text:
Big Bertha (howitzer)

The 42 centimetre kurze Marinekanone 14 L/12 (short naval cannon), or Minenwerfer-Gerät (M-Gerät), popularly known by the nickname Big Bertha, was a German siege howitzer built by Krupp AG in Essen, Germany and fielded by the Imperial German Army from 1914 to 1918. The M-Gerät had a 42 cm calibre barrel, making it one of the largest artillery pieces ever fielded.

The M-Gerät designed in 1911 as an iteration of earlier super-heavy German siege guns intended to break modern fortresses in France and Belgium and entered production in 1912. Test firing began in early 1914 and the gun was estimated to be finished by October 1914. When the First World War broke out, the two M-Gerät guns, still prototypes, were sent to Liège, Belgium, and destroyed Forts Pontisse and Loncin. German soldiers bestowed the gun with the nickname "Big Bertha", which then spread through German newspapers to the Allies, who used it as a nickname for all super-heavy German artillery. The Paris Gun, a railway gun used to bomb Paris in 1918, has historically been confused for the M-Gerät.

Due to losses from faulty ammunition and Allied counter-battery artillery, a smaller-calibre (30.5 cm) gun called the Beta-M-Gerät was built and fielded from 1916 until the end of the war. It had a longer and heavier barrel that was mated to the M-Gerät's carriage but was found to be less effective than the base gun.

Development and design
The quick advancement of artillery technology beginning in the 1850s provoked an arms race between artillery and military architecture. Rifled artillery could now fire out of range of fortress guns, so military architects began placing forts in rings around cities or in barriers to block approaching armies. These forts were vulnerable to new artillery shells, which could penetrate earth to destroy masonry underground. In response, star forts evolved into polygonal forts, mostly underground and made of concrete with guns mounted in armoured, rotating casemates. Combining rings and barriers, France created a vast fortified zone on its border with Germany, while Belgium began construction of the National Redoubt in 1888.

The German Empire also fortified its borders, but Chief of the General Staff Helmuth von Moltke the Elder desired the ability to break through Franco-Belgian fortifications. Although German artillery had been effective during the Franco-Prussian War, it had been allowed to stagnate. By the 1880s the barrel diameter of the German Army's most powerful gun, the 21 cm field howitzer, was no longer adequate against fortresses. Moltke began requesting more powerful guns that same decade. More powerful artillery became essential to his successor, Alfred von Schlieffen, who planned quickly to defeat France by sweeping through Belgium (the Schlieffen Plan) in response to the 1893 Franco-Russian Alliance. To be able to reduce French and Belgian fortresses, the Artillerieprüfungskommission (Artillery Test Commission, APK) formed a partnership with Krupp AG in 1893. The first result of this partnership was a 30.5 cm mortar, accepted into service four years later as the schwerer Küstenmörser L/8, but known as the Beta-Gerät (Beta Apparatus) to disguise its purpose as a siege gun. Tests in the mid-1890s showed that the Beta-Gerät could not destroy French or Belgian forts, even with improved shells. Interest in a more powerful siege gun waned until the Russo-Japanese War, during which the Japanese Army used 28 cm howitzer L/10 (28 cm coastal guns) brought from Japan to end the 11-month long Siege of Port Arthur.

In 1906, Helmuth von Moltke the Younger became Chief of the General Staff and instructed the APK to study and improve the performance of the Beta-Gerät. The APK recommended a more powerful gun, with a diameter as large as 45 cm, but the German Army opted for a 30.5-centimetre howitzer, the Beta-Gerät 09 and a 42 cm gun. Design and testing for the Gamma-Gerät began in 1906 and lasted until 1911. Although the Gamma-Gerät had the destructive power the General Staff required and could outrange French and Belgian fort guns, it could only be emplaced near rail lines and took 24 hours to prepare. As early as 1907, Krupp began development of siege artillery transported by gun carriage. Testing resulted in a 28 cm howitzer transportable over road and countryside but it was rejected by the APK, as was Krupp's 30.5-centimetre model. Finally, in late 1911, Krupp and the APK developed a wheeled 42-centimetre howitzer, the 42-centimetre kurze Marinekanone 14 L/12 or Minenwerfer-Gerät (M-Gerät). The APK ordered its first M-Gerät in July 1912 and another in February 1913. Tests of the gun's mobility began in December 1913 and found that gas-powered tractors were best for pulling it. Test firing, at one point observed by Kaiser Wilhelm II, began in February 1914, and Krupp estimated that the M-Gerät would be complete by October 1914.

Design and production
Assembled and emplaced, the M-Gerät weighed 42.6 tonne, was 4.5 m tall, 10 m long and 4.7 m wide, and sat on a steel base with a spade for bracing. This spade could be lifted out of the ground while the M-Gerät was emplaced to move it, giving it a traverse of 360°. The gun was breech loaded, using a horizontally-sliding breech block and had a 5.04 m barrel that could be elevated to a maximum of 65°. The M-Gerät had a muzzle velocity of about 815 m/s and a maximum range of 9300 m. Post-prototype M-Gerät guns had a crew platform in front of the blast shield, a detachable breech, and solid wheels. The APK ordered the first M-Gerät in July 1912, delivered the following December, and a second in February 1913. Another two guns were ordered before the First World War on 31 July 1914, and then two more on 28 August and another pair on 11 November. Krupp eventually built 12 M-Gerät howitzers.

The M-Gerät had to be assembled for firing and for transport was dismantled and towed in five wagons. These wagons, weighing 16 to 20 t each, were designed to hold a specific portion of the M-Gerät, sans the gun carriage, which was its own wagon. These were towed by purpose-built, gas-powered tractors as the wagons were too heavy to be pulled by horses. To move across open country, the wagon wheels were fitted with articulated feet called radgürteln to reduce their ground pressure. Under optimal circumstances, the tractors and wagons could move at 7 km/h.

The 30.5-centimetre Beta-M-Gerät, called the schwere Kartaune L/30, was developed in late 1917 to replace M-Gerät guns that had been rendered inoperable by premature detonation of shells. To increase the range of the M-Gerät and lower the likelihood of premature detonation, the APK selected a 9 m-long, 16 t naval barrel to be mounted onto the chassis of the M-Gerät. Two large spring cylinders were added to the front of the gun to counterbalance the new barrel, which had to be carried in a new carriage weighing 22 t. Fully assembled, the Beta-M-Gerät weighed 47 t and had a maximum range of 20500 m. The propellant used to achieve that range caused three of the four Beta-M-Gerät guns to explode, forcing their crews to limit its range by 4000 m, defeating the purpose of the longer L/30 barrel. Only four Beta-M-Gerät guns were modified from two M-Gerät guns and two Gamma-Gerät guns (a one- to two-month-long process per gun), but 12 L/30 barrels were built.

Ammunition

German siege artillery had three types of projectiles: armour-piercing, high-explosive and intermediate. The armour-piercing shell was designed to smash through concrete and metal armour but was largely ineffective against reinforced concrete. High-explosive shells were fitted with two charges and could be set to have no delay, a short delay or a long delay. If set to "no delay" the shell burst on impact. If set to a delayed detonation, it could penetrate up to 12 m of earth. Finally, the intermediate, or "short shell", weighed half as much as the high-explosive shell and was fitted with a ballistic tip for range and accuracy. Shells for the 42-centimetre guns were generally 1.5 m long, weighed between 400 and 1160 kg, and were propelled via primer loaded into the gun with a brass casing. Siege artillery shells were produced in limited runs of varying quality. Beginning in early 1916, German siege guns began to suffer internal explosions due to faulty ammunition. Crews were required to disembark from the gun before firing via a lanyard.

Service history
The kurze Marinekanone (KMK) batteries that formed with M-Gerät guns were 3 (2 August 1914), 5 (June 1915), 6 (Summer 1915) and 7 (early 1916). Battery 3 was split in half in April 1916 to form 10 with a single M-Gerät each. The four Beta-M-Gerät guns produced were fielded by KMK Batteries 8 and 10 after their M-Gerät gun barrels had been destroyed by premature detonation. When the German Army was reorganised in late 1918, only Battery 5 had M-Gerät guns, and schwere Küstenmörser (SKM) Battery 3 was assigned the remaining two Beta-M-Gerät guns.

Western Front

By June 1914, the prototype M-Gerät howitzers had returned to Essen for final adjustments and would have been formed into a reserve artillery battery on completion in October. On 2 August 1914, they were organised into KMK Battery 3 and sent to the Western Front with 240 men. On 4 August, the 1st Army arrived near Liège, Belgium, the first objective of the Schlieffen Plan and began the Battle of Liège. Although German troops entered the city on 7 August, its forts were firing upon the road to be taken by the 2nd Army and had to be reduced. Heavy artillery began their attack on 8 August. KMK Battery 3 was the first siege battery sent into battle to bombard the Fort de Pontisse on 12 August, which surrendered after two days. The battery next moved to the Fort de Liers but the fort surrendered as the battery was being emplaced. KMK Battery 3 relocated to the Fort de Loncin, where Gérard Leman directed the defence of Liège. Firing commenced on 15 August and lasted two hours, as the 25th shot fired struck a magazine and caused an explosion that destroyed the fort. The Germans carried Leman, unconscious, out of Loncin, and the last two forts, Hollogne and Flémalle, capitulated on 16 August.

With Liège captured, the 1st Army continued north-west while the 2nd and 3rd Armies marched to Namur, whose forts were undermanned, unmaintained, and poorly stocked with ammunition. The 2nd Army arrived on 20 August 1914 to open the Siege of Namur, but began their main attacks the following day with 400 pieces of artillery. KMK Battery 3 fired upon the Fort de Marchovelette, which was destroyed on 23 August by a magazine explosion. The battery shifted its fire to the Fort de Maizeret, already under bombardment by four Austro-Hungarian Skoda 30.5-centimetre guns, and compelled its surrender. With the eastern forts occupied, the Germans entered Namur and the remaining Belgian forces evacuated from the city.

Following the defeat of the Western Allies at Charleroi and at Mons, the British Expeditionary Force withdrew past Maubeuge, their base of operations after arriving in France. On 24 August 1914, the advancing Germans arrived at the fortresses of Maubeuge and began the Siege of Maubeuge and its garrison of 45,000 soldiers. The next day, the VII Reserve Corps were left behind the main German armies to take the city. Bombardment of the forts began on 30 August, with KMK Battery 3 tasked with reducing Ouvrage Les Sarts (Fort Sarts) but it mistakenly shelled an interval fortification in front of Sarts. By 5 September, a hole in the fortress ring had been opened by German 21-centimetre guns, but they had by now exhausted their ammunition. To widen that gap, the siege guns then expended their remaining ammunition against Forts Leveau, Héronfontaine, and Cerfontaine on 7 September, and destroyed them in quick succession. The two remaining French forts surrendered that same day and the Germans occupied Maubeuge on 8 September.

With Maubeuge taken, German siege guns were available for an attack on Paris, but Germany's defeat at the Battle of the Marne blocked the advance of the 1st and 2nd Armies, and the guns were instead sent to Antwerp. King Albert I had ordered a general retreat to Antwerp on 18 August, and his army arrived in the city two days later. From Antwerp, Albert made attacks on the German flank on 24–25 August and 9 September, prompting General Alexander von Kluck of the 1st Army to send the III Reserve Corps to seize Antwerp. It arrived and partially surrounded Antwerp from the south-west on September 27, and bombardment began the next day. KMK Battery 3 arrived on 30 September and opened fire on the Fort de Lier, whose artillery narrowly missed the battery. The fort was abandoned by its garrison on 2 October, allowing KMK Battery 3 to attack and destroy the Fort de Kessel in a day. The battery then moved to attack the Fort de Broechem, which was also destroyed within two days. From 7 to 9 October, the Belgian army fled from Antwerp and the city surrendered on 10 October.

Early in 1916, all 42-centimetre guns were assigned to the 5th Army, which amassed a total of 24 siege guns, the highest concentration of them during the war. The Battle of Verdun was opened on 21 February 1916 with an intense, nine-hour long artillery bombardment. The 42-centimetre guns had to suppress the artillery of Forts Vaux, Douaumont, Souville and Fort Moulainville but were unable to penetrate the concrete of the modern fortresses. On the second day of the battle, both of KMK Battery 7's M-Gerät guns were destroyed by premature detonations and KMK Batteries 5 and 6 both lost an M-Gerät each to the same cause. Most of the siege guns at Verdun were moved north in July to participate in the Battle of the Somme, and by September the only M-Gerät units left in Verdun were KMK Batteries 3 and 6.

In the final two years of the war, KMK batteries that suffered losses of their big guns had them replaced with smaller–calibre weapons. Those that remained primarily shelled field works and often had low survivability due to malfunctions or Allied counter-battery artillery. KMK Battery 10 lost one M-Gerät to a premature detonation and the other to British warships near Ostend in August 1917 and was rearmed with captured Russian 12 cm howitzers. It and KMK Battery 10 were given the four Beta-M-Geräts made during the war in early 1918. For the German spring offensive, KMK Battery 8 was assigned to the 6th Army, Battery 6 to the 2nd Army, and Battery 3 to the 18th Army. The effect of the siege guns was negligible. For Germany's final offensive in July 1918, KMK Batteries 5 and 6 were reassigned to the 7th Army at the Marne, while Batteries 3, 8 and 10 went to the 1st Army at Reims. The batteries again had little to no effect, and Battery 10 became the last German siege battery to fire on a fort, the Fort de la Pompelle. In November 1918, KMK Battery 5 surrendered its guns, the remaining two M-Gerät howitzers, to the American Expeditionary Force.

Eastern Front

On 2 May 1915, August von Mackensen launched the Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive. By the end of the month, his forces neared Przemyśl, which had been captured by the Russians from Austria-Hungary on 22 March 1915. KMK Battery 6 took part in the bombardment of forts X, Xa, XI and XIa, opened on 30 March. Two days later, the Germans took and held forts X, Xa and XI against counter-attack, compelling the Russians to abandon Przemyśl. German troops entered the city on 3 June, then took the remaining forts two days later. From 8 August, KMK Battery 6 supported the XXXX Reserve Corps in its attack on Kaunas Fortress by bombarding Kaunas's three westernmost forts. Although the German siege artillery's shelling of Kaunas was slow, the fortifications were outdated and were easily destroyed. The city fell on 18 August.

To the south, KMK Batteries 3 and 5 participated in the siege of Novogeorgievsk, which the Germans had surrounded on 10 August. On 13 August, KMK Batteries 3 and 5 attacked with the siege guns from the north, shelling forts XIV, XV and XVI. On 16 August, German infantry stormed forts XV and XVI as the artillery bombarded them. A 42-centimetre shell struck German troops attacking Fort XV, resulting in heavy casualties but the Germans took the forts. The Russians abandoned the outer ring on 18 August, allowing the Germans to open a hole in the inner ring and capture Novogeorgievsk the next day. The Russians abandoned fortresses wholesale during the Great Retreat. At Grodno, KMK Batteries 3, 5, and 6 were not even fully emplaced when the fortress was evacuated on 3 September. The last deployment of M-Gerät guns on the Eastern Front was in October 1915, when KMK Battery 6 was attached to the German 11th Army as it invaded Serbia.

Replicas and legacy
The nickname "Big Bertha" appeared early in the war, when German soldiers named the guns Dicke Berta at the Battle of Liège, a reference to Bertha Krupp, who had inherited the Krupp works from her father. The name spread to German newspapers and then to Allied troops as "Big Bertha" and became slang for all heavy German artillery, but especially the 42-centimetre guns. The name has since entered the public consciousness, for example being applied as a moniker to a line of Callaway golf clubs and a satirical French-language magazine and a bond-buying policy by Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank.

Two M-Gerät guns were surrendered to the US Army at Spincourt in November 1918. One was taken to the United States, evaluated and then put on display at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, while the other was left unassembled in its transport configuration. Both were scrapped in 1943 and the early 1950s. World War I veteran Emil Cherubin built a replica of an M-Gerät, which toured Germany and appeared on a few postage stamps. The Paris Gun, a railway gun developed during the war and used to bomb Paris in 1918, has historically been confused with the M-Gerät since World War I.

Big Bertha in soldiers' memories.
A Pole from Greater Poland serving in the Army of the German Empire during the Battle of Verdun remembered "Fat Berta" as follows: ''They moved Fat Bertha [about] 20 km closer to the front. At the edge of the forest, a strong concrete base was built on which the cannon was mounted. The area around the gun was reinforced with concrete in a wide radius. Rails were added to the gun on which ammunition is delivered. The cannon is of monstrous size. The gun outlet itself can accommodate an adult person. The missiles, almost the size of a human, are transported on separate carts directly into the mouth of the colossus. Strong shelters and traverses were placed next to the gun, protecting the crew from enemy bullets. Marked cannons are placed further away from the gun to confuse the pilots. The entire position is masked by trees and branches. Specialists have been working on the construction for several weeks. The work is almost finished and shooting will start in two days. [...] On the designated day, we go to the very edge of the mountain to witness the shootings - something interesting for a hiker. The shot is gone! A deep thud splits the air and a huge cloud of smoke rises upwards. We cover our ears and open our mouths to protect our eardrums from damage. To cause confusion, branded cannons also fire only with gunpowder and create similar clouds of smoke. Every ten minutes a shot goes off. You can't shoot more

title: Big Bertha (howitzer)


text:
Socket 6

Socket 6 was a 486-generation CPU socket, a slightly modified version of the more common Socket 3. It was used in a few motherboards.

Intel designed this new standard near the end of the 80486's market life, and therefore few motherboards were produced that used it, especially as the Socket 3 standard was already sufficient.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Socket 6


text:
Talk:1894

[Untitled]
The year in topic layout on this page is one of three versions. I seek opinions before making them all the same; see comment on my talk page

--BozMo 11:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

Formatting
The standard format for all modern year pages without exception is to subdivide Events by date only. I have therefore reverted the partial attempt made here to subdivide geographically. Camboxer (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Harold Macmillan number 10 official.jpg

title: Talk:1894


text:
Japetus Steenstrup

Johannes Japetus Smith Steenstrup FRS(For) HFRSE (8 March 1813 – 20 June 1897) was a Danish zoologist, biologist, and professor.

Life
Born in Vang, Thy on 8 March 1813, he held a lectorate in mineralogy in Sorø until 1845 when he became a professor of zoology at the University of Copenhagen. He worked on a great many subjects, including cephalopods, and also in genetics, where he discovered the principle of the alternation of generations in some parasitic worms in 1842.

Steenstrup discovered (1842) the possibility of using the subfossils of the Postglacial as a means of interpreting climate changes and correlated vegetation change, which he called succession in the recent past. Two of Steenstrup's students, Christian Vaupell and Eugen Warming further developed this line of research.

Japetus Steenstrup was a professor to zoologist Johan Erik Vesti Boas, who was also a student of zoologist Carl Gegenbaur, and Hans Christian Gram, inventor of the Gram stain.

During Charles Darwin's extensive study of barnacles (Cirripedia) between 1846 and 1854, he corresponded with Steenstrup, who sent him both information and specimens. Darwin returned the specimens in 1854, and by way of thanks also sent Steenstrup a box of specimens, with a letter listing the 77 species of cirripedia he had enclosed as a gift. The specimens were dispersed in the Natural History Museum of Denmark; in 2014 staff at the museum found the list, and were able to identify most of the specimens for a new exhibition of their best objects. When Darwin published his series of monographs, he included notes acknowledging his debt to the kindness of Professor Steenstrup for sending him specimens of both modern and fossil barnacles.

Together with Johan Lange, Steenstrup was the publisher of Flora Danica fasc. 44.

In 1842, at the age of 29, he was elected a member of the Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. In 1857, he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. In 1862, he was elected as a member of the American Philosophical Society and in 1863 elected as member of the Royal Society.

He died on 20 June 1897 in Copenhagen.

title: Japetus Steenstrup


text:
Talk:19th century

Still living people
The lead of the article says that "As of February 2015 there are only 10 people (all female) still alive who were born in the 19th century.". It is important to remember that this is only the people who are verified to have been born then. So rather than "only 10 people" it is "at least 10 people". How about changing this to "Among the people whose ages are verified by the Gerontology Research Group, as of February 2015 there are only 10 people (all female) still alive who were born in the 19th century."?Andreaseksted (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no objections, I have gone ahead and made the proposed changesAndreaseksted (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved from the lead to another subsection of "people". I can see why this might belong in the article (although there are strong arguments against), but it should not be in the lead.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed this completely. It's just trivia. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

English/Euro bias?
I don't see a problematic amount of English/Euro bias. Once I add a few more sections (Meiji Restoration, Taiping Rebellion) I plan on removing the tag unless somebody objects. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Famous and infamous personalities
I've removed this section; I don't see any plausible page to merge this to (or any list to create with this info), I'm posting it here in case anybody wants to do something with it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"*James Barry (born Margaret Ann Bulkley), impostor who successfully lived as a male military surgeon in the British Army
 * William Bonney a.k.a. Henry McCarty a.k.a. Billy the Kid, Wild West, outlaw
 * John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of president Abraham Lincoln
 * James Bowie, Soldier, Texan who died at the Alamo, invented the Bowie knife
 * Jim Bridger, Wild West, mountain man
 * John Brown, a fanatical American abolitionist who led an armed insurrection at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in 1859.
 * Kit Carson, Wild West, frontiersman
 * Cochise, Chiricahua Apache leader
 * George Armstrong Custer, soldier, whose last stand was in the Wild West
 * Wyatt Earp, Wild West, lawman
 * Pat Garrett, Wild West, lawman
 * Charles J. Guiteau, assassin
 * Jack The Ripper, serial killer whose identity remains unknown.
 * H.H. Holmes, first documented American serial killer.
 * Geronimo, Chiricahua Apache leader
 * Wild Bill Hickok, Legendary Wild West, lawman
 * Doc Holliday, Legendary Wild West, gambler, gunfighter
 * Crazy Horse, War leader of the Lakota
 * Ignacy Hryniewiecki, assassin of Tsar Alexander II of Russia
 * Frances Clayton, impostor who disguised herself as a man named Jack Williams in order to fight for Union forces during the American Civil War
 * Frank James, Wild West, outlaw, older brother of Jesse
 * Jesse James, Legendary Wild West, outlaw
 * Harvey Logan, Wild West, outlaw
 * Gregor MacGregor, soldier, adventurer, confidence trickster, pirate, fraudster
 * Gaetano Bresci, assassin of Umberto I of Italy
 * Emma Goldman, anarchist, helped Alexander Berkman plan the attempted assassination of Henry Clay Frick
 * Calamity Jane, Frontierswoman
 * Bat Masterson, Wild West, lawman, gambler, newspaperman
 * Solomon Northrup, A free-born African American from New York, he was the son of a freed slave and free woman of color. A farmer and professional violinist, a landowner, American abolitionist and the primary author of the memoir Twelve Years a Slave.
 * Annie Oakley American sharpshooter in Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show
 * Allan Pinkerton, spy, founded the Pinkerton Agency, first detective agency in the United States
 * William Poole a.k.a. Bill the Butcher, member of the New York City gang, the Bowery Boys, a bare-knuckle boxer, and a leader of the Know Nothing political movement.
 * Lewis Powell, attempted assassin of secretary of state William H. Seward and accomplice of John Wilkes Booth
 * Belle Starr Legendary Wild West, female outlaw
 * Nat Turner, led a slave rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia during August 1831.
 * Loreta Janeta Velazquez, Cuban-born impostor who claimed that she masqueraded as a male Confederate soldier during the American Civil War"

Harriet Tubman
. That's too much detail about one individual. Perhaps a short paragraph about the underground railroad in general could be added, but I's like to see it written before I could decide whether it might belong instead in 19th century in the United States. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It's not in History of the United States (1849–1865), a slightly different 2-sentence paragraph is in History of the United States (1789–1849).  If we're going to include anything here, that paragraph seems a better choice.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned Tubman's contributions and the Underground railroad are well understood to be important and critical additions in the development of the USA; during the mid to late 19th century. The paragraph should stay; although I agree that information should be added regarding the underground railroad...Modernist (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources on that opinion? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of material about abolitionism in the United States should summarize this. At the detail level of this century summary we are probably looking at adding "During this period abolitionism in the United States grew in Northern states." to the third paragraph in that section. Many many people in abolition, not just Tubman. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * David Livingstone.jpg

Slavery
There were plenty of places where slavery existed in the 20th century. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:19th century


text:
Talk:Open Systems Interconnection

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sahmofor. Peer reviewers: Sahmofor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Serious neutrality issues
I have corrected the worst NPOV problem, the claim that there were no nonproprietary network technologies before OSI. I have not corrected the others, for example the ridiculously biased claim that the OSI model was "the most important advance in education about networking". Looking at some of this text, I am actually seriously concerned that it may have been copied from the introduction to one of those long propagandist tomes about OSI published by researchers disgruntled that the Internet had passed them by in the late 1980s -- but I would have no idea how to figure out which one; these books are thankfully no longer in print.

No Wikipedia article should ever contain a claim of the form "X is the most important Y" as far as I'm concerned -- it is basically impossible to make such a claim from an NPOV.

Tls 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Still in use
CLNP is still widely used today in many telecommunications networks (Mainly the transmission area) around the world. Still the new systems delivered utilise this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.219.152.52 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 May 2004

Correct name
Shouldn't this page be Open Systems Interconnection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Zietarski (talk • contribs) 11:22, 2 July 2005

 * I think you're right. I just looked at some old ISO Bulletin articles I happen to have lying around and the term used in the 1980s was Open Systems Interconnection.  Does anyone around here know how to move pages?  --Coolcaesar 3 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

 * Holy bat-packet! I always though it was "connect", but I've just checked too, and you're right, it is "connection", e.g. "ISO 7498:1984 Open Systems Interconnection - Basic Reference Model". My only question is whether the early (70's) documents used "connect" - this one is '84. Let me check and see (and I just got finished moving it to Open Systems Interconnect, too - grrr). Noel (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I've checked everything I've got, and I can only find "connection". I don't have any of the really early stuff (the first OSI Reference Model was published in '77 by the CCITT), but everything I have says "connection". So, I'll move the page... Noel (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

QS: X400 vs SMTP

 * For example, the definition for OSI's X.400 e-mail standards took up several large books, while the Internet e-mail (SMTP) definition took only a few dozen pages in RFC-821. It should be noted, however, that over time there have been numerous RFCs which extended the original SMTP definition, so that its complete documentation finally took up several large books as well.

That's a horrible compromise of some POV argument, sounds much like a sandbox argument to me. Either you have a point or you don't. You cannot say, we have this strong argument in favor of something, but, then again, it should be noted that it's not really an argument. --141.20.53.108 09:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have taken this out of context. Due to the nature of the now extint disagreement over the OSI Protocol's acceptability, this cannot be examined with an eye for technology and the biases that come with being a technophile. Instead, it must be considered with a mind for business.

Consider this when deciding whether or not it is an argument. The OSI took quite some time (a time period which includes the devlopment of the reference model as well) to fully develop and be published. Of those years, it can easily be assumed that only a portion of them were eaten up by the creation of QS:X400. It was several large volumes at creation. SMTP may now be several volumes in its own right, but this appears to be an evolutionary process rather than a birth defect as it was with the OSI.

It is not an argument over which is better. It is a simple statement of fact. Companies producing the necessary software and hardware for interconnectivity did not want to completely overhaul their production lines or code to accommodate the sudden appearance of the Encyclopedia Britannica of network models. It would cost them a fortune, and there was no guarantee it would catch on in the world at large. That appears to be the point being made in this statement. It would take weeks if not months of study just to fully read through and understand these protocols if the person is starting from the ground up. What would have made SMTP more acceptable for production purposes is the fact that it started out small and easy. In working its way toward massive, the bits added on later could be incorporated a little at a time because it already had a solid foundation. The adjustments in production would be minor and therefore more cost effective.

Mailer Science
We implemented some pieces of X.400 at Bell Labs in the late 1980s. The Red-Book description of X.400 was not that big, but when the Blue Book came out, it was a telephone book! I included a comment in the article, based on a report which was published then (but sorry, I don't recall where) about the failure of French and German X.400 messaging systems to communicate. One was using delimiter-terminated strings and another was using a count/data format. These were options, and you didn't have to do implement both, so the two system were incompatable. A visiting scientist from IBM told us that it took several CPU seconds to send one X.400 message, in their experimental system. That seemed almost unbelievable to us...how naive we were about bloatware in those days.

At that time, SMTP was also heavily criticized for its complexity and almost numberless security holes. When 4.2 BSD came out, the email server brought the system to its knees and took minutes to send a message to more than a dozen people. The email problem seemed to attract a certain type of eager but not very talented mind. The mathematician Jim Reeds coined the phrase "Mailer Science" to describe the characteristic careless and bloated design style.

There are also horror stories about TP4 performance. It was a very inefficient protocol compared to TCP. I don't know how to communicate these problems here. I'm not going to stick unreferenced anecdotes into an article, but there were serious problems with OSI. It didn't just die because companies thought it was too expensive. It died in part because it was badly designed by folks who were in way over their heads. DonPMitchell 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There may have been horror stories about TP4, but these were due to the implementations. There was at least one implementation that had just the same performance as other transport protocols around at the time. However the Transport Protocol as a whole (i.e. TP0-4) was a nightmare because of compromises between CCITT and others. TP0 came out of the Teletext world, and the others had to fit in around that. TP4 was TCP warmed over to fit in with the overall "architecture" of the TP family and OSI in general.

Of course OSI as a whole suffered generally from all the problems of design by committee. TCP/IP (and the other protocols that go with it) did an admirable job of providing everything that OSI was intended to provide, and with a far more tractable development process. If the OSI effort served any purpose, it was providing a standards-based vision that stopped SNA from becoming the de facto standard. In 1983 this seemed almost inevitable and was the justification for several companies' substantial investment in OSI. Jh493 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with "OSI model"
I'd say "no" - this page discusses the overall OSI project, while OSI model discusses a specific item, the OSI networking model, that this page claims antedated the project. Guy Harris 19:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, the articles should not be merged. The OSI project is not the same things as the OSI model, which has been used to discuss many different network protocol schemes. DonPMitchell 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree also, there is no reason to merge two articles one about a standards body and one about a standard by that body--Mancini 14:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree either. No merge! 72.76.184.189 16:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Final Chapter
The article lacks a concise statement as to when and how the OSI vendors ceased promoting this solution and adopted TCP/IP, or withdrew from the market. 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First-hand experts could maybe illuminate re this?--The world salutes the Rising Star...Try to be One 10:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
The collapse of the OSI project in 1996 severely damaged the reputation and legitimacy of the organizations involved, especially ISO. The worst part was that OSI's backers took too long to recognize and accommodate the dominance of the TCP/IP protocol suite. The financial damage done to Japan and Europe (where internet deployment was delayed by years) is difficult to estimate. Is it the generic internet(working technology) or the public Internet? Explain about the critique of the OSI Model and its protocols —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.216.65 (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine
Could someone please replace the adjective Byzantine with a more widely understood word. I am afraid to do any changes myself because I do not know exactly what it means. Velle 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The adjective is fine. It is a commonly used term in standard written English.  The literal meaning (denotation) is anything associated with the Byzantine Empire. The figurative meaning (connotation), which is probably the one intended here, is anything that is mazelike, confusing, or overly complex.  --Coolcaesar 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems biased.
This article seems biased against the people who opposed OSI. Where is the information from THEIR point of view? Here is something I put together for the Internet articles talk page.

Around 1982 the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed its own internetworking referance model called Open Systems Interconnections (OSI).

It was designed to replace TCP/IP and there was pressure to change over. Many large businesses, including computer development companies, as well as Europian governments and latter the American Government officially embraced OSI over TCP/IP.

This was while it was still just a design! This made things harder for those wishing to develop TCP/IP compatable technologies, such as MCI Mail.

In Europian universities something of a TCP/IP movement established itself.

In 1988 they finally developed it.

For a while it was likely that OSI would become the standard internetworking.

However, OSI was new and what you could do with it was not known, where TCP/IP was proven fact, and was already well established.

One key developing that helped deside the matter between OSI and TCP/IP was the giving away of TCP/IP protocals in Berkley Unix software that came with computers.

Where Wizards Stay Up Late by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon.

I would like you views on this to see how we can best put it into the article. Corrupt one (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Please don't: the dates are wrong and the statements (for the most part) incorrect. -- Dgtsyb (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit I may of misread that part of the book, and it was not something they into depth in. However, I think we should look at what the people who opposed OSI were thinking when they opposed it. Corrupt one (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, step one to doing that would be identifying (if there truly were) the people that "opposed" OSI. Who were those people?  Any names?  What were their roles, interest and affiliation at the time?  I don't remember anyone "opposing" it.  Can you point to a verifiable primary source of this claim that there were people "opposing" OSI?  It just doesn't jive with what I recall from first-hand experience back in the day, as well as what can be gleaned from, say, the history captured by the IETF RFC database.  The IETF has always run by concensus and the concensus in most RFCs published between about 1991 and 1995 is that OSI was going to replace TCP/IP (and did for a number of application areas, and has to this day for a number of application areas, such as aviation, military, telecommunications management, manufacturing automation, ...).

 * Now, BSD'ers perhaps? Don't think so.  The Berkeley Sockets interface was redone to support OSI, and OSI was provided in BSD4.3 Reno and BSD4.4 (according to McKusick, who should know what he was saying (see, "The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System", section 13.9 on page 478-479).  Which also refutes the availability of the BSD implementation of the TCP/IP protocol stack shipping  with BSD that made it popular, because the BSD implementations of OSI: CLNP, CLNS, TP4, CONS, X.25, also shipped with the self-same BSD releases (yes, TCP may have initially been in BSD 4.2, whereas OSI was not available until 4.3 Reno, but so what).  The situation is likely the reverse: that because commercial UNIX did not have a usable OSI protocol component until SVR 4, and because OSI was never shipped with the base SVR 4 UNIX operating system (and was a, sometimes quite expensive, add on), it may very well be that it is the lack of a commercial implementation of OSI protocols shipped with the AT&T UNIX operating system that caused its lack of popularity. -- Dgtsyb (talk) 01:29 17 May 2008 (UTC).

I am not really into programing history, but I remember from "Where Wizards Stay Up Late" by Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon, which was made with the help of the people who were involved with the creation of the Internet, that there was opposition. The area that deals with OSI is a small part in the chapter called "A rocket on our hands." It mentions opposition to OSI, and why they were against it.

I am interested in the RFCs. Where can I find the address for them?

 * Whatever after-the-fact anecdotal information claiming credit for predicting the unexpected result of the use of OSI may appear in that book of rather questionable credibility, the record of the Internet community (RFC Database) shows the Internet community to be in support of OSI. The record does show strong and heavily biased opposition against the use of X.25 as the (only) Network protocol for OSI instead of (at least also) the Internet protocol (or some datagram based protocol as was later provided by CLNP) (see RFC 874), but even this rather caustic opposition to X.25 is in fact in support of OSI. -- Dgtsyb (talk) 05:13 18 May 2008 (UTC).

 * I think it was Bernard Aboba, if I recall correctly, who took the lead in terms of bashing OSI and ISO in his books.
 * Also, other major components of OSI had severe problems. For example, ASN.1 is notoriously difficult for laypersons to understand and fiendishly difficult to implement properly, yet ISO wanted to use ASN.1 as the primary encoding for Office Document Architecture, upon which OSI's hypertext system, HyperODA, was to be based.  Not surprisingly, ODA and HyperODA were never developed to the point where there was actually a working product with widespread deployment.  In contrast, almost anyone who could use a word processor (myself included) could do trial-and-error with drafting simple HTML Web pages and feeding them into Mosaic until the concepts of tags, elements, attributes, and the like became clear. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I doubt that Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon were talking about Bernard Aboba.
 * Also, ODA and HyperODA, while ISO standards or ISO draft standards, are not OSI components: they are file formats and not communications protocols. --Dgtsyb (talk) 11:12 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you search on this topic on Google or Google Books for five minutes, it's pretty clear that ODA and HyperODA were always positioned from the beginning by the OSI community as application layer formats for OSI, much as HTML serves as an application layer today for TCP/IP. OSI wanted to standardize the entire protocol stack, kind of like how America Online not only made their own server and client software but even made their own proprietary multimedia document format, Rainman.  The line between static document format and dynamic interface protocol has always been kind of hazy.
 * Also, I wasn't saying that Hafner and Lyon were talking about Aboba; I was saying that it was Aboba, NOT Hafner or Lyon, who really took the lead in the mid-90s in publicly bashing ISO and OSI and glorifying IETF and the RFC process. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Computer Networks by Tanenbaum also describes criticism. The standards were difficult to implement, implementations were of poor quality, and people started thinking of bureaucrats trying to shove down their throats a poor standard, instead of a vastly better one. He also compares this with governments pushing PL/I or Ada as "the language of the future". I'm sorry I can't provide exact citations (I have the Italian edition and I am "backtranslating" it), but just look at § 1.4.4 - it's available on Google books (look at page 48 for this one).

I've not read it, but it may be useful to read this paper, which is criticism about implementability, done back in 1984: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=639624.802077&coll=ACM&dl=ACM. --Blaisorblade (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading this subject within wiki I decided to write a view below... And being in the thick of it all... There are a few issues which I and many others certainly could never get to the bottom of..

1. OSI was called a protocol and still is being referred to that way. - when simply OSI isnt "a protocol" its a 7 layer distributed systems / communication reference model... X.500 suffered the same description too in that it was called a "complex protocol" when it is in fact a directory service standard that has naming and information object definitions and an access and distribution protocol. So in there lies an issue.. If we call something a protocol which isnt a protocol, we can get confused quite quickly.

2. OSI was seen as too many bytes on the wire.. CLNP had a longer address space than IPv4 as it could use E.164 phone numbers (IPv4 then then moved to IPv6 and do see RFC 1888) and TPT 4 and TCP were very similar - I wrote TP4 for mainframe stream based communications in 1983 in about 2 months. It was fast... Later down the track we had TCP services too.

3. OSI was also called complex... Many of us did not find it any more complex than SNA, Decnet, ICLs architecture or the Internet protocols. E.g In about 1995 I was told X.500 is so complex - I could only say you should see the wiring and electonics of my Jeep if you want to see "complex". We ran X.500 over TPT and TCP - no problems. IBM had TN 3270 which was SNA LU2 over TCP/IP - the point being protocols stacks were now evolving and converging on TCP/IP

4. The use of ASN1 for application level protocols and their presentation layer services - meant that if one had an ASN.1 compiler, one could take the electronic copy of the standard (X.400, 500, 700, etc) and feed the protocol definitions into it and out would pop all the C and .H files for all protocol encoding and decoding processes (the presentation layer). Of course implementing the application layer's protocols/services would be difficult if one did not have an ASN.1 compiler..(the right tools) I am not saying these services are easy to implement BTW, but using the using good tools does make it easier. ASN.1 is used in many Internet protocols such as OCSP LDAP and PKI services.

5. We also worked on SGML in the 1980s - which sort of merged with the work on HTML..

I think a lot of mis interpretation went on within this debate in the 80s and 90s .. And I never did understand why some messages got conveyed.. We first and foremost wanted to develop a global common reference model and within that fit profiles of protocols..and a common approach to naming and addressing in order to achieve a common language around distributed computers from differen vendors. I never saw why ISO / ITU protocols were called complex or slow - as engineers we made them as simple, reliable and fast as possible. SS7 seems to be doing all right still. I have never seen a comparison report either where like by like demonstrates a protocol engineering issue.

We cant fix history and we all have shared in its outcome.. All I am hoping is that now we can see and understand what was said at the time with the knowledge people had - and that some of the messages conveyed about OSI at the time were IMHO and engineering experience (and many, many others) very diffucult to understand.

alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.243.36 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of description
In reading this article, there is an indepth look into the techonologies history but it lacks a decent explanation of what it actually is. If there is a person with indepth knowledge of the techonology who can expand on this it would further round out the article. Baellen (talk)Baellen —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 * My thoughts exactly. I'll stick it on my list of things to do.  I can't really claim to be an expert on OSI but I'm reading a book dealing exclusively with it at the moment purely out of interest.  OTOH I'm reluctant to spend too much time researching and referencing an out of date protocol. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This "talk" page is full of mentions of CLNP, X.400, TP4, ASN.1 etc -- shouldn't the various standards and protocols that are thought of as "OSI" get at least a mention and link in the article itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.238.53 (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits by 58.165.16.148
I reverted edits by 58.165.16.148 because they seem to be POV and don't incorporate well in the article. I am moving the section added by 58.165.16.148 for reference. Nuβiατεch   Talk  09:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A View
Its 25 years on so hopefully another view may help balance the criticisms

Background I spent 16 years with ISO/ITU and some with the IETF.. I was engaged in ICL developing multi nodal mainframes back in 1983. ICL was one of the EUs Mainframe computer supplier and Jack Houldsworth within ICL was considered the "grandfather" of OSI. At that time each computer vendor had its own comms architecture and terms about protocols and service interfaces, addressing, session control and data language making even talking about distributed communications and interworking almost impossible. Hence the need for a common model - an OSI model.. 7 basic interchange and service layers where each layer can be assigned protocol types to that pertinant to that layer - and each layer can expose a service interface to the layer above - A service interface being very similar to Unix Sockets..

The "layer" and service interface language of OSI is widley used today. So point 1. The critical one - OSI is a 7 layer reference model- thats all.

Protocols can be related to OSI such as Link protocols, Network, Internetwork, Transport, Session and above.. Even using these basic words about layers means we can all understand where such protocols fit in the model.

At my time in ICL in 1983 - We developed a full OSI stack for communications between mainframes for inter CPU O/S communications, disc I/O and comms I/O running over 50mbit LANs - and achieved a TPT level turnaround in 11 microseconds. So slow and complex was never my understanding..

Point 2. The OSI protocol suite - I am not quite sure where that one came from  - there were protocol profiles,  yes,  such as GOSIP, but the intent was to have distributed systems with a common communications architecture and naming and addressing schema in which standard protocols could be used. GOSIP did include TCP/IP at later stages. And please bear in mind - in these days each country, particularly the EU and commonwealth we were trying to normalise its IT systems from propretary networks ..We were working with what we had and knew at the time.

Point 3. Naming and Addressing - the essentials of distributed communications - Often overlooked if protocols are considered as just the means to transfer data. CLNP the EU version of IP for instance allowed NSAP address forms which could have used E.164 telephone numbers - meaning that PSTN/VoIP type services with TNs were possible with CLNP.

Point 4. OSI had to consider all forms of communications in order to develop a generic model and provide language for all forms of new and existing communications -  as it certainly was not a  green field.. All mainframe vendors had interests - OSI even had to consider G3 Fax machines which use ITU transport class 0 and session protocols - and we needed to include  telcoms protocols of the day which used physical, link and network signalling.. for PSTN, ISDN, FRX -   We even considered Decnet and SNA  other vendor systems.

The age of Internetworking.. During the 1980s Internetworking started its life as did the need for common distributed networking language as they seemed to go hand in hand. Most of us in the "ISO/ITU" OSI world of the time were working with TCP/IP in some form as well as SNA (IBM), DEcnet, etc - so we welcomed the Internetworking evolution...and the eventual retirement of all those proprietary bits and bytes on the wire.

We then moved up the stack... For example X.400 was the EU carrier grade for messaging, X.700 was for management and X.500 for directories.. all by design used an ASN.1 compiler to automatically build its application and presentation layer protocol processes.

The "discussions" about OSI certainly did see X.400 get replaced by SMTP,  and the merging of management protocols and service  - re X.700 standards and SNMP. But X.500 a distributed directory service in which we defined information objects and naming constructs first and then access and distribution protocols last seemed to be labelled as a complex protcol for some reason - so LDAP was born - which is really X.511 the Directory Access Protocol in string encoded form. Our engineering experience - we devloped a "full blown" X.500 directory service with LDAP. X.511 DAP stack took 75kb of code space, LDAP three times as much. X.500 resided in about 50mbytes of code space.. The same as an office automation package of the time.We now have broadband and gigabytes - so such debates are now history.

Its a waste of time to discuss winners or loosers now. I like to think that all of us won as we are here today with many forms of communications and distributed systems which we can build and exchange views on.. The 1980s was an age where many had strong views, where many of us who were chairing the standards processes and liasing between them were involved with the battles but really wanted the situation to normalise. After all it was the age of global internetworking.

From my own perspective X.500 (and X.509) started me on the road of large scale directory services and identity engineering. In my view LDAP did two things - The down side was it managed to convey a completely wrong message that  a distributed directory service with common naming properties and object definitions and security (eg. X.509 and certficates) was just a "protocol" - a complex protocol. This is like saying that SQL is also the database and its data sets. But the big upside is that LDAP put directories, both small and large scale systems and identity management (IDM) onto the world stage.. IDM has become a critical issue in all systems today.

25 years on we are now working on converged internet services, identity managed service delivery platforms..and next generation event based directory engines.. see www.wwite.com

And if anyone wants to read about it see Open Systems Interconnection Dickson Lloyd  ISBN 0-13-640111-2  (if you can get a copy :-)

 * All the above may be true, but I did a lot of OSI based networking consultancy for a number of UK companies and government departments in 1986 and 1987, and at that time it was fairly obvious on the ground that OSI was a strategic device to benefit European hardware manufacturers like ICL and Bull and disadvantage American suppliers, especially IBM. I never met a single fellow techie at the time who thought OSI was a good choice on technical grounds. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of Criticism
I just read the article, including the section on 'Criticism'. While I agree pointing out criticism is a good thing, especially in a case like this where an attempt at standardising is being discussed, it seems rather one-sided. For one, only criticism is mentioned without mentioning the advantages of the attempt. I can't believe there's nothing good in this, especially since the 7-layer model still seems to be used widely. Shouldn't a section about advantages be included as well? (Or perhaps the section criticism should be changed to 'Advantages/Disadvantages'?)

My other point of concern in this section is that only one source is cited, while there are several aspects of criticism. If we're just shown one source, how can we trust this is widely accepted at all? Could someone provide more sources in order to increase credibility of the section?HSNie 07:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HSNie (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Open Systems Interconnection


text:
Socket 8

The Socket 8 CPU socket was used exclusively with the Intel Pentium Pro and Pentium II Overdrive computer processors. Intel discontinued Socket 8 in favor of Slot 1 with the introduction of the Pentium II and Slot 2 with the release of the Pentium II Xeon in 1998.

Technical specifications
Socket 8 is a unique rectangular CPGA socket with 387 pins. It supports FSB speeds ranging from 60 to 66 MHz, a voltage of 3.1 or 3.3 V, and support for the Pentium Pro and the Pentium II OverDrive CPUs. Socket 8 also has a unique pin arrangement pattern. One part of the socket has pins in a PGA grid, while the other part uses a SPGA grid.

title: Socket 8


text:
Talk:Local ring

About the noetherian condition - can I explain that Zariski in particular took local ring to be noetherian? This is however not the modern convention. It needs to be mentioned here, therefore. Making the convention Wikipedia-wide is a practice followed, for example, in defining a ring (mathematics) always to be unital here. It is therefore appropriate to explain here that the convention is expected everywhere on WP.

Charles Matthews 09:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Be careful using rollback because (a) it gives me no idea what your objection is since there's no edit summary and you wrote nothing in Talk, (b) it removes all my edits, such as here my grammar fix is -> are, which makes it look like you have other motives, and (c) it runs the risk of aggravating people. Anyway, as for the issue, I've seen discussed several places the problems with referring to Wikipedia explicitly like that, one being that this is supposed to be a GPL'd encyclopedia which can be forked, recopied elsewhere, and so on, and so should not use this sort of self-reference.  You are correct that there is precedent for doing so, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.  Perhaps using an indexical such as "this encyclopedia" would serve, as that would cover all the related articles? (Hm, there's no indexical article, how sad.) -- VV 20:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I had in fact overlooked the is/are edit you made. You are correct that it would have been better for me to deal with this by hand, looking at that alone.

On the substantive point, though, I cannot agree with you. It's not really a tenable one, in this case. Local ring was once assumed to include an extra noetherian hypothesis. This point must be mentioned here, to retain NPOV. But this one page should deal with that point. It is not tolerable to bring it up every time local ring is used. Anyone in the field would be aware of this point; and it saves time to announce a convention here.

Charles Matthews 20:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This is not an issue of whether there should be an encyclopedia-wide convention but rather how to note it. That's the point of my proposed indexical. -- VV 21:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

If I knew what an indexical was, I'd be in a better position to understand the comment ...

Charles Matthews 21:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I thought my example made that clear: something like "this encyclopedia". (An indexical is a word such as here, this, me, which is relative to the speaker/listener/context.) -- VV 21:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Complete topological space?
"As for any topological ring, one can ask whether (R, m) is complete (as a topological space)" Is there really such a thing as a complete topological space? Completely metrizable, sure, but here we are really talking about a property of the m-adic metric. Perhaps someone should change the word "topological" to "metric"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.71.210 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Local posets
More generally, a poset P with a greatest element 1 might be called "local" if the set P\{1} has itself a greatest element. A ring R is local iff the poset of left ideals of R is local iff the poset of right ideals of R is local. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Local ring