[ih] First file transfer on ARPANET

[John Day]

And I think it is a very important distinction.  I always say the 
ARPANET was a success because it was done by OS guys not telecom 
guys.  Our early guide for applications was trying to re-create the 
facilities of an OS on the Net.

Yes, do/don't/will/won't was inspired.  But the go-ahead solution is 
as well.  It takes something that everyone else saw as oil and water 
and found an elegant synthesis.   Just the fact that they saw the 
protocol as symmetrical while everyone else looking at the problem 
saw it as asymmetrical.

This kind of thinking seems to be beyond the ability of 99% of those 
in the field today.

(Not only did the textbook authors not get it, but they don't cover 
Telnet any more, because "no one uses Telnet anymore."  Fools!  The 
reason to cover Telnet is to learn very good forms of solving 
problems. They don't teach principles. They are training technicians. 
By now many of those are professors teaching the same dumb stuff.)

We had just gotten our feet on the ground and had an idea of what was 
next when ARPA shut down USING, which would have started 
experimenting with a bunch of things.

The real problem though was that we were already too far ahead of the 
capabilities of the hardware at the time.  We knew what we should do, 
but the machines didn't have the umph to support it.

John

At 9:42 -0500 2012/12/12, Vint Cerf wrote:
>john,
>
>ok that's fair. Of course, we used the protocol to log in remotely, 
>among other things.
>
>the network virtual terminal and the Do/Don't/Will/Won't mechanisms 
>were brilliant.
>
>v
>
>
>On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, John Day 
><<mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>At 9:22 -0500 2012/12/12, Vint Cerf wrote:
>
>>john, what would you call TELNET if not something facilitating remote login?
>>
>
>The Telnet spec quite specifically says it is a terminal device 
>driver protocol.
>
>One of the true brilliances of Telnet is that it is NOT a remote 
>login protocol but a byte-oriented IPC mechanism that could be used 
>for other applications that needed a byte-oriented IPC mechanism. 
>Remember we called this class of protocols: Virtual Terminal 
>Protocols, not remote login protocols.
>
>Remote log in protocols by their nature are asymmetric and 
>unsuitable for anything else.  To call Telnet a remote login 
>protocol is to grossly miss the point, not only about Telnet, but 
>what those guys thought they were doing.
>
>The symmetric negotiation that Bernie came up with was another 
>brilliance, and the go-ahead was a third.
>
>Those early ARPANET guys were pretty smart!  It was a great honor 
>and a great piece of luck to be a grad student then and getting the 
>chance to learn from them!
>
>Take care,
>John
>
>>
>v
>
>
>
>On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, John Day 
><<mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Given that it was very late 1969 when the first IMPs went in, yes. 
>The first file transfer would have been in 1970.  The second 
>question would be when was the first file transfer using FTP.
>
>There was no "initial focus" on remote login.  There WAS an initial 
>focus on just getting bytes to move!  ;-)
>
>I should point out that the ARPANET never did do a remote login 
>protocol.  This is a fiction invented by sloppy textbook authors who 
>don't check the original sources and frankly, don't seem to be that 
>bright.
>
>John
>
>
>
>At 21:47 -0800 2012/12/11, Richard Bennett wrote:
>
>Dear Historians,
>
>I'm curious about when the first file transfer was done successfully 
>on ARPANET. Given that the initial focus was remote login, I'm 
>guessing that rudimentary file transfers wouldn't have been done 
>until sometime in 1970. Does anyone remember?
>
>Thanks,
>
>RB
>
>--
>Richard Bennett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20121212/5e602b94/attachment.htm>