[ih] 'internet' and "Internet"

[John Day]

+1

> On Aug 8, 2023, at 10:32, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: "John Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>
> 
>> You know, sometimes it's time to let go.
> 
> We created a _second_ word (back before almost anyone else knew what an
> 'internet' even was) for use in our technical discussions, because we _needed_
> a second term. It is not clear to me that that need has passed. (I am under
> the strong impression that there are still quite a few internets which are not
> connected to the Internet; just do a Web search for 'air gap'. Note that one
> can't even _say_ that observation without two different words.)
> 
> Whether people who can exchange information with people conected to the
> Internet, but are not able to send IP packets to them directly, are 'on' the
> Internet is basically a marketing discussion in which I am utterly
> un-interested. (Note that this discussion has been around since the dawn of
> time; early on, people who were not directly conected to the Internet could
> often exchange email with those who were - were the former group 'on' the
> Internet?)
> 
> The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at the
> AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. Ordinary people often
> speak of 'germs' - but that does not mean that micro-biologists have stopped
> carefully using the two terms 'bacteria' and 'virus'. For a micro-biologist
> to start using 'germ' in a technical discussion would be pretty much
> equivalent to wearing a 'kick me' sign - even though plenty of
> ordinary people use it.
> 
> 	Noel
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history