[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 28



On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:12 PM, internet-history-request at postel.org wrote:

> Send internet-history mailing list submissions to
> 	internet-history at postel.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	internet-history-request at postel.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	internet-history-owner at postel.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of internet-history digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet]
>      (Larry Press)
>   2. Re: Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and
>      Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who
>      Really Invented the Internet?") (Joly MacFie)
>   3. Re: Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and
>      Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who
>      Really Invented the Internet?") (Dave Crocker)
>   4. Re: Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and
>      Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who
>      Really Invented the Internet?") (Joly MacFie)
>   5. Essential components of Internet technology and operation
>      (Dave Crocker)
>   6. Re: Essential components of Internet technology and operation
>      (Jorge Amodio)
>   7. Re: Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and
>      Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who
>      Really Invented the Internet?") (John Day)
>   8. Re: Essential components of Internet technology and operation
>      (Jack Haverty)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:18:02 -0700
> From: Larry Press <lpress at csudh.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the
> 	Internet]
> To: Andrew Russell <arussell at jhu.edu>
> Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" <internet-history at postel.org>,
> 	"dcrocker at bbiw.net" <dcrocker at bbiw.net>
> Message-ID: <501197EA.8020301 at csudh.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
> 
> On 7/26/2012 11:31 AM, Andrew Russell wrote:
> 
>> I haven't watched the initial Obama comments that seemed to have touched off this controversy
> 
> It was these sentences from a campaign speech in Roanoke Virginia 
> (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia):
> 
> "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research 
> created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the 
> Internet."

The govt. funded the research based on what looked like some good ideas.  Researchers and academic people built it and private industry took the ball and ran with it.  That cooperation among all three sectors is what fosters innovation and has created thousands of new companies and hundreds of thousands of jobs.  No one knew in the beginning exactly where the Internet was headed, but we all knew it was exciting, innovative, challenging and a darned good idea.  That is usually the way it is with basic ideas - they inspire people first to dream, and then to see if they can make the dream come true.

>> most people - and certainly Crovitz - are (perhaps willfully) 
> ignorant of the available literature on these topics.
> 
> 
> In a "reasonable" post, I cut Crovitz and the WSJ editors some slack by 
> suggesting that their ignorance was not willful, but may have been a 
> case of sub-conscious confabulation:
> 
> https://plus.google.com/114528586908817727732/posts/1cDvPWC2MxW
> 
> Loren Weinstein was not so kind :-):
> 
> https://plus.google.com/114528586908817727732/posts/1cDvPWC2MxW
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:17:57 -0400
> From: Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com>
> Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and
> 	Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really
> 	Invented the Internet?")
> To: Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org>
> Cc: internet-history at postel.org, Noel Chiappa
> 	<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAM9VJk3YziPuhE6yRw=k7OEZHhdm-sBdGa36ihvhBT1Ta9Y7kw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> When ISOC mooted the Internet Hall of Fame, I suggested there be an annex
> for the infamous.
> 
> Possibly also a statue of the "unknown user" outside.
> 
> j
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> 
>> The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the
>> history of the technology.
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120726/352d83f8/attachment-0001.html
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:36:11 -0700
> From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
> Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and
> 	Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really
> 	Invented the Internet?")
> To: Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org>
> Cc: internet-history at postel.org, Noel Chiappa
> 	<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
> Message-ID: <50119C2B.3000705 at dcrocker.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/26/2012 10:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>> The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the
>> history of the technology.  I think that "Internet History" should
>> encompass more than the technical aspects, but should include how the
>> technology came out of the labs and diffused into the larger picture
>> to become an infrastructure of humanity.
> 
> 
> In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between 
> one-on-one formal interviews of individual principals, versus a 
> discussion amongst multiple principals.
> 
> I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the 
> processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the 
> history.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:14:33 -0400
> From: Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com>
> Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and
> 	Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really
> 	Invented the Internet?")
> To: dcrocker at bbiw.net
> Cc: internet-history at postel.org, Noel Chiappa
> 	<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAM9VJk2tZRqr3ympy20oKah1RsqzPi+61OR7N5bsHD1=nLK=Ug at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> I think the Internet Society would be a natural host for such
> discussions, and the HoF a natural repository.. Certainly here in NY
> we'd be happy to facilitate such.
> 
> j
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/26/2012 10:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>> 
>>> The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the
>>> history of the technology.  I think that "Internet History" should
>>> encompass more than the technical aspects, but should include how the
>>> technology came out of the labs and diffused into the larger picture
>>> to become an infrastructure of humanity.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between one-on-one
>> formal interviews of individual principals, versus a discussion amongst
>> multiple principals.
>> 
>> I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the
>> processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the
>> history.
>> 
>> 
>> d/
>> 
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:56:05 -0700
> From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
> Subject: [ih] Essential components of Internet technology and
> 	operation
> To: "internet-history at postel.org" <internet-history at postel.org>
> Message-ID: <5011BCF5.40705 at dcrocker.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Folks,
> 
> As evidenced by several efforts, including the latest, I doubt that 
> considering different criteria for defining the start of the Internet is 
> ever going to lead to rough consensus about a single definition.
> 
> In the face of an impasse about an entirety, it often is useful to break 
> things down into components and consider them separately.
> 
> So I suggest an exercise a deconstructive exercise.
> 
> For today's Internet:
> 
>    a.  Consider a technical, administrative or operational innovation 
> that is generally viewed as important for making the Internet work.
> 
>    b.  Identify when it was innovated and by whom.
> 
>    c.  Rinse, repeat, developing a list of essential components and 
> their origins.
> 
> 
> For example, a couple of components that aren't near the margins of 
> importance:
> 
>    1.  Packet switching
> 
>        While there is some debate about fine-grain of details about 
> innovation, its conceptualization was roughly the mid-60s by one or very 
> few folk, and its demonstration in a network was, perhaps, 1969 in the 
> Arpanet.
> 
>    2.  Hyperlinks
> 
>        Conceptualized by Nelson and Engelbart, apparently separately. 
> (I don't know enough about the internals of Engelbart's project to know 
> exactly how it developed there and who exactly should get credit for 
> it.)  Terminology from Nelson.  Demonstrated operationally by Engelbart, 
> in a standalone system.  Demonstrated in a distributed system by 
> Berners-Lee.
> 
> 
> To the extent that my statements are inaccurate or incomplete, I suspect 
> the debate and repair effort can be more constrained for most of the 
> items (as long as we keep away from the invention of email...)
> 
> 
> With a small amount of diligence, this ought to produce an interesting 
> timeline, possibly with, ummm, seven layers...
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:14:51 -0500
> From: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ih] Essential components of Internet technology and
> 	operation
> To: dcrocker at bbiw.net
> Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" <internet-history at postel.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAMzo+1axnO2CDf1OxoRyHx9+zMAi+tMnyVtXxVqi=Rf_nn-7FA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> I believe that one of the fundamental aspects of the Internet is that
> since its conception has been a recursive technology that
> enable via open participation and interconnection reinventing itself
> over an over, and I bet it will continue to be as long as we
> keep the packets flowing and the attorneys busy with other stuff.
> 
> -J
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> Folks,
>> 
>> As evidenced by several efforts, including the latest, I doubt that
>> considering different criteria for defining the start of the Internet is
>> ever going to lead to rough consensus about a single definition.
>> 
>> In the face of an impasse about an entirety, it often is useful to break
>> things down into components and consider them separately.
>> 
>> So I suggest an exercise a deconstructive exercise.
>> 
>> For today's Internet:
>> 
>>   a.  Consider a technical, administrative or operational innovation that
>> is generally viewed as important for making the Internet work.
>> 
>>   b.  Identify when it was innovated and by whom.
>> 
>>   c.  Rinse, repeat, developing a list of essential components and their
>> origins.
>> 
>> 
>> For example, a couple of components that aren't near the margins of
>> importance:
>> 
>>   1.  Packet switching
>> 
>>       While there is some debate about fine-grain of details about
>> innovation, its conceptualization was roughly the mid-60s by one or very few
>> folk, and its demonstration in a network was, perhaps, 1969 in the Arpanet.
>> 
>>   2.  Hyperlinks
>> 
>>       Conceptualized by Nelson and Engelbart, apparently separately. (I
>> don't know enough about the internals of Engelbart's project to know exactly
>> how it developed there and who exactly should get credit for it.)
>> Terminology from Nelson.  Demonstrated operationally by Engelbart, in a
>> standalone system.  Demonstrated in a distributed system by Berners-Lee.

Engelbart's projects were funded first by NASA and eventually by DARPA with some funding from other govt. agencies - that is to say GOVERNMENT FUNDING (yes I am shouting.)  Doug's work laid the groundwork for the revolution in office automation that lead to a whole new way of doing business and eventually created thousands of new jobs I might add.  His system, NLS, was networked to several sites (RADC, BRL, ARPA, ALMSA, and others); however, NLS was large in size and at the time the machines (also large in size) were small in capacity.  Also, NLS was a very rich system and required training, which was not practical on a government-funded research contract.  In 1977 NLS (then renamed Augment) was spun off by SRI to Tymshare Corp. and was sold commercially until Tymshare was bought out a few years later by McDonnell Douglas.  

When people say that the private sector, not the government,
creates jobs, they have not done their homework or have their heads in the sand.  Hundreds of companies and thousands of jobs have been created as a consequence of the Internet.  Thousands more have been created from basic research funded by NASA, NIH, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Agriculture, DoD, and so on.  When a private company does basic research it has its own narrow interests at heart.    Google  doesn't tell Facebook what it plans to do next or get together to share ideas.  That is where government comes in.  The more basic research that is shared with everyone openly by govt., the more innovation results.  We NEED government to fuel the engine that creates high tech jobs and new industries.  And even small businesses are often suppliers to government contractors or the government  itself.  Jack pointed out what we all know, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to understand - it takes government, academia, and private enerprise to make innovation (read that jobs) happen.

In my opinion we have gotten away from this triad model for success.  Instead everything now seems to favor the financial sector that builds nothing, contributes nothing to basic research, takes incredible risks  wtth other people's money, and mostly shuffles companies around for maximum profit with not a lot of accountability.  To me this is the wrong algorithm for job growth and innovation.  We need the financial sector but, again in my opinion, it is not the right engine to foster creativity, new industries, and  job growth.
>> 
>> 
>> To the extent that my statements are inaccurate or incomplete, I suspect the
>> debate and repair effort can be more constrained for most of the items (as
>> long as we keep away from the invention of email...)
>> 
>> 
>> With a small amount of diligence, this ought to produce an interesting
>> timeline, possibly with, ummm, seven layers...

Wash your mouth out!  :-)
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> 
>> d/
>> 
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:31:59 -0400
> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and
> 	Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really
> 	Invented the Internet?")
> To: joly at punkcast.com, dcrocker at bbiw.net
> Cc: internet-history at postel.org, Noel Chiappa
> 	<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
> Message-ID: <a0624081ccc3775cc6d07@[10.0.1.3]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> 
> CBI is probably more appropriate.
> 
> At 17:14 -0400 2012/07/26, Joly MacFie wrote:
>> I think the Internet Society would be a natural host for such
>> discussions, and the HoF a natural repository.. Certainly here in NY
>> we'd be happy to facilitate such.
>> 
>> j
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/26/2012 10:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the
>>>> history of the technology.  I think that "Internet History" should
>>>> encompass more than the technical aspects, but should include how the
>>>> technology came out of the labs and diffused into the larger picture
>>>> to become an infrastructure of humanity.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between one-on-one
>>> formal interviews of individual principals, versus a discussion amongst
>>> multiple principals.
>>> 
>>> I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the
>>> processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the
>>> history.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> d/
>>> 
>>> --
>>>  Dave Crocker
>>>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>>  bbiw.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:11:50 -0700
> From: Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org>
> Subject: Re: [ih] Essential components of Internet technology and
> 	operation
> To: dcrocker at bbiw.net
> Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" <internet-history at postel.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAJLkZP=MD3F3O=yQ+L5U=XVVRQNQtKaytEKQWYOisoWxSgCajg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Not to discourage capturing history, but I think this is a really hard task.
> 
> Consider for example "packet switching", as the "operational
> innovation" of breaking a message up into smaller pieces, sending the
> pieces independently and/or redundantly, and putting it all together
> at the destination.
> 
> The earliest instance of this technique (as opposed to specific
> computer implementation) that I've encountered was ... during the
> heyday of the Roman Empire.   Roman generals out in remote parts of
> the frontier had to communicate with Rome reliably and securely.  So,
> slaves were tasked to write a message on a scroll, possibly even
> making several scrolls with the same message.  Each scroll was then
> ripped into strips, each containing only an unintelligible fragment of
> the message.  Each strip was given to a different courier, who would
> run to the destination.  Different couriers were sent by different
> means, e.g., one by land and one by sea, one by mountains, one through
> the desert, and would choose their route based on local conditions
> they encountered.    When enough couriers reached the destination the
> message could be reassembled and read.  Spies or hostile forces along
> the way might intercept some couriers, but they couldn't read the
> message.  Slaves were expendable "packets".  With enough couriers, a
> message would very likely get through.
> 
> Sounds like "Packet Switching" to me.  Once computers got invented
> slaves were no longer the best choice, so now we employ computers to
> do our packet switching.  Credit Caesar, roughly 2000 years ago.  One
> of his staff probably actually defined the technique, after hearing
> about it at the local pub from a traveler from a distant land.
> 
> Sadly, this was all documented in RFC MCLVII, which was never issued.
> 
> /Jack
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> Folks,
>> 
>> As evidenced by several efforts, including the latest, I doubt that
>> considering different criteria for defining the start of the Internet is
>> ever going to lead to rough consensus about a single definition.
>> 
>> In the face of an impasse about an entirety, it often is useful to break
>> things down into components and consider them separately.
>> 
>> So I suggest an exercise a deconstructive exercise.
>> 
>> For today's Internet:
>> 
>>   a.  Consider a technical, administrative or operational innovation that
>> is generally viewed as important for making the Internet work.
>> 
>>   b.  Identify when it was innovated and by whom.
>> 
>>   c.  Rinse, repeat, developing a list of essential components and their
>> origins.
>> 
>> 
>> For example, a couple of components that aren't near the margins of
>> importance:
>> 
>>   1.  Packet switching
>> 
>>       While there is some debate about fine-grain of details about
>> innovation, its conceptualization was roughly the mid-60s by one or very few
>> folk, and its demonstration in a network was, perhaps, 1969 in the Arpanet.
>> 
>>   2.  Hyperlinks
>> 
>>       Conceptualized by Nelson and Engelbart, apparently separately. (I
>> don't know enough about the internals of Engelbart's project to know exactly
>> how it developed there and who exactly should get credit for it.)
>> Terminology from Nelson.  Demonstrated operationally by Engelbart, in a
>> standalone system.  Demonstrated in a distributed system by Berners-Lee.
>> 
>> 
>> To the extent that my statements are inaccurate or incomplete, I suspect the
>> debate and repair effort can be more constrained for most of the items (as
>> long as we keep away from the invention of email...)
>> 
>> 
>> With a small amount of diligence, this ought to produce an interesting
>> timeline, possibly with, ummm, seven layers...
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> 
>> d/
>> 
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> 
> End of internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 28
> ************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120726/923ee468/attachment.html>