This had made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Edit fuck, it was already said.
“This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
But without it we will never get the Restaurant at end of the internet.
Is that Alan Tudyk’s voice on the computer?
So long and thanks for all the phishing.
You don’t wanna go there. They make you download an app to see the menu.
Imagine having to run an IT department that must maintain compatible apps for all phone software ever developed
And the next day a bunch of computer engineers discovered that there were hot single moms in their area looking to date.
Do you have what it takes to smash my rat?
Whereas HTTP and WWW birthed on Friday 30th April 1993, and Mosaic for the three main platforms by September ‘93, substantially lowering the barrier to entry
How’s that rhyme go again? Remember, remember, the Eternal September?
…i remember reading a paper flyer about the world wide web in our university computer lab that summer and thinking to myself sounds like another gopher knockoff; it’ll never catch on…
I wonder what they did between April and September 1993
They used curl.
Who is “they”? A Brief History of the Web
Thanks, Al Gore…
Series of tubes.
Only very, very loosely related to this. But can someone explain why we learn the OSI model, despite the fact that as far as I’m aware it’s completely theoretical and has never been used, but the TCP model is ubiquitous?
I think I found the source of confusion.
The OSI model describes networking in general, defining a model in which almost all networks can be categorized and compared. This is important as hundreds (if not thousands) of standards and methods exist for handling each separate layer - some publicized, but many hidden/propriety/unpublicized.
Meanwhile, the TCP/IP model describes only a very narrow subset of networks, though it just so happens to be the most used kind of network - The Internet - is part of this.
This means that if you are working with the internet, then TCP/IP will likely cover all your needs, but as soon as you move onto more specialized or simply uncommon network types TCP/IP will be close to useless.
We could take an example:
I’m setting up a LoRa network between some neighbors, measuring stations, etc. The network will not be connected directly to the internet, so there will be no possibility of data transfer between the LoRa network and the internet until you reach the OSI Presentation layer.
The LoRa network will need to be much more efficient than the general-purpose internet-networking, and since only a few machines will be connected we’ll use only a single octet as device identifier (alternative to MAC/IP, lets call it SoMAC), also having to write our own discovery service.
Likewise, we will make a new custom transport layer based on TCP, but with only space for that single octet identifier, no flags, no IP, and no checksums (I like to live dangerous). Let’s call that SoSTRIP.
At last, we’ll need to write some kind of socket to make sending the information easy, for simplicity we’ll use a Unnamed Pipe.
Now, how would we go about representing this in both models (OSI vs. TCP/IP)?
In OSI we’d have:
- Physical Layer: LoRa (duh)
- Data Link Layer: LoRa driver with SoMAC discovery
- Network Layer: SoMAC addressing
- Transport Layer: SoSTRIP
- Session Layer: Unnamed Pipe
- Presentation Layer: ASCII can be whatever
- Application Layer: Cat
In TCP/IP we’d have:
- Link Layer: LoRa + SoMAC
- Internet Layer: No IP/Not Applicable/SoMAC(?)
- Transport Layer: SoSTRIP, except it isn’t compatible with either TCP nor IP.
- Application Layer: Unnamed Pipe + ASCII + Cat
Please note that this is purely for demonstration purposes, as it’s absolutely unfair to compare TCP/IP and OSI in this way, since they both are designed for different purposes, with TCP/IP being more popular but narrow, and OSI being more general but overly complicated for most use cases.
Also, please feel free to correct me, since it’s been a hot moment since I had about OSI and TCP/IP in uni.
==EDIT== Formatting
Thank you for this deep and helpful reply! This is the kind of back and forth that really makes Lemmy great!
Thank you!
But don’t say that too early, I think the exchange further down could have gone better (not least from my side).
The above is mostly from the top of my head plus most of us are surely still tired after tonight’s’ festivities. Though, I hope I’m not just reiterating what @Zagorath@aussie.zone already knows, so I hope others will correct me or add on.
FYI: I thought the same back in 91’
Then I got a job at a computer networking company. Novell Netware was all the rage and the company was a reseller. So we had one of everything they made. The OSI protocol stack was a series of little red boxes. They were never opened.
Thanks for the good writeup! If I can ask, are you writing the stack from scratch due to curiosity or requirements?
I recently became aware of Reticulum, if you don’t already know it you may find something interesting in the whitepaper ^^
Oh no! Sorry, while I did use LoRa a lot back during uni (also writing custom protocols and stuff for semi-autonomous coordinated drones), the above was just an example for the sake of understanding.
That said, I do like to read about LoRa and doing hobby projects with it, so Reticulum does look very interesting. TIL
But TCP and IP are layers in the protocol (that are actually used.) some of the layers are then effectively bypassed as you go further up to application layer.
The TCP/IP model is a separate model that only loosely maps on to layers of the OSI model. They’re two separate ways of describing how the whole network stack should work, but only one is actually used in the real world.
It maps to L4 and L3
TCP/IP also doesn’t include the media layers L2 and L1 (like MAC and frames.)
Maybe think of OSI as the spec and TCP/IP as the implementation of some portions of that spec.
Like UDP would also be L4. So you would miss that too.
Maybe think of OSI as the spec and TCP/IP as the implementation
You could think of it that way. But you would be wrong. That’s the whole point.
The OSI model is the one used in the real world
It’s good to understand theory and even though you can really only partially map TCP\IP onto the model, it helps with memorising and clarifying the different parts of a packet.
Unofficially, I think it also helps introduce the mindset of what happens to a lot of Working Groups and Standards by Committee. They can have all the best intentions in the world, but sometimes the hack works better and\or is more popular and you just have to get used to it. See Also: JavaScript, UPnP, X500 addressing scheme, dot1q, NAT.
Once upon a time there were more protocols than just TCP/IP. You could have IPX/SPX, Baynes and others.
Hell. Even now with the introduction of Quic, it’s starting to change the use of TCP/IP, so having a general understanding of the layers in an abstracted manner let you map them to the different syntaxes that are out there. Kind of like programming languages.
We’ve also had UDP this whole time
The “TCP/IP model” is a common but informal name for what is probably more properly termed the “Internet protocol suite”. UDP is included.
I’m actually not sure where QUIC fits in though. Wikipedia’s pages on both the IP suite and the OSI model say it’s on the transport layer of the IP suite, and layer 4 of OSI, but so is UDP. So I guess it’s another example of how the OSI model is more of a theoretical idea than something that represents reality?
Yup. Quic, for example, layers on UDP instead of TCP. It’s still an IP based protocol. But then you can also get things like FCoE which don’t even use TCP/UDP. Or even ATM which uses its own frame structure. There’s plenty of reasons to need to understand the OSI model.
What do you mean “Theoretical” and “Never been used”? Are you writing this by sending off radio waves purely with your mind? Am I the only one using a modem and computer? (/j, but it seems to me that you’re asking “why a plane needs engines and wings, when it already has a payload”)
TCP (and UDP) just describe how to assemble the data into packages which can be somewhat reliably reassembled on the other end.
While it does have an address stamped on top (IP), it doesn’t know how to get anywhere by itself. That’s where the bottom 3 OSI layers come in (the physical wires - or wireless spectra/wavelengths - the data is transmitted through, the specifications of how the embedded devices talk to each other over these wires, and how to discover other embedded or other devices on a network). I can very much assure you that the wires do exist and are indeed in use.
Contrary, the upper layers are more about keeping communication going once a connection has been established.
You’re confusing TCP (the specific protocol) with the TCP/IP model, which is an entirely different model to describe the network stack to the OSI model, and which can only loosely be mapped onto it.
Apologies, that’s my fault, I thought you wrote “TCP model(/protocol)” and not “TCP/IP model”, which are indeed two very different things.
I feel that the OSI model focuses more on the specific layers with their relations and physical/digital setup, while the TCP/IP model has more of a abstract and “high-level”-focus. I think both have their ups and downs, though I’m still confused what about OSI is “theoretical and has never been used”.
No, you read it right. I just assumed my meaning would be clearer than it apparently was. To me, the word “TCP model” doesn’t strictly mean anything. There’s the TCP protocol, and the TCP/IP model. I assumed my usage of the word “model” would make it clear that I meant the latter, but I guess I can see how people would interpret it as the former.
though I’m still confused what about OSI is “theoretical and has never been used
A real-world implementation of OSI would involve separate protocols for each layer. There have been numerous different ways of describing TCP/IP in terms of OSI layers, but roughly speaking, the broadest possible interpretation is that TCP/IP’s “application layer” covers OSI layers 5, 6, and 7, with TCP covering layer 4, and IP layer 3. But some analyses also suggest TCP/UDP ports are a layer 5 concern. Ultimately, the TCP/IP networking model is a separate way of looking at things to the OSI model, and it would be silly to suggest that it’s the same.
Just saw this comment.
Yes, you are completely right. That’s likely also the reason for your confusion regarding OSI, since you appear to compare it to TCP/IP in a rather literal manner.
Obviously TCP/IP is better at describing TCP/IP than OSI, though while OSI also can be used to describe TCP/IP in a sub-optimal manner, TCP/IP cannot be used to describe OSI.
I can’t believe people are actually arguing with this guy. I gave up. Try asking him about frames and the media layer.
Not sure what the point of this kind of troll is.
No trolling. You “gave up” because you made a stupid comment saying that the TCP/IP model is an implementation of the OSI model. Which is a nonsense claim that any basic course on networking would disabuse you of.
Also no “arguing”. Everyone except you was having a very civil and engaging conversation.
If anyone’s “trolling” here, it’s you.
Side note: rule 2: be nice.
That’s likely also the reason for your confusion regarding OSI, since you appear to compare it to TCP/IP in a rather literal manner
Uhh, no, not really. That literal comparison was my attempt at explaining to you why the two are not equivalent models since you seemed confused about why I would say that. Normally, I’d just stop at “OSI is a theoretical model that exists but was never practically implemented, TCP/IP is used instead.” Because honestly I thought that was fairly self-explanatory. It’s kinda 101-level stuff in networking courses at uni.
Why does this sound like the intro to “The Terminator”?
Finger Veronica, Archie was happenin’.
Was it a good idea? Only time will tell
It was a good idea when it was super niche. And people were using MUDS and newsgroups.
As soon as marketing and capitalism figured out they could use it to control media content and sell it to the masses, we began down this road where we are now, with a few billionaire monopolies running everything.
It had two waves. The first was in the 90s and it was about access. Starting with dialup AOL, genie, prodigy and all those free CDs in the mail. Then the telecoms wanted in and that was that, for a while. Then in another ~10 years, since they couldn’t control access (as that was then universal) they had to control backend content, and now we have the billionaire monopolies in the services themselves, X, Facebook, etc.
It had a good run there for a while though.
It’s still a great idea.
Be mindful of anyone who wants to remove your ability to freely communicate with the world and seek out knowledge.
And you already had the billionaire monopolies before the Internet, they are the newspaper, radio, and tv station owners. Now you have common people in competition with them in the space of public discourse.
The Internet isn’t perfect, but it is the best we have to date and fuck anyone who wants to go back from it.
It was great when it was niche. It was an exploding universe of optimism, unique experiences, and content when the worst we had to deal with was annoying banner ads.
Well, it’s good entertainment. But maybe it wasn’t. Don’t know what my life would look like without it.
Yeah, but before that it was running plain IP going back to '73.
Looks like a cool account. I’m gonna follow
They had people working on New Year’s Day?
So if you host on IPFS it’s not internet?
then normies promptly ruined it
It took them a couple decades. 2006. The iPhone made it easy for normal people to use. That was the beginning of the end.
If by “promptly” you mean “a solid decade later, at the earliest,” since the normies didn’t start getting online in force until 1993.
I liked the internet better before the world wide web. USENET, gopher, MUDS, so much fun to be had!
Tbf the internet gets worse day by day, so any statement like “I liked it better before X” is valid.
Well, the Internet was better before X
deleted by creator
