A few dollars, even that little if that's all that you can, will be greatly appreciated and goes to a tangible cause with a finite timeline. I cannot speak to what will happen to the original archival material following digitizing, but paper does have an expiration date, so the sooner anyone is able to step up with anything the sooner Jason can get back to the business of preservation.
Fun... Just got a phone call that Link threw up on the bus out of nowhere 🙃 he's had NO sign of illness so I'm completely baffled... This is why getting a "normal" 9 to 5 job would be extremely challenging, the kids are always randomly getting sent home 😭
Nah, just a fact of life. One simply puts sets their priorities straight and then to hell with anyone who doesn't respect the boundaries those responsibilities manifest.
I dealt with a bit of that, here and there, while raising my daughter as a single parent from the day of her birth. Perhaps it was my overt indignation toward anyone who even ever suggested that I should put anything (like some fucking job) above that of the mandates of parenthood where my child is concerned, that was a bit frightening for some; or maybe it was just the respect that any parent who puts their offspring first, before that of an employer, demands and commands, .... Suffice it to say that it's just not prudent for anyone to consider denigrating the commitment of any parent to simply abandon anything to tend to the needs of their children, at the drop of a hat - without hesitation or apology.
Anyway, no one ever dared to cross that line with me once they saw where mine was - not to mention that it's illegal to do so anyway.
Besides, when you dismiss your entire class for the rest of the day because you get a call to come pick up your sick kid from school, your students tend to give you better ratings at the end of the course, lolz. All they remember is how kewl you were for giving them the day off, never stopping to think about how much harder the brain cram would be in subsequent days ;)
On that other note. Kids can spontaneously barf. Nerves and lack of control / experience are common reasons. My daughter barfed at me once when she was around five or seven years old or so, simply because we were joking around and she was laughing unabashedly - then suddenly, 🤮
I hope your son is feeling better - Jello, they like jello ;)
A new version of #novelWriter has been released - w00t!
Not a complete feature set of Markdown, but certainly good enough for most purposes. You should give it a good look. If you're looking for a light markdown editor, one that works with bits and pieces as well as complete chapters in books, focuses on the text and authorship in a distraction free environment, then novelWriter might just be right up your alley!
I'd say that sounds really really grotesque, but I like beef tripe and have done the whole half day prep thing just to make some awesome menudo. But that's not haggis, which I've been told by many is rather disgusting.
Notwithstading the fact that I do like tripe - if you take the hours of preparation to correctly ready it for serving up as the yummy, fatty, tender meat in menudo - but I still don't think it would be very good in a taco. Lengua is good, cabeza too, those are awesome filler meat for tacos, along with the more trad al pastor, asada, carnitas, etc.
But Haggis? Here's the problem. There's very few things in this world that are edible, that I've discovered, are nasty vomit inducing foods - Chitlin's may be one of those food stuffs, while in general, offals aren't really a turn off for me in general.
Perhaps the first time I tried chitlins I spent the night in my truck in 4 feet of snow instead of my warm toasty cabin - I just couldn't continue to throw up any longer. In fact it didn't take long before the smell of sizzling pus first overtook me, yet taking a bit of the chewey intestine didn't really taste bad at all, as I recall, before the aroma caused my own alimentary canal to erupt violently in a rapid succession of projectile vomiting.
Imagine the smell of a horrid wound, penetrating the flesh all the way to the bone, sitting in the same dressing for a week, and then you remove it - the odor knocking you over. That was chitlins for me.
Why? Well, my good childhood friend said, "Oh yum, chitterlings!" you didn't cook it right.
How so? Well, I figured it came from a pig, and it's the offals. So, like lamb-fry or chicken gizzards & hearts I figured I'd just dump some into my big iron skillet with a big ass dollup of bacon fat and fry it up!
Apparently, the recommended method is the same for chitlins as it is for tripe; you put it on a low boil for several hours. Regardless, because of he PTSD left over from that episode, even thinking about chitlins for a couple of minutes makes me queasy.
Tripe, on the other hand, well, I was taught right by my next-door neighbor when I was a little kid. She was the matriarch in a large, extended family of children, but mostly grandchildren, that she and her husband were raising, and to a small degree, me too. So menudo is part of my regular cuisine.
Haggis is stomach too though, just not beef stomach lining, right? So those offals might be akin to tripe and therefore, more likely to register on my yummy scale instead of my barf-0-matic vom-meter.
So I'm still looking forward to trying out haggis to see if I like it - but Ill be sure to try it in a traditional setting, along with it's preparation.
Fine dining opportunities are few and far between in Humboldt, California, but this is one of the finest establishments for Mexican cuisine in Eureka, California - a roach coach called, The Taco Boat. More info in the pixelfed parent link below.
You can scoop anything you like into a flat and folded disc made of masa and call it a taco, I suppose - but that don't make it so. Like me buying a little jar of lumpfish roe for a couple of bucks and calling it caviar - technically, I suppose so, but we know better, don't we?
Ghost is an excellent platform for publishing. I used it a lot a few years back for publishing articles when it was headless - that was optimum. Compose at your leisure within your own local environment, then push it up to your own self-hosted instance.
Unfortunately, they let it fall into disrepair, left it unmaintained, and last I checked the Ghost desktop was nowhere to be found in the repo. One of the maintainers explained to me that they just didn't have anyone willing to maintain the app and so I migrated away from the platform myself.
I'm going to give it another looksee to review what happened to the elegant, #headless nature that Ghost used to espouse as one of it's key ingredients for using it in the first place. I just hope that they don't try to go the way of #OOo, #Bacula, and other #FOSS projects that were forked, and somewhat marginalized, as a result of decisions to force community versions into #Freemium products that lacked most functionality without fee based subscriptions. Lord knows, the last time I checked their managed hosting solutions for Ghost it certainly wasn't even competitively priced.
With this newfound revelation in the form of some kind of epiphany, let's hope their commitment to #Fediverse and FOSS exceeds that of their grasp for excessive monetization.
We need to better incorporate our Mastodon feed into the CoffeeGeek.com website.
Part of the problem is, in the platform we use (Wordpress / Elementor), there's almost zero support for Mastodon in our share, follow, and embed tools. So either we have to write something from scratch and make it work with our existing share tools, or... well if there is an Elementor / WP friendly share plugin out there that actively supports mastodon, I want to know about it.
Any thoughts? Ideas? Guides? Step by step to make it happen? The research I've done so far shows it's tricky to have a proper share popup for Masto like you can have for Facebook, for eg (second screen cap below) because of the decentralized nature of mastodon.
For instance, I want to have a Mastodon share button in this cluster, which is created via a convenient widget in Elementor:
That very specific facility was covered a couple of weeks back in the Fediverse City matrix room. I can't remember the URL or specific name (Kinda like the old "Add to Any" plugin for Drupal and WordPress), but just scroll back a bit as there was some discussion over it.
I do remember that it was kinda disregarded because it didn't work on most Fediverse platforms - only mastodon when tested, IIRC, so its worth is minimal.
A few items, but for the tl;dr please scroll down towards the end. The first few appear to be precisely what you asked for, the third is my rather enthusiastic recommendation.
I believe this first one is the plugin I mentioned, and was found to be quite lacking, further, frustrating to most - This showcases the glaring problem associated with conflating mastodon with that of the #Fediverse - most things break, early and often, over and over again.
A simple share button that breaks about a fourth of share attempts:
Here's Terrence Eden's article on the Share on Mastodon plugin. I thought a link to this article best, as it leaves you lots of breadcrumbs to pick up along the way to the plugins page at WordPress. Including Jan's blog article. I believe this was the one with the least utility, that caused the most problems with people, which is quite a bit more than frustrating for a lot of people, angering many. masto isn't even the big man on campus anymore - those days have passed, and are in the past; it's just one of many increasingly popular platforms that people use in the ActivityPub portion of the Fediverse.
I believe Jan is incorrect on the number of images that masto can accommodate - yes it used to be four, but lately, when authoring articles in the Fediverse with platforms that accommodate inline media in the posts, I've noticed that masto actually will include 5 images, the rest it summarily discards, making for an even more confusing event for those on masto (NGI Zero funding has just been secured BTW, to at least bring masto into the 21st century withQuote Posts- like pretty much everyone else has had for a long time,some for a decade now).
Perhaps in time this will improve, or you can get into it with the aid of some of the others below, or just move past all that and install the plugin at the end of it all which performs famously ;)
Conflating mastopub with the Fediverse is a Bad thing:
I've heard a few good testimonies of how well the Fediverse share button performs. Note that no where in the description or documentation is the word mastodon used; no one is mislead to believe that there is such a thing as a mastodon network - because there isn't.
People should be offered the opportunity to share interesting content into (and throughout) the Fediverse, not some small slice of the available platform choices existing there:
This next option was heavily inspired by the old AddToAny plugin back when a kazillion different silos were popular and extant. I remember using that plugin to support sharing across upwards of 30 or so various social networking, bookmarking, link aggregation, and other types of obscure sites in far flung places of the world. I've also heard some good things about this solution too - please take note of all the certified platforms that it supports, and yes, mastopub is one of those ;)
If you do choose this method, do please join us in the Fediverse-City Matrix room to offer a review / evaluation as to how well Fediverse Share works for you. Several project leads there are always interested in viable solutions that are inclusive and accommodate the wider community at large without any marginalization through misleading brand recognition.
Either through simple naivety or conscious exclusionary arrogance, here's some other masto branded share options, at least one, IIRC, was much less than satisfactory, but I typically don't traffic mastodon branded things anymore when the insinuation is that the product represents the Fediverse. You may find, however, that one of these is just what you need, and that with a little bit of tweaking will fit nicely into your website's business processes. A little branding can go a long way, but sometimes a solution depends on, for example, a "share API endpoint", not strictly compliant with the W3C's published specifications, that serves to marginalize all other platforms by excluding them (that's commonly regarded as EEE). I'll just post the links w/o commentary:
There's another utility by Nikita Karamov (creator of the Toot Proxy above) that doesn't embrace the predatory branding of a diluted trademark:
Share₂Fedi - Share₂Fedi isn't a button, exactly, but the functionality is there and it is inclusive of the larger diaspora of the ActivityPub powered portions of the Fediverse, avoiding any sort of marginalization as a result of marketing through leveraging overt, and predatory branding campaigns.
Alright, I know you're interested in getting to the good part. Yes, I'm guilty of that same sort of mindset that makes you scroll down to the bottom of the ToS before you can click on the submit button. But before we get to the tl;dr:, we have one more which in spirit at the very least, is promising, I encourage you to read it:
Honorable mention goes to shareOnFediverse, which works even with GNU Social, Diaspora, PixelFed, Hubzilla, Lemmy, Friendica, Kbin, Misskey, Pleroma, Etc.
tl;dr:
That bit of markdown above (the H1) may not show up on your platform, depending. Regardless, you've arrived. Here's the solution that I personally recommend, a very fine solution that not only allows one to share their content into the Fediverse by providing links back to their website, but providing the gateway for people in the Fediverse, #Fedizens, if you will, to engage the authors of news and blog and lifestyle and cookbook style tutorial and HowTo sites, directly, with two way commenting and sharing of dialog in true open and participatory fashion:
First, (and it has indeed come a long way since the post of this article), a page on how exceedingly simple it is to install and configure this, the WordPress ActivityPub Plugin:
Bear in mind that the plugin was in beta at the time, so never mind the sourpusses in the comments who wanted it, and yet couldn't have it because they weren't self-hosting #WordPress. I must reiterate that development has come a long way, the plugin is in general production release and available for any WordPress site, managed, self-hosted, or otherwise, and it's got a powerful feature set.
Posting links back to clear-net websites on the open Internet is fine, it's not like clicking a share to Faceplant or InstaSPAM button when you share an article that you like into the Fediverse, After all, it's every blogger's mission to drive traffic to their own site (not Faceplant or InstaSPAM), but then your visitors are limited to offering comment replies in the manner of a form submission on the site that really only allows you to subscribe your email for subsequent comment notifications for the article or thread that your commenters spawned.
What the #ActivityPub plugin enables for those who engage with you, is to provide an instant audience of several million MAU (monthly active users) throughout the Fediverse who will be able to directly participate and engage in the conversation from their own native Fediverse platforms, receiving replies as well.
I've called this, A Game Changer, before. A few times, actually. @matthias@pfefferle and his small team of developers created and curated this plugin that enables this hitherto (mostly) inaccessible feature set for the masses. Literally anyone in the ActivityPub portion of the Fediverse can now comment and reply to the comments of others on WordPress sites, which is pretty much like 40% of the entire word wide web nowadays, and you can check this out for yourself right now by visiting his blog at https://notiz.blog/ in the comment section of any one of his articles.
There were some issues, which could be attributed to the predatory marketing practices by Mastodon gGmbH, whereby a lot of what is actually ActivityPub or Fediverse centric was being referred to, and worse, attributed to mastodon in one sense or another, further diluting their trademark which places it in jeopardy of losing its registration (the first item in mastodon's general guidelines states, "Only use the Mastodon marks to accurately identify those goods or services that are built using the Mastodon software." - but the defense of trademarks themselves is another matter entirely, although the discussion has come up many times with the responsible parties, often, in very heated, public, forums.
Anyway, Mattias and his team have become incrementally more mindful of placing emphasis upon #Fediverse, the brand, instead of masto, the brand, and that's a good thing because it goes a long way toward correcting the existing confusion that exists due to the abuse certain marketing personalities have, and continue to pursue. Indeed, the plugin itself is named ActivityPub, which is appropriate - and it certainly is not an exclusive tool for mastopub.
You can download the latest and greatest version of the WordPress ActivityPub Plugin HERE, which was released just 3 days ago, and I know because I was on the periphery of an issue that was resolved, making this an even more relevant and quickly becoming (IMO) essential tool for #DeSoC and Fediverse aware bloggers, journalists, chefs, and anyone else that knows they can benefit from deploying their own WordPress site for business or personal use in communicating with the world beyond the walls of the deprecated, proprietary, privacy mining monolithic silos.
In wrapping things up here, it goes without saying that one of the very most powerful aspects of the #WordPress_ActivityPub_Plugin isn't actually that people can respond to your published articles from the comfort of myriad clients such as #FediLab, #Husky, #Phanpy, or the native web or desktop interface for their Fediverse instance, but the reality that they can simply follow you, on your blog, and receive your blog or news or HowTo articles in their streams whenever you publish a new item. From there, they can boost (more exposure for your published works), reply (of course), and even offer a bit of narrative introducing your work with a #Quote_Post. It's like a butterfly affect, or concentric circles emanating from one little plop of a pebble into a pond.
Oh, one more thing, there's nothing preventing you from including one of the pretty little Fediverse Share buttons either, in conjunction with the ActivityPub plugin. After all, some folks like to comment and let you know their thoughts, while others prefer to simply share it with others who will also tell two friends or themselves offer comments to your articles - it's a win win for everyone on both sides of the line that divides the Fediverse from those so-called Big Tech institutions comprising the walled gardens of subjugation by the #Sunnyvale_Syndrome.
I hope you've found this helpful, I didn't want to send you on an errand of discovery without making sure that there's been some decent coverage of several different alternatives currently available for you.
Going back to Konversation for GUI stuffs. DCC file send/receive is kinda important to me. For everything else, including a lot of Matrix usage, WeeChat is still the Kewlist :p
Honorable mention goes to Halloy, which I think looks really good, supports tiling, and says it supports DCC Send - I don't mind manipulating config files by hand, and I might check it out with a FlatPak, but if I'm sufficiently impressed it looks like I'll have to build the .deb and SlackBuild myself, ... Well? Somebody's got to! Right?
What does that mean, "Canon AE-1 Program"? I have an AE-1 and an A-1, is yours not a real camera, but rather, a program instead?
This would really be nice in Tri-X, and is really nice on the Ilford HP5 as well.
You still need to achieve max-white, not just max-black. You can do it with what you have, just go back into the developer room and get it right this time - then I want a copy ;)
As the saying goes, "Real BOFH use tar and rsync!"
The blog article is an excellent treatment of using tar along with SSH to effect a reliable backup plan and schedule.
Another couple of great fav GoTo solutions of mine have always been Duplicity and Duply for those not comfortable rolling their own scripts w/SSH, tar, and/or rsync :batman:
Thank you very much for sharing this @nixCraft !!!
Thanks Evan, there's a bit to digest there, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't, between what both you and the OtherEvan had to offer.
It's good to get this stuff right out in the open, especially as the Fediverse is currently undergoing yet another paradigmatic shifts, perhaps an evolutionary step, but certainly, a complete game changer from much of the perspective offered in the Evan <==> Evan Essays ;)
What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?
This had to be addressed, with so many people piling on and choosing that the OSI model was replaced by TCP/IP because it worked better and increased in popularity
DARPA Logo Defense Advanced Projects Administration
Okay I thought I'd share this recent post here on the #Fediverse. To give it some context, it's an answer to a common question, often a misunderstanding (even by many knowledgeable folks) as to just how we got here.
There's a lot of apples and oranges here. And everyone had a lot of good points made, but your question is simple, and has a very simple answer. I'll endeavor to address that directly, but do need to tend to some of what has already been said.
Scroll down to the tl;dr for the succinct answer of your question
Ethernet, ARCNET, Token Ring, Thick net (RG-59), Thin net (RG-58 A/U), and UTP (Cat 3, Cat 5, and Cat 6 unshielded twisted pair, Etc.) really have zero bearing on your question insofar as IP is concerned. All of these specifications relate to the definition of technologies that, although are indeed addressed in the OSI model which is indeed very much in use to this day,but are outside the scope of Internet Protocol. I'll come back to this in a minute.
It's quite common to say TCP/IP, but really, it's just IP. For example, we have TCP ports and we have UDP ports in firewalling. i.e., TCP is Transmission Control Protocol and handles the delivery of data in the form of packets. IP handles the routing itself so those messages can arrive to and from the end points. Uniform Data Protocol is another delivery system that does not guarantee arrival but operates on a best effort basis, while TCP is much chattier as it guarantees delivery and retransmission of missed packets - UDP is pretty efficient but in the case of say, a phone call, a packet here and there won't be missed by the human ear.
That's a very simplistic high level-view that will only stand up to the most basic of scrutiny, but this isn't a class on internetworking ;) If you just want to be able to understand conceptually, my definition will suffice.
Networking (LAN) topologies like Token Ring, ARCNET, and Ethernet aren't anywhere in the IP stack, but figure prominently in the OSI stack. I'm not going to go into the details of how these work, or the physical connection methods used like Vampire Taps, Thin net, or twisted pair with RJ-45 terminators, but their relationship will become obvious in a moment.
The OSI model unfolds like so, remember this little mnemonic to keep it straight so you always know:
> People Don't Need To See Paula Abdul
Okay, touched on already, but not really treated, is the description of that little memory aid.
> Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application layers (From bottom to top).
The physical and Data Link layers cover things like the cabling methods described above,and you're probably familiar with MAC Addresses (medium access control) on NICs (network interface controller). These correlate to the first two layers of the OSI stack, namely, the Physical (obvious - you can touch it), and the Data Link layer - how each host's NIC and switches on each LAN segment talk to each other and decide which packets are designated for whom (People Don't).
In software engineering, we're concerned mostly with the Session, Presentation, and Application layers (See Paula Abdul). Detailed explanation of these top three layers is outside the scope of this discussion.
The Beauty of the OSI model is that each layer on one host (or program) talks to exclusively with the same layer of the program or hardware on the other host it is communicating with - or so it believes it is, because, as should be obvious, is has to pass its information down the stack to the next layer below itself, and then when it arrives at the other host, it passes that information back up the stack until it reaches the very top (Abdul) of the stack - the application.
Not all communication involves all of the stacks. At the LAN (Local Area Network) level, we're mostly concerned with the Physical and Data Link layers - we're just trying to get some packet that we aren't concerned about the contents of from one box to another. But that packet probably includes information that goes all the way up the stack.
For instance, NIC #1 has the MAC: 00:b0:d0:63:c2:26 and NIC #2 has a MAC of 00:00:5e:c0:53:af. There's communication between these two NICs over the Ethernet on this LAN segment. One says I have a packet for 00:00:5e:c0:53:af and then two answers and says, "Hey that's me!" Nobody else has that address on the LAN, so they don't answer and stop listening for the payload.
Now for Internet Protocol (IP) and TCP/UDP (Transmission Control Protocol and User Datagram Protocol):
IP corresponds to Layer 3 (Need) - the Network Layer of the **OSI Model.
TCP and UDP correspond to Layer 4 (To) - the Transport Layer of the OSI model.
That covers the entire OSI model and how TCP/IP correspond to it - almost. You're not getting off that easy today.
There's actually a bit of conflation and overlapping there. Just like in real life, it's never that cut and dried. For that, we have the following excellent explanation and drill down thanks to Julia Evans:
Layer 2 (Don't) corresponds to Ethernet.
Layer 3 (Need) corresponds to IP.
Layer 4 (To) corresponds to TCP or UDP (or ICMP etc)
Layer 7 (Abdul) corresponds to whatever is inside the TCP or UDP packet (for example a DNS query)
You may wish to give her page a gander for just a bit more of a deeper dive.
Now let's talk about what might be a bit of a misconception on the part of some, or at least, a bit of a foggy conflation between that of the specification of the OSI model and a Company called Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN) a government contractor tasked with developing the IP stack networking code.
The TCP/IP you know and depend upon today wasn't written by them, and to suggest that it was the OSI model that was scrapped instead of BBN's product is a bit of a misunderstanding. As you can see from above, the OSI model is very much alive and well, and factors into your everyday life, encompasses software development and communications, device manufacturing and engineering, as well as routing and delivery of information.
This next part is rather opinionated, and the way that many of us choose to remember our history of UNIX, the ARPANET, the NSFnet, and the Internet:
The IP stack you know and use everyday was fathered by Bill Joy, who arrived at UC Berkeley in (IIRC) 1974), created vi because ed just wasn't cutting it when he wanted a full screen editor to write Berkeley UNIX (BSD), including TCP/IP, and co-founded Sun Microsystems (SunOS / Solaris):
> Bill Joy just didn’t feel like this (the BBN code) was as efficient as he could do if he did it himself. And so Joy just rewrote it. Here the stuff was delivered to him, he said, “That’s a bunch of junk,” and he redid it. There was no debate at all. He just unilaterally redid it.
Because UNIX was hitherto an AT&T product, and because government contracting has always been rife with interminable vacillating and pontificating, BBN never actually managed to produce code for the the IP stack that could really be relied upon. In short, it kinda sucked. Bad.
So! You've decided to scroll down and skip all of the other stuff to get the straight dope on the answer to your question. Here it is:
> What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?
The ARPANET (and where I worked, what was to become specifically the MILNET portion of that) had a mandate to replace NCP (Network Control Protocol) with IP (Internet Protocol). We did a dry run and literally over two thirds of the Internet (ARPANET) at that time disappeared, because people are lazy, software has bugs, you name it. There were lots of reasons. But that only lasted the better part of a day for the most part.
At that time the ARPANET really only consisted of Universities, big Defense contractors and U.S. Military facilities. Now, if you'll do a bit of digging around, you'll discover that there was really no such thing as NCP - that is, for the most part, what the film industry refers to as a retcon, meaning that we, as an industry, retroactively went back and came up with a way to explain away replacing a protocol that didn't really exist - a backstory, if you will. Sure, there was NCP, it was mostly a kludge of heterogeneous management and communications programs that varied from system to system, site to site, with several commonalities and inconsistencies that were hobbled together with bailing twine, coat hangers, and duct tape (for lack of a better metaphor).
So we really, really, needed something as uniform and ubiquitous as the promise that Internet Protocol would deliver. Because Bill Joy and others had done so much work at UC Berkeley, we actually had 4.1BSD (4.1a) to work with on our DEC machinery. As a junior member of my division, in both age and experience, I was given the task of, let's say throwing the switch on some of our machines, so to speak, when we cut over from the NCP spaghetti and henceforth embraced TCP/IP no matter what, on Flag Day - 01 January 1983.
So you see,the adoption of Internet Protocol was not a de facto occurrence - it was de jure, a government mandate to occur at a specific time on a specific day.
It literally had nothing to do with popularity or some kind of organic adoption, the erroneously described, so-called demise of the OSI model, or any physical network topology.
DARPA said 01 January 1983 and that's it, and that was it - Flag Day.
Sure, it took a few days for several facilities to come up (anyone not running IP was summarily and unceremoniously cut off from the ARPANET).
And one also needs to consider that it wasn't every machine - we only had some machines that were Internet hosts. We still had a lot of mainframes and mini computers, etc., that were interconnected within our facilities in a hodgepodge or some other fashion. Nowadays we have a tendency to be somewhat incredulous if every device doesn't directly connect over IP to the Internet in some way. That wasn't the case back then - you passed traffic internally, sometimes by unmounting tapes from one machine and mounting them on another.
There was a lot of hand wringing, stress, boatloads of frustration, and concern by people over keeping their jobs all over the world. But that's why and when it happened. Six months later in the UNIX portions of networks we had much greater stability with the release of 4.2BSD, but it wouldn't really be until a few years later Net2 was released that things settled down with the virtually flawless networking stability that we enjoy today.
Okay I thought I'd share this recent post here on the #Fediverse. To give it some context, it's an answer to a common question, often a misunderstanding (even by many knowledgeable folks) as to just how we got here.
There's a lot of apples and oranges here. And everyone had a lot of good points made, but your question is simple, and has a very simple answer. I'll endeavor to address that directly, but do need to tend to some of what has already been said.
Scroll down to the tl;dr for the succinct answer of your question
Ethernet, ARCNET, Token Ring, Thick net (RG-59), Thin net (RG-58 A/U), and UTP (Cat 3, Cat 5, and Cat 6 unshielded twisted pair, Etc.) really have zero bearing on your question insofar as IP is concerned. All of these specifications relate to the definition of technologies that, although are indeed addressed in the OSI model which is indeed very much in use to this day,but are outside the scope of Internet Protocol. I'll come back to this in a minute.
It's quite common to say TCP/IP, but really, it's just IP. For example, we have TCP ports and we have UDP ports in firewalling. i.e., TCP is Transmission Control Protocol and handles the delivery of data in the form of packets. IP handles the routing itself so those messages can arrive to and from the end points. Uniform Data Protocol is another delivery system that does not guarantee arrival but operates on a best effort basis, while TCP is much chattier as it guarantees delivery and retransmission of missed packets - UDP is pretty efficient but in the case of say, a phone call, a packet here and there won't be missed by the human ear.
That's a very simplistic high level-view that will only stand up to the most basic of scrutiny, but this isn't a class on internetworking ;) If you just want to be able to understand conceptually, my definition will suffice.
Networking (LAN) topologies like Token Ring, ARCNET, and Ethernet aren't anywhere in the IP stack, but figure prominently in the OSI stack. I'm not going to go into the details of how these work, or the physical connection methods used like Vampire Taps, Thin net, or twisted pair with RJ-45 terminators, but their relationship will become obvious in a moment.
The OSI model unfolds like so, remember this little mnemonic to keep it straight so you always know:
> People Don't Need To See Paula Abdul
Okay, touched on already, but not really treated, is the description of that little memory aid.
> Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application layers (From bottom to top).
The physical and Data Link layers cover things like the cabling methods described above,and you're probably familiar with MAC Addresses (medium access control) on NICs (network interface controller). These correlate to the first two layers of the OSI stack, namely, the Physical (obvious - you can touch it), and the Data Link layer - how each host's NIC and switches on each LAN segment talk to each other and decide which packets are designated for whom (People Don't).
In software engineering, we're concerned mostly with the Session, Presentation, and Application layers (See Paula Abdul). Detailed explanation of these top three layers is outside the scope of this discussion.
The Beauty of the OSI model is that each layer on one host (or program) talks to exclusively with the same layer of the program or hardware on the other host it is communicating with - or so it believes it is, because, as should be obvious, is has to pass its information down the stack to the next layer below itself, and then when it arrives at the other host, it passes that information back up the stack until it reaches the very top (Abdul) of the stack - the application.
Not all communication involves all of the stacks. At the LAN (Local Area Network) level, we're mostly concerned with the Physical and Data Link layers - we're just trying to get some packet that we aren't concerned about the contents of from one box to another. But that packet probably includes information that goes all the way up the stack.
For instance, NIC #1 has the MAC: 00:b0:d0:63:c2:26 and NIC #2 has a MAC of 00:00:5e:c0:53:af. There's communication between these two NICs over the Ethernet on this LAN segment. One says I have a packet for 00:00:5e:c0:53:af and then two answers and says, "Hey that's me!" Nobody else has that address on the LAN, so they don't answer and stop listening for the payload.
Now for Internet Protocol (IP) and TCP/UDP (Transmission Control Protocol and User Datagram Protocol):
IP corresponds to Layer 3 (Need) - the Network Layer of the **OSI Model.
TCP and UDP correspond to Layer 4 (To) - the Transport Layer of the OSI model.
That covers the entire OSI model and how TCP/IP correspond to it - almost. You're not getting off that easy today.
There's actually a bit of conflation and overlapping there. Just like in real life, it's never that cut and dried. For that, we have the following excellent explanation and drill down thanks to Julia Evans:
Layer 2 (Don't) corresponds to Ethernet.
Layer 3 (Need) corresponds to IP.
Layer 4 (To) corresponds to TCP or UDP (or ICMP etc)
Layer 7 (Abdul) corresponds to whatever is inside the TCP or UDP packet (for example a DNS query)
You may wish to give her page a gander for just a bit more of a deeper dive.
Now let's talk about what might be a bit of a misconception on the part of some, or at least, a bit of a foggy conflation between that of the specification of the OSI model and a Company called Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN) a government contractor tasked with developing the IP stack networking code.
The TCP/IP you know and depend upon today wasn't written by them, and to suggest that it was the OSI model that was scrapped instead of BBN's product is a bit of a misunderstanding. As you can see from above, the OSI model is very much alive and well, and factors into your everyday life, encompasses software development and communications, device manufacturing and engineering, as well as routing and delivery of information.
This next part is rather opinionated, and the way that many of us choose to remember our history of UNIX, the ARPANET, the NSFnet, and the Internet:
The IP stack you know and use everyday was fathered by Bill Joy, who arrived at UC Berkeley in (IIRC) 1974), created vi because ed just wasn't cutting it when he wanted a full screen editor to write Berkeley UNIX (BSD), including TCP/IP, and co-founded Sun Microsystems (SunOS / Solaris):
> Bill Joy just didn’t feel like this (the BBN code) was as efficient as he could do if he did it himself. And so Joy just rewrote it. Here the stuff was delivered to him, he said, “That’s a bunch of junk,” and he redid it. There was no debate at all. He just unilaterally redid it.
Because UNIX was hitherto an AT&T product, and because government contracting has always been rife with interminable vacillating and pontificating, BBN never actually managed to produce code for the the IP stack that could really be relied upon. In short, it kinda sucked. Bad.
So! You've decided to scroll down and skip all of the other stuff to get the straight dope on the answer to your question. Here it is:
> What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?
The ARPANET (and where I worked, what was to become specifically the MILNET portion of that) had a mandate to replace NCP (Network Control Protocol) with IP (Internet Protocol). We did a dry run and literally over two thirds of the Internet (ARPANET) at that time disappeared, because people are lazy, software has bugs, you name it. There were lots of reasons. But that only lasted the better part of a day for the most part.
At that time the ARPANET really only consisted of Universities, big Defense contractors and U.S. Military facilities. Now, if you'll do a bit of digging around, you'll discover that there was really no such thing as NCP - that is, for the most part, what the film industry refers to as a retcon, meaning that we, as an industry, retroactively went back and came up with a way to explain away replacing a protocol that didn't really exist - a backstory, if you will. Sure, there was NCP, it was mostly a kludge of heterogeneous management and communications programs that varied from system to system, site to site, with several commonalities and inconsistencies that were hobbled together with bailing twine, coat hangers, and duct tape (for lack of a better metaphor).
So we really, really, needed something as uniform and ubiquitous as the promise that Internet Protocol would deliver. Because Bill Joy and others had done so much work at UC Berkeley, we actually had 4.1BSD (4.1a) to work with on our DEC machinery. As a junior member of my division, in both age and experience, I was given the task of, let's say throwing the switch on some of our machines, so to speak, when we cut over from the NCP spaghetti and henceforth embraced TCP/IP no matter what, on Flag Day - 01 January 1983.
So you see,the adoption of Internet Protocol was not a de facto occurrence - it was de jure, a government mandate to occur at a specific time on a specific day.
It literally had nothing to do with popularity or some kind of organic adoption, the erroneously described, so-called demise of the OSI model, or any physical network topology.
DARPA said 01 January 1983 and that's it, and that was it - Flag Day.
Sure, it took a few days for several facilities to come up (anyone not running IP was summarily and unceremoniously cut off from the ARPANET).
And one also needs to consider that it wasn't every machine - we only had some machines that were Internet hosts. We still had a lot of mainframes and mini computers, etc., that were interconnected within our facilities in a hodgepodge or some other fashion. Nowadays we have a tendency to be somewhat incredulous if every device doesn't directly connect over IP to the Internet in some way. That wasn't the case back then - you passed traffic internally, sometimes by unmounting tapes from one machine and mounting them on another.
There was a lot of hand wringing, stress, boatloads of frustration, and concern by people over keeping their jobs all over the world. But that's why and when it happened. Six months later in the UNIX portions of networks we had much greater stability with the release of 4.2BSD, but it wouldn't really be until a few years later Net2 was released that things settled down with the virtually flawless networking stability that we enjoy today.
Just a heads-up that #Snikket#Android has been pulled by #Google from the store. We'll work on restoring it once we figure out their (as usual) nonsensical complaints. Apologies to everyone affected. Please look at #FDroid and free yourself.
Today's excuse for delisting yet another #XMPP app?
"Your app is uploading users' Image information without posting a privacy policy link or text within the Play Distributed App."
I personally feel that this is the optimal delivery and update methodology for future software distribution.
I've written about this at length in several articles, and more and more service daemons and client software are taking advantage of this form of direct from the developers method of delivery - not just Android apps.
#FairEmail is one such app that even states in the docs that this is the preferred method, although they do support a total of four methods:
Google PlayStore - crippleware due to google funding source restrictions. In all cases, this is by far the worst distribution point for software, if not with respect for the product that the developers want to deliver, but also with regards for the privacy of the users who are tracked, mined, and themselves repackaged as a quantifiable inventory item.
F-Droid custom Dev's repo - 2nd best option, because this is built with the developer's keys when the developer decides to push the product, and contain all feature sets that the developer chooses to include.
F-Droid repo - 3rd best option, since it is signed with F-Droid's keys and typically lags by some measure of time with respect to release dates, considering that F-Droid staff pushes these out on a best effort basis, according to the time they have available to do so.
Direct from the developers Git repo - This is the best method. They push a release and the next time you open the app you're notified of an update.
This is part of the magic of Slackware's philosophy too - Patrick and team don't church it up like most distro's do (Debian and AlmaLinux quite often, quite heavily wrt customizations, use Apache or Nginx HTTP servers as examples). Slackware tries to package up software as close to how the upstream intends it to be.
In earlier articles I've published on the topic, I've focused at times on a solution to a theme proffered by #Moxie_Marlinspike, who denigrates the open source model somewhat, for being at a great disadvantage when compared to that of proprietary solutions that can update and evolve protocols, APIs, etc., on a whim, because they're centrally managed and controlled by a single dictatorial source. Microsoft is one such classic example. You simply have NO CHOICE as to when you must allow your software to be EOLed, evolve, or update itself.
Using this model, however, where a central repo, or a distributed, CDN type of repo mirroring is deployed at the origin by the development team itself, FOSS has no problem upgrading even things like protocols as they evolve. Of course, it is ultimately up to the operators of the software to allow updates and the prerogative of the developers to establish the level of nags that users of the software will experience until they permit the updates to occur, but that's beyond the scope of the basis of advocating for this type of delivery model.
Okay I think I'm bordering on hijacking this thread, so I'll make a comment about these types of shennigans by Google, and how one one hand it's certainly a huge frustration, if not an impediment to being found and adopted by users, but moreover, a predatory practice by one of the most egregious violators of personal choice in the free market of consumerism and commerce.
It may hurt being pulled like that, but IMO, I don't think there's anything preventing the good folks behind #Snikket from pushing out the kind of crippleware that google wants them to, while at the same time pushing banner splashes in the app that explain just how fricken' useless it is under the terms necessary to distribute it via that medium, and encouraging users to install it instead by following the instructions at the #git_repo for a fully featured, #e2ee secure messaging platform.
IOW, there's always a silver lining - wear this dejection as a badge of honor and as the evidence to support the fact that you're on the right track!
As you can see, you're only addressing the tags as #labels following a post, whilst most folks tend to #hashtag their #articles inline as they type out their posts.
Having a facility to integrate those two methods is of great benefit and note that in my example not all #tags are duplicates between the two methods of presenting them.
We are entering into "the great wealth transfer" where about $5.2 trillion (that's the one with more zeros than I can count) is about to pass from the, largely undeserving, super rich to their entirely undeserving heirs.
"Research by Forbes magazine found there were 15 billionaires aged 30 or under but that none had created their own wealth, instead benefitting from huge inheritances."
Answer: Not one Darn thing, except for the taxation a financially broken and bankrupt government seeks to impose upon those who rightfully choose to pass their property (including liquid assets) on to their offspring and nearest living relatives - or anything they designate.
There's also those who conveniently revel in blissful elegance of their self-imagined malcontent.