Slashdot Mirror
30 Years of Ethernet
Babylon Rocker writes "An interview with one of the inventors of Ethernet." Metcalfe talks about the history of Ethernet as well as what he's been up to for the last couple years. (Not surprisingly, he's now a VC ;)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
What's VC stand for?
I read the article and still don't quite get it
You have places like Slashdot to thank for continuing to give the guy any credence.
"Sufferin' succotash."
TCP/IP doesn't have to be as old as ethernet. It's not the only protocol you can run on ethernet. Although I beleive TCP/IP is quite some years old.
If you're a "free software" true believer, I guess that column must irritate. But I don't see anything stupid about it. Care to get specific?
According to Metcalfe, Ethernet is competing with SONET and Fibre Channel, although he claims that ethernet is winning due to its "internet-compatibility," among other things. To me, this seems like steps in the wrong direction. If fibre optics do not integrate well with the present structure of the internet, then we should be changing the structure, not sticking to the old concept of ethernet. When ethernet was invented, it took advantage of technology available 30 years ago. Since then, we have only been improving on the implementation. Despite the fact that SONET and Fibre Channel are the current "Godzillas," THEY are the ones with the novel technology, and avoiding them would not be in the best interest of advancing technology.
Would you rather be stuck with Token Ring?
I mean, IBM is a great innovator to be sure. But token ring, IMHO, was one of their great misses. Running at 4 or 16 Mbit, it was certainly speedy for its day, but the protocol to implement it is hellish, not to mention the extra hardware to make it work. It's really much more involved than the plug-'n-play 10baseT that we've all gotten used to with the dominance of Ethernet.
I'm sure you've heard the joke--Why are you all on the floor? Someone pulled out the network cable and we're looking for the token. Anyway network topology that relies on peers to propagate a piece of information to its neighbour is doomed to failure.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
You're right, he did say some stupid things and he totally doesn't get Open Source.
He's brilliant, though. A very bright light. He didn't let the fact that no one could imagine the possibilities of Ethernet limit the scope of it's ultimate possibilities. Indeed, as discussed in this article, datagrams are "regarded" by Ethernet as equals. This is a fundamental principle and it is important.
Maybe that kind of clarity limits his ability to appreciate the more value-laden social contract of Open Source. That's okay with me. The tent is big enough for Bon Metclfe as far as I am concerned. No matter how utterly I disagree with him on things for which we are all allowed opinions, I'm glad we all agree on how to deliver packets.
The best way to do is to be.
Ah you whippersnappers. Xerox used a proprietary data frame called LLC. Later recycled as Microsoft NETBui's transport frame. Used to have to pay 100 bucks per pc to run tcp on ethernet. It wasn't obvious that IP was the one protocol to rule them all until about 1995-96. And the real killer app in this direction was Windows 95s decent IP stack which killed Novells IPX slowly.
Linux is based on thirty year old technology, and it hasn't replaced Windows. He's right. You know it.
It's not a choice of photons vs electrons. Ethernet can use optical fibre too.
And I'm glad it's not up to you which technology we use, because the actual tech is only one part of the overall usefulness of a technology. For example, a $100 network card that can do 1gbit/s is more useful to me than a $1000 network card that can do 100 gbit/s. Because I can afford (and justify) the $100 card.
Price matters. Open standards matter. Would we have Ethereal and tcpdump and all the billions of useful network tools that are out there if we were using proprietary standards for networking? I don't think so. Would people get owned due to network stack (or network protocol design) bugs? Seems quite possible.
Try looking a little farther out.
But... the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long!
How sad...
Those were the days!
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
TCP expects a network with 0 packet loss
I can't believe you just said that. Um, the whole reason that TCP exists is to provide reliable services on an unreliable network (that is, > 0 packet loss).
I also can't believe they are letting idiots like YOU into MIT now...
Get a clue, the code is not what's "intellectual property", it's the spec, the ideas , the design and the comments detailing corner cases, and those aren't protected by copyright. Someone smart can re-develop the code without infringing the copyright. Such copying takes some brain, similar to cheating in school, only the smart kids can get away with it.
With GPL you give your IP away but force anyone who wants to reuse it in non-GPL products to re-implement it. BSD seems to take the pragmatic approach that once the cat is out of the bag, you may just as well take the whole thing and you are incited but not forced to contribute back.
You're not delusional as much as ignorant. First, IPv6 has existed for a number of years. It is not a reinvention, but a an evolution of IP to make it more scalable. Second, the value of IP and the Internet is that they are generic, not burdened by application specific details. There's a reason for the protocol stack: to keep application details at the top.