Overall this is helpful, but it seems a bit ranty, and doesn't do as much as (for example) John Day's Patterns in Network Architecture to provide a positive alternative model.
The OSI Deprogrammer
11–20 of 95 posts
Re: The OSI Deprogrammer
#12I mean, this isn't bad or anything, and if Rob Graham is going to write about anything with authority, this is certainly it, but it's kind of beating up a straw man, isn't it? I feel like "layering violations" went out the window with HTTP, and certainly by the time we got WebSockets.
It's not great. It reads like some angsty nerd who really doesn't like the idea of something and has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to explain why it's wrong and why his solution is better. Sometimes that works, if your name is Locke or Marx or something, but this writing really doesn't say "genius" to me. Moreover, I have not heard anyone but myself utter the word "OSI" out loud in 8 or 10 years. Maybe it…
I sort of agree that "OSI" is really weakening his argument, and that he could take clearer aim at the classical Internet layering model (network, transport, application) --- even that simple layering is obsolete now. But it'd still be a straw man! We even run DNS over HTTP at this point.
Re: The OSI Deprogrammer
#13Reminds me of how modern Linux systems still behave as though they're printing to a teletype.
And modern humans still process text as if we’re reading a teletype :)
Re: The OSI Deprogrammer
#14I always thought this model was pretty worthless. I remember when they tried to apply it to the internet. It didn't quite fit, but they needed a model because intellectuals.
Re: The OSI Deprogrammer
#15I always thought this model was pretty worthless. I remember when they tried to apply it to the internet. It didn't quite fit, but they needed a model because intellectuals.
It depends on when it was. Back in 1999 it fit pretty well. Even if not perfect it still was a good teaching tool to explain "how it all works" on some level. Then you got to know the hairy details.
Nowadays "Internet" is mostly HTTP 2 for most people and then this model doesn't even remotely explain the structure of it.
Re: The OSI Deprogrammer
#16I mean, this isn't bad or anything, and if Rob Graham is going to write about anything with authority, this is certainly it, but it's kind of beating up a straw man, isn't it? I feel like "layering violations" went out the window with HTTP, and certainly by the time we got WebSockets.
It's not great. It reads like some angsty nerd who really doesn't like the idea of something and has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to explain why it's wrong and why his solution is better. Sometimes that works, if your name is Locke or Marx or something, but this writing really doesn't say "genius" to me. Moreover, I have not heard anyone but myself utter the word "OSI" out loud in 8 or 10 years. Maybe it…
> Maybe it's still a thing in academia, but it's not in corporate or open source worlds.
Counterpoint: DDoS attacks are routinely described as "layer 3" or "layer 7" attacks.
And if you're in the kind of industry that goes in for certifications, the OSI model comes up pretty frequently in networking exams, especially at the entry level.
Re: The OSI Deprogrammer
#17I mean, this isn't bad or anything, and if Rob Graham is going to write about anything with authority, this is certainly it, but it's kind of beating up a straw man, isn't it? I feel like "layering violations" went out the window with HTTP, and certainly by the time we got WebSockets.
It's not great. It reads like some angsty nerd who really doesn't like the idea of something and has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to explain why it's wrong and why his solution is better. Sometimes that works, if your name is Locke or Marx or something, but this writing really doesn't say "genius" to me. Moreover, I have not heard anyone but myself utter the word "OSI" out loud in 8 or 10 years. Maybe it…
Enterprise networking still exists, and most things still fit in the OSI model for the most part (MPLS/"layer 2.5" had already broke the model kinda, exceptions can be made).
It's really unfortunate that folks have stopped learning about it. It makes troubleshooting connectivity issues so much easier and collective knowledge of OSI helps immensely with triage and communication.
Re: The OSI Deprogrammer
#18A very fun read, especially if (like me) you realized a year ago you had basically no idea how networking actually worked, because your whole mental model was based off of the Wikipedia article on the OSI model, and decided to cram all 180 pages of Michael W. Lucas's Networking for System Administrators into your head with Anki cards to finally make the "real" stuff stick. (Terrific book, terrific writer, I will never get tired of recommending this one in particular.)
Re: The OSI Deprogrammer
#19I'm really enjoying reading this. I understand why it needs to be so long, but I think it could have more reach if there were also a short primer that succinctly explains why OSI is wrong, and proposes a single alternative model.
Re: The OSI Deprogrammer
#20I always thought this model was pretty worthless. I remember when they tried to apply it to the internet. It didn't quite fit, but they needed a model because intellectuals.
It depends on when it was. Back in 1999 it fit pretty well. Even if not perfect it still was a good teaching tool to explain "how it all works" on some level. Then you got to know the hairy details. Nowadays "Internet" is mostly HTTP 2 for most people and then this model doesn't even remotely explain the structure of it.
It's not really meant to explain http2? But it still very much applies to how an http2 user gets data from a server..