:
This is an English-only website. Please take your Spanish somewhere else.

Thank you,
The Mgmt.

Re:crapahola

[The BOFH Troll]

Japanese, you dolt.

Re:crapahola

[Ralph Malph Alpha]

thatz "eye shemasoo" you dummas. i bet your not even chineese

Re:crapahola

[The Lyrics Guy]

(whoooooosh) What's that I hear? Why, it must be the sound of a joke whizzing right over BOFH Troll's head!

Of course that's to be expected - the BOFH stories were never funny in the first place, unless you suck cock and worship RMS. Come to think of it, that describes the majority of Slashdot readers!

Re:crapahola

[The BOFH Troll]

Obviously you didn't see my sarcasm, I will forgive you.

Re:crapahola

[Anonymous Coward]

sarcasm applied to a sarcastic comment doesn't work too well, now does it?

Is it really that clever?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't packet switching just an electronic version of our snail mail delivery system? The rest is just implementation details.

Re:Is it really that clever?

[Beetjebrak]

Umm, yes, it is that clever. When you send someone a letter (one of those cool paper things with ink on 'em), you expect it to arrive on time and in one piece. This is exactly what snailmail does. The postal service picks up your letter, routes it through their distribution channels, and delivers it to the recipient's mailbox. Now what if your company wishes to send out an enormous box containing for example a new big screen TV to some customer? You probably won't use regular mail, but have a heavier-duty delivery service handle it at a higher price because the postman would break his back lugging your box across the city. But what if there were no alternative? Man, that postman would be SLOW! Same goes for electronic bandwidth. If you'd send a single small e-mail out as a single entity (packet if you will), the chances of it arriving properly at the recipient's inbox are pretty good. This is because the tiny little email doesn't pull a lot of bandwidth and will relatively easily slip through more or less congested lines. Sending out the 2-hour video of your wedding as a single packet across a routed network is bound to give problems. Somewhere along the line the network gets congested because your huge video can't go throught he same pipe together with the next guy's MP3 collection. Result: digital roadblock and there is no such thing as UPS on the internet to deliver big packets. The smart bit on packet switching in analogy to snail mail (considering the fact that we're talking 1962 here) is this: you'd never chop that big screen TV into little pieces so a small army of postmen could swiftly deliver it to your customer and reassemble it on the spot. It must have required a pretty brilliant leap of thought to actually do this for data. Intuitively you'd think the risk of data corruption would be too great with this disassembly- reassembly-step. Luckily we're dealing with computers here, not humans, so packet switching actually did turn out a big success. PS. I know my analogy here is flawed, but hey, you get the point, right? ;-)

Re:Is it really that clever?

[Alien Being]

It wouldn't have been much of a stretch for a railroad designer.

Multiple routes, switches, hubs, semaphore signals. fragmenting a large train to fit between highway crossings or to go up a hill...

Re:Is it really that clever?

[Alan Partridge]

absolutely. Even more so would be the way that containers are transported around the world by land and sea. Have you ever been to a modern container port? It's mind-bending.

Re:Is it really that clever?

[Dirtside]

(Be warned - this post is offtopic.)

Your sig says "There is one thing humans can never do: be descendant from apes."

Computers descended from humans, and humans descended from apes. Therefore computers descended from apes. ;)

Alan Thicke (packet switcher) DEAD.

[Alan_Thicke]

I just heard the sad news on CBC radio. Comedy actor/writer Alan Thicke was found dead in his home this morning. Even if you never watched his work, you can appreciate what he did for 80's television. Truly a Canadian icon.
He will be missed :(



Show me That Smile (The Growing Pains Theme Song):

Show me that smile again.
Ooh show me that smile.
Don't waste another minute on your crying.
We're nowhere near the end.
We're nowhere near.
The best is ready to begin.

As long as we got each other
We got the world
Sitting right in our hands.
Baby rain or shine;
All the time.
We got each other
Sharing the laughter and love.

emphasize the totality?

[lahosken]

Excerpt from the article:
"I must emphasize that the totality of understanding the full picture, and not just the issue of packetization (i.e., chopping messages into small pieces) had to be developed before a convincing body of knowledge could be amassed to prove the case for data networks."

Wow. Maybe this guy would get more credit for his discoveries if he could describe them in English

Re:emphasize the totality?

[Len]

Wow. Maybe this guy would get more credit for his discoveries if he could describe them in English

Kleinrock's discoveries are described mainly in mathematics. Like:

w(t) = ì(1 - ó) exp(-ì(1 - ó)t)

(sorry for the way that looks through HTML)

repeat article!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/09/162824 1&mode=thread

An Alternate History

[Alien54]

I think I now understand why Davies was so hung up on the issue. He had developed a one-node packet switch in the UK before the ARPANET was deployed. Unfortunately, the UK would not provide enough financial support to Davies so that he could expand his one-node switch into an operational network. Had they done so, the Internet might have been born in the UK; instead his work was stalled and could not go forward. This must have been very frustrating for him.

That would have been interesting. Britain as the home of the Internet.

The possibilities of an alternate history are fascinating.

In any case some of it is a matter of research being done in parallel, which means that these sort of debates will take place as a matter of course.

Re:An Alternate History

[Anonymous Coward]

The possibilities of an alternate history are fascinating.

Yes, we'd all be paying a $200 tax before we could get online and we'd have speech monitors checking to make sure we don't say anything politically incorrect.

Re:An Alternate History

[Anonymous Coward]

eh?

Re:An Alternate History

[Anonymous Coward]

bit of an idiotic post but I'll bite.

You won't pay $200 tax to get online if UK ran the internet...the reason being it would be BT (british twatcom) that you would be paying. $200 is far too low, especially if you're talking about each time you connect...I would guess $1000 would be closer to the mark...that would be for a BT dialup per hour.

Sounds stupid? well if BT had been the pioneers of the internet you could be sure they would have set it up with some dumb crap like this. They would be thinking....nobody else can do it cheaper because we have monopoly...it makes me shudder just to think about it.Kinda like the way they're attempting to extort money from everyone who uses a hyperlinks via the patent system.

Nobody in the UK is monitored to make sure they are being politically correct, I'm not sure where you get this from...maybe the argument about CTCV camera's in the UK, which I had hoped you would now understand since you have real domestic terrorism in the USA now, to be honest this sounds like the kinda thing the USA govmnt would attempt...and blatently not the kinda thing the UK govmnt would get away with.

Who cares?

[Electric Troll]

Then again, since when has slashdot posted anything worth caring about?

ok once and for all.....

[Anonymous Coward]

what the HELL is a blog and why is it called that. that word is DISGRACEFUL, INSULTING, and downright RUDE! that's right. all you people with blogs can shove them up your FAT ASSES!!!! THAT WORD PISSES ME OFF.

Re:ok once and for all.....

[BlowCat]

blog = bloated log. You can find them sometimes in restrooms.

Seriously, it's typical for English to remove significant parts of words provided that the pronounciation doesn't change much. Also it's typical not to consider whether the new word is similar to already existing words. English speakers are very simple-minded in this regard.

If somebody, say, in Poland came to the market with a product called "Hot Dogs" (in Polish), they would go out of business immediately. And nobody would give a respectable site a name so closely reminding "bloated log".

Kleinrock is a FAGGOT

[rygarsdad]

F-A-G-G-O-T

and by the way, who farted? Who invented the lameness filter? How many cumstains have landed on thinkgeek apparel from guys whacking off watching hentai?

blog?

[Anonymous Pancake]

I picked my nose and there was a large blog stuck to my finger

I was on the toilet and I made a big blog and when it hit the water it went 'blog'

My dogs name is blog

My blog is bigger than your blog

God save the blog

This story is so gay

[Electric Troll]

It's even gayer than RMS, ESR, and JonKatz in a hot bath.

Re:This story is so gay

[The BOFH Troll]

Nothing is gayer than CmdrTaco, Timothy, Jamie, Michael, and Jon Katz in a hot bath.

None of the above

[cperciva]

I'm rather surprised that anyone on /. is willing to seriously consider any of these claims to have "invented" packet switching.

Every other time that someone has claimed to have "invented" an obvious electronic analogue of a well-established mechanism, we've laughed; why is this any different? Packet switching has been used in the (snail) mail system for over a century.

Blog!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloggggg!!! If you say blog one more time I'm gonna punch you in your bloody mouth!

It's a lot older than 1960

[cullenfluffyjennings]

Hogwash to the lot of them.... The ideas they call packet switching were clearly being used by the Romans, the only difference was the transport involved people and horses not electrical signals but the transport if totally irrelevant to all the concepts they claim are packet switching. Odds are good it was used well before the Romans.

Re:It's a lot older than 1960

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they chop people and horses into many little pieces for optimized transportation ?

Re:It's a lot older than 1960

[cullenfluffyjennings]

No but I suspect that's how they dealt with lost packets.

Help! Help!

[Anonymous Coward]

Help! Help! I'm being opressed!!

. . . Stop me before I post again!

based on "aloha" radio network in Hawaii

[peter303]

That is what Metcafe says.

Re:based on "aloha" radio network in Hawaii

[macdaddy]

That's not packet switching. It was more or less the invention of a shared communication channel. AlohaNet inspired behind Ethernet but they are not related. Read Ethernet by O'Reilly, Chapter One, for a good discussion of the history.

The picture

[Bender Unit 22]

I still say that his picture looks like something you would find in your junk-mail on a page with a lose-9343-pounds-fast product.
All that is missing is a signature and a tagline saying that is is a famous doctor who has tried the product with great success on many patients.

Re:No

[barnaclebarnes]

How do you figure that? If it was used in the snail mail system it would mean writing one word on a sheet of paper placing that in an envelope, numbering the letter, mialing it, then repeating the process until the letter is complete. And I don't know of anybody who sends mail this way.

Al Gore invented it

[Anonymous Coward]

Hes back in the news again- Mr. Scruffy.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

What he probably meant was "Message Switching"

The Safety Dance

[Fecal Troll Matter]

The Safety Dance - Men Without Hats

We can dance if we want to, we can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance
Well they're no friends of mine

Say, we can go where we want to, a place that they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind

And we can dance

We can go when we want to, the night is young and so am I
And we can dress real neat from our hats to our feet
And surprise them with the victory cry

Say, we can act if we want to, if we don't nobody will
And you can act real rude or totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile

Say we can dance, we can dance
Everything's out of control
We can dance, we can dance
They're doing it from pole to pole
We can dance, we can dance
Everybody look at your hands
We can dance, we can dance
Everybody taken the chance

The safety dance
The safety dance
The safety dance

We can dance if we want to, we've got all your life and mine
As long as we abuse it we are never going to lose it
And everything will work out right

Say, we can dance if we want to, we can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance
well they're no friend of mine

Re:The Safety Dance

[The Lyrics Guy]

So um... Wanna go back to my place?

Mod parent down.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with the Blog about Kleinrock.

What this story needs

[Electric Troll]

Is some /dev/urandom

DqlY8
VZglO"
=*Q]zx
kD0]D
![w$
3&JN
zf"u
(k~M;
-,c;
mdH*
yDKpg
nXQs?mx
j8FI
@Uw)Q-`
e) )
{=jYH
mZPm
ql"6
6E]h
T,4r
b%H^
xl~8
ur+&
2M\[
^&]%
a`'yr
cTc^
WGvG
x}e)
"#0T
UjDV
cWkE
mKu>(
Vm x
6)I(j
hMEJ
E`c?
Sq9J
$QYP
~hsv\b
>-__EN
I5/}
Av)D
43Ct
Yb:K
HcYA
#g@K
tHix
8\(W*
DO+P
jiNl
am_:
k?Qb
DQ EU
J
r`2
"Q].
^4EW7u
c+9c4z
zF>3
C1@H
P>fF
G}vv6
cVFI:
?,]I
s.w),'
/8Ep
!G O
}/X*
D&&c
"{[%A
&{RW55[.B
leG)
.?r'
Iy)q
!.)Qfh
J{A]
fDFA=
F0uS-
]7nh
;'{F"N
(G uIKc*
3tR`{S
t266
R6F@D
db{(
u):
DmG~
]v9g
]UKI%n
uyQW
w&rl
~l-ZI~c
]l+_hLy#
Nq_a
a`-d9^u
8>7o
Hp"Y
YK9 /
]9{#g
clif
x2&L
yN]N?h
%{cR
9&e`
Z6Sq
wz 1,
'AgXK9L
W
D/]
w8>P
:RzO
G! :'0
tVIY
'3(1
7!U4
xtO*
gB{E
57|"p
}_e
S!/d=
F$G&1t
oJ'=
V]g2
Np a
"oy5
S 7BA
RnPQf
JKu?
|=WV!
s{r%
2,'YQ
-V{S
jC,-)
}gc`3
yGZC
a0aV{
/\ o4
5IH/
Q4$Fb{n
7G9;
Y*ku
hTz+
Hj(U
:ae3
v}^z
T#_]
He,x
tOX%
j%xl
*X&
gxK]
9X&Z
z'Z(wm
&L{Q.
Ovopt
:Hm*
W0_T
z T!
w-AN
-yGL
DeEX
GH`;;
)P5?RR
#;1w
ljH[{ S
;*FM#
S00$
&:mJ
!}2SUl
--s?
j}Di
yr>
RMU^H
a^jxb
u1\B
HsCqu{3*
SdM9
Ki)]
AmM
|,CLJ
S6I'
\Hu7
Y(/z
YeSd0
z/.J
EaE>
2gU:
a{03
~G[o
y9V.
#o.JP
~ 0btK
ZCf
(WQ@
NB/S
(~c\
fPO$
z~6+
lT
C(o8^
O5~~l
R,1TgqM
vTi/
.V=K
S6xn
G;uSPq
5L[A.f@
a%:R*-
4WA~
t~Nv{"Q
Xy)9v
'LVI
AD*e
[=kI
*g-I
XMvN
6e)"
m_:6
,VtqW
?60y
n!$B
J!5f
LnBF
ofaW
hUsX`
la.S
Mex%"
h~aeQf
_6@E
I&{op
uG_
VBvA
}{F:
5'AY
|HV|
W,4|
*\LJ
L3VKv
J?ZX
pn_t1
+mFb
BJHR.
*7EV0
x4jF

NozdKG
0(Ud
M53#R
^u&p
IH*f^
vC]P
_#55
J}]`
5CvB
F4*c_
>weKw
P;Tl
MgM6
v,>P
2tnu|u4O
};3k
1M\PZ@@
1Ton
gw{
!~\A
T8}aV
D`9>
21he
i^9\X
ny)Z^P
@a40L
pNCp
f8m`
t~{z
k5Aw
nCC-r
CLr?
UGE]G
iNVW
ieRq
;hYg3
-!Ch
_'I&
Mp6p
$QrX
x~@|
CizU
B(RV
6rll
-5tg
hHQY
1[T
`z:!a
Sp({
!m+?R!
vqHsJ
7TPD
@+0}
=4[B
xMD9
GyK/
`4 1&?
Kh.3
k,/Fx
y=/m
V{ufez
D'/f
pEGJ
(R4w*
j(as
?dQ[
a~K9c
T\Reu
ax;=
vmjV
Cy5-
{Z6gs
G3kZ
~/e^u
kxgWX
yzN\o
bSKj9.pPo
Q^f-
O$:l@
22Kll'
i>qF
?Hw[n
g03d
ZY.&}!I
o[Yh
_o-4
&zb%Nw
EXA:U{00
fvpo
fBRgF
hR-aE
xJ`C
@)2q9
A.=n
RgBw
U?`)
TRo#/
M-Wi
?n
0G:Ok
b;?p
xL$"~
lzX"
3y)?1
."0K=
5O(D
bSA+
s*oZ
=q#p/
o*=fl
](x(
FPcG
\ScMAP6
YD1x
;2)s
$z^k
>:b@
NoM b"
RWWs
n`=n*
th[=
X"h.CJ
=w^r
n#Mv2PX
QLV4
vmR~x
#~\>j
RF#|
%R72
W+ec
~[vO
+`S0(
kCFd
4riG}
[&.D
8FJ)a@"
!XFNZ
.l,i
Cg[C
5A ,
aiu=PB
oEha
DviXt
[kwg9
PSd~
Q;*T
Z8{
VBnX
FBinN
1^mUe
a8{e
LLHs
*egC
tn+e
n`
nKun
tKvm;
,LKi
p7lv
:vSl
2r*M
N/{+
khr]p
\_]&
] D~
|h:!j
?D4X}
W*(O7
b~W5aI
r#=`ea
OQfj+
&V[3
t)'L9
zn#=N
1SZ-9O
\Dw=
s1@B:
nKZ1
uuvJ
:G 4
}V |
I#0LL
&t#u~U
yh05
6)=]
vU[D
^!}!
3fN
%?`\
#ax'
oFGF
kcth
QN-R
o@Zh
T:nx
6;n>YD
re M
-]F }
2rEO
fads
I21&k
K*I R
'&C8d
1WJ"]y
SKB~:I
Y#S73'
fp6\PW
g=vp
F~Am
zt[j
hd!x
I174
O;}0
M[gg
/"5_
b1D
XnWE
]cry
`[Aa=w
YQ!AKy
+"$e
Ekja*'
bXiM.
4S%
dh),
_b=2
K=>wF
-Ki9D
:V?1W
dP+Q
ZC2Ch! j
a2VFP#M
'@n6
pX%6
!N/H
.\vN
XM$5
f8a2
gAxW%{
ODSZ
"p94m
\xdc
W-"C
m hI
TO7k+
?A;X
ARtx

Moderator IQ test

[Sanity]

This is a generic reply that could be written in response to any Slashdot article describing a new scientific advance - honestly, read it again. I have often thought that it would be fun to do this, create a small number of pre-canned responses designed to get moderated up but which actually don't say anything - looks like someone else got there first.

Whichever idiot moderated it up deserves eternal ridicule.

Re:Moderator IQ test

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I agree with most of your points, you fail to arrive a valid conclusion from them. Go compare the premises of your first sentence, then the last one. You'll see that they don't really go well together.

PS : It is my experince that when moderator fuck-up, they tend to moderate down comments which show they fucked up, instead of fixing the original comment. Interesting, considering that those who mod up and those who mod down probably are not the same people.

Re:Moderator IQ test

[Howie]

Since 'they' can't moderate a comment twice, and since 'they' don't actually know who each other are, or meet in smoky rooms plotting your downfall, who do you suppose this happens?

When I used to moderate, I certainly didn't give a rats arse what it made other moderators look like. The only moderators that even mightslashdot editors.

Re:Moderator IQ test

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 'they' can't moderate a comment twice, and since 'they' don't actually know who each other are, or meet in smoky rooms plotting your downfall, who do you suppose this happens?

Okay, I'll make my point again with added emphasis on key words:

Interesting, considering that those who mod up and those who mod down probably are not the same people.

It is interesting precisely because "they can't moderate ... twice, they don't know each other blah blah" It wouldn't be interesting if they were meeting in a smoky room plotting my downfall or "they" were indeed the same guy, would it?

I wonder how many AC posts to this thread will get my IP banned. I don't have much time during weekdays anyway, so what the hell.

Re:Moderator IQ test

[Howie]

Fair enough - my bad. I should read betterer. :)

I think there'd be some amusement to be had from /. releasing (anonymised) moderation logs for a chunk of time - say January 2002 - with the moderation reason, the previous state, whether it was an editor or a user (that old chestnut), and whether the post being moderated was a logged in user. An afternoon with Perl and Gnuplot would probably be quite interesting with that data.

I always got the impression the IP-banning business was more to do with how many negative mods you recieved in a short space of time...

Re:Moderator IQ test

[nusuth]

An afternoon with Perl and Gnuplot would probably be quite interesting with that data. It would be sobering too, especially if logs include some key phrases from the comment (like "I MS because", "Nuking them to ground is not a sane idea because") Many people think editor moderation is a problem. I think moderation is the problem and user moderation is the worse part of it.

I always got the impression the IP-banning business was more to do with how many negative mods you recieved in a short space of time...

Yeah, it has nothing to do with AC posts, I was just quite fond of my 42 karma so posting as AC and planning to continue that way. Anyway, out of my five posts -including this- to this thread, two has already been -rightfully I must add- modded down as offtopic. I expect these three will soon follow. That is plenty of down moderation in a short amount of time but I don't know how much it really takes to be banned.

Re:Moderator IQ test

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometime I moderate comments down that are telling me what to do, which may seem like the same thing...

That's what metamoderation is for.

Re:No

[cperciva]

Do IP packets only contain a single byte payload?

I've known a number of people to send two postcards because what they want to write doesn't fit on one; and they helpfully write "continued on next postcard", exactly the way that IP fragments do. And, somewhat rarer but an even closer analogue, when there has been a weight limit on lettermail, people have sent (for example) the first five pages of a long letter in one envelope, and the last three pages in a second envelope.

And then there's all the furniture which is shipped in parts for the recipient to assemble...

blahblah

[Anonymous Coward]

1. slashdot is gay
2. 
   
   
3. and so are you
   
   • %99
     
   1. 2
      
   2. 3
      
   3. 4
      
   4. 5
      
   5. 6
      
   6. 7
      
   7. 8
      
   8. 9
      
   9. a
      
   10. b
       
   11. c
       
   12. d
       
   13. e
       
   14. f
       
   15. g
       
   16. h
       
   17. i
       
   18. j
       
   19. k
       
   20. l
       
   21. m
       
   22. n
       
   23. o
       
   24. p
       
   25. q
       
   26. r
       
   27. s
       
   28. t
       
   29. u
       
   30. v
       
   31. w
       
   32. x
       
   33. y
       
   34. z
       
   35. "
       
   36. 7
       
   37. £
       
   38. 9
       
   39. $
       
   40. b
       
   41. &
       
   42. d
       
   43. ^
       
   44. f
       
   45. (
       
   46. h
       
   47. )
       
   48. j
       
   49. _

Re:blahblah

[The BOFH Troll]

That puts crapflooding to a whole new level, good job sir.

Mod parent up

[Sanity]

This is an excellent point. Packet switching really is an obvious idea, it is just the postal system done electronically. Watching these computer scientists squabble over these crumbs of creativity is embarrasing.

Re:Mod parent up

[pipacs]

Sure, and desktops existed way before computers. The best ideas are always obvious - after inventing them.

His own webpage

[leiz]

He has his very own webpage with information about the early days of the internet as well as his accomplishments.

Off-topic

[Wesley Felter]

IIRC, Ethernet was based on the "aloha" radio network in Hawaii, but there was packet switching long before there was Ethernet.

US Law

[glowingspleen]

Whoever owns the patent, wins. Even that guy who said "Let's Roll"'s family lost their right to the phrase b/c someone quickly patented it.

Re:US Law

[waterwingz]

Would that be a patent or a copyright ? There is a difference, you know.

Re:US Law

[Syre]

Actually, that's not true.

In the USA, the law is "first to invent" not "first to file".

This means that if you invent something, but don't file until after someone else does, and your invention date is prior to the invention date of the first filer, and you can prove it (with lab notebooks, witnesses, etc.), you win.

There are limitations on this -- you can't have publicly disclosed the invention more than one year before filing, for example, nor can you invent something and sit on it indefinitely without filing unless you are "actively developing" it.

In other countries, "first to file" is typically the rule.

(note, I am not a lawyer, so don't rely on this and sue me later!)

Freedman Doc

[zerocool^]

From avi freedman's homepage: the Freedman doc - info on multihoming and BGP.
BR~z

Academician SmackDown!!!

[nickynicky9doors]

For the common folk who no longer read the finely honed tribal rhetoric of bickering academicians this isn't about objective reporting so much as it's about jockeying for position in the ivory tower world of publish or perish.

Time Magazine quotes Al

[Anonymous Coward]

Time Magazine, August 18, 1997, Al Gore: ``It was my determined work in the Senate that was responsible for the Internet. I invented it.''

Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet.

Re:Time Magazine quotes Al

[Anonymous Coward]

But why let silly things like facts get in the way of whining?

Dr. Kleinrock seriously beat me!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's true. I trained in karate in the same dojo as he did (JKA Santa Monica) in the mid-1980's. He was much more advanced than I was. The beating however involved little physical punishment, mainly mental humiliation.

Little did I know he had invented packet switching networks. I would have gotten his autograph.

How about Donald Davies

[Aztech]

Donald Davies is largely acknowledged for developing Packet Switching (and even coining that very phrase) at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, however he was not American so he's largely ignored.

Re:How about Donald Davies

[Howie]

Read the damn article! It is entirely a discussion about why Kleinrock believes it was not Davies, but he, who invented packet-switching.

Re:How about Donald Davies

[Aztech]

I have, Donald Davies is usually ignored or maligned, he died in 2000 so you can't argue with a dead man, that's why I find the article somewhat nauseating.

Re:How about Donald Davies

[Accelerated Joe]

Donald Davies is largely acknowledged for developing Packet Switching (and even coining that very phrase) at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, however he was not American so he's largely ignored.

The article covers Davies' involvement. Kleinrock repeats again and again that there is cold hard evidence that he created packet switching before Davies (in his dissertation). This has nothing to do with whether Davies is around to defend himself or not. You really should have read the article.

Re:How about Donald Davies

[Slashamatic]

The commercial uptake of packet switching in the UK was slow though. The General Post Office who used to run all forms of communications in the UK from letters through to telephones (probably including carrier pidgeons) quite liked selling fixed lines.

the early nets did exist in the seventies, but these were research institutions and universities running on top of GPO leased circuits. They were vital for research infrastructure, but there wasn't much interest from other sources with deeper pockets, i.e., the military or commercial interests. The GPO eventially got some of the research switches rebuilt as products by GEC and it launched EPSS (Experimental Packet Switched Service) in the mid seventies.

The commercial PSS net didn't start until later. A lot of the early X.25 work was done in the UK and by that time other interests were getting involved, but now we are talking about the late seventies.

Effectively, the UK was running almost ten years behind the UK by then. Many companies started moving to X.25 nets but the initiative had been lost. I guess if defence interests had got interested in the technology, thst would have given it a financial boost.

Davies, though was not just an expert on packet switched networks, he also had quite a lot to do with computer security. Perhaps he didn't 'discover' PSS, but he certainly contributed a lot there as well as in other areas.

Re:How about Donald Davies

[dillon_rinker]

And I am widely acknowledged as the King of America.

Come on, read the article, find a flaw in his statements, and refute them. Kleinrock states that he analyzed packet switching mathematically in his 1962 thesis, something that Davies never did. Is he overstating? Does Davies have a publication that predates this? Did he develop/discover independently and then parlay that into the current technology? The latter would be a particularly cunning argument, if you can support it. But don't tell us "Oh, everybody says ..." because it makes you sound like an idiot rather than an informed individual. And don't mind me, I'm just a normal largely ignorant slashdotizen.

Re:How about Donald Davies

[Aztech]

The 1962 paper is interesting, which incidentally wasn't published until 1964, people generally go by the date of publication not when they inked the first paragraph. Surprsingly the above paper doesn't mention the word 'packet' once, which is a bit of a contradiction if you claim to have invented 'packet switching'.

The first instance of "Packet" and '"acket Switching" was in Davies' 1967 paper "A digital Communications Network for Computers", which was presented at a conference in Tennessee, at the same conference Lawrence Roberts of ARPA presented a design for creating a computer network. He had also made presentations before ARPA a year before on the concepts of 'packet switching'.

Re:How about Donald Davies

[Modab]

The first instance of "Packet" and '"acket Switching" was in Davies' 1967 paper "A digital Communications Network for Computers"

Again, something mentioned in the article. It has a link. It's okay for you to read it. There must be innumerable inventions that did not have a popular name until much later after they were invented.

Re:How about Donald Davies

[Alien Being]

...he was not American so he's largely ignored

Or...

... his MG broke down on the way to the patent office.

... he tried to phone it in over BT

... his design called for packets to travel on the left side of the Net

Re:How about Donald Davies

[Anonymous Coward]

"... his design called for packets to travel on the left side of the Net"

That's actually quite logical... look at your railways, if you've ever noticed on parallel tracks the trains drive on the left (pass on the right), it's the same all over the world, even in the US. Trains travel on the left so it was decided it would be logical for cars to do the same, seems logical enough, but nearly everyone else thought the opposite.

Re:How about Donald Davies

[dillon_rinker]

The 1962 paper is interesting...Surprsingly the above paper doesn't mention the word 'packet' once, which is a bit of a contradiction if you claim to have invented 'packet switching'

He credits Davies with coining the term "packet switching." You seem to be saying that if you don't use the currently popular name when you first describe your idea, then you're not the originator of the idea...the guy who thinks up the popular name is the inventor.

By your reasoning, Newton, who coined the term "calculus" should get all the credit for the development of that branch of mathematics, and Leibniz should get none, since the German-speaking Leibniz didn't use the term "calculus." (In case you're not up on your history of mathematics, Leibniz independently co-developed calculus and is credited in many non-English speaking countries as the developer of that branch of mathematics.)

Your rhetorical skills are sorely lacking. First Davies is the inventor because everyone knows he is, and now he's the inventor because he was the first to name it by the name you know it by. Here's my question:

What's your evidence for your belief that Davies either developed the concepts prior to Kleinrock, did more significant development work than Kleinrock, or for some other reason has a stronger term to the title "Inventor of Packet Switchng"?

My position is that the title is about as valid as "Inventor of the World Wide Web" and that all these guys should take a lesson from Newton..."If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants...

Re:How about Donald Davies

[Anonymous Coward]

People have already commented about the other flaws in your post, but this one also needs to be pointed out:

Kleinrock clearly states in the article that he has published his PhD dissertation in 1962, which was then published as a *book* in 1964.

At least read the article before making such ridiculous claims.

For the less clueful...

[Adrian Voinea]

Packet switching refers to protocols in which messages are divided into packets before they are sent. Each packet is then transmitted individually and can even follow different routes to its destination. Once all the packets forming a message arrive at the destination, they are recompiled into the original message.

Most modern Wide Area Network (WAN) protocols, including TCP/IP, X.25, and Frame Relay, are based on packet-switching technologies. In contrast, normal telephone service is based on a circuit-switching technology, in which a dedicated line is allocated for transmission between two parties. Circuit-switching is ideal when data must be transmitted quickly and must arrive in the same order in which it's sent. This is the case with most real-time data, such as live audio and video. Packet switching is more efficient and robust for data that can withstand some delays in transmission, such as e-mail messages and Web pages.

A new technology, ATM, attempts to combine the best of both worlds -- the guaranteed delivery of circuit-switched networks and the robustness and efficiency of packet-switching networks.
...courtesy of Webopedia

Master of Innovation

[small_dick]

Bill Gates, of course. Just ask him.

dude

[ArchieBunker]

what the fuck is wrong with you, seriously? the GOP pays people to post pro republican opinions here? do you also think MS pays people so say linux sucks?

If you are karma whoring...

[Anonymous Coward]

..please post at least up-to-date and correct information.
Bbbbrrrr, calling ATM "a new technology".

Re:If you are karma whoring...

[Anonymous Coward]

The correctness of the information he posted depends on a number of definitions not contained in the post, and thus cannot be ascertained. For example, I cannot conclude that his statement about the age of ATM is correct without defining "new" as "having been invented in the last 20 years."

On another note, even though ATM didn't take off quite in the manner that the telecom people dreamed it would (replace the Internet, ATM connection to every desktop) it still is not a bad technology, and has its place (DSL).

Digital transmission before packet switching

[Animats]

Although they're forgotten today, there were many pre-packet-switching systems that built up to the technology. Polled terminals, like the IBM 3270 and its prececessors, could be thought of as a form of centralized packet-switching. (Polling goes all the way back to the mechanical teletype era.) There were "statistical time-division multiplexers", which multiplexed N async char data streams into a pipe that had less bandwidth than all the incoming lines. There was the original RAND proposal for a flooding network for emergency military messages.

The big breakthrough needed for the ARPANET was the militarized DDP-516 minicomputer, which was the first computer you could just ship someplace and expect it to work when turned on.

Re:Digital transmission before packet switching

[mancuskc]

Polled terminals? 3270?

Uh oh - Flashback

3420, 3480, TSO, CICS, JES, Netview!

5250!

T Tur Tt ttur turw...

TWINAX!

NOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo!

Re:Digital transmission before packet switching

[Animats]

The first fully automated store and forward network was Plan 55, deployed in the 1950s. This store and forward message switch was the backbone of Western Union's telegram service, and versions were used by the military.

Plan 55 was basically Sendmail built out of paper tape equipment and telephone relays. Messages came in on teletype links and were saved on incoming queues built from pairs of paper tape punches and readers, connected by a big bin for the paper tape. The header of each message was read, an outgoing link selected by looking up the destination address automatically, and a telephone switch was used to establish a cross-office link to an outgoing buffer. The message, including header, was then copied to the outgoing paper tape buffer across the room, via the telephone switch, at a higher rate than the incoming and outgoing lines to avoid internal congestion within the switching system. Outgoing paper tape buffers, when not empty, were transmitted on their associated lines.

Crude though this seems, all the basics of a store and forward network had been fully automated. Incoming buffers, message header parsing, determination of outgoing route from destination address, message queuing for output on the proper route, and forwarding were all present in Plan 55. Plan 55 centers were distributed and networked, with redundant routes. Messages were often forwarded multiple times, with the original header and content preserved. So all the basics of networking were present.

All this required building-sized installations, consumed vast amounts of paper tape (every forwarded message was punched twice per node, and the tape went directly from the reader to a trash can), and was slow. But all the crucial ideas were there.

Plan 55 message format lives on in NOAA weather forecasts and some FEMA emergency message systems. Messages that begin "ZCZC" and end "NNNN" are in Plan 55 format. The letters and numbers between "ZCZC" and the next CR are the address; everything else up to the NNNN is the message text.

NPL

[Anonymous Coward]

"Had they done so, the Internet might have been born in the UK; instead his work was stalled and could not go forward. This must have been very frustrating for him."

No... that's why he gave a presentation to ARPA.

IP packet fragmentation was a mistake

[hqm]

Packet switching is great, but it turns out that
the IP mechanism of IP packet fragmentation and
reassembly was a big mistake. In other words, you
don't want to break up packets. The original idea was that the MTU (minimum transmission unit) was
unknown, so that you should be able to have
routers which break a single IP packet into smaller fragments and have someone reassemble them elsewhere in the network. It added loads of hair and performance penalties, and really
broke the whole "end to end" model. Here in the future, I believe that people now think you can use end-to-end MTU discovery, and just keep notching the packet size down until you get reliable transmission. Anyone know if IP packet fragmentation is still part of IPV6?

Re:IP packet fragmentation was a mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone know if IP packet fragmentation is still part of IPV6?

No, you just download an iso file in one packet and if the checksum is wrong, the TCP layer automatically redownloads it.

Re:IP packet fragmentation was a mistake

[hqm]

I didn't say there's no upper limit to the size
of an IP packet, only that you should optimize it
at 'runtime' when you're actually talking to
another host end to end, rather than tossing something
arbitrary into the network and letting all the routers along the way pick up the mess. Start with
something standard, say 512 bytes maximum or something, and if you get greedy, try upping it, if you can't get through, try making it smaller.

Analysis isn't invention

[isdnip]

Kleinrock is claiming too much credit.

Yes, his work on queueing theory is important, at least to people concerned with math and network analytics. And if anybody gives a damn about analyzing the performance of a packet-switched network mathematically, then it'll fall back onto Kleinrock's work.

But what passes for packet switching nowadays -- "The Internet" -- is most certainly not the result of careful analysis! It works by brute force. It's inefficient. It is badly monitored and mostly unmetered. So Kleinrock's analysis, which might be useful, is ignored.

Anybody with half a sense of the math wouldn't dare try to cram constant-rate streaming traffic, like telephony or broadcasting, onto the IP Internet. It's inefficient as hell. Economy of scale is what makes it seem to work, compared to economy of specialization (what ATM would excel at). But that's the Internet's current ruling ethos -- if it seems to work, do it, even to excess.

The original inventors -- Davies, Baran, and the BBN crew -- were not doing mathematical optimization. They were hacking (in the good sense) something together and observing what worked. Kleinrock is like a guy who invents a great network management system that never gets turned on, but who still claims credit for the network that his system might have been able to manage.

And puh-LEEZ, don't give Vint any of the credit. He's made a great living as the Chauncy Gardiner of the Internet.

Re:Analysis isn't invention

[Axe]

Mmm.. Of cause that's an old discussion between scientists and engineers, on what is really important, theoretical prediction and analysis, or a working implementation. Being both a scientist and an engineer, I would dare to say: both is very much needed, and whoever came up with the idea should be given proper credit.

When you do your most basic "hacking together", you stand on the shoulders of many very much academicians, even if do not realise it fully. Nothing works just by "brute force" - you use multitude of concepts, from basic like search or hashing or graphs, to advanced once, such as queuing theory and network analysis, carefully designed, analysed and implemented, and only then you add your "observing what worked". Do not dismiss theory, it is jsut as important as implementation..

Re:Analysis isn't invention

[mgblst]

Off course, today implementation has changed a lot from the beginning, and we have a more ordered system, like the Vegas and Reno BSD algorithms.

Re:Analysis isn't invention

[theukrainian]

... which are built on plenty of theory.
internet does not work on brute force -- it would
not make it very far that way. it works because
lots of people invested lots of time into thinking about it.

Re:Analysis isn't invention

[isdnip]

The point I'm making is that the implementation is not primarily based on academic theory. It's based on the Internet's own culture, which puts experimentation in front of architecture, implementation in front of design. It's based on empiricism, on doing what works, and for the most part doesn't give a goat's bzadeh about Kleinrock's theory. Even when it should pay more heed!

Re:Analysis isn't invention

[one-egg]

The subject line of this article is misleading. Analysis of a system isn't the same as building the system. But in many cases, the analysis of a system has demonstrated that it made sense to attempt building it. I could cite many examples -- not only in CS; the same principle applies to bridges and space elevators. As a general rule, the analyst gets credit for the original idea.

Kleinrock's analysis...is ignored

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Analysis has been a major part of networking from the very beginning, in no small part due to Kleinrock's influence.

Kleinrock is like a guy who invents a great network...that never gets turned on, but who still claims credit

Again, wrong. UCLA was one of the first three nodes on the ARPANET These issues have been discussed in great detail on the computer history mailing list. The general consensus as I recall it is that all of Kleinrock, Baran, and Larry Roberts made major contributions. None can really claim to be the sole inventor. All can claim that without them, the ARPANET wouldn't have happened.

Re:Analysis isn't invention

[Axe]

The point I was making, is that pure empiricism, experimentation is a goat bzadeh, as you so eloquently put it. One uses the works of academics, whether you realise it or not, its in every library, every piece of algorithms, in your text books, in the words you use. My guess you never actually looked at the research literature on networking - but make yourself a favor. And give the credit where the credit is due.

Another way of looking at it

[Bob Smith 157]

I think I now understand why Davies was so hung up on the issue. He had developed a one-node packet switch in the UK before the ARPANET was deployed. Unfortunately, the UK would not provide enough financial support to Davies so that he could expand his one-node switch into an operational network. Had they done so, the Internet might have been born in the UK; instead his work was stalled and could not go forward. This must have been very frustrating for him.

That would have been interesting. Britain as the home of the Internet.

The possibilities of an alternate history are fascinating.

In any case some of it is a matter of research being done in parallel, which means that these sort of debates will take place as a matter of course.

Interview with Paul Baran

[foxed]

For Baran's point of view, see this interview at Wired.

Corruption of language

[ahde]

Just because someone says, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if someone built a machine that flies" doesn't mean he invented the airplane. Even if they add details like "using a motor to force air over a convex airfoil" and "steering and stabilization by means of a vertical rudder."

You could even have detailed diagrams and equations for weight/displacement, etc. But the trick is in details like figuring out how to make the engine powerful enough achieve lift off but light enough to achieve lift off.

Re:Corruption of language

[sjhwilkes]

Interestingly the first powered flight is actually credited to John Stringfellow of Chard in Somerset, England in 1848. The Wright brothers even credited him with doing the groundwork required to enable their first powered flight with a human passenger.

Correction

[ahde]

w(t) = ì(1 - ó) exp(-1(ì - ó)t) )

So he invented l33t speak too?

Re:No

[Tony-A]

Multi-volume set, sent a volume at a time.
Multi-chapter book, sent a chapter at a time.
Newspaper serials, sent a column at a time.
I'm sure somebody has sent a longer missive, written on the back of postcards.

None of these guys invented packet switching ...

[systemBuilder]

The reason why mathematicians don't like computer work ?? Because a lot of the "inventions" cannot be attributed to a sole genius. And so in the field of computers there isn't enough space for the hyperspace-filling egos that you find in mathematics and physics.

The fact is, NOBODY, NOT EVEN KLEINROCK, DAVIES, AND BAREN, IN SUM OR SEPARATELY, INVENTED PACKET SWITCHING. You see, the idea did not work for almost 25 years after it was "supposedly" invented by Kleinrock et. al. It wasn't until Van Jacobsen and Karels applied optimal queuing theory and tight feedback control to exponential backoff and "slow start" to TCP feedback congestion control that packet switching was worth a damn.

I was a user of the Arpanet from 1980-1984, and the dang thing almost never worked. It would take a whole minute just to open a pair of TCP connections in order to download a single RFC. The Arpanet was badly, badly broken. Kleinrock was not responsible for making the Internet scale. What Kleinrock invented was a broke piece of crud in 1985, 1986, etc.

Do we attribute the invention of the computer to Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley (hint : given in order of true technical contribution) because these guys invented the transistor ?? No, those guys only invented a "piece" of the modern computer - it was up to others to finish the puzzle. And it's similarly unfair to try to attribute the invention of packet switching to any ONE person, since it took 25 years to get all of the bugs out.

But X.25 was working . . .

[MightyMicro]

Don't fixate on ARPANet and TCP/IP as if they are the only form of packet switching -- it may not have worked well in the early 80s, but I can rememeber using BT's Packet SwitchStream X.25 network in 1983 -- and it worked just fine. That was certainly Mr Davies' doing.