• Ekky@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Just saw this comment.

    Yes, you are completely right. That’s likely also the reason for your confusion regarding OSI, since you appear to compare it to TCP/IP in a rather literal manner.

    Obviously TCP/IP is better at describing TCP/IP than OSI, though while OSI also can be used to describe TCP/IP in a sub-optimal manner, TCP/IP cannot be used to describe OSI.

    • jaybone@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I can’t believe people are actually arguing with this guy. I gave up. Try asking him about frames and the media layer.

      Not sure what the point of this kind of troll is.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        No trolling. You “gave up” because you made a stupid comment saying that the TCP/IP model is an implementation of the OSI model. Which is a nonsense claim that any basic course on networking would disabuse you of.

        Also no “arguing”. Everyone except you was having a very civil and engaging conversation.

        If anyone’s “trolling” here, it’s you.

        Side note: rule 2: be nice.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      That’s likely also the reason for your confusion regarding OSI, since you appear to compare it to TCP/IP in a rather literal manner

      Uhh, no, not really. That literal comparison was my attempt at explaining to you why the two are not equivalent models since you seemed confused about why I would say that. Normally, I’d just stop at “OSI is a theoretical model that exists but was never practically implemented, TCP/IP is used instead.” Because honestly I thought that was fairly self-explanatory. It’s kinda 101-level stuff in networking courses at uni.