4 ms·
Perhaps more true to say the Ethernet brand is going strong. What's marketed as "Ethernet" today is vastly different from the 10base5 "yellow hose" originally
by jonathaneunice 3y ago
Perhaps more true to say the Ethernet brand is going strong.
What's marketed as "Ethernet" today is vastly different from the 10base5 "yellow hose" originally called Ethernet. Entirely different wiring, signaling, collision management, topology, interconnection strategies, et cetera. But it's been demonstrably the biggest of wins to promote each next generation, however technically different from and incompatible with the previous generation, under the same brand name!
- eigenvalue 3y agoIt’s conceptually the same thing though, right? I guess it’s like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
- throw0101a 3y ago> What's marketed as "Ethernet" today is vastly different from the 10base5 "yellow hose" originally called Ethernet. The framing is compatible across all of these changes: your 802.11 NIC has an Ethernet MAC address and can talk to to a copper-connected GigE interface. Copper and fibre interfaces can also talk to each other. Part of the reasons for the concept of OSI Layers is that you could change things at lower layers (Thicknet, Thinnet, co-ax, etc) and at higher layers (IP, AppleTalk, etc) and would continue to work. The OSI Layer 2 is the same for all the "variants" of Ethernet. That makes it 'the same' as the original.