From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jul 8 16:27:39 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id QAA27195 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 1995 16:27:39 -0700 Received: from seagull.rtd.com (root@RTD.COM [192.195.240.142]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA27180 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 1995 16:27:37 -0700 Received: (from dgy@localhost) by seagull.rtd.com (8.6.12/8.6.9.1) id QAA27203; Sat, 8 Jul 1995 16:26:18 -0700 From: Don Yuniskis Message-Id: <199507082326.QAA27203@seagull.rtd.com> Subject: Re: token ring anyone To: matt@lkg.dec.com (Matt Thomas) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 16:26:18 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com (FreeBSD hackers) In-Reply-To: <199507081915.TAA06917@whydos.lkg.dec.com> from "Matt Thomas" at Jul 8, 95 07:15:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 974 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk # > The pain level aside, a better reason is that token ring is dead...when was # > the last time anyone heard of a NEW network installation using token ring # > when ethernet was an option? Token ring today is limited to IBM's hostage # > customers who simply have little use for BSD unix anyway. Anyone with a # > novell network can simply stick a $30. ethernet card into their server and # > wire up a FreeBSD box to it if they want to put it on their net....and I'm # > not sure that anyone else using token ring much matters. # # That's assuming they are wired for Ethernet. Sure they can stick in their # Ethernet card but they may not be able to talk to anyone. Which why HP # is targetting the folks with cat-3 token ring wiring with 100baseVG. # # Token Ring is sterile but it certainly ain't dead yet. Yeah, but (aside from FDDI), do any of the popular networks offer the determinism of a token ring (note lowercase) implementation (i.e. for real-time apps)?