Talk:AppleTalk

Article title

The official name is denoted as "AppleTalk", not "Appletalk". After posting my intentions to the Village Pump, I flipped the content between AppleTalk and Appletalk articles to reflect the correct name. RedWolf 21:32, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

from the village pump According to Apple documentation, the official correct name for the protocol is "AppleTalk", not "Appletalk". Yet, it's the "Appletalk" page that has the text and the "AppleTalk" page that is the redirect. Anyone going to have a problem with me flipping this inaccuracy? RedWolf 05:44, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds like an eminently sensible change to me...

James F. 07:15, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Go for it. Dpbsmith 15:01, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Articles flip completed. RedWolf 22:00, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

---

AFP: "AppleTalk Filing Protocol" or "Apple Filing Protocol"?

FYI, I updated the article to uniformly use "Apple Filing Protocol" throughout. I made this change because the current version of the AppleTalk documentation calls it this. (Older AppleTalk documentation does indeed call it "AppleTalk Filing Protocol".)-- tooki 03:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disputed: Apple PhoneNet

I've noticed an item in two articles that contradict each other: AppleTalk says ("PhoneNet was considerably less expensive to install and maintain, and it is perhaps surprising that Apple did not move to this solution as well.") vs LocalTalk ("eventually Apple itself abandoned LocalTalk wiring and marketed PhoneNet as LocalTalk"). Can someone confirm if Apple ever offered a PhoneNet solution? --Steven Fisher 14:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm that in all likelihood they did not. I installed a lot of localtalk kit when it was current and I'm sure I would have been aware if Apple started selling phonenet-type kit. The latest edition of Inside AppleTalk mentions PhoneNet as an "alternative implementation of LocalTalk functionality" but only gives details of the physical implementation of standard LocalTalk (3-pin DIN). --Ali@gwc.org.uk 19:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Clerification needed: name searching

Finding a name based on searching is mentioned. Is this a protocol level feature or is this a feature of a client that enumerated all the available names?

What should idempotent link to?

Hi-

Should idempotent be a link to Idempotence (computer science) or to Idempotence? I assume it's good to avoid redirects (if we want to link to the Idempotence article), and I'm not sure if the computer science definition would be more apropos.

Stilroc 07:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong layer

"AARP resolves AppleTalk addresses to physical layer, usually MAC, addresses. It is functionally equivalent to ARP."

This is clearly an error, as the physical layer has nothing to do with addressing. The text, and the link, should reference the Data Link layer. Second? --Talinus 19:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. /Blaxthos 20:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tone

“ Together AARP and NBP made AppleTalk perhaps the easiest to use networking system yet developed. ”

Is this an encyclopedic article or a fan posting?  ;-) Seriously, it may be the easiest, but certainly such judgement should be kept off of wiki articles. The whole section needs to be copyedited for style/tone/diction and sentence structure. Tag applied; I'll try to take a stab at it over the next weekend. /Blaxthos 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rejecting a connection

According to the article, in ADSP, "a connection attempt could be rejected", unlike in TCP. However, in Winsock, the WSAAccept function allows server applications to accept or reject connection attempts based on the address of the client. Does this mechanism not work with TCP too, by sending TCP resets or ICMP errors? The documentation does mention that defending against SYN attacks requires sending the SYN+ACK to the client before calling the server's callback that would decide whether to accept the connection; but AFAIK such defense is not required by TCP itself. 213.216.199.52 05:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

AppleTalk and the Apple II

It should be noted somewhere that the Apple II line also supported AppleTalk. As an add-on card for the //E and IIRC built in to some //C's and the GS. I also remember reading that implementing AppleTalk on the Apple II line involved some careful assembly programing as the 1 Mhz 65C02 could just handle the protocols speed. Dryeo (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice of requested move

Adenosine triphosphate → ATP (Discuss). --Una Smith (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

CNAMEs

Under "Addressing", the article says:
"This can be mitigated somewhat by insistence on using CNAME records indicating service rather than actual machine names to refer to the service..."

I understand this is an example, but it's not entirely accurate — CNAMEs aren't required to have a different name for the same server and, in this case, an A record would probably be better since it's not really an equivalent name for the same server/service. — 72.87.188.198 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed: Cambridge Ring

The statement under History that "AppleTalk is largely based on the (unpatented) Cambridge Ring" and its cited reference (which is an interview with someone who was involved with the Acorn/Cambridge Ring project) are totally incorrect, I believe. Since I helped design and implement AppleTalk at Apple from its inception in 1983 through 1994, I am very confident in this belief. However, being fairly new to editing Wikipedia articles, I would like to give the person who made this statement (or others) a chance to respond before simply deleting it.

AlanOpp (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but the Econet ref I've just added states Acorn's networking technology was the model for Apple's AppleTalk. -- Trevj (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Just reworded this, now I've seen the removed material. -- Trevj (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wired ref is a reliable source and states clearly, "Acorn's networking technology [Cambridge Ring] was the model for Apple's AppleTalk." Note that this is a stronger statement the current version of the article. Of course the source may have gotten it wrong. To refute it we need to find other reliable sources that indicate otherwise. --Kvng (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(third try) The linked articles contain comments by Herman Hauser, someone who fills both articles with various dubious claims of precedence. Some points...

- the first article is vague, but the Wired one very clearly states Hauser's claim that "Acorn's networking technology" was used for AppleTalk. Acorn's networking technology is Econet, not Cambridge Ring. The statement being added to this article is wrong.

- the difference between the two is made even clearer by the preceding statement, "Cambridge Fast Ring network that led to ATM switches". Read the statement, there is no linkage implied between Cambridge Ring and AppleTalk. I believe this has been inferred by Trevj and Kvng, but neither article states this and thus they are SYNners (heh, like that?!)

-Econet and AppleTalk are radically different systems, that share only one point of contact, the use of RS-422/423 signalling. In every other way the systems are different, from the physical implementation (external clocks and terminators vs. clock recovery and self-termination), to software implementation, to the hardware used to support the RS hardware (Moto vs. Zilog).

- the claimed links between CR and ATM are much more dubious. While it is easy to find examples of the CR system being adapted to allow ATM routing, I cannot find any documentary evidence of CR technology or concepts being used during the development of ATM. Like Econet/AppleTalk, ATM and CR are dramatically different systems, and that one can be routed over another is no more interesting than AppleTalk being routed over Ethernet.

- so where does that leave us? This is an article called "AppleTalk", not "things Hermann Hauser says". As far as I am aware, Mr. Hauser was not involved in the development of AppleTalk, and has no links with any of the people that were. So while Wired is certainly RS for "things Hermann Hauser says", the article in question is not RS for "the history of AppleTalk". Without dramatically better supporting evidence from credible 3rd party references, that is, other people saying that AppleTalk was developed from Econet, I am not willing to leave this claim here and the article in question is not RS for this topic. If you want to put this mention in the article on Hermann Hauser, feel free, but it is not suitable for inclusion here except in a "trivia" section, which are generally frowned upon. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You make a good case. I support your removal of the disputed material. --Kvng (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal but consensus is currently against its inclusion. It is indeed notable (and is of encyclopedic value) that the head of another tech company made this claim. If it's incorrect (and I'm not saying I believe the Wired report of Hauser's words above those of others involved) we need a reliable source which refutes it. Removing it because it's not believed to be correct is not the right way to handle this sort of situation. For example, a {{disputed-inline}} tag could possibly be used. It's original research to remove the content. My wording referred to it as a claim, not an outright fact. Anyway, you're right about including it within Hermann Hauser, where any such counter-argument should also be included, if one surfaces. I hope I've explained my opinion understandably. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

For an alternative method of addressing similar issues elsewhere, see Talk:Elite (video game)#Masters of their universe, The Guardian, Francis Spufford. -- Trevj (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's incorrect (and I'm not saying I believe the Wired report of Hauser's words above those of others involved) we need a reliable source which refutes it.

That is precisely what I disagree with. The basis for most of western logic is that you "there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied". Perhaps you are more familiar with Mr. Sagan's simplified version, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

This is an article on AppleTalk, and anyone that examines the two systems at a technical level will see there is no point of commonality between them. If that were not enough, we have direct statements from a member of the original AppleTalk team above denying this. So we are faced with an "extraordinary claim". Would you consider this single sentence from an interview to be "extraordinary evidence"? No? Then there is nothing to refute.

I wrote to Mr. Hauser about this (checking into ORTS). He stated "The Econet (introduced in 1981 for the Acorm Atom and later the BBC micro) used the same Motorola networking chip which was later used by Apple for the Mac (in 1984)." This appears to be the entire basis for his claim. Yet one can trivially look up the fact that the BBM used the Motorola 6854, and the Mac used the entirely unrelated Zilog SCC. So the entire claim is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the useful info.

1. Am I right in thinking you disagree that we need a reliable source to refute the claim? If so, your argument appears to be counter to WP:OR, which states This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. I understand that it seems to be a misunderstanding on Hauser's behalf and therefore his claim appears to have an unfounded basis... and that Sagan would not approve. However, that does not change the fact that the evidence given above seems to be original research. That policy doesn't appear to be based on Sagan's words. Am I missing something somewhere?
2. Now, if Apple's PR department picked this up at the time and issued a clarifying statement then great, let's include both. As I've already said above, my opinion (despite being based on policy) is currently in the minority. Therefore I don't intend to reinclude the material myself. IMO it's a notable encyclopedic piece of information, and can probably be marked as disputed by use of an inline template.
3. Not including such information could be viewed as disregarding WP:NPOV.

Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking you disagree that we need a reliable source to refute the claim That is correct, we do not need a CITE to refute it. That's because...

your argument appears to be counter to WP:OR Research, in the meaning of the term used in OR, is the generation of new claims of fact. What is the claim of fact in this case? That AT was based on Cambridge Ring. What is the basis of this claim of fact? A single quote from someone who was not involved with the development in question. That means that the claim is the OR. In order to be included, then, one needs to provide 3rd party RS supporting the claim.

Make sure you understand this point, it's vital to the way the wiki works. In spite of much verbiage in the documents on OR and such, this point is often confused in precisely the manner you're doing so here. That's because the documents on the topic, well, suck ass.

includes any analysis or synthesis of published material Ah, and this is also very important in this case. Go and read both articles and point to the section where it states that AT was based on Cambridge Ring. Such a section does not exist. One might infer it from the wording of the first of the two articles... but that is what SYN means, coming to a conclusion that is not stated in the original documents.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: Mr. Hauser has replied to my concern about the basis of his statement being based on a claim that is demonstrably wrong. He has admitted his claim is in error. I am checking the email into ORTS. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for not replying sooner.

1. I've now had a bit of a closer look at WP:OR. In the case under discussion here it's irrefutable that the making of the claim (although not its basis) is attributed to RSs. However, it's apparently not attributable to any inside knowledge or actual research by Hauser, Grossman, Anderson or Bennion. I don't think it matters that the claim made in the RSs may be OR. It's been published in RSs, and (per the Elite discussion linked to above) I'm now unconvinced that it's our place as editors to pick and choose what to exclude in this way.
2. I therefore still contest that there are no policy-based reasons for not including the claim in AppleTalk or other articles (as long as it's clearly stated that it's a claim). What we'd then be seeking is a rebuttal of this, along with a {{citation needed}} tag if we've not located such rebuttal in RSs, or a {{disputed-inline}} tag pointing to this discussion. WP:VNT (although an essay) includes Editors [...] may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. This seems to be the case here. WP:V also refers to verifiability, and not truth. It can be verified that the claim was made, although apparently not that it was incorrect. Where is the RS which refutes Hauser's claim? (And doesn't the OTRS email itself, which you've helpfully obtained, amount to WP:OR?)
3. It could be that Anderson's 1996 Wired article ("Acorn's networking technology was the model for Apple's AppleTalk.") is drawing on Grossman's 1993 PCW article (Hauser quoted claiming, "Then in 1984 it was basically copied by Apple, and it's now called AppleTalk."). I agree with you that with reference to Grossman, it's only an inference that AT was actually based on Cambridge Ring. However, stating that this was claimed is neither SYN nor OR as far as I can see from our policies. My May 2012 edits noted it as being a claim, rather than an inference or other WP:SYN. I believe this to be the appropriately accurate and neutral manner in which this should be treated, in accordance with policies.
4. Including the claim and tagging it as disputed and/or needing a citation for the rebuttal is what I believe is required in the interests of WP:NPOV. It would alert other editors to seek for the unsourced counter-claim made (as OR) by a couple of editors here. I'm not disputing the (in)accuracy of the claim. I'm disputing its selective exclusion.

Am I still misunderstanding something? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• sigh*

This statement is wrong. The technology was wrong. The statement was taken out of context and clearly SYN. Mr. Hauser himself has retracted it. I really see no need to say anything else.

If you do, I'd recommend opening a Wikipedia:Third opinion case.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AppleTalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422020240/http://www.techfest.com:80/networking/lan/token.htm to http://www.techfest.com/networking/lan/token.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AppleTalk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061016132614/http://www.opendoor.com/nethistory/MacWorld2004/index.html to http://www.opendoor.com/nethistory/MacWorld2004/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

LocalTalk

This article confuses, probably because Apple did, the LocalTalk hardware and the AppleTalk software protocols. Initially there was only AppleTalk on the built-in hardware, so one name was enough. When they later started using Ethernet and Tokenring, they needed new names, so the previous hardware was renamed LocalTalk. It is not completely obvious how to fix this, but I think if the article early mentions the name change, and then consistently uses the later names, it should work. Gah4 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I tried to add a bit of clarity, but this article (and the LocalTalk article to match) probably needs a massive rewrite to detangle the mess. — tooki (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)