• R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Did IBM really invent the OSI model on their own? I thought the IEEE standardized that with help from programmers all over the industry?

    • frezik
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hmm? I wasn’t talking about OSI.

      If you’re thinking BIOS, that was originally IBM proprietary stuff.

      OSI started from a lot of telecom companies, who inflicted their silly ideas of Presentation and Session layers on us all.

      • 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually, it’s not that silly, TCP/IP is built on that model, so are many other protocols. Though yes, it can be done better.

        • frezik
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          TCP/IP does not have a concept of Presentation or Session. Everything above it is just “Application”, which is more sensible. There isn’t much criticism to be had of layer 4 down, but when they got to layer 5 and 6, they were telecom people sticking their nose in software architecture. You can write networked applications with those layers if you like. I’ve seen it done, and it’s fine. There are also plenty of other ways to architect it that also work just fine.

          • 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There isn’t much criticism to be had of layer 4 down, but when they got to layer 5 and 6, they were telecom people sticking their nose in software architecture.

            That is true.

            But, you have to understand, back when OSI was made, the only thing which could benefit from it was telecom and banking… there were no PCs as we know them today. It’s no surprise that OSI caters mostly to telecom software and needs.

            And you could always just use the model up until layer 4, it’s pretty good up until layer 4, and just do whatever you like after that… if you’re developing your own protocol for something that is.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No I’m definitely thinking of the OSI model lol

        What are you talking about, then? What IBM standard did everyone else adopt?

        • frezik
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          BIOS.

          They recognized that PCs were the next big thing and needed one of their own. Large companies don’t move fast, and IBM is certainly no exception, but they had to move fast now. So they took a bunch of off the shelf components that anyone else could have bought and called it their PC.

          Everything except the BIOS. It regulated how the OS interacts with the hardware. Almost to the point where you could argue DOS isn’t an OS at all, but just a thin command line layer over the BIOS, plus a simple minded file system.

          Anyway, some people at Compaq make a cleanroom implementation of the BIOS and release an “IBM PC compatible”. This quickly becomes the basis of everything we call a PC today. But IBM doesn’t get to profit off it in the long run. They sold off their PC division decades ago.

          The show “Halt and Catch Fire” has an excellent fictional example of the reverse engineering process.