Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Amati investors -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JW@KSC who wrote (30740)	4/2/1998 1:30:00 AM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 31386

<..Am I still wrong?..> Yup, dead wrong. <..But for now I'll let you debate a White Paper on QoS for a while...> Rev, you attention-starved, blathering blowhard, as I said, even if you COULD find some use of the term "QoS" that does not respect the specific networking meaning, it would STILL be a misuse. But try as you did, you in fact did NOT find such a misuse, contrary to either your ignorant and/or intentionally dishonest representation. As has been REPEATEDLY explained to you, the specific use of the acronym "QoS" or "QOS", anywhere in the field of technology, has a specific level of performance meaning (which includes the range from LOW levels to high levels of specific performance parameters, such as data loss, jitter and delay) which you just don't seem to get. You will notice that NOWHERE in the lengthy piece you hid behind, is the acronym QoS or QOS (which you continually misuse and DEFEND the misuse of) used. And even if it WERE used, it it didn't generically refer to "levels of performance", but instead embraced your "good old fashioned quality service" meaning, it would be a MISUSE. Get it? Further, other than in titles where ALL major words are capitalized, even your "reference" (in an expected deference to networking's meaning and capitalized use) doesn't capitalize 'Q' and 'S' in IT'S use of the term "quality of service". <..Oh I read it all right, and understood most of it prior to getting into this debate, but that does not mean it is correct!..> You cluelessly argumentative and thick-skulled twit. Again, I refer you to any standard text on networking. I recommend Martin De Pryker's definitive "Asynchronous Transfer Mode", Gibson's CRC "Communication Handbook" or Bates/Gregory's "Voice and Data Communications". If there are any networking folks reading here who would even bother trying to further explain this to you, there are MANY, MANY other references they would be able to provide. <..I found someone long ago, but your Greater Than THE Attitude is just to much to for anyone to contend with for more than a few posts...> In case you haven't noticed, I have a hard time with people who post and argue authoritively without knowing what they are talking about. I hold NO expectation however, that you (like your crony Mudge, and other unnamed Amati/Westell boneheads), have the insight, integrity or self respect to admit when you are wrong. I also have no doubt that you will again try to twist what is blatantly clear to anyone familiar with telecom/datacom. How sad for you. Good luck.