My interpersonal communication protocol/style is the most like...

[tye ]

TCP

 137/28%

UDP

 111/23%

ICMP

 20/4%

IPX

 8/2%

SMB

 8/2%

TFTP

 24/5%

SMTP

 52/11%

NNTP

 18/4%

HTTP

 68/14%

WAP

 12/2%

SOAP

 35/7%

493 total votes

[hardburn]

A list for people who can't decide:

• TCP Conversation starts with short phrases, and could end on an exhastive discourse on the monarchy of middle-age China
• UDP You start conversations with a discourse on the monarchy of middle-age China, but you often skip words in the middle of the sentance, or walk away while you're still talking
• ICMP You run up to people, scream "PING!" in their ear, and run away
• IPX IPX-type people used to be their own kind, but are now largely considered a subset of TCP-type people
• SMB You enjoy running up to a group of people, yelling "HI, EVERYONE!!!", and then run away, only to return a few minutes later
• TFTP Your communication contains only essential details
• SMTP You enjoy harrasing people with your blater one person at a time
• NNTP Like SMTP, but you do it to many people at once
• HTTP Everyone seems to like you, despite glaring problems
• WAP A mostly theoretical communication type that has yet to see a working, practical example
• SOAP You like hanging around an HTTP-type person, but will sometimes be around an SMTP-type person, just to prove you can

[bunnyman]

An alternative interpretation:
• TCP You prefer to have long lasting exchanges, and you always know exactly who you are talking to.
• UDP You utter short phrases and you don't care if you are heard or not. Sometimes you aren't talking to anybody in particular.
• ICMP You exist only to faciliate conversations between other people but you don't have anything to add to the discussion yourself.
• IPX You are amish. You refuse to do things the modern way and you don't speak directly to non-amish people.
• SMB Refusing to speak proper English, you expect everybody around you to learn your native language.
• TFTP You still use telegrams Stop Nothing wrong with that Full Stop
• SMTP You are a mailman.
• NNTP You hold meetings for everything that you do.
• HTTP All you want to know is "What are you asking of me?"
• WAP You don't have much to say, but you can heard far and wide.
• SOAP You are Charles Dickens. Paid by the word, you tend to write much more than you need to get the point across.

[grinder]

WAP A mostly theoretical communication type that has yet to see a working, practical example

Did you know that WAP stands for Wasn't Actually Possible?

[stvn]

I can't really say that I am one protocol, I would rather think of myself as an old clunky server, with a bunch of ports open. (going by Schemer's definitions)

• If I am talking code, I would say UDP, definetely. (but they either walk away or their eye's glaze over)
• TFTP at home, I have a 7 year old and 2 year old twins, essential details are important.
-stvn

[thelenm]

Definitely TCP. I need lots of ACKs back and forth to make sure I understand what my wife is talking about, or else I get very confused.

[b10m]

Sounds like you need an UDP wife. Just let her rant and don't reply ;)

[b10m]

UDP! Who needs handshakes? Just yell ...

[allolex]

I also chose UDP, but I was thinking more abstractly because I send out a lot of data but don't wait for a confirmation... =)

[zakzebrowski]

I also chose UDP, but my thinking was because I tend not to acknowledge communications unless necessary. Also, my communications seem to get dropped often because I've been told to "speak up"... ;)

[{NULE}]

UDP isn't really like yelling (unless you toss UDP packets at the broadcast address). It's more like writing a note to someone, sticking a dart through it, then throwing the dart at the recipient, covering your ears and running away. For this very reason it made my short list of favorites.

However I ended up voting for SOAP (actually for it's simpler cousin, XMLRPC - being a closet Python and Java hacker (uh oh - here comes the --) means XMLRPC is more widely implemented than SOAP and simplifies interoperability). I've been playing with it some recently, and it is a really simple way to move information without worrying about the busy work or complexity of other solutions. It's also neat to build XMLRPC handlers into your existing Perl/CGI or mod_perl scripts and suddenly get all kinds of new worlds of functionality out of them.

Of course this also merits a nod to HTTP, FTP, SMTP and those other protocols that you can run SOAP/XMLRPC on top of.

[CountZero]

Carrier pigeon? If you have nothing to say, you can eat it.

[thelenm]

Sometimes my communication style is a lot like a NO CARRIER pigeon.

[nimdokk]

[Anonymous Monk]

Carrier pigeon? If you have nothing to say, you can eat it.
There is nothing like roast squab finely served!

[Zaxo]

NTP - try for consensus, only to find that nobody really wants to give an opinion.

[flyingmoose]

ICMP. It's like "Whazzup"... and they're like "Dude!".

Occasionally you get people that aren't listening or decide not to answer back because they are better than you or blocked by the router.

I'm from the South, and here "Whazzup" is translated to "How's it going?". The response is usually "How's it going". Yep, ping-back. Rarely do we respond with any useful status, making it much like ICMP.

If you did reply back, it's expected you reply back with "fine" whether or not you are fine or not, since no one actually wants to hear about your problems. Imagine if they actually asked for more information? That's like responding to a ping with a full nmap port scan. Not cool.

[rob_au]

SOAP

Longwinded and often without point :-)

[Skeeve]

HTTP!
I kinda forget what others told me, and what I told them, unless they remind me by giving me a cookie ;-)

[tilly]

I had to say NNTP. I'm often carrying on multiple multi-threaded conversations at a time. :-)

[etcshadow]

HTTP... but specifically like HTTP running on a slow, one processor machine with a crappy scheduler.

That is: always being easily interrupted by new questions, and typically answering very short and to the point questions with answers that just go on and on and on.

Oh, and Content-Length: ...? Hell, no. Transfer-Encoding: chunked, baby... you never know how long I'm gonna just keep prattling on.

[rdm]

I'll stick with my WAP call - my style resembles HTTP superfically, but I adapt the output to fit to the current audience's capabilities. ^_^

[BrowserUk]

Nak! Inter-what?

[coec]

Most of senior managementSome people where I work would use SNMP. From a distance what they say seems vaguely reasonable but on closer inspection you see that they cause more harm than anything else...

[belg4mit]

UDP... order not guaranteed

[coec]

I had a painful out-of-hours support call from a COBOL developer a couple of days ago (I'm a Linux/AIX sys admin, though more Linux than AIX). It went a little like this:
Developer: <initiates converstaion via mobile phone>
Me: <accepts call>Hello.
Developer: problem blah blah whine blah
Me: Have you tried
Developer: <sends SIGINT followed by detail not relating to current conversation>
Me: Have you tried
Developer: <sends SIGINT followed by explaination of what the system did several years ago>
Me: Have you looked at
Developer: <sends SIGINT followed by detail not relating to current conversation>
Me: <sends SIGUSR1 to self causing deep breath and hold temper>Let me log in and
Developer: <sends SIGINT followed by question as to why this occurred>
Me: <wants to send SIGKILL to developer>
...
grrr

[DrHyde]

Bugger being "the most like" one of those protocols. My interpersonal communication protocol *is* SMTP. I am my email address.

[tbone1]

[KPeter0314]

WAP - After telling my boys a dozen or so times to do something, a light WAP usually gets them moving. 8^)

[Paulster2]

As I keep telling my boss, I'm not a networking kinda person. I don't have a clue! Maybe it's a mental block? Maybe I'm just mental. Either way, works for me.

[insite2000]

I chose HTTP because you can throw anything you want at me but I only respond 'OK' if I like it. Otherwise I'll smile nice but I'm not listening. I was trying to think of something witty about 404 and blue jeans, but my incredible physique forces me to wear 550 relaxed fit. Somebody pass the chips.

[parkprimus]

I thought about UDP but chose TCP because I did not want to be seen talking to my self for hours and hours!

[Roger]

I am definitely UDP, I lose track of things when they don't come back to me. ;-D

[kutsu]

I'm a TCP person, start out with short greeting end up with long converstation that nobody remembers the point of ;)

[elwarren]

UDP: Constantly firing off bits of info and not waiting for their response.

They either get what I'm saying or not. I've grown weary of explaining details to people that won't retain it anyway. Example, "What do you mean I don't have to put the WWW in front???"

[Berik]

I chose SMB cause I not a great speaker, while my peers seem to understand me quite well. =)

[gregor42]

[bradcathey]

I couldn't find TGIF on the list, which most closely matches my style.

[gmpassos]

TCP, because it works, it's simple, and it's in anywhere!

Well, actually a lot of protocols in the list are based on TCP.

[makar]

I think the only humor I can bring to this is my lack of knowledge. For me, IPX is the thingy that I used to play Descent as a teen ^_^.

[mce]

[OverlordQ]

UDP!! Unreliable Data Packets!