From: brad@anduin.eldar.org (Brad Spencer)
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 14, Issue 63
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:30:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xonmveqsf2y.fsf@anduin.eldar.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170116194627.0FF8B18C085@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> (jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu)
jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes:
> > From: Larry McVoy
>
> > It is pretty stunning that the company that had the largest network in
> > the world (the phone system of course) didn't get packet switching at
> > all.
>
> Actually, it's quite logical - and in fact, the lack of 'getting it' about
> packets follows directly from the former (their large existing circuit switch
> network).
>
> This dates back to Baran (see his oral history:
>
> https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/107101
>
> pg. 19 and on), but it was still detectable almost two decades later.
I was at AT&T much later then most who have commented, in 1992+ and I am
pretty sure that a lot of people at that time who had been at AT&T a
while STILL did not get packet networks.
> For a variety of all-too-human reasons (of the flavour of 'we're the
> networking experts, what do you know'; 'we know all about circuit networks,
> this packet stuff is too different'; 'we don't want to obsolete our giant
> investment', etc, etc), along with genuine concerns about some real issues of
> packet switching (e.g. the congestion stuff, and how well the system handled
> load and overload), packet switching just was a bridge too far from what they
> already had.
I can't fully explain it, but "a bridge too far" does describe it well.
Everything had to be a circuit and it if wasn't, well, it was viewed
with a great deal of suspicion. I worked with a lot of very smart and
talented folks, but this was a real blind spot.
> Think IBM and timesharing versus batch and mainframe versus small computers.
>
> Noel
--
Brad Spencer - brad at anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS
http://anduin.eldar.org - & - http://anduin.ipv6.eldar.org [IPv6 only]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-17 0:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-16 19:46 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-17 0:30 ` Brad Spencer [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-01-17 15:32 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-18 14:29 ` Paul Ruizendaal
[not found] <mailman.1.1484532001.2693.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
2017-01-16 16:00 ` Doug McIlroy
2017-01-16 16:22 ` Marc Rochkind
2017-01-16 16:44 ` Larry McVoy
2017-01-16 16:52 ` Marc Rochkind
2017-01-16 19:17 ` Steve Johnson
2017-01-16 19:21 ` Larry McVoy
2017-01-16 19:57 ` Ken Thompson
2017-01-16 23:41 ` Tim Bradshaw
2017-01-16 23:45 ` Brantley Coile
2017-01-17 4:07 ` Jason Stevens
2017-01-17 5:22 ` William Corcoran
2017-01-17 11:43 ` Jason Stevens
2017-01-17 14:27 ` Joerg Schilling
2017-01-17 14:21 ` Joerg Schilling
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xonmveqsf2y.fsf@anduin.eldar.org \
--to=brad@anduin.eldar.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).