Question about the future

[Aaron Angel]

Exactly.  'one of the TCP/IP stacks for IBM mainframes' != '*the* TCP/IP
stack provided my IBM for mainframes'...that's how I see it.

-- 
Aaron Angel <aangel@haknich.ugc.net>
Voicemail/FAX: +1 (520) 447-2283
UNIX Talk: aangel@haknich.ugc.net

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Derek J. Balling wrote:

> You see, I totally disagree. I saw the phrase "one of the TCP/IP stacks" 
> and instantly said "A-Ha! Competitive market for stacks!"
> 
> I don't think there was any "unclear-ness" in his statement at all. Maybe 
> some people are just so accustomed to "only one vendor available to support 
> your OS" that they forget about competitive portions of the industry. =)
> 
> D
> 
> 
> At 09:53 AM 6/14/00 -0400, Dwayne  Cann wrote:
> >His choice of language was poor. I too believed he worked for IBM, and was
> >suprised because I knew that IBM supports IPV6 on AIX. His question is valid
> >though. How long before we see widescale implemetation of IPV6? My isp is
> >not yet prepared for it.
> >
> >
> >Dwayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Peter Bunclark [mailto:psb@ast.cam.ac.uk]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 5:05 AM
> >To: Aaron Angel
> >Cc: Latif LADID; 6bone@ISI.EDU
> >Subject: Re: Question about the future
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Aaron Angel wrote:
> >
> > > For the 'record', I'd like to point out he mislead no one.  He stated
> > > quite
> > > clearly in the first sentect he was a director of delevelopment for one of
> > > the TCP/IP stacks for IBM mainframes; he did not say he was directly from
> > > IBM.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron Angel <aangel@haknich.ugc.net>
> >
> >On the contrary, he mislead many of us by very poor use of language. The
> >most misleading part was, he should have asked IBM first before this
> >mailing list; the wording implied very strongly, and now we know
> >incorrectly, that IBM weren't yet developing IPv6.  And I think we might
> >be forgiven for assuming that the `director of development for one of the
> >TCP/IP stacks for IBM mainframes' probably did work for IBM.
> >
> >Peter.
> 
>