Slashdot Mirror
The Web Is Not the Internet
pigrabbitbear writes with this rant from Motherboard.vice.com: "The Internet and the World Wide Web are not the same thing. They're not synonyms. They don't even serve the same function. And, just like how England is in the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom isn't England, getting the distinction wrong means you can inadvertently sound like a dummy. Most of the time they can be used synonymously and no one will care, but if you're talking about history or technical stuff and you want to be accurate or a know-it-all or beat a computer at Jeopardy, you should know the difference. The Web was born at CERN in 1990, as a specific, visual protocol on the Internet, the global network of computers that began two decades earlier."
Now we all know.
It is interweb, not internet. ;-)
This is not news for nerds or stuff that matters.
Slashdot is jumping the fucking shark. This story belongs on CNN.com, where their tech reporters are busy giving the dead Steve Jobs rimjobs every day.
Bet you're a hoot at parties. I can only imagine how charming a fellow you are when someone uses the term "hacker" to refer to someone who breaks into computer systems.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
The internet is a series of tubes, the web are the cats clogging the tubes.
Anybody want my mod points?
What the fuck happened to this site? Seriously.
I used to come here daily to get my news fix and now it's more like once a month... and I'm immediately disappointed in the quality. I can't even be bothered to log in anymore.
This is amazingly horrible.
The web is not simply whatever is transmitted over HTTP. It's an information space, where anything addressable by URI is a leaf in the node. For instance, a telephone number is part of the web because of tel: URIs. Most of the things on his list are part of the web too - there are FTP and NNTP protocols. And in fact, some P2P networks work over HTTP anyway.
From Tim Berners-Lee himself, writing in 1996:
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
And what is the Internet? The best definition I know is: "The largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" by Seth Breidbart. Which is somewhat of a mouthful.
Who can give a better definition?
They don't.
Just count the number of people that claim the internet was created at cern when responding to people than correctly state that the internet was created by DARPA in the United States.
The Web was born at CERN in 1990, as a specific, visual protocol
The first web browser I used was text-only, called 'www', running on a Sun box. Was the visual component really there initially with the hyperlinks?
...for Slashdot accepting my recent submissions of such articles as "The Sky is Blue" and "Hitting Yourself with a Hammer Hurts."
One of my favorite quotes from my mom.
...next thing you're going to say that 'cee-ment' and 'concrete' aren't the same thing.
Yes, for nerds apparently.
I count exactly 0.
If fact seaching for CERN (other than hits on the word concern) returns one post which uses CERN (and its reply):
Which displays a distinct lack of knowledge of either EU membership or the location of CERN and an inability to indicate quotations from what it is replying to. But it's certainly clear that it is refering to the WWW when it says "it came from CERN".
So please be specific with this people and their posts you counted at that url getting it wrong.
Slowly over time, being a technical person has became from a socially award activity to something more socially acceptable, and well recognized. We need stories like this to increase or "Anality" towards the general public, because we just can't go along being socially accepted.
Some of it is needed however. Too much "anality" and you become a dweeb again, too little and you lose your expert status.
The public expects some level of nitpickery, anal irrelevance, incomprehensible babble, and irrelevant findings for you to continue your status as egghead.
> And, just like how England is in the United Kingdom,
> but the United Kingdom isn't England
I suppose too that The United States of America is in the Americas but the United States thereof is not the same thing as America? And we dursn't call it just "the States" either because that's ambiguous because there might be other countries with the word "States" in their name at some point? Shall we stop calling China just "China" and start spelling out "The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Maoist China" or whatever it's called in the formal diplomatic papers, every single time we refer to it, and similarly for the other one across the strait? And we should say "The Republic of the Netherlands" instead of Holland?
Phooey. Life's too short, and all that gratuitous verbiage takes too long to say every single time. I'm going to keep on calling them England and America and China and Taiwan. Every single person on the planet knows exactly which country I mean, *including* the sadly misguided people who insist I should call them by their ridiculously long official names all the time. Stuff that.
It's a little different with the web, because "the web" doesn't actually take longer to say than "the internet" or even just "the net". So, okay, we can call it "the web". I can live with that one.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Internet is the WWW and vice versa. It's a fact and it's a matter of statistics. ...
The fact that 0.001% (at best) of mankind knows the difference among DNS, IP, TCP, HTTP and HTML is irrelevant to the whole world.
It's just one thousandth or, according to some source, just 2.6M persons. It's just background noise!
Say it with me thrice: "Internet is the WW"
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
this should have read:
"2 cups of water + 2 cups of alcohol does not equal 4 cups of fluid. /end chemistry jackassery"
Indeed it does not. If you add 2 cups of water to 2 cups of ethanol you get almost 4.1 cups of fluid due to the excess volume of mixing. The result is fractionally greater if thermal expansion due to released enthalpy of mixing is included.
Pardon my deficiency in jackassery where physical chemistry is concerned.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
If you point out the difference between these two terms in everyday speech, then you are part of the problem.
I'm not talking about IT professionals talking to other IT professionals. I'm talking about people talking to other people. I long ago gave up correcting the term "the internet is down", and you should, too. If you can figure out what people are referring to without correcting them, you will go farther in this world than by being an "always correct" dick.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
I thought we were all in Cyberspace, and the Blogosphere...
Either way we all know its tubes all the way down anyway...
Are you sure it's message is entirely correct?
Everybody knows it's the Information Super Highway and that it all exists within Cyberspace!
Most of the time they can be used synonymously and no one will care. . .
'nough said.
Indeed it does not. If you add 2 cups of water to 2 cups of ethanol you get almost 4.1 cups of fluid due to the excess volume of mixing. The result is fractionally greater if thermal expansion due to released enthalpy of mixing is included.
Pardon my deficiency in jackassery where physical chemistry is concerned.
the inverse of that would be 2 cups of water added to 2 cups of isopropyl alcohol will give you less than 4 cups due to the liquids dissolving in one another.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
Maybe you should RTFA since you are wrong on many issues.
You claim, in your signature, to be a senior systems engineer/architect... perhaps you'd best do some research into the architecture of the Internet before you spout off.
Briefly... when you turn on your computer, you send a DHCP request to your router. While it's possible to manually configure your system, we get to the router's configuration... *very* few ISPs in the world actually provide static configurations to their customers, because most of them have more customers than IP addresses. This brings us to the next step: your router will use some combination of DHCP and/or RADIUS to connect to your ISP. Most cable ISPs use straight DHCP coupled with a lease based on your MAC, while most DSL ISPs use RADIUS to authenticate before handing you over to DHCP. For FTTH installations, I've seen either configuration.
So by this point, you haven't even sent your first DNS request (or direct IP, since you seem hung up on the idea that the majority of Internet users could simply memorize the IP addresses of their favourite sites and don't need DNS to surf), and you've already communicated with at least one DHCP server, possibly more, and possibly a RADIUS server.
Now, it's true, usually, that you can simply communicate with most servers by putting the IP address in the address bar, but in all seriousness, do you believe that the majority of users have memorized the IP addresses of every site they visit? Unless you really want to be pedantic on the point, we can dismiss it as fucking ridiculous, because it is. Even if you want to be pedantic, and suggest that people actually can memorize that crap and not need a ghetto DNS in the form of writing down the IPs and keeping a piece of paper beside their computer, they still need to be able to access DNS so they can click on that picture of a cat that somebody posted on Facebook, and which is hosted on a server they've never heard of before.
You claim that servers don't use DHCP, but I'm guessing you've never set up a server in colocation. I haven't had an actual static IP in a datacenter in almost 10 years... most of them will ask you for the MAC address, and configure their DHCP to give you the appropriate information. My server's IP hasn't changed in years, but it's still DHCP.
Your contention that webmail doesn't require IMAP is true enough, but that doesn't change the fact that every webmail service I've ever used actually is using IMAP in the back-end, and that if you know the server names you can configure your mail client to connect through IMAP instead of using the webmail interface. There's no point in reinventing the wheel, and IMAP natively supports folders, filters, and search functions that most webmail relies on. You *could* implement something as feature rich without running IMAP, but it'd be a colossal waste of time. And then you reject the notion of there being a database because "the user will never see it". Bullshit. The user sees and uses it on a daily basis, they just don't realize they're using it, which was kind of the point I was making, if you'd actually read it.
You then complain that if SMTP and HTTP didn't exist, somebody would invent something else... that's a red herring. The protocols do exist, and people use them. If they didn't exist, there would still be a need to transfer that kind of data. You essentially make my argument for me, at this point, by proclaiming that http isn't necessary, by virtue of the fact that if http didn't exist then something else would. That's how the internet works, at the end of the day... *many* different ways to send information around from system to system.
I'm amused by the strawman you try to make at the end of your post, too, btw. I'm tempted to respond in kind, but honestly, what would it accomplish? The people reading this will draw their own conclusions. My point about "average" users stands, though... I deal with them on a daily basis at work, and I have seen their eyes glaze ove