<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Scott Point taken but what about Marshall Rose’s ISODE: <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment</a></span><div><font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size: 16px;">It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell. </span></font></div><div><font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size: 16px;">Clem<br></span></font><br><div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite. </div><div dir="ltr"><br>On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner <<a href="mailto:sob@sobco.com">sob@sobco.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code </span><br><span>produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but at the very last minute the vendor that</span><br><span>was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed out because they thought it would</span><br><span>be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been different if Dennis had succeeded, instead</span><br><span>that vendor’s business died along with the OSI protocols</span><br><span></span><br><span>Scott</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker <<a href="mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net">dhc@dcrocker.net</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole <<a href="mailto:clemc@ccc.com">clemc@ccc.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter <<a href="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com">brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>investment in product development.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol</a> which was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor). </span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>But as I said, economics won out. The HW they promoted was just too expensive and the SW never really matured. As others pointed out, the cost of an OSI implementation was huge. Even teleco standards like X.25 ended up not being worth it. Just not enough people bought them to make it so it was worth it.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>ᐧ</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small. The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>-- </span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dave Crocker</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://bbiw.net">bbiw.net</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>via phone</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>internet-history mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history">http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Contact <a href="mailto:list-owner@postel.org">list-owner@postel.org</a> for assistance.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>_______</span><br><span>internet-history mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:internet-history@postel.org">internet-history@postel.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history">http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history</a></span><br><span>Contact <a href="mailto:list-owner@postel.org">list-owner@postel.org</a> for assistance.</span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>