Talk:Computer networking

message: این مقاله در دست ترجمه است لطفا حذف نشود.  
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariu al (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

message: It links to anything.--Gengiskanhg 23:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons link 

message: This article is more to the history of computer network. Somebody please write a few sentences of computer network's definition. Thanks for reading.
I second that.  I searched for Computer Network, got redirected, then there's no definition of the term in the opening paragraph.
Now the term is there, would anyone mind me adding a bit more history? Just a bit?
Go right ahead buddy, I don't mind reading through stuff like this... It's interesting...
I wrote an article on 'Computer Network' that was previously a redirect page to computer networking. --mlewis000 20:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer network article 

message: These really need to be included:
*Data transmission
*Error detection and recovery
*Flow control
*Network routing and congestion
*Presentation (layer) => data representation
*security
**network cryptography
**authentication/digital signatures
**firewalss etc.
*social issues
**privacy
**freedom of speech
**intellectual property
*network topology
*networking hardware
*standardisation
*media
**guided transmission media
**wireles networks
**satellites
*quality of service
**guaranteed packet delivery
**time guarantees
*application layer
**email
**Domain name system
**www
TreveXtalk 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested sections 

message: Network computing is a seperate, if related, beast to computer networking. The network computing article should focus on the computer, and the computer networking article should focus on networks themselves. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree with the merge of [[Network Computing]] with [[Computer networking]] 

message: This article says "In 1968 Paul Baran proposed a network system consisting of datagrams or packets that could be used in a packet switching network between computer systems." however the article on paul Baran says "Similar ideas were also being independently pursued by Donald Davies from the National Physical Laboratory in the UK and Leonard Kleinrock at MIT." Similar statements about co-invention are made on the Donald Davies and Leonard Kleinrock. Is there any reason why this article shouldn't recognise the contribution made by all three? --Philbarker 12:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one gave me a reason not to, so I did. I've changed the date to be consistent with the history section of the packet switching article and with the account given in chapter 1 of Janet Abbate "Inventing the Internet" MIT Press, 2000.--Philbarker 15:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History (packet switching) 

message: I wrote a new article at Computer_network because the previous article at this location was a redirect to Computer_networking. I believe that the two subjects are different in that someone who is looking for information about a computer network would not necessarily be interested in the subject of computer networking (which is a more complex subject).
I am trying to clean up the unencyclopedic lists in Computer_networking, moving subject matter that is directly related to an increased understanding of what a computer network is to Computer_network. This should make room in Computer_networking for more advanced topics directly concerned with computer networking. However, I am not an expert at computer networking so will probably leave the rewrite of computer networking to someone who is more knowledgeable than myself (The topics suggested by User:TreveX might be a good starting point :-). --mlewis000 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncyclopedic lists, merger of some material, new article at Computer_network... 

message: I've started a conversation on User_talk:Johnpseudo regarding his claim that "article is about computer networking, not the profession of network engineering", which is at odds with other editors feeelings. Anybody wish to weigh in?
:I also agree that there is a difference between computer network and network computing, although I prefer distributed computing for the latter. Indeed, computer network really is a subset of converged IP networks providing voice and video as well as data.
:I would agree that this article does not cover the separate disciplines of network engineering, computer science networking research, and network administration. This article, while it needs much work, has quite enough to be covered before getting into the human skill sets. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Computer networking]] vs [[Computer network]] 

message: Workgroup redirects here, but there is no mention of workgroups in this article.  Could someone fix this? —Dmbrown00 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have got here from  Windows Server domain. There is link to Workgroup their thats redirects to this article, but there is no mention of workgroups in this article.  Could someone fix this? Alexsmail 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Workgroups and other logical groupings defined under views of computer networks. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workgroup 

message: The article speaks of computer networking as a form of engineering, but never addresses the actual engineering skills involved. I believe there should be such a section, which covers both the true engineering level of network & protocol architecture & design, as well as network administration. Some attention would need to be paid to common industry certifications. "Network engineer" is often associated with people who are really network administrators and high-level support technicians, but the common industry certifications may demonstrate enormous knowledge of administering certain vendor projects, rather than the theory-based practice of network engineering.  Some people, of course, are highly qualified both in network engineering and network administration, but they are really different disciplines. A great protocol designer may not be a great troubleshooter, and vice versa. 
Comments? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Discipline of Computer Networking =

message: This site is very usefull content.Please add the external links to this page.
: How is a link to this site useful for the article? Ahy1 12:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've seen this link reappear several times after being removed for a lack of detailed relevance, as in a reference to the text. In a recent reappearance, the date in my signature was changed. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As has already been noted at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Sequence of problematic edits from different but similar IP addresses, the entire site is a bad rip-off of stuff from the Cisco site. We don't link to copyright violations from Wikipedia. --Pak21 13:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: www.netforu.org

message: I have tried to relate these terms to each other in the Data transmission article, especially in its lead. Any comments are helpful. Mange01 (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation between Data communication, Computer communication, Computer networking, Data transmission and Digital communications 

message: I'd rate this article at the Start level.  This is a large and complex topic, and the information included is quite incomplete.  
I'd also decrease it's importance by 1 notch.  Although networking is very important in some disciplines, I wouldn't classify it, for example, as equal in importance to the initial steps in developing the understanding and use of electricity or to the invention of the transistor.
I think the distinction between computer network and computer networking is artificial, unclear, and too specialized for these terms to be treated as separate topics in WP.
The photo at the outset is a poor choice as the only photo.  It is outdated (might be ok in the history section) and it represents only one kind of network hardware.  More photos are needed (which is widely true in WP).
This would be a good place to include a subtopic on Network Architecture, or at least there should be a link to a Network Architecture article.
There should be more detail on a few of the most prevalent network architectures.
Some kind of discussion of network security issues and methods should be included.
Wcmead3 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs major work 

message: Bridges work at OSI model  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.87.115 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  network 

message: Bridges work at OSI model
layer 1
layer 2
layer 3
layer 4  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.87.115 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  network 

message: I would like to suggest this article be renamed Data communications. The goal is to create some distance between this article which I gather endeavors to describe the discipline and methods and Computer network which describes specific technology. I propose Computer networking will redirect to the renamed article. --Kvng (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal 

message: Computer networking and Computer network seem to cover the same ground. We should either merge the articles or figure out exactly where one stops and the other begins. I would prefer a merge. --Kvng (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a merge. The two articles are extremely similar and I think that computer network is the more fundamental topic, and so computer networking should be merged there.Rememberway (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Me too. Two different inflections of the same term, essentially. Would prefer this over "data communications" since that seems a slightly more dated term. We already have telecommunications for the more encompassing field that includes phone networks etc. Now a separate question that seems to have been debated above, is if a separate article on the engineering field is needed. I would favor having computer network be the resulting article, since it is the "root" term. But not adamant.  W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Data communications is usually point-to-point, whereas networking is about creating n>2 networks.Rememberway (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Might be showing my age, but the original "computer networks" consisted of n=1 computer. The single computer in the middle would be connected to some or many terminals in various ways (usually a star or tree) or even remote job entry stations connecting to a central computer in star topology. But generally in modern terminology of course I agree. Anyway the network -> networking merge is fait acompli. Thanks. Perhaps some day "data communicaton" might be split out, but other work probably higher priority for now. W Nowicki (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer network merge