<html><head></head><body><div class="gmail_quote">On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">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:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials<br>in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be<br>a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of<br>investment in product development.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the coolaid with their MAP/TOP push</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> <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). </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy something that cost more and in the end, did less?<br></div></div></div></div><div hspace="streak-pt-mark" style="max-height:1px"><img alt="" style="width:0px;max-height:0px;overflow:hidden" src="https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aY2xlbWNAY2NjLmNvbQ%3D%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=467a3b19-4ac5-4c3b-991e-b780f01c136e"><font color="#ffffff" size="1">ᐧ</font></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all">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.<br>-- <br>Dave Crocker<br>bbiw.net<br><br>via phone</body></html>