Talk:Ping (networking utility)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Move book?[edit]

I don't think the comment about the childrens book supplies any information to the wiki besides the fact that the book exists. Could we move this information to a seperate page? Hopefully then at least it might be developed beyond the stubby link. Is Ping (Literature) accepatable? MB 21:23 16 May 2003 (UTC)

When we have any info, it can be put at The Story of Ping - but we should have a link from here to there so anyone coming here in search of info about the book can be directed there. Or so I feel. Martin

ping is an acronym?[edit]

Mike Muuss wrote the program in December, 1983. From his home page: http://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/ping.html

"I named it after the sound that a sonar makes, inspired by the whole principle of echo-location."

and

"From my point of view PING is not an acronym standing for Packet InterNet Grouper, it's a sonar analogy."

_Many_ technical exams and such refer to ping as an acronym (Packet INternet Groper, so not even the most correct of them), rather than the actual correct meaning (like Sonar).

I really don't feel anyone has the right to change the meaning of the authors name for the application and I feel that the acronyms for the application should be viewed as an incorrect misconception rather than an acceptable definition. milliamp

This may be a case of creating a backronym. People desire the 'reason' for a name and sometimes make up answers. See the article on the computer language Perl for a more explicit example of a backronym. Shenme 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for including that quote from Muuss. I've got a technical manual from Cisco that refers to the acronym ( http://www.manualowl.com/m/Linksys/BEFCMU10/Manual/4735?page=24 ), but I now share your point of view on this.

Don't forget Muuss's next sentence: "From my point of view PING is not an acronym standing for Packet InterNet Grouper, it's a sonar analogy. However, I've heard second-hand that Dave Mills offered this expansion of the name, so perhaps we're both right." I feel that both definitions should be at least being included with the original authors meaning being the primary.

Yes, Even I think so, that both the acronyms should be included with their original authors. I did make a mistake of connecting "grouper" fish with australian coast. But apart from that "Packet Internet Grouper" should also be present here explaining which is what, and thus, clearing understanding of this knowledge for a lay student. Also supported by other sites: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_packet_internet_grouper?#slide=1
And there is even a Wikipedia page named "Packet Internet Grouper" which, when searched, redirects here. So, there should be a mention from where this terminology has emerged and why.. along with the original one.
Thanks..

--Aaniya B (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Hello there! Just as a note, having a redirect page pointing here doesn't mean anything by itself. We'd need some good references in order to conclude "ping" actually has something to do with Packet Internet Grouper. Actually, what would "Packet Internet Grouper" mean? Sorry, but to me, it's meaningless. — Dsimic (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does the section "Other types of pinging" exist?[edit]

There is an actual article for Ping_(video_gaming) and the disambiguation page is quite good in listing out all the different uses of ping. What's the rationale behind this section? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, ... long-standing issue. Like this week, people kept adding other pings and those were collected in that section at one time. Really doesn't belong here. Kbrose (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I will be WP:BOLD and remove it for now, while moving the mention of the MH370 incident to a "Notable uses of ping" section. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 04:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the new section violates WP:TRIVIA but I will leave it there for now, since other editors seemed to have deemed the MH370 information worth keeping. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 04:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree with your concern. The content of your new section could also be greatly debated whether it constitutes an analogy or not, or why it is that much different from the other case we had. From what I understand those pings are not just echo replies, but active signals from the aircraft. Kbrose (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The line I'm basing the analogy on is this "A Ping is a quite common term for IT Networking. It refers to a utility used to test the reachability of a host on an IP network and measure the round-trip time (RTT) of the packets even if it is more frequently associated to the data messages themselves, or “pings”." Does that seem like a reasonable interpretation? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 05:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the article would be better off without that section. Other pings got added when the page title was simply 'ping', IIRC. Since it has been renamed with the disambiguation (networking utility), that should keep people from adding other pings, however, if we have a section, it's once again inviting to add more. Kbrose (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: the following paragraph is more explicit: "Similarly to what happens on a Local Area Network, satellites send pings (once a hour) to their receiving peers that respond to it thus signaling their network presence." – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 05:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In this case it's not that the satellite is sending pings, but the aircraft is sending them, the satellite just happens to listen to everything and records that. So it is not an echo reply like the workings of the networking utility. There are other transponders on an aircraft that do reply on radar pings, but those were apparently turned off. Kbrose (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe the article says that the satellite sends them first "Similarly to what happens on a Local Area Network, satellites send pings (once a hour) to their receiving peers that respond to it thus signaling their network presence," so in that sense it is just ping, but instead of on an IP network, a SATCOM network. ACARS was turned off, but the underlying protocol, SATCOM was not. I think ACARS is some sort of software that uses SATCOM to communicate. Feel free to delete if you don't think it's notable enough for the bottom of the article. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's more complex than I thought, I am finding out, and that makes the inclusion even more dubious. I'll sleep on it for a day... Kbrose (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
For now, I've put an off topic tag on it. Good night, and thanks for your support! – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hello there! I'm really sorry, but "Notable uses of ping" section looked almost like a joke, so I went ahead WP:BOLDly and deleted it while preserving its references as two external links. However, I'm not sure that those even deserve to remain as external links, as they're talking about using the Doppler effect and such stuff. If we'd go so far in generalizing ping, then we can also include more stuff related to submarines and their sonar pings. :) Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's all good! The MH370 stuff was left over from the deletion of the "Other uses of pinging" section which sounded almost as ridiculous. I fixed it and left it there because I wasn't sure if there was a consensus to include some sort of explanation of ping as it related to the incident. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad you're fine with that! I saw the whole evolution of "Notable uses of ping" section, :) and it's good such stuff isn't part of the article any longer. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Dsimic: Yeah, thanks for dropping by to help fix the article! :) – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you for starting the article cleanup. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a manual for Linux but a generic source of information[edit]

For this reason, we cannot have examples that just serve some of the users and confuse others.

Given the fact that the ping source has been forked by various people immediately after the initial source was published in December 1983, the only option that is common to all forks is -d and Linux is not even compatible to the original source as it does not allow to specify the packet size after the hostname.

If we include an example for ping, we thus need to warn about the nonportability of any possible example (SVr4 descendants like Solaris e.g. need -s to enable more than one ping packet. As long as one user denies (as done recently) to have this expressed in the article, it seems to be better to avoid any example. Schily (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Well, how many people/readers use Linux, and how many use Solaris? We should have that in mind while deciding what could or should be confusing. What would be your wording proposal for the additional clarification? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so this is kind of a silly thing to fight about. I've removed the -c option, and clarified that the sample is from Linux. Anyone still unhappy? Sneftel (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Some people seem to be interested in fight rather than helpful articles.
@Dsimic: many examples on wikipedia are based on non-standard CLI variants that only work on Linux even though Linux would support the standardized options as well. I try to fix this whenever I get aware of such a problem. Ping is a special case as there is absolutely no common way to use the various forks, even though these forks have all been derived from the same source. Schily (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)