A Global AppleTalk Network: Pushing AppleTalk Across the Internet
biosrhythm.com
biosrhythm.com
Around 1992/93, I started working for a department in school that had it's own budget and lots of money. The head of the department loved Apple. I built out Mac labs and networking and had us hooked onto all of this.
It was a bit of this whole hidden world and quite fun in the pre-internet explosion days. Mind you, this was all back before Windows even had a native tcp/ip stack, so it felt even more us vs. them isolated.
CSUN?
Theres definitely a bit of old-school LAN party or BBS feel to everything, checking out what fun stuff people have on their file share, leaving a note "hey I was here" etc. That excitement of "ooh I'm logging into a machine way over there!" that was lost when the World Wide Web became the norm.
Note, it doesn’t work with Mac OS 9!
Now I get to enjoy the retro activity of getting a Mac to boot again after a botched installation…
There is nothing wrong with most of the stack, if you go back before OpenTransport (a rewrite, didn't go far, imperfect)
That was also when networking was new, and chatty on thinnet meant lower bandwidth.
To be honest, i doubt the chatty protocols really impacted anything...except that "network administrators" didn't like the idea of packets ie: they wanted a clean wire. This might have been due to the phone company origins of networking people.
Oh, and maybe the chattiness fired up those uucp links?
The world now is totally different. Even on my home network there's tons of crosstalk.
The "chattiness" of AppleTalk was a significant issue when it was running over a shared 115.2 kBaud serial line (LocalTalk).
At that time, TCP/IP itself was also failing to scale, so I imagine there was a lot of blame in every direction. "Heroic" efforts at cleaning up different aspects of TCP/IP and then DNS are the only reason we have a world network now.
chattyness on local networks was not awful, and you can read here how UCLA and others managed fairly large networks after Appletalk 2.0x zones were implemented.
And who really had 115kbps at the time? That'a dual ISDN, which was used by pretty much nobody. It's not like IPX would have been better over that link.
LocalTalk LANs.
Now I want it all back so I can go play....
I need to find a home for my 40 year old Macs (almost every model), CRTs, cables, etc.
YMMV depending on where you live, but I'm sure you will get some positive responses.
Some things just died, as is the way of all flesh.
The people who don't learn from the past are usually the people who aren't all that interested in learning how things work, learning the lessons people and companies made in the past, and applying those lessons to today and the future. I personally think this is neat!
Old technology can still be quite useful. I still use an ancient ImageWriter II because new printers suck, and having more options to use old hardware is always a good thing.
No, actually, I do know how things work. The problem for you is that the Internet is there now and the whole world is on it, to a first approximation.
Knowing what the Internet designers did wrong (btw, the internet-history mailing list does this subject regularly) doesn't help us much, because we're not going to be doing it again.
As for old hardware: right on. If it works, keep using it.
You said "hardware." I specifically gave thumbs-up to hardware. Did you not read that?
As for reinventing basic networking: no, it's not upsetting, but it IS self-limiting. The networks of the future will probably require brand-new thinking, not resurrected old stuff.
Writing software is a use for computer hardware, and people with minds broader than yours do it for pure enjoyment and exploration. The attitude expressed in your post is self-limiting.
The post literally ends ends with:
"But most importantly, have fun!"
You think a bunch of people who are on record as setting out to have fun are "limiting themselves" by not inventing the future of networking.
In doing so, you've invented the future bad posting.