[clug] For dyndns junkies

[Scott Ferguson]

On 22/08/17 19:07, Bryan Kilgallin (iiNet) via linux wrote:
> Hey Bob:
> 
>> As you point out, Microsoft has been "gobbling up" IPv4 address space...
>> (funny, 'cause in Window 3.1 days their esteemed leader saw no future
>> in the Internet and it's protocols...).
> 
> In `89 I taught informatics at the now Edith Cowan Uni. Computer comms
> wasn't taught!


AFAIK Informatics still doesn't cover network configuration. WA was a
bit behind the rest of Australia when it came to IT as part of the
secondary school syllabus - and prior to '91 what is now the Edith Cowan
Uni only provided teacher training.

But network training and certification was definitely around then - and
earlier. I know I had shelled out plenty of money prior to 89 on network
training (Banyan Vines - '85/6?, and others).

1979 saw computers being deployed at Telecom (now Telstra) - with
several networking protocols being part of tech training. Some training
was provided by RMIT. Likewise at OTC including satellite comms (I don't
remember the training provider).

By 1980 Computer Science was part of the HSC in Victoria (after my time
as a student) - and networking was just laplink (3-wire serial
transfer), Base10T, or TokenRing.

Melbourne Uni got their first computer in 1950 and started giving CS
qualifications shortly after. I don't know the early CS history of other
educational institutions but I suspect Sydney may have led Melbourne
(the first Melbourne Uni computer came from Sydney).

But I digress... I suspect Bob's point was that M$ was stupid, not that
the rest of the world was. Whatever M$ thought, industry and commerce
was already convinced of the usefulness of networking and computers -
years before he claimed the internet was over-rated it had become common
to "hear" networks in operation - even in homes (Tokenring was noisy).
I certainly wasn't the first to have Linux networking running at home on
Linux - well before "Windows".
http://www.angelfire.com/sc/ottferguson/50z.html

It was just that the "desktop" had not become a mass consumer product
(and those that used com-pute-ahs tended to check their facts, even if
only on bulletin boards).



Kind regards


-- 
    A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
    Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?

    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

    A: The lost context.
    Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read than bottom-posted?

    A: Yes.
    Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email to which I'm reply

http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html