This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
BLAST (protocol) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
OK, my beloved Wikidpedia community! This is my first Wikipedia article; and, as per Ecclesiastes, "All is vanity", i.e., I document a chapter of computer history to which I was perhaps a minor contributor -- and so "have at it". But I hope, nonetheless, to have been even-handed, and I hope to have shown no disrespect for XMODEM and Kermit, which grew out of their own contingencies. You Wikiepdians, as I well realize, include many well-versed computer historians; but consider these lines of Coleridge:
It is an ancient Mariner, and he stoppeth one of three: "By thy long gray beard, and glittering eye, wherefore stoppest thou me?" Synchronist ( talk) 05:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, part 2! In typical fashion, one of my former principles with Communications Research Group has objected to my treatment of the history of that company. I have therefore eliminated the second half of my original article, which deals with the commercial history of BLAST, and thus leaving only a treatment of its technical and performance aspects -- which is perhaps proper for an article focused on the protocol itself. (My wings having been singed, I have also softened the comparison with XMODEM and Kermit.)
Hopefully, there can be a separate article on Communications Research Group, which company deserves 100% of the credit for making the BLAST protocol into a quite successful commercial product. Synchronist ( talk) 01:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello there! Just as a small suggestion, there's a huge block of 10+ inline references in the second paragraph, and it would be great to have those broken down / repositioned, so they aren't in such a long chain. — Dsimic ( talk) 14:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that the Wikipedia community acknowledges the concept of a de facto standard, I would like to present some references which demonstrate -- to me, at least -- that the BLAST protocol achieved this status during the 1980s, and which would thus allow me to re-introduce this concept to my article.
These references stem from the activities of the X12C Asynch Sub-group of ANSI, which, in late 1985 and early 1986, was attempting to establish a de jure standard asynchronous protocol. This effort was ultimately to be abandoned in the face of rapid technological change in the data communications arena -- but this does not detract from the witness these documents provide as to BLAST's stature at the time.
The first is a "Discussion Paper" which includes BLAST among the four protocols under official consideration:
http://www.birds-of-the-air-press.com/bota/blast/ansi-asc-x12c-85-037.pdf
The second is the minutes of a subsequent meeting of the X12C Asynch Sub-group, and which document establishes the twin points that the BLAST protocol was under consideration despite not having been formally proposed to ANSI, nor having been released into the public domain -- this, of course, a function of its status as a de facto standard:
http://www.birds-of-the-air-press.com/bota/blast/ansi-asc-x12c-86-02-17.pdf Synchronist ( talk) 03:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Or -- eschewing all this crazy on-line game stuff -- you would perhaps like to take the traditional path of writing something that will actually bring solace to others -- like that crazy Polishman Joseph Conrad, who knew the English language like few others; and if so, our little Birds-of-the-Air Press stands ready to put your work into print [basically] free of charge, and to contribute one of our purchased block of official ISBN numbers . . . Really, Dragan, you have a true gift for language. Synchronist ( talk) 05:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, adding link to PDF of PC Week article on BLAST -- BLAST grabs the headline in the "News of the Week" section! Synchronist ( talk) 15:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, adding link to PDF of an article which I myself co-authored (with Paul Charbonnet, Jr.) for Computerworld. And for the first time -- following Dragan's example -- I think I have a decent citation format. Synchronist ( talk) 20:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, adding link to PDF of an article from the major New Orleans daily newspaper -- the venerable Times-Picayune -- which talks about the origins of BLAST. Synchronist ( talk) 01:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Adding link to PDF version of MacWeek Don Crabb article, and PDF version of screen capture of Google book search for occurrence of "BLAST" in Held textbook, and indicating its thorough coverage therein. Synchronist ( talk) 12:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, having spent four years adding references and web-accessible copies of same (and I'm still not done), I'm taking the step of upping the claim level for BLAST's significance -- and I think the weight of these references, and the variety and prestige of the computer industry trade magazines and textbooks in which they appear, easily bears out the contention that the BLAST protocol was a major player in the 1980s asynchrononous communications market. Synchronist ( talk) 00:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The company was notable for successfully commercially marketing BLAST, and neither article is especially long. The CRG article is a stub, and the resultant REDIRECT will retain for both the CRG article and the company name a trail for Google to follow, while adding some pertinant historical information to the BLAST article. Pi314m ( talk) 09:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Yoodaba, your addition of a company infobox to the BLAST (Protocol) article is appreciated; however, the intention of this article is to focus on the protocol itself as opposed to the companies involved in its commercialization, inasmuch as there have actually been at least five such companies -- AMP, Data Systems of Baton Rouge, and Communications Research Group, all of Baton Rouge; US Robotics of Chicago; and BLAST, Inc. of North Carolina -- and and whose complete story would fill a book. (In fact, I had started a stub article on the chief such company, Communications Research Group, but no one else bothered to add to it, and so another Wikipedia editor folded it back into the protocol article.) As such, the current infobox is rather misleading, as it would take an amazingly complicated company infobox to truly and completely represent the commercial, as opposed to the technical, history of the protocol. In fact, it would be kind of like doing a company infobox for, say, Unix! So would you be very upset if I restored the article to its previous state? Synchronist ( talk) 20:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Yoodaba:, I left this same message on your talk page. Synchronist ( talk) 20:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
BLAST (protocol) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
OK, my beloved Wikidpedia community! This is my first Wikipedia article; and, as per Ecclesiastes, "All is vanity", i.e., I document a chapter of computer history to which I was perhaps a minor contributor -- and so "have at it". But I hope, nonetheless, to have been even-handed, and I hope to have shown no disrespect for XMODEM and Kermit, which grew out of their own contingencies. You Wikiepdians, as I well realize, include many well-versed computer historians; but consider these lines of Coleridge:
It is an ancient Mariner, and he stoppeth one of three: "By thy long gray beard, and glittering eye, wherefore stoppest thou me?" Synchronist ( talk) 05:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, part 2! In typical fashion, one of my former principles with Communications Research Group has objected to my treatment of the history of that company. I have therefore eliminated the second half of my original article, which deals with the commercial history of BLAST, and thus leaving only a treatment of its technical and performance aspects -- which is perhaps proper for an article focused on the protocol itself. (My wings having been singed, I have also softened the comparison with XMODEM and Kermit.)
Hopefully, there can be a separate article on Communications Research Group, which company deserves 100% of the credit for making the BLAST protocol into a quite successful commercial product. Synchronist ( talk) 01:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello there! Just as a small suggestion, there's a huge block of 10+ inline references in the second paragraph, and it would be great to have those broken down / repositioned, so they aren't in such a long chain. — Dsimic ( talk) 14:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that the Wikipedia community acknowledges the concept of a de facto standard, I would like to present some references which demonstrate -- to me, at least -- that the BLAST protocol achieved this status during the 1980s, and which would thus allow me to re-introduce this concept to my article.
These references stem from the activities of the X12C Asynch Sub-group of ANSI, which, in late 1985 and early 1986, was attempting to establish a de jure standard asynchronous protocol. This effort was ultimately to be abandoned in the face of rapid technological change in the data communications arena -- but this does not detract from the witness these documents provide as to BLAST's stature at the time.
The first is a "Discussion Paper" which includes BLAST among the four protocols under official consideration:
http://www.birds-of-the-air-press.com/bota/blast/ansi-asc-x12c-85-037.pdf
The second is the minutes of a subsequent meeting of the X12C Asynch Sub-group, and which document establishes the twin points that the BLAST protocol was under consideration despite not having been formally proposed to ANSI, nor having been released into the public domain -- this, of course, a function of its status as a de facto standard:
http://www.birds-of-the-air-press.com/bota/blast/ansi-asc-x12c-86-02-17.pdf Synchronist ( talk) 03:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Or -- eschewing all this crazy on-line game stuff -- you would perhaps like to take the traditional path of writing something that will actually bring solace to others -- like that crazy Polishman Joseph Conrad, who knew the English language like few others; and if so, our little Birds-of-the-Air Press stands ready to put your work into print [basically] free of charge, and to contribute one of our purchased block of official ISBN numbers . . . Really, Dragan, you have a true gift for language. Synchronist ( talk) 05:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, adding link to PDF of PC Week article on BLAST -- BLAST grabs the headline in the "News of the Week" section! Synchronist ( talk) 15:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, adding link to PDF of an article which I myself co-authored (with Paul Charbonnet, Jr.) for Computerworld. And for the first time -- following Dragan's example -- I think I have a decent citation format. Synchronist ( talk) 20:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, adding link to PDF of an article from the major New Orleans daily newspaper -- the venerable Times-Picayune -- which talks about the origins of BLAST. Synchronist ( talk) 01:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Adding link to PDF version of MacWeek Don Crabb article, and PDF version of screen capture of Google book search for occurrence of "BLAST" in Held textbook, and indicating its thorough coverage therein. Synchronist ( talk) 12:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, having spent four years adding references and web-accessible copies of same (and I'm still not done), I'm taking the step of upping the claim level for BLAST's significance -- and I think the weight of these references, and the variety and prestige of the computer industry trade magazines and textbooks in which they appear, easily bears out the contention that the BLAST protocol was a major player in the 1980s asynchrononous communications market. Synchronist ( talk) 00:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The company was notable for successfully commercially marketing BLAST, and neither article is especially long. The CRG article is a stub, and the resultant REDIRECT will retain for both the CRG article and the company name a trail for Google to follow, while adding some pertinant historical information to the BLAST article. Pi314m ( talk) 09:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Yoodaba, your addition of a company infobox to the BLAST (Protocol) article is appreciated; however, the intention of this article is to focus on the protocol itself as opposed to the companies involved in its commercialization, inasmuch as there have actually been at least five such companies -- AMP, Data Systems of Baton Rouge, and Communications Research Group, all of Baton Rouge; US Robotics of Chicago; and BLAST, Inc. of North Carolina -- and and whose complete story would fill a book. (In fact, I had started a stub article on the chief such company, Communications Research Group, but no one else bothered to add to it, and so another Wikipedia editor folded it back into the protocol article.) As such, the current infobox is rather misleading, as it would take an amazingly complicated company infobox to truly and completely represent the commercial, as opposed to the technical, history of the protocol. In fact, it would be kind of like doing a company infobox for, say, Unix! So would you be very upset if I restored the article to its previous state? Synchronist ( talk) 20:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Yoodaba:, I left this same message on your talk page. Synchronist ( talk) 20:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)