5 ms·

I get the feeling that the core Internet protocols (in the 80s and early 90s) were built by people who were like 75% sysadmins and 25% developers/system archite

I get the feeling that the core Internet protocols (in the 80s and early 90s) were built by people who were like 75% sysadmins and 25% developers/system architects. Typically sysadmins employed by US universities. (I don't want to cast any shade on their accomplishments! They made brilliant things for the time.) Then things got stuck because the Internet started hyper-scaling in the mid 90s. This is just an outside observation though; it would obviously be great to hear any insider perspectives from people who were there.

stonogo 10y ago
That divide did not exist at the time. Intimate knowledge of the systems involved was a requirement to do either task. It wasn't until later that people were able to choose the set of abstractions that enabled them to focus on a task the the point that other considerations could be missed. People wrote entire bespoke operating systems to serve as early arpanet nodes. The arrival of unix was bemoaned by many because it removed this requirement for mastery -- this gave rise to the era of copy-and-paste systems administration and works-on-my-machine development. We're still digging our way out of that hole, by implementing more layers of abstraction. Hence the current popularity of cloud computing: the ultimate copy-and-paste deployment, combined with works-on-my-machine development, where all machines can now be 'my machine'.
- johansch 10y ago
  You were around in the 80s Internet scene?
  - teh_klev 10y ago
    Some of us are a lot older than than you might think :)
    - johansch 10y ago
      You seem to have misinterpreted my simple question as statement of disbelief? Why would you do that, since I explicitly asked for statements of people who where around at the time? confused (Perhaps I misread you - in that case: thanks to the grand-parent comment for sharing :) ).
slv77 10y ago
It sounds like you're suggesting that a lot of system admin/developer types that were left in a room without adult supervision and, oops, the Internet! The truth was that there was no lack of experienced architect/developer types at the time working on networking standards. The OSI model, for example, traces its roots back to 1977! The struggle was that the "adults in the room" were typically were older and held senior positions in large corporations and government agencies. The standards that they created were typically developed through a consensus protocol and by committee where the single biggest aim was to make sure that no company would gain or lose a competitive advantage based on the standard. These standards were always pitched as being just over the horizon and, if anything, did a lot of early damage by delaying rollout of simpler protocols. I personally won't ever get back the hours that I spent studying protocols that were never relevant and never would be.
- johansch 10y ago
  Thank you for sharing!
gist 10y ago
Forgetting that security wasn't designed into it the fact that it was an honor system (email as well) was just plain naive on the part of the academics.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  Or it was a compromise that wasn't worth it. We could make cars with bullet-proof glass that would make them extremely difficult to break into, but to most people, the cost is not worth the benefit, so it's not done. Given the state of encryption technology in the 80s, it's possible that any attempts to secure the protocol would have been rendered pointless by technological advances. Or, it would be more brittle than a non-secure competitor and would have fallen out of use.
forgottenpass 10y ago
I don't want to cast any shade on their accomplishments! Yeah, considering the gigantic backhanded compliment that follows, you do. You're just saying "sorry not sorry."
- johansch 10y ago
  I beg to disagree. I do think that what was designed back then (TCP, DNS, etc) was elegant. It was a great foundation.. but because they were so elegant and good-enough, and because of the Internet hyperscaling in the 90s and onwards, there was never an opportunity to improve on it.

stonogo 10y ago

That divide did not exist at the time. Intimate knowledge of the systems involved was a requirement to do either task. It wasn't until later that people were able to choose the set of abstractions that enabled them to focus on a task the the point that other considerations could be missed. People wrote entire bespoke operating systems to serve as early arpanet nodes. The arrival of unix was bemoaned by many because it removed this requirement for mastery -- this gave rise to the era of copy-and-paste systems administration and works-on-my-machine development. We're still digging our way out of that hole, by implementing more layers of abstraction. Hence the current popularity of cloud computing: the ultimate copy-and-paste deployment, combined with works-on-my-machine development, where all machines can now be 'my machine'.

johansch 10y ago
You were around in the 80s Internet scene?
- teh_klev 10y ago
  Some of us are a lot older than than you might think :)
  - johansch 10y ago
    You seem to have misinterpreted my simple question as statement of disbelief? Why would you do that, since I explicitly asked for statements of people who where around at the time? confused (Perhaps I misread you - in that case: thanks to the grand-parent comment for sharing :) ).

slv77 10y ago

It sounds like you're suggesting that a lot of system admin/developer types that were left in a room without adult supervision and, oops, the Internet! The truth was that there was no lack of experienced architect/developer types at the time working on networking standards. The OSI model, for example, traces its roots back to 1977! The struggle was that the "adults in the room" were typically were older and held senior positions in large corporations and government agencies. The standards that they created were typically developed through a consensus protocol and by committee where the single biggest aim was to make sure that no company would gain or lose a competitive advantage based on the standard. These standards were always pitched as being just over the horizon and, if anything, did a lot of early damage by delaying rollout of simpler protocols. I personally won't ever get back the hours that I spent studying protocols that were never relevant and never would be.

johansch 10y ago
Thank you for sharing!

gist 10y ago

Forgetting that security wasn't designed into it the fact that it was an honor system (email as well) was just plain naive on the part of the academics.

mywittyname 10y ago
Or it was a compromise that wasn't worth it. We could make cars with bullet-proof glass that would make them extremely difficult to break into, but to most people, the cost is not worth the benefit, so it's not done. Given the state of encryption technology in the 80s, it's possible that any attempts to secure the protocol would have been rendered pointless by technological advances. Or, it would be more brittle than a non-secure competitor and would have fallen out of use.

forgottenpass 10y ago

I don't want to cast any shade on their accomplishments! Yeah, considering the gigantic backhanded compliment that follows, you do. You're just saying "sorry not sorry."

johansch 10y ago
I beg to disagree. I do think that what was designed back then (TCP, DNS, etc) was elegant. It was a great foundation.. but because they were so elegant and good-enough, and because of the Internet hyperscaling in the 90s and onwards, there was never an opportunity to improve on it.