Subject: Re: Microsoft A leaked memo outlines the company's strategy again st Linux and open source software (and posible open internet standards ?: -)

From: Ari Ollikainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:27:30 -0800

At 9:45 AM 11/6/98, [email-masked] wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 18:37:14 PST, you said:
>>    So what's the problem?
>>
>>    This sounds like normal competitive business to me!
>
>There's a difference between building a better train that runs on
>standard-width tracks, and building one that uses tracks 2 inches
>wider and then convincing people that the fact that their trains
>won't work on your tracks because their trains are too narrow
>is their fault, not yours.
>
>There's a reason why track widths were standardized.
>
        Where?

        England where some private railsystems still run on narrow gauge?
        Russia whose gauge is wider than Europe?
        Spain whose gauge is wider than Europe?
        USA where narrowgauge railways still operate, and where
        rapid transit systems such as BART in the SF Bay Area use a
        wider track width? Where street rail systems have differing gauges?
        Australia (at least two widths) where trucks are changed
        on the railcars traversing the continent?
        South Africa where narrow gauge predominates?

        etc

>There's a reason why protocols are standardized.
>
        Yes...SNA for example.

>It's the same reason, basically.
>

        The reason is seldom technical...

      OLTECO                    Ari Ollikainen
      P.O. BOX 3688             Networking Technology and Architecture
      Stanford, CA              [email-masked]
      94309-3688                415.517.3519

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 17:08:53 -0500

>         South Africa where narrow gauge predominates?

Yes, and these inter-operate *VERY* well don't they?

You can make the tracks any width you want if you don't want to
connect to anybody else's tracks.  If you want to interconnect,
you either use the same width tracks or spend a lot of time unloading
and loading boxcars.
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 17:08:53 -0500

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 02:12:04 +0000 (GMT)

> Yes, and these inter-operate *VERY* well don't they?

Of course.

They tunnel people.

L.

and tunnelling is still interoperability, right?

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 02:12:04 +0000 (GMT)

Of course.

They tunnel people.

L.

---

From: Sydney Weidman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 21:31:13 -0600

> you either use the same width tracks or spend a lot of time unloading

Actually, I think in the digital age, this analogy would break

down since the incremental cost of media shifting would be quite low. The transfer of

packets from one type of carrier to another is overhead, but it may not be significant

overhead.

============================================================
=   Sydney Weidman             (204)633-3259               =
=   [email-masked]       (204)697-8011               =
============================================================

---

From: Sydney Weidman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 21:31:13 -0600

overhead.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 10:11:43 +0100

>you either use the same width tracks or spend a lot of time unloading

A friend of mine told me he'd read some rather interesting exposition
of the Russia/Europe gauge problem.

Technical:
Not only are the tracks wider than European standard, the difference
is so small that the obvious solution of putting extra wheels on the
axle to permit using both tracks is not possible; the European rail
would crush the flange of the "Russian" wheel.
The only possible solution (before WWI) was changing each axle of
each car, or having two entirely separate sets of rolling stock.

This was done *deliberately*, out of fear that in a war, the Enemy
would use the infrastructure of the conquered territory to deliver its
own troops to the front; it's much easier to replace a few blown-up
bridges than it is to move every single right-hand rail on the line half an
inch to the left.

Seems to me a perfect example of competing standards :-)

                          Harald A

-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 10:11:43 +0100

Technical:

                          Harald A

---

From: Rickard Schoultz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 16:19:52 +0100 (MET)

On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

[...story about WWII railroad gauges removed ...]
> Seems to me a perfect example of competing standards :-)

Which reminds me - completely off track of course - about this story that
was found somewhere but just has to be told in this context. The source is
unknown.

-------

How Specs Live Forever

The US Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet,
8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. 

Why was that gauge used? 

Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads
were built by English expatriates. Why did the English people build them
like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who
built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. 

Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the
tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons,
which used that wheel spacing. Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel
spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing the wagons would
break on some of the old, long distance roads, because that's the spacing
of the old wheel ruts.

So who built these old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in
Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions.  The
roads have been used ever since. And the ruts? The initial ruts, which
everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first
made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for or by
Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. 

Thus, we have the answer to the original questions. The United State
standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original
specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot.  
Specs and Bureaucracies live forever. So, the next time you are handed a
specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it, you may be
exactly right. Because the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just
wide enough to accommodate the back-ends of two war horses. 

------

-Rickard

--
Rickard Schoultz <[email-masked]>
                 CMA Comedia AB, http://www.cma.se/
                 Gävlegatan 22 / Box 6463, 113 82 Stockholm, Sweden
                 Tel: +46-(0)8-5663 09 06  Fax: +46-(0)8-337 367

---

From: Rickard Schoultz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 16:19:52 +0100 (MET)

-------

How Specs Live Forever

Why was that gauge used? 

------

-Rickard

---

From: Craig Simon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:02:48 -0500

The CNRI conducted a study of railroads as part of its Infrastructure History
Series that might be of interest.

http://www.cnri.reston.va.us/series.html#rail

Craig Simon

---

From: Craig Simon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:02:48 -0500

Craig Simon

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 09:10:28 -0800

> was found somewhere but just has to be told in this context. The source is

The story is an Urban Legend.   Rail widths were actually standardized
in (IIRC) the late 19th century.    It's a great story, though.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 09:10:28 -0800

_MelloN_

---

From: Owain Vaughan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:17:37 +0000 (GMT)

[snip]

> Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads
                                            ^^^^^^^
Britain.

> were built by English expatriates. Why did the English people build them
                ^^^^^^^                          ^^^^^^^
British. Let's not forget the countless Welsh and Scottish that helped
found the US.

Owain

---

From: Owain Vaughan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:17:37 +0000 (GMT)

[snip]

                                            ^^^^^^^
Britain.

                ^^^^^^^                          ^^^^^^^

Owain