Slashdot Mirror


Rendezvous, Microsoft And Apple

serendigital writes "MacCentral reports that a BusinessWeek article entitled: 'A Rendezvous with Redmond?' has -- with Rendezvous -- created an actual threat to Microsoft. As reported by MacCentral, it's interesting to note that BusinesWeek's 'Byte of the Apple' columnist Charles Haddad is on temporary leave and this article was written by a substitute columnist."

112 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. One more reason I am considering getting a Mac by leerpm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They come out with the coolest technologies and they just work great!

    1. Re:One more reason I am considering getting a Mac by Darth+RadaR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since you can now run bash and other unix-y things on Macs, I've noticed there have been a lot more people at the 2002 LISA conference with Mac laptops than PC laptops. At the 2000 LISA conference, most people had Sony Vaios.

      --
      /*drunk.. fix later*/
  2. Worst quote ever in the Apple Section by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Funny
    Still, at the time many Apple observers reacted cautiously. "Cool app, but show me something real and meaty," seemed to be the general feeling.

    That's what she said.

    I can't believe I actually posted this. Wait...Yeah, I can.

    1. Re:Worst quote ever in the Apple Section by damiam · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  3. On leave? Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    > it's interesting to note that BusinesWeek's 'Byte of the Apple' columnist Charles Haddad is on temporary leave and this article was written by a substitute columnist.

    WHY is this interesting to note?? Charles Haddad is nothing but an apple apologist, a real zealot. Have you read his previous articles? They are all sugar-coated for Apple. He runs the Apple column at that site, so this is to be expected of course, but I prefer more objectivity.

    1. Re:On leave? Good by SoftwareJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the unfortunate truth that it is still hard to do anything meaningful with a Mac.

      I'm not a big Mac apologist, but may I ask what meaningful things are harder to do on a Mac than on Windows? It can't be using Microsoft Office documents, because there is an official Microsoft Office for MacOS, even OSX. That is the thing most people seem to complain about with other non-Windows OSes. So what are you talking about "anything meaningful" is awfully open ended.

    2. Re:On leave? Good by andrewski · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe he means scraping the registry for the shattered corpse of an unsucessfully uninstalled program? Or perhaps he means the constant rebooting even in XP. Or, maybe, just maybe, it is Bonzi Buddy that is meaningful to him.

    3. Re:On leave? Good by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you *Really* wanted to support your claim that you can't do anything meaniful with a Mac, you'd have noted that you posted your comment from one.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    4. Re:On leave? Good by WatertonMan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I love OSX and think it a vastly superior desktop OS to either XP or Linux with KDE or Gnome. However, having said that, there clearly are things OSX doesn't yet do easily. Try browsing a Windows network. Yes you can connect, but (to quote an earlier post) you have to write down the address. There isn't anything equivalent to clicking on Network Neighborhood or Computers Near Me and seeing everything. You have to know IP addresses and so forth for printers. Further the printer drivers for OSX are often inferior to XP versions.

      There are solutions to this, of course. For instance if you are printing to printers on a PC network, I'd advise getting GimpPrint. It takes a lot of Linux printer drivers for GIMP, adds some nice UI, and makes them general OSX drivers. (The underlying CUPS printing system is very nice - its just that printer dirvers often are woefully underpowered in their native OSX forms)

      GimpPrint

      The other solution to accessing a Windows network with a Mac is the "write it down solution." Hardly ideal, although to be fair, something Linux users also typically end up doing. There are some freeware/shareware solutions that provide browsers. Not all of them work equally though. (i.e. they don't really solve the underlying issues) The following is one that many people like. (I personally only have a few shares and thus only need to set them up once, after which "who cares?"

      SMB Browse

      My point isn't that this is a huge problem. (It isn't) But it is something that is vastly easier in XP than in OSX. Further many "less tech savvy" individuals will have problem hooking their Mac to their PC network. Hopefully Apple will resolve this in 10.3. (Certainly they need to seriously revamp the Finder due to its lack of multithreading and poor FTP support along with the SMB problems)

    5. Re:On leave? Good by bigBlackSabbath · · Score: 3, Informative

      All my Macs running can browse my windows NT domains as well my Samba Domains, no problem.

      Maybe your problem has to with the way your network is configured (I'd check out your WINS server as a hunch). OS X is using Samba. If you want to figure out why you can't browse, try checking the Samba page (or do a Google search).

      Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

    6. Re:On leave? Good by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 4, Informative

      All I have to do to browse a Windows network is click in the box in the Connect To Server Windows - everything comes right up, workgroups/domains first.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    7. Re:On leave? Good by gray+peter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that is the ONLY thing holding back the mac movement. They are still a lot more expensive than their inferior Intel-type brethren. They are better built, easier to use, friendlier, and more reliable. Now with OS-X they are easy to write code for and can be used as servers. The only thing holding me back is the price tag. Anyone remember the fiasco when they tried to let other companies put out Mac Clones in the 80s?

      --
      May no camel spit in your yogurt soup.
    8. Re:On leave? Good by pete_p · · Score: 3, Informative
      I love OSX and think it a vastly superior desktop OS to either XP or Linux with KDE or Gnome. However, having said that, there clearly are things OSX doesn't yet do easily. Try browsing a Windows network. Yes you can connect, but (to quote an earlier post) you have to write down the address. There isn't anything equivalent to clicking on Network Neighborhood or Computers Near Me and seeing everything. You have to know IP addresses and so forth for printers. Further the printer drivers for OSX are often inferior to XP versions.

      In 10.2, Connect to Server will list Windows workgroups and machines.
      At least, it does on my machine. Try clicking the down arrow to the right of the At popup?
      --
      Insert wit here.
    9. Re:On leave? Good by Pathwalker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Eat Food - Well, you can't download a hot dog, but you can find things to make eating more pleasant or order food online.

      Breathe Air - You could suck down the power supply exhaust, but that doesn't really count. You can however check to see if you can breathe when you go outside.

      Sex - Technology has not advanced that far yet, but I've had good luck meeting new people online, then meeting up with them in person.

      Ride a bicycle - Buy parts, plan routes, get maps, etc..

      Walk through the woods - here you go - it's a QTVR I made a couple of years ago of a walk along a creek to the river it joins up with. All kidding aside, this one probably can have the most computer involvement. After all, you want to get topographic maps somewhere, and maybe check out an overhead view of the area you plan on walking through, not to mention sharing details of where you went with friends.

    10. Re:On leave? Good by nonsuchworks · · Score: 2, Informative

      Precision CD Ripping. I can 100% automate the process of dual ripped and verified .wav files using exact audio copy (freeware) on windows and have them auto-encoded to OGGs. Nothing like this on OS X.

      I'm not sure I understand this process exactly, or which functionality you're missing, but if it's the lack of automation that rankles, you need to start investigating AppleScript. It's a falling-off-a-log easy scripting language that allows you to hook into OS and 3rd-party apps to automate routine tasks. Like I said, I'm not sure I quite get what you're up to, but I'd be willing to wager that a script that tapped into the Finder and, say, Toast would do everything you needed.

  4. VOIP by spnbs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The author suggests that Apple should release a Rendezvous enabled VOIP app. It seems to me that he's almost hit the nail on the head. Imagine if all new Macs came with not only that app, but also a phone jack that you could plug your telephone into. Maybe partner with a long distance company to provide a .Mac internet-to-phone calling plan! The possibilities are wide open for a company who owns the hardware, the software, and has little bit of capital.

    1. Re:VOIP by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, that could replace e-mail as way of communicating. Just think about it. instead of typing you use your voice.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:VOIP by brarrr · · Score: 5, Funny

      >> but also a phone jack that you could plug your telephone into

      you mean like a modem?

      --
      to email me: take my /. handle and append .net preceded by charter.
    3. Re:VOIP by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      " The author suggests that Apple should release a Rendezvous enabled VOIP app. It seems to me that he's almost hit the nail on the head. Imagine if all new Macs came with not only that app, but also a phone jack that you could plug your telephone into. Maybe partner with a long distance company to provide a .Mac internet-to-phone calling plan! The possibilities are wide open for a company who owns the hardware, the software, and has little bit of capital."

      It is possible that this has been in Apple's business plan for a while new. Keep in mind that they do own the domain iPhone.com.

  5. Nothing really new... by Aviancer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the real question is if this will dissapear into obscurity as JINI has (a similar technology using Java).

    1. Re:Nothing really new... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 5, Informative
      Rendezvous seems to have a much greater chance of working. First, it is not language centric, as was JINI and secondly it is much easier to understand and implement. JINI tried to do too much and people just gave up trying to understand it.

      If these Apple press release are anything to go by, then Rendezvous has already made huge headway:

      Although already posted in further down, here is Apple's page on Rendezvous. I want to see this technology work, because simplicity is what most people want. If its simple, then people just use the technology and don't notice its there - this is what future computing must strive to do.
      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  6. Home usage only by petree · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A lot of the technology behind this seems very cool in nature, but just like AppleTalk (which had many similar zeroconf features) i can't imagine it will scale very well. Although this article would love you to think otherwise, I would imagine this whole thing would have more of an effect on the home market then on the buisiness market. I can see not wanting configure applications on small network, but with all of these broadcast packets i would imagine it would saturate a low speed (read:wireless) network.

    Oh yeah, and
    "Here's another idea that crossed my mind. How about using Rendezvous to power local-phone traffic inside a midsize office? Get rid of the wires. Use cheap voice-over-IP phones plugged into Macs equipped with Wi-Fi cards. No more need for inside plant specialists to check wiring or string cables to the desks." ...

    Oh yeah, I -REALLY- want my phone to drop out whenever someone tries to microwave their lunch.

    All of this is fun for small networks, but there is a reason no one has done a lot of this before, because it doesn't scale well.

    1. Re:Home usage only by d3xt3r · · Score: 5, Informative
      ... but with all of these broadcast packets i would imagine it would saturate a low speed (read:wireless) network.

      Although wireless networks offer slower bandwidth than their wired counterparts, they do offer one advantage over hard-connected ethernet: they don't suffer from the same saturation problems. While 100 demanding users could quickly saturate a shared 100 MB/S wire, the same users on wireless will not interfere with eachother. Wireless scales much better than you seem to think.

      Secondly, a couple hunderd extra broadcast packets aren't going to saturate a 100 base-t network. A packet is tiny. If I do a tcpdump right now, you wouldn't believe the number of broadcast packets flying around here at this moment. My network connnection isn't being adversely affected.

      Also, I'd really differ with you that Rendezvous isn't useful in a business setting. Obviously it's not going to replace DNS for the majority of services, but it could seriously simplfy things like, printing, scanning, and maybe even some file sharing. I don't doubt that this technology will find a great place in the home, but it certainly doesn't mean it's useless to businesses. It's worth noting though that Rendezvous is limited to the current machine's local subnet.

    2. Re:Home usage only by mlyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unless you're talking about the brand-spanking-new (and really cool, but stil unshipped) technology from Vivato, this isn't the way things work. There's only so much spectrum, and you can only fit so much data onto that spectrum. Adjacent access points need to be on different channels in most circumstances for this reason. There's only so much spectrum and you can only fit so much data onto it.

      Vivato uses "packetsteering" (phased array technology) to receive different signals from different directions simultaneously. But existing 802.11b doesn't allocate a seperate 11mbps to each user. In fact, if you have just 1 802.11b user and 1 802.11g user, the 802.11g user will only get like 15-16mbps of throughput.

      Final note-- you mean mb/s, not MB/s.

    3. Re:Home usage only by Jordy · · Score: 2, Informative

      802.11b is a Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) technology with three full channels (most of the 11 overlap two channels.)

      Each full channel is able to handle 11 Mbps. Since your access point only operates on one channel, your maximum throughput is 11 Mbps, period. Each wireless connection gets a portion of that using DSSS to keep interference between multiple wireless clients down.

      Realistically, you get about 6 Mbps per access point. If you try transferring a file between two computers on the same access point, you'll see about 3 Mbps as it is essentially a half-duplex connection.

      --
      The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
    4. Re:Home usage only by riceboy50 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Secondly, a couple hunderd extra broadcast packets aren't going to saturate a 100 base-t network.
      A. Wireless is not 100 Mbit (networks aren't measured in Megabytes 'MB', rather in Megabits), it can reach at best about 50 Mbit (54 I believe for 802.11g and a little overhead)
      B. Wireless is not "base-t", that stands for twisted-pair medium.
      C. Broadcast traffic saturates ANY ethernet (that means tcp/ip) based LAN, it's not the wire that gets flooded with packets, it's the clients trying to transmit data on the medium (i.e. twisted pair, wireless, etc.)
      D. At least in wired networks you can do a little more segmenting with devices like switches whereas in wireless, any device in range transmits to the same medium.
      E. I watch the interface usage on my gentoo "elegant machine", residing on a relatively large wireless network (major university) and even just normal broadcast traffic can take it up to between 4-10% usage. Imagine if an inefficient Apple protocol were unleased on it... it wouldn't be pretty.

      An additional point of interest, I don't see security measures hinted at and I can imagine they are probably lacking and generally ineffective. Think twice before you criticize the architecture that fuels business.

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    5. Re:Home usage only by steve_l · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'd be surprised how chatty badly done multicast protocols can be...UPNP is an example of something that really, really, shouldnt be allowed near a corporate network. RV just leverages DNS, so is less of a load.

      But, the IETF work on Service Location Protocol does scale beyond a subnet, and once you add an (optional) SLP directory service, clients stop multicasting, only the dir service multicasts to advertise its existence; everything just talks straight to the service.

      Where all these device discovery protocols fail on the office LAN is there is no point knowing there are 15 printers within two datagram hops, you want to print to the closest machine, and you dont want to have to install another print driver to do so...

    6. Re:Home usage only by Cajal · · Score: 5, Informative

      A lot of the technology behind this seems very cool in nature, but just like AppleTalk (which had many similar zeroconf features) i can't imagine it will scale very well. Although this article would love you to think otherwise, I would imagine this whole thing would have more of an effect on the home market then on the buisiness market. I can see not wanting configure applications on small network, but with all of these broadcast packets i would imagine it would saturate a low speed (read:wireless) network.

      Actually, ZeroConf contains many provisions for scalability:

      • It is just using DNS packets, which have no connection overhead, and are small.
      • It can pack multiple DNS queries or answer into a single packet, reducing protocol overhead.
      • All DNS traffic is multicast. Other hosts on the network can see responses to your queries, and cache this information. They then suppress their own queries for similar services (i.e., if you just looked for IPP printers, and 5 min later someone else wants to, that person can just use the cached information from your query).
      • Devices announce their presense when they join a network, but the frequency of these announcements is reduced exponentially, up the rate of about 1/hour.
      • Apple has said that they designed ZeroConf to generate significantly less traffic than AppleTalk.

    7. Re:Home usage only by huckleup · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've only read a bit about it, but as far as I understand it, Rendezvous systems only broadcast when they first come on line. They broadcast - 'Here I am and here are my services'. At that point all the other machines on the net cache that info. Then they broadcast a 'who else is out there' message' so that they can sync up with other machines that booted previously. If any new service comes on line after bootup, only the info for that new service is broadcast, and only once. So, once a network is set up, there are no 'continuous' broadcasts to clog the network. I believe a system can broadcast a message to tell the net to resync at any time, but that is not normally required and shouldn't happen very often.

      One of the reasons why Apple systems became so popular in the 80's was because of this type of technology that they developed (i.e. AppleTalk Name Binding Protocol). A small publishing business could take a few Macs and a LaserWriter and plug them together using simple cabling and magically the printer just appeared in everyone's Chooser. No print servers required, no DNS, no DHCP. It all 'just worked' the way people needed and wanted it to work.

      Since then, networks have gotten more pervasive, and the kinds of peripherals available are much greater and more sophisticated than just printers. So Apple learned from their mistakes (e.g. the chattiness of AT), updated for new types of peripherals and networking requirements and essentially developed (with other peer companies) a next generation of AppleTalk NBP, and they call it Rendezvous/ZeroConf.

      Microsoft has simililar technology already in SMB. But most would agree that it is very hard to set up without significant technical expertise and of course it is proprietary, among other well documented limitations.

      What is so annoying in threads like this is that so many people just make shit up with a predisposed biased perspective because Apple had something to do with it, and assume Apple can't do anything right. And then so many other people just run with the crap. They assume that some idiot made up some stupid protocol and that there was no thought process and no peer review. They never read the docs and talk about real information. They can't imagine that some smart people may have actually come up with a cool idea, thought about the potential issues and tradeoffs, and solved them as best as anyone could. Luckily there are a few people that try to comat the crap, but most just ignore the real information and continue on spouting the crap, because they really just want to bash.

      Just wait a year or so. Rendezvous will be ubiquitous. And people will be benefitting from it and wonder how they ever lived without it. Apple will have lead the way, yet again. And Windows and Linux users will benefit from it just as much as Apple users.

  7. This is sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work for a high-tech company, that must remain nameless, and in my work I talk to IT people on a regular basses across the U.S. I am astounded that most of these people even have jobs. I must however convey that every now and then I come across a person of the highest integrity and the ability to get the job done right. The sad part is, that this only happens in about one in twenty contacts, way too low of a number to have these people running our country. When they've been bad, I have no idea how the company is even running, but when they've been good, it's been crystal clear why they hold that position and are an asset to the computing world.

    Food for thought, when ever I converse with the people who do a great job and run they're IT department efficiently, and Apple/Macintosh is part of the conversation, they have no problem with it. I quote in a conversation just last Friday, "in our company we do what ever it takes to get the job done in the most efficient and effective way, at this time Mac's are not part of our makeup, but if that's the direction we need to go in the future, then we will. I am loyal to my company, not Microsoft and certainly not Dell.

    1. Re:This is sad by cyb3r0ptx · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if they spell 'incompetent' as 'incompitent'? Can he then remain on his 'pedistal'?

    2. Re:This is sad by MECC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've seen this as well. It seems that if the only thing someone knows is Windows or the Macintosh GUI, they have a hard time with complicated information. It seems that people who have had to figure out a structured knowlege set like UNIX, networking, or a programming language, they have an easier time figuring out a new structured informations set. I've also found this to be true of people who have a strong background in a physical or logical discipline, like physics or math. The curious thing is that where I work, the 'mac-heads' do seem to have an easier time with complicated information sets, but in all fairness, they are all have degrees in computer science, and some of the windows experts only have degrees in Business. Please don't take that as troll bait, its just my observation of my own corner of the it world.

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
  8. And it works for games, too by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was pleasantly surprised when I noticed that "Pop-pop" is rendezvous-enabled. No need to "host" a game -- you just see each other, double-click to request a game.

    What is interesting is that even though "normal host a game over IP" stuff still works, and is dead-easy to config, rendezvous seems to be relatively easy to drop into an app.

    I was skeptical at first, but now I'm curious to see what neato things people will start to implement using rendezvous.

    --
    -- clvrmnky
    1. Re:And it works for games, too by donutello · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great! Now I can play Breakout, Super Breakout and Photoshop easily!

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
  9. Security? by g8oz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How does that fit into Rendezvous?

    1. Re:Security? by IPFreely · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Security? How does that fit into Rendezvous?

      Actually, a more important question than it sounds on first read.

      Rendezvous is a nice trick, and should be lots of fun for the Apple cadre. All of the Apple users in their own little world of friendliness and cooperation against the agression of MS. But if it takes off, eventually you get a critical mass of users, and the script kiddies and crackers invade.

      This technology sounds like it could become a loophole for lots of security breaks, or at least an easy path to Denial of Service. I hope it isn't quite as easy to get to other peoples computers as this article makes it sound.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    2. Re:Security? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to tie in security. It seems to me that Rendezvous is just another layer of abstraction on top of TCP/IP. Instead of configuring a machine with an IP address, or for DHCP, the machine is configured to talk to the network already.

      The same thing would occur, for instance, if I brought my laptop in to work, enabled DHCP, and plugged it in to a jack. My laptop would then be able to ping the range of IP address in the network without a problem.

      The applications that use Rendezvous can probably be changed to be used with a normal network (iTunes and such). The security model then becomes based on the security of the OS of the machines on the network. I understand that it is still necessary to log in to your machine before using, and Rendezvous probably has some way of incorporating that. If Joe-Schmoe user does not have permissions to my filesystem, then Joe-Schmoe user will not be able to listen to my mp3's. I'm sure the same goes for the printer stuff.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    3. Re:Security? by Lethyos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does security fit into DNS? Or any other low-level protocol? Does TCP authenticate your remote logins? No, but a protocol higher up on the stack does (like SSH). Rendezvous is a low-level protocol and does not deal with security. You can build an insecure web browser *g* as easily as you can an insecure Rendezvous app.

      Correct me if I am wrong. :-)

      --
      Why bother.
    4. Re:Security? by steve_l · · Score: 2

      so you believe in security through obscurity of discovery, then?

      all service location does is make weak points easier to find. But you'd be mad to export such discovery protocols beyond the firewall. Madder things have happened...what is the RV request for 'all machines with SQL server on port 1434?'

    5. Re:Security? by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember when you used to be able to telnet into your hosting account?

      People didn't have or know too much about Telnet, so default services and configs of servers wern't too "locked down" out of the box.

      Fast forward, and distros and OSes are becoming increasingly locked down out of the box. Nobody who will eventually make money as a web host is letting you connect to their servers with anything less than SSH.

      What many people fail to realize is that an increase in the ease with which we can 'discover' possible points of entry and visibility of services (affected by both changes in technology and increased unbiquity of access clients) results in a hightened awareness of security and generally more secure out of the box configs.

      The funniest part is how many insecure WAP networks are out there .. because users have to configure them manually, and we can't expect them to all get it right! So a zeroconf network is actually a good thing .. the details of what gets shared and open by default is left to computer security professionals instead of users who don't know any better or dont have the time/money to properly educate themselves as to how to secure a wireless network.

      Don't throw the baby out with the bath water here .. lets keep the bathwater! All we really need to do is keep aware of the design and out of the box configuration of the bathtub, and improve it as neccessary. Fortunately, even in MSes case, that is the trend. Ship or auto-configure in a conservative state, and try and limit the amount of times it becomes neccessary for people who may not be experts to tinker. (And before you jump on me, yes, it should be simple and easy for an expert to override zeroconf situations.)

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re:Security? by IPFreely · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What makes you think that someone who is concerned with broadcast discovery suddnely believes in "security through obscurity of discovery"?

      A protocol like Rendezvous is not passive. It must broadcast queries and respond to broadcast queries for this type of system to work. that goes beyond firewall and obscurity concerns. The responses to those queries must be sufficiently validated so they can't cause problems in the network. Someone could create an intentionally malicious reply that indicates the presents of certain devices that are not really there. Your machine then interfaces with that device with a certain amount of trust. If it is really a trojan on the network, how do you know? A few well times "transmission errors" or inconsistant resource replies can turn into DOS across the board.

      Active discovery has to take a lot more risks than simply hunkering down behind a firewall. It must place a certain amount of "Trust but Verify" on its surroundings. You aren't always behind a company firewall. Sometimes you are sitting in the airport waiting for a flight and checking your email through the local wireless hub.

      And since this is all supposed to be zero-admin, just how much hands on configuration and oversite do you think the user should be put through?

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  10. Sweet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "You walked into a room bearing a laptop running Jaguar (the latest version of the OS X operating system) with a wireless networking (Wi-Fi) card, and you could instantly see the iTunes music files of everyone else in the room with a similar setup."

    AWESOME!!!

    -H. Rosen

    1. Re:Sweet!!! by clmensch · · Score: 2, Informative
      First of all, you have to have the Windows networking client installed. That's usually not an issue, but it isn't something EVERYBODY uses. Then you have to search your local network for machines with shares...and if it's a big org that could mean many many options. Then you have know what shares on those machines house the directories you are interested in...and if the "mp3" directory isn't at the top level, you could have some perusing to do. Then when you find the directory, you have manually create a playlist in your player of choice...and repeat the process for each share you want to utilize.

      With Rendezvous-enabled iTunes, your machine automatically finds all other machines on the network that are sharing via iTunes. It will even display their playlists so you don't have to create your own. You don't have to do anything but launch iTunes.

      Your argument is like saying, "Sure I can microwave this microwaveable popcorn bag in two minutes...but my gas stove, popcorn popper cookware, bottled popcorn, and Wesson oil can make popcorn too, and only five times slower! And all I need to know is how much corn and oil to use!"

      --
      There is no gravity...the earth just sucks.
    2. Re:Sweet!!! by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 3, Funny
      There is this beautiful option in windows called searching. You could do a search on the domain for *.mp3, then select all and enque, I am sure that that's all this program is doing but it is just doing it in the background.
      I don't usually respond to flamebait, but come on! You seriously think that automatic discovery is nothing more than a fancy front for a full-fledged domain search? And, by the way, how do you intend to search the whole domain?

      I checked your website to see what kind of person we're dealing with, too. "At this site, you will discover all about our ability to help you build your corporate network, as well as our courteous and resourceful staff." We will discover all about your ability? Your resourceful staff should find a good grammar resource. And then there's the line at the bottom - "if you don't hire us, your stock holders will know." Whoever came up with that line should not be allowed to speak in public.
      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
  11. ZeroConf on Linux? by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's the state of ZeroConf on Linux? How long before the major distributions have out-of-the-box support for Rendezvous? What would be required to make that happen?

    Also, what exactly are the security implications? Obviously there are certain things you don't want to broadcast to just anybody! Rendezvous could make wardriving even easier...

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:ZeroConf on Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      zcip has been available in the kernel for more than a year. Last I looked, it hasn't received a great deal of fanfare. It is an incomplete implementation of the spec. Most of the recent updates have usually dealt with handling incompatibilities with Microsoft's incorrect implementation of zeroconf protocols in Windows.

      Remember that Rendezvous is really a packaging of three separate protocols, not just zeroconf. So full Rendezvous support in Linux requires more porting work.

  12. Imagine a beowulf cluster of ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, you wouldn't NEED a beowulf cluster, with the Rendezvous-enabled programs CPU-shifting the work in your office.

  13. scarey by gmack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems to me that zero configuration automatic sharing of resources is exactly what I don't want.

    I'm seeing a lot of features but where is the security? This looks a lot like how older versions of windows used to share the contents of your drive over ethernet but not dialup without asking and theres a good reason they stopped doing that.

    Or have I missed something?

    1. Re:scarey by bnenning · · Score: 4, Informative
      It seems to me that zero configuration automatic sharing of resources is exactly what I don't want


      It's not automatic sharing, it's automatic discovery. Rendezvous will tell you that there's a machine providing a particular service on your LAN, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll be able to gain access to it.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    2. Re:scarey by Llywelyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The ability to discover services that are being offered on a closed network is not generally considered a security risk.

      Sometimes, but rarely.

      Ease of Use vs Security is a major issue, and if this covered the entire internet there might be problems, but this is for local networks--if you can't trust them at least enough to know where the printers are, then you are running at a higher security model than most schools, homes, or businesses ever even consider.

      Remember, you have to specifically enable a lot of these services on a Mac and generally, after having specifically enabled them, you want people to be able to use them.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  14. Tittillating tech titans touch together! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Could the Belle of Cupertino and the Stud of Redmond be the hottest new couple on the Siliconwood stage? That's what this gossip reporter tried to find out this week, but alas there was little 411 to be found as intimate confidantes of both parties were tight lipped and mum!

    Apple and Microsoft we heard to be discussing a "rendezvous" of some sort. Could it be merely a business deal, or a romantic entanglement? Une telle excitation!

    Only time will tell, sassy tech fans! Maybe Microsoft can only tell us how Apple signs a contract. But if the stars favor romance as Valentine's Day (every geek's FAVORITE holiday!) approaches, perhaps Microsoft will learn if Apple cries out or sighs softly or squeals like a pig as she, well, consummates the deal, if you know what I mean.

    And I know you know, you naughty voyeurs! ;-) Une fessée sur le fond pour vous!

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  15. Rendevous A Redmond Killer Does Not Make by visionsofmcskill · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Rendevous is certainly a humungoesly great piece of software... however... i do NOT see it as a redmond killer even mixed with it's many abilities and supporters.

    why?

    because its open source...

    Ironicly this is in redmond favor.... since if they ever see it as a threat to themselves due to their lack of such a feature, they'll simply incorporate it... And with that the advantage apple had over MS is gone.

    With the major printers on board amongst others begining to support it.... I highly doubt it will take Bill long to make sure MS also supports it AND adds their own special "windows enhanced" features to it.

    This whole situation is anologous to when apple made the USB only imac.... in a time when USB was common, but USB products weren't.... Apple suddenly created a greatly under-supported market.... which suddenly rushed to fill the whole with plethras of USB devices.... that didn't even take a year to become predominatly PC.

    --Enter The Sig --

    --
    --Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
    1. Re:Rendevous A Redmond Killer Does Not Make by Derg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Somebody puhleaze mod parent up! This is soo True. Simply put, What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Apple grabs the open source project, puts out their own rendition, and scares MS. MS Grabs themselves a copy, adds their own features, and pushes back. Winner? the users.

      --
      I'm a little tea pot.
  16. The writer is on crack by Ducon+Lajoie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This article is perfectible...

    The first thing Apple shipped using rendez-vous was iChat. The iTunes demo refered to has yet to ship. (you can get the same fuctionnality using iCommune though).

    Then, it's not that magical. It only works on one subnet, no way to manually add hosts to the resolver (at least not without serious hacking).

    What's the deal with Safari helping you change your printer config? IF your printer advertises itself as a web serveur via Rendez-vous, AND you ask safari to display Rendez-vous-discovered bookmarks, then yes, you can directly access the printer's config pages. But the article does not make this clear at all. And this is different from auto-discovering printers, which I have yet to test since the old HPs we use are still go for a couple hundred thousand pages.

    The wild guesses about distributed computing are still a pipe dream, Rendez-vous or not.

    And at work, somehow, aliases of Rendez-vous-mountedd servers won't resolve after unmounting the server. Aliases made of servers mounted via AFP or Appletalk will resolve and mount the server.

    Rendez-vous is cool, but it still has a long way to go before it is as polished (from a user POV) as the old Appletalk system.

  17. Re:Let them fight among themselves by banky · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not open source?

    I wonder what that source download is.

    Or mod_rendezvous for Apache.

    Or the CVS access.

    --
    ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
  18. Re:Let them fight among themselves by MouseR · · Score: 4, Informative

    What the hell are you talking about?

    Rendez-Vous is based on Zero-Config, an open-sourced standard.

    Apple merely enhenced it a bit and wrote some high-level APIs for even speedier development. But it's just Zero-Config. Rendez-Vous sources are available as all Darwin source code at Darwin.org.

  19. Networking for dummies...but by aarondsouza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure this "instant networking" is all very cool, but for most geeks in the know, we *want* to be able to configure till we die.

    Security restrictions? Can I restrict the range of IP addresses that access my music folders? Password access? Encryption? I wanna tweak dammit! The problem with that is that as soon as you make the system more powerful and have all these geek-satisfying options, you need to be able to get down to the nuts and bolts of configuring it. Otherwise you end up in the same mess as MS, with users blindly enabling potentially insecure servers.

    --
    "In mathematics, it's not enough to read the words -- you have to hear the music"
    1. Re:Networking for dummies...but by hawkbsd · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you're confusing what Rendezvous is doing. It's just a discovery protocol. On the server side, it advertises the existence of a service available on a particular port. On the client side, it browses for services of a particular type. It does this only on the local subnet.

      When a client tries to contact a server, that's when the firewall rules/access control lists/what-have-you kick in. There's nothing keeping you from restricting the incoming connections by IP, or having the server ask for a password. The former is a firewall-level restriction, and the latter is about the specific protocol you're using.

  20. Microsoft's response by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Considering the extreme cost-savings inherent in zero-config networking like this, what is the most likely Microsoft response? The ones I can think of are:

    a) Ignore
    b) FUD
    c) Embrace/extend/destroy

    One important question: Does the Apple Public Source License (under which Rendezvous has been released) give Apple the ability to stop Microsoft from embracing/extending/destroying?

    1. Re:Microsoft's response by Chasuk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Read at -1. Find out what THEY don't want you to know!

      For my own amusement, I took the suggestion of your .sig, and discovered only that there are more functional illiterates on /. than I had ever imagined.

      Is that what THEY didn't want me to discover?

  21. Two things... by weave · · Score: 2
    1) Nice in theory but in practice, in my best ellen feiss tone, "huh?" I have a mac in my office, and sure enough there is a list of rendevous printers available, all with names like "hplj542502260123" -- as if I'm supposed to know which one is where...

    2) Rendevous must be limited to a broadcast subnet. In my work site, subnets kind of snake all through the site due to historical reasons and growth over the years, so the subnet I am on spans two buildings, where across the hall those folks are on a different subnet. I know of a few cube office rooms where people in the same room are on two different subnets. Is there support in cisco routers to forward this traffic between nets? (or maybe that's not a good idea...)

    3) ok, i lied. three things. Since when did itunes get ability to pick up other rendevous user playlists? (mentioned in that article). I sure don't see it... Am I missing something?

    1. Re:Two things... by weave · · Score: 2, Interesting
      For naming, The printers are all named and listed logically in Active Directory on the windows servers. There are only four Macs among 2000 PCs where I work and those Mac users are considered pariahs. Trust me on this one -- I'm the support manager there. I know.

      Before you flame me, note I now have a Mac in my office and am loving it more each day I use it. Changing the culture in the organization, however, will be tough. I'm a manager, which means I get to decide how to implement policy, but I don't make it. And the current policy is, Macs are not supported nor approved for purchase. In fact, the Mac in my office is one we confiscated from Marketing when the decision was made (not mine) to convert them all to PCs. Their loss, my gain!

      We'll see how things shake out for the future. I'm certainly being converted, so much so that I have a 12" G4 PB on order for my personal use.

      (could make an interesting switcher story. I, the evil tech support manager, confiscated a Mac from those rebel marketing people, plugged it in, fell in love, kept it for myself, muhahahahha...)

      Anyway, sounds like there must be a way in the jet direct cards to name the printer for rendevous purposes.... I'll take a look later, maybe, whenever I find I need to print something out! :)

  22. Re:Where is Open Source Rendezvous? by davebo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Looks like there are sourceforge projects here and here (although the first project actually has code, and the 2nd looks just like a description.)

    Not to mention you can get the "real" rendezvous source here from Apple.

  23. PDF file on Apple by nyc_paladin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a PDF file that explains the technology behind this a little better...but does not go into too much detail regarding security. It sounds like you can choose what you want to share.

    --
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke
  24. Re:help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Funny, earlier you said it was a 300MHz Mac. Maybe the problem is the interface between the chair and the keyboard.

  25. It scales much better than previous protocols. by Paradox · · Score: 5, Informative

    You'd be surprised how well this actually scales. That is one of the whole points. Rendezvous is a replacement to AppleTalk, and as such one of the major goals is not to saturate the network like other more chatty protocols.

    For instance, each host implements an aggressive caching scheme so if one host asks for data, other hosts can learn from its request. There is also an exponentially rising delay between each request, the assumption being a host that has been around a long time will continue to be around a long time. Further, Rendezvous requests are not just like broadcast pings. They have a very well defined (and specific) domain standard in multicast DNS. You could ask only for http servers running over TCP, or only iPhoto sharing servers. This cuts down on the traffic.

    Of course, the other problem is the dynamic IP address assignment. It chooses an IP out of a /16 subnet. In short, in order for there to be a high probability of collision there need to be more than 32768 hosts, and even then it'll converge quickly. The Zeroconf spec gives upper bounds on how many hosts should be in a zeroconf network.

    The whole idea of this system is to allow small isolated subnets (like a wireless zone) to auto-configure. After the first 20,000 devices, sure you might see some degredation in performance. Of course, imagine an admintaking care of a 20,000 device subnet. They end up like a cross between Jerry Lewis and Christopher Lloyd. If you need more subnets then you link them via a configured host. A proxy-gateway with rendezvous, forwarding only things that matter for this subnet, would be a pretty cool app too.

    Zeroconf, especially in the home or small office setting, is really, really useful.

    --
    Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
    1. Re:It scales much better than previous protocols. by MECC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Appletalk scales better than you think. We've had a network carrying traffic for thousands of appletalk-speaking devices, and we only very rarely have a network-related appletalk problem. However, its worth noting we have a router routing Appletalk, and the network is structured, not flat.

      One thing that would make scaling RV better would be to route link-local addresses. We discussed trying this, but haven't tried it yet. This would allow for multiple 'RV' networks. In all probability, RV may not be ready for this kind of thing, but I don't know all there is to know about RV yet.

      As for security, that always has been and always will be between the application layer and the network layer. Think about it: if your host and/or application is insecure, then it won't matter if you run ZeroConf/RV or not.

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
  26. Spend Valentine's Day downloading Windows drivers by mattbot+5000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you hurry, you might be able to get one in time to save Valentine's Day.

  27. Rendezvous: The Security Answer by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since Rendezvous is based on Zeroconf, here is an paper explaining how to secure a zerconf network. Perhaps this will slow the FUD.

  28. Rendezvous is (or will be) an Internet Standard by mbone · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rendezvous is not just an Apple product - it is on the way to being an Internet standard, with an IETF working group and two Internet drafts in progress - one on Auto configuration of hosts and the other on the Dynamic configuration of IP Addresses.

    At the ZeroConf WG meetings I have been to, Microsoft was very much present, so I assume that they are well aware of this technology.

  29. Rendezvous vs. AppleTalk by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The big criticism of of AppleTalk was that it was too chatty (really, I think the issue was overblown, but that was the reputation it picked up). And yet, Rendezvous seems to be doing a lot of the same things that AppleTalk was doing.

    Has Rendezvous really addressed the issue that got AppleTalk locked out of a lot of corporate networks? I wonder how it compares to AT.

    1. Re:Rendezvous vs. AppleTalk by cdh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you ever manage any large Mac networks back then? These were they days before 100Mbit networks, fast machines, etc. We're talking Mac SE and such.

      I helped manage one college's Mac network at the University of Minnesota back in 1992. I was responsible for putting ethernet cards in old Macs (old at the time, SE, SE30, etc.), sometimes they were too old to even have that, you had to use a SCSI->Eternet adapter. Some of this was 10BaseT, some 10Base2. I can guarantee you the network was chatty. There were a few hundred Macs and probably 50 printers on the network and it was very, very chatty. It was a well deserved reputation IMHO.

    2. Re:Rendezvous vs. AppleTalk by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you ever manage any large Mac networks back then? These were they days before 100Mbit networks, fast machines, etc. We're talking Mac SE and such.

      I believe the SE dates back to 1987(?), so that wouldn't be too surprising. However, I do know that Apple made significant strides in reducing the chattiness of AppleTalk by the mid- to late-90's. But by that time, most network admins were heavily biased against it.

  30. End the FUD by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Informative

    As mentioned, since Rendezvous is based on zeroconf, here is a paper explaining how to secure a zerconf network. Facts vs. FUD. Let the better approach win.

  31. Frying Pan; Fire by jcsehak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, but it could be better.

    from the article: ...Bill's boxes to Steve's elegant machines.

    This is the kind of subjectivity that has no place in real journalism. Zealots are Apple's real threat. So many people hear "Apple" and think "using a Powerbook at a Starbucks, sipping a latte, dressed in black." Apple users are art-fags to them, and derogatory comments about "Windoze" aren't going to do anything but make it worse.

    How about some fucking objectivity? Lemmie give you a tip, Sparky - people will take you more seriously when you say "Apple's new technology poses a real threat to MS" if you don't follow it with "I'm getting a sex change so I could maybe have Steve's baby"

    --

    c-hack.com |
    1. Re:Frying Pan; Fire by Lysol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, if I could get a Linux laptop that did everything my Tibook does, I would. But there aren't any and most of the x86 laptops out there are trash.

      Apple's desktops are the sleekest or sexiest, but unless you home build you own whacked case with neon and shit, x86 desktops look like crap too.

      So I think his "Bill's boxes to Steve's elegant machines" hits the nail on the head. I still love my Linux boxen, but my Macs, for overall design and availibility of all the software I need, are better.

    2. Re:Frying Pan; Fire by pohl · · Score: 2, Funny
      people will take you more seriously when you say "Apple's new technology poses a real threat to MS" if you don't follow it with "I'm getting a sex change so I could maybe have Steve's baby"

      When did quotation marks become horribly-biased-paraphrase-marks? Was it about the same time that you said "I'm a pedophile"?

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    3. Re:Frying Pan; Fire by Kadagan+AU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apple's desktops are the sleekest or sexiest, but unless you home build you own whacked case with neon and shit, x86 desktops look like crap too.

      wait a minute... let me get this straight... the physical look of a desktop system is the most important feature to you?!? The thing I like about x86 systems is that they're easy to configure... I'm talking about hardware configuration... leaving software out of the picture completely. It's easy to get ram from any number of manufacturers. You have a million video card choices. Upgrading a processor is as easy as pulling a lever. Changing modems (if you like that sorta thing) is simple, as are NICs and sound cards. Adding or removing drives are as easy as plugging a few idiot-proof cables.

      granted, I've never been inside of a mac, but from what I know it's all propriety apple stuff. Well, the video card may be an exception, but I'm not positive.

      umm... the moral of the story, if there is one, is that it doesn't matter WHAT your system looks like. It's the ease of use, and the power that matter.

      ~Jon~

      --
      This space for rent, inquire within.
    4. Re:Frying Pan; Fire by luther · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, if I could get a Linux laptop that did everything my Tibook does, I would. But there aren't any and most of the x86 laptops out there are trash.

      Well, there is nothing stoping you from running Linux on your Tibook, you know.

    5. Re:Frying Pan; Fire by greenhide · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know about the most recent machines, but most ATA drives can be placed right into my PowerMac G4. I done it all be myself.

      I can also pretty much put in any kind of memory I want, so long as it complies with the expected stats:
      168 Pin PC100 SDRAM DIMM

      Changing modems and NICs are easy on Macs too, assuming you're just putting them in the PCI slot. You just have to make sure you have a driver for them. It is true that sometimes Mac drivers do not exist for the cards, but as I understand this is also true in *nix. Sound cards aren't as easy to change but I have never in my 10+ years of using computers felt a need to change mine.

      The reason I prefer Macs is...surprise, surprise! The ease of Hardware configuartion! I have used PCs for many things over the years, and consistently found that setting up new hardware can be difficult on PCs whereas it is generally a breeze on the Mac.

      Honestly, it really is just familiarity that drives my preference. If I had been raised on Windows, no doubt I would use that instead.

      However, I think that it's wrong to say that the appearance of a computer should have no say in your preference.

      When I get my next car, my #1 priority is that it be a nice shade of blue. I really don't have any major preference beyond that, so long as it looks good, gets decent mileage and is fairly dependable. These days, a lot of cars fit that bill, but if it ain't blue, I ain't buying it. Is it a stupid criteria? Maybe. But it's a criteria nonetheless. A lot of people tie up their identity in their "look", and their computer might fall under that too.

      If you were buying some piece of shit computer that looked pretty, then I'd agree that it was a stupid decision. But Apple computers aren't pieces of shit.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    6. Re:Frying Pan; Fire by MamasGun · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm going to address both the above post and its parent, bear with me...

      Actually, if I could get a Linux laptop that did everything my Tibook does, I would. But there aren't any and most of the x86 laptops out there are trash.

      Have you ever seen worked with a Dell Latitude or an IBM Thinkpad? Lovely machines, built tough, great stuff. Some of the mini-laptops built primarily for Japanese consumption are also wonderful. However, you have to admit, Apple's laptops have been class acts pretty much from the word go. There have been some cruddy ones like the PB150 (I've got one), and the 5300, but most have been built for strength, capability and style.

      Well, there is nothing stoping [sic] you from running Linux on your Tibook, you know.

      Yellow Dog Linux will run on any G3/G4 Powerbook or iBook you please, with few exceptions. The TiBooks with the Radeon 9000 Mobility chipset are not supported yet, but I suspect this is only temporary. The question, in the case of TiBooks, is why anyone would want to run Linux on them. Once you get into G4 range, MacOS X is so compelling and works so well any desire to run Linux raises eyebrows. On the other hand, unless you pack it with as much RAM as you can cram most G3 laptops are incapable of running X well. That's where Yellow Dog shines.

      I'm in the process of buying a Wallstreet Powerbook G3 from a friend of mine...that's going to dual-boot MacOS 9.2.2 and Yellow Dog. Moof. See you at Starbucks. I'll be the girl in the black mock turtleneck and black jeans with a black beret, sipping a Frappucino. Oh, and checking my email from my still-stylin' Wallybook.

      --
      "But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever....In the digital world, we don't need back-ups..."
      -- Jack Valenti
    7. Re:Frying Pan; Fire by pi+radians · · Score: 3, Insightful

      granted, I've never been inside of a mac,

      Obviously.

      but from what I know it's all propriety apple stuff

      Then you don't know anything. No offense.

      DDR RAM, IDE HDD (on a *gasp* ATA bus), AGP Video-cards, PCI expansion slots, USB, IEEE 1493 (Firewire, iLink), ZIF processors.... in every powermac sold today (and has been sold for a while).

      In fact, my Powermac has a Seagate HDD, a nVidia videocard and shikatronics RAM.

      I thought that this kind ignorance had disappeared, but I guess not.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    8. Re:Frying Pan; Fire by agent+oranje · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ease of hardware configuration...? I must be using my Mac wrong, as I've never heard of this "hardware configuration" you speak of.

      --
      -agent oranje.
    9. Re:Frying Pan; Fire by nitehorse · · Score: 4, Informative

      They tried that, back in the days when Gil Amelio was running things, in case you don't remember.

      It almost drove them out of business.

      No, Apple's doing exactly what they should, and they're being extremely successful with it.

      The thing is, the style of their machines is one of the selling points - it resonates with the art crowd, as well as the very rich, as well as the "I'm totally computer-illiterate and I don't care" crowd who just wants a machine that works. Their hardware isn't cycle-for-cycle competitive with x86 machines, so putting it in ugly boxes and charging less would kill them. End of story.

      Take a look at their history sometime. Interesting stuff.

  32. Interesting because... by 26199 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's the point. It's not written by the guy who is known to be a real zealot.

  33. trade shows by DdJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Personally, I think Rendezvous is going to revolutionize the trade show floor.

    The trade show wireless network a small local network, the sort Rendezvous works with. Vendors and consultants will be able to promote themselves by having web sites and servers advertise themselves. You'll be able to find FTP or file servers and grab demo versions of products. You'll be able to chat with representatives. You'll be able to grab contact information into your address book and product release calendars into iCal. Who knows what else?

  34. Apple will not grow market share with a PC version by Offwhite98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Apple creates a Rendezvous implementation for Windows I fail to see how Apple's market share will grow. It will enable PC users to get the benefits of Rendezvous without owning a Mac. It will also allow existing Mac users connect with their PC using co-workers and friends. And since it is a completely open technology the PC users will not even need a Mac involved at all. So that begs the questions, how will this benefit Apple?

    Apple does not make money by packaging software and making it available for everyone to use freely. Sure they get to innovate and make their customers happy, but it does not win them more customers. This article seems to imply that creating cool technology and implementing it on a PC will help Apple. There needs to be some proprietary software in place for this to be true.

    Now if they created a Rendezvous implementation for corporate environments and a Software Development Kit to be used by companies like IBM. At work I use Lotus Notes which has a messenger client. I would like to automatically find co-workers without all of the initial setup that I had to do when I started using it. I would also like to be able to monitor the servers on the network and use the printers more easily. If Apple could sell software to do all of that, and perhaps sell XServe systems with it I bet that would benefit Apple.

    I really hope Apple does break into the corporate workplace. It would really simplify much of extra work that I do so I can get back to my real work.

    --
    Brennan Stehling - http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
  35. Why is everyone so clueless about this? by amarodeeps · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm seeing a lot of knee-jerk reactions about Rendezvous and security. People are assuming that because the protocol is about making certain types of network configuration dynamic and simple, it is necessarily insecure. Well, I've got news for you: any type of connection from one computer to another is creating security issues. I mean...duh. Now, clearly using something like the zeroconf protocol is going to require stuff like...passwords and encryption and all the usual nonsense we need to make things secure. Oh, and a competent sysadmin administrating the system. So can we cool it with the frothing?

    Now, if someone had some good comments on the security issues involved with the zeroconf protocol itself, I'd like to read about it.

  36. Re:ZeroConf on Linux? / Rendezvous is Open Source by mrnick · · Score: 3, Informative

    That is easy, as soon as someone implements Rendezvous, seeing how it is open source... I love Apple!

    Nick Powers

    --

    Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
  37. Re:It's called LANMAN, and has been here since 80s by jaysones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What? Zero-conf does not include setting up dyndns or a dhcp server. I'm pretty sure that's what the ZERO part means.

  38. Windows killer, explained by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe the point that the author was making was that this is one more tool to reduce platform-dependence. The more freely programs and peripherals are able to communicate with one another across various platforms, the more Microsoft and Windows shrink into the background.

    That's why MS got all fired up about stomping Netscape into the ground, because the browser is supposed to enable platform-independent computing.

    Yeah, it's kind of a stretch to think of Rendezvous as a "Windows killer," but it's just one technology of many to accomplish that task.

  39. Re:Apple will not grow market share with a PC vers by MesnerTrks · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought that enabling PC users to get the benifts was almost the point of this kind of thing. Instead of Apple trying to adapt to a Windows standard, everyone uses a standard that Apple knows pretty well how to deal with. Apple can play well with others using an open standard. They aren't the misfit children anymore.

  40. Rendezvous is Apple's implementation of ZeroConf. by Woodie · · Score: 2, Informative

    OK -

    for the record, Rendezvous is the Apple implementation of ZeroConf, a protocol well on it's way to becoming a standard. Much like Apple renamed AltiVec the "Velocity Engine", it's something that Apple did not invent, and is simply incorporating into their system...

    By-the-by, ZeroConf for wireless (at least 802.11b) works pretty good under Windows XP. It's not particularly restricted to any application - installing your wireless stuff in "Ad-hoc" mode (similar in many ways to the old AppleTalk approach) makes all systems in range visible. Gnutella, and most any networking capable application "Just Works" over it. I hadn't realized that Apple needed to specially adapt their applications to take advantage of ZeroConf, or as they like to call it, Rendezvous.

    Don't get me wrong, Apple makes some nice looking hardware, and they have a great marketing team - but when you get right down to it, they're just like Microsoft. A business.

  41. Re:i'm sure that M$ is just shakin in their boots. by saddino · · Score: 3, Funny
    i think the fact that you'll pay about twice as much for a mac as for a comparable pc offsets the the fact that you have to spend an extra minute setting the PC up (assuming that the Mac doesn't crash and you need to find a paperclip somewhere to reset it).

    Paperclip? That's the most out-of-date trolling I've seen in a while, LOL. Here let me finish for you:

    ...and after you reset that dumb Mac, you'll find you're stuck with that built-in 9 inch B&W POS monitor FOREVER, mac lusers!...

  42. Rendezvous ROCKS by phillymjs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The best demo of Rendezvous currently is iChat. I used it to wow one of my clients back in December when I upgraded them to Jaguar. They were always having to e-mail files back and forth to one another, blah blah blah.

    Now, they just launch iChat when they log in in the morning, and boom-- instant, zero-config buddy list of everyone in the department. Need to ask someone a question? No more hollering over cubes or using the phone, a quick IM does the trick. Need to send someone a file? No more e-mailing or putting it on the server for the person who needs it. Drag it and drop it onto their name in the buddy list, and they'll get a dialog, "Person wants to send you file filename, do you wish to accept?"

    The only people who think something like this is a bad thing are the ignorant ones. OF COURSE the devices that use Rendezvous will OFFER security and configurability options-- but the point is, you don't NEED them if all you want to do is get on a network and print to a networked printer. And you don't need to have silly little wizards walk you through the process. Rendezvous is the logical extension of Apple's whole 'it just works' philosophy, and is a wonderful modern incarnation of AppleTalk.

    ~Philly

  43. Re:Please Don't by namespan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's quite relevant. One of the points of the article was that I/T configuration is a significant cost for companies, and the poster took it further by pointing out that competent I/T help is a factor that exacerbates the problem. The poster also correctly points out that in some places, Apple faces a severe uphill climb, because they're not even considered by some I/T "professionals" who've never given their products more than a cursory examination. In other places, I/T professionals (actual ones) have a wide grasp of technologies, not tied to a single vendor or platform, and they'll use whichever one seems to be the best value for the investment.

    Apple solutions aren't always going to be the best. I'm not claiming that. I'd even go so far as to say that sometimes, using MS stuff is the right thing for a company or project, despite the fact that I detest their business practices (and think they've earned every bit of antipathy they've received). But the bottom line is: there's a world of I/T and software workers out there who'll never even consider (let alone attempt to become proficient with) technologies outside their favorites, and that's simply not professional. No company or platform out there holds a monopoly on good ideas.

    --
    Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  44. Re:Promiscuous sharing with Rendezvous and Wifi by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 3, Funny

    "You could get promiscuous with strangers: you could pair and exchange a song on the same short bus ride."

    And strangers will be following you around as you walk the streets, trying to download the last few megabytes of that Metallica album.

    graspee

  45. when will games use this? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I want to plug in my XP box and see everyone playing the game at the lan party....then I don't have to worry about all the dam config crap or anything...now THAT is plug and play.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  46. Security Shmecurity by flinxmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "It's a form of distributed computing with no middleman required. "

    You mean I can write wor...I mean software that will automatically find the most available hosts to infe...I mean utilize? And network resources are instantly available to me with little or no authentication?

    Open WAPS just get more and more problematic. Imagine wireless aware worms that spread through the air quickly rendering the airwaves useless.

    Imagine your printers printing 1000's of worm initiated pages of X11 camera ads or something...

    The authentication mechanisms and potentials for abuse involved in these 'features' are truly scary.

    1. Re:Security Shmecurity by sfgoth · · Score: 2

      You mean I can write wor...I mean software that will automatically find the most available hosts to infe...I mean utilize?

      You mean, exactly the way the SQLSlammer worm did? It just hit _every_ IP address it could think of. Lack of a discovery protocol didn't slow it down a bit.

      And network resources are instantly available to me with little or no authentication?

      Authentication is the responsibility of the application layer. Rendezvous only makes it easier to find services. It's still up to the service to restrict access appropriately.

  47. JetDirect by sbeitzel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There must be a way. I work in an office where we're subleasing the space and the guys who were here before left a bunch of equipment. Among it all there's an HP LaserJet 4050N (which has a built-in JetDirect card). We are all using PowerBook G4s running OS X 10.2.3. So imagine my delight when I needed to print some source code out and it came time to set up the printer. It went something like this:

    1. Open up Print Center
    2. Click the "Add Printer" button
    3. Select "AppleTalk" as the protocol
    4. Select the printer that appeared
    Dang! I didn't know that JetDirect cards supported AppleTalk! So the moral there is, somewhere in some obscure technical bulletin (probably, knowing HP) there are instructions for setting the name of the JetDirect card.

    The really sweet part came a few weeks later when I wanted to print a document from OpenOffice. I had never configured the printer settings within X11, and have never even touched /etc/printcap. I selected "Print" and then immediately began wondering where the print job was going to spool to. But it just worked! cups seems to have been informed about the printer selection. Very nice.

    This contrasts very favorably to the time 8 months ago when I configured my Dell laptop with RedHat 7.3 to print to the LaserJet at home.
    --
    Oh, go on, check out my job.
  48. Re:Rendezvous is Apple's implementation of ZeroCon by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apple was also involved in the creation of the Zeroconf standard with the IETF. I'm not sure what your point is.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  49. How to Re-name that printer by Dragonfly · · Score: 3, Informative
    Assuming it's not secured and you don't fear for your job if you try this, either:
    • Point a web browser to the printer's IP address (the browser must identify itself as IE for Windows) and name it there using the built-in admin tools; or,
    • Go to hp's site and download the Mac drivers for the printer. Included will be the HP LaserJet Utility, a Classic app that you can use to set up HP JetDirect cards. Just use it to select the printer and give it a nice, humane AppleTalk name.
  50. Re:Rendezvous is Apple's implementation of ZeroCon by tupps · · Score: 4, Informative

    While they didn't invent zero-conf I believe that the head of the steering committee is and has been a full time Apple employee.

    --
    Go out and get sailing!
  51. Apple just supported a standard by charnov · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rendezvous is just Apples implementation of ZeroConf (an IETF standard). It is a beautiful implementation, but it's not like they pulled this out of thin air. This is also about Apple FINALLY switching to IP as their primary protocol.

    It is really neat, though.

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  52. For those who don't know what Rendezvous really is by Paradox · · Score: 2

    I see a lot of people here confused on what Rendezvous really is.

    Rendezvous is:
    A) A way for machines coming onto a network to automatically obtain an IP.
    B) A way for machines to browse services that applications are making public on these machines in a unform, domain-qualified way (mDNS, similar to DNS).

    Rendezvous is not:
    A) A magic elixir that will change the way we do networking on a grand scale. Rendezvous is ONLY for _one_ subnet. While any standard tcp/ip briding stuff will work, rendezvous will only play inside that subnet. However, within that subnet there is a lot of automation.
    B) A security hole. Rendezvous doesn't share things, it merely allows you to DISCOVER if anyone is sharing them. This doesn't mean a script kid is going to hack you. It merely means they know if you are running services, which they could have found out allready. Further, since it's only on the local network, a large variety of much more dangerous attacks already exist (TCP spoof, ARP attacks)
    C) A project Apple stole/A project Apple trumped up. A lot of people have been working on zeroconf for quite some time now, and Apple managed to get a few people in because they wanted something like Zeroconf. Apple has a working implementation of Zeroconf called rendezvous, but they do not have a lock on the protocol and the code is open for download and perusal.

    I hope this helps people (who find this post admist the noise) who don't know what to believe.

    You can find all this out yourself at
    http://www.zeroconf.org

    --
    Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
  53. Stuff the Editor left out of my post by serendigital · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The editor, Hemos, took out my comments before posting the article.

    I said that implying that Rendezvouz is a threat to Microsoft is grossly overstating the facts.

    I also said, "expect Microsoft to announce a product called something like "Lliason" any day now, and to tout it as being highly innovative." ahem

    Rendezvouz is VERY COOL, and will cause many people to consider a Macintosh, but a threat to Microsoft, I don't think so. That Rendezvouz increases Apple's viability as an alternative to Microsoft would have been MUCH more accurate. I'm sure that Charles Haddad would have written a much more informed article.

  54. Zorkconf! by Sentry21 · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is great! You could set up a rendezvous-enabled console app that would be able to describe to you the services available to you in whatever room you were in. Just imagine the possibilities! Let's say you took your laptop to a new company...

    *user walks into a room*
    Frobozz Magic Smoke Company Lobby
    You have entered the lobby of the Frobozz Magic Smoke Company. This building was constructed in the year 1998, by ten thousand slaves working for the Great Underground Empire, to hold the offices of the workers designing and implementing new forms of magic smoke.

    > look
    You see two broken web terminals, a secured file server, and a print server. One of the secretaries is chatting about how she got her nails done the other day.

    *user walks north into the Human Resources department*

    Human Resources
    The Human Resources department of the Frobozz Magic Smoke Company is widely considered to be the cruelest, most inhuman lot of soulless minions ever to serve the will of evil.

    > look
    You see two printers, a Sybase server, a Graphite G4, a speed-hole G4, and a voicephone.

    > look G4
    Do you mean the Graphite G4 or the speed-hole G4?

    > graphite
    The Graphite G4 is sharing two directories, marked 'music' and 'porn', and has 82% CPU free.


    The potential is amazing! Go Apple!

    --Dan

  55. Apple already has this by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Turn on speech recognition. Use your voice to type an email, and send the email. It's pretty cool, and you can even tell your email program to attach an mp3 file of your voice. If you prefer real-time, just do this through IRC. But what would be really cool is if we can think of a way to have real-time voice-to-voice communication over the phone lines without having to use a computer. Now that would be the killer app.

  56. I'm a mac fan but that article was rubbish. by davesag · · Score: 2, Insightful
    True to the Apple (AAPL ) mantra, it just worked. At first it only did so with iTunes, Apple's top-notch digital-music software. You walked into a room bearing a laptop running Jaguar (the latest version of the OS X operating system) with a wireless networking (Wi-Fi) card, and you could instantly see the iTunes music files of everyone else in the room with a similar setup.

    So not true. That was a demo - not actual functionality. Rendezvous does not 'just work'; try it sometime. If you have a split network (ie some people on wifi and some on ethernet for example, or as is the case here, my mac is on wifi to the neighbour and shares a network out to the rest of the house via ethernet - naughty but nice!) and even iConquer games can't automagically see each other on my network. I have seen iChats fail to see each other in a similar set up. It's a great idea and i'm sure will get there soon, but it is not really there now.

    Want to change your printer configuration wirelessly? Apple's speedy new Safari browser will let you do that if your printer is Rendezvous-compatible -- without your having to hunt down a specific IP (Internet protocol) address.

    why is this specific to Safari? I understood once rendesvous has announced my printer to my mac then anything capable of using the print cener would be able to use that printer. what sarafi does do is list web servers that have announced themselves via rendesvous in the bookmarks list.

    As promised last summer, most of the major printer makers have upgraded their machines to support Rendezvous.

    no they havn't, they have announced that they will be doing so however.

    This routine normally involves wading through dozens of folders in search of the proper IP addresses for our office printers, a confusing process that has resulted in more than one call to the help desk.

    I'm sorry but this is just FUD. Sure it can be a pain to get a printer hooked up to some windoze machines, just as it can be a pain to get some printers to talk to the mac. some printers are just rubbish. now getting Linux to talk to a printer - that can be hard work.

    Add enough of these simplifications together, and it becomes hard to refute that running an office network using Rendezvous-equipped Macs will end up costing less than comparable Windows software -- because there really isn't any.

    I'm sorry what was that? in proper english sentences this time? was the author paid for this article? do they have any editors working there?

    With Windows, you still need a file server and a print server, with Rendezvous and Apple you don't.

    riiiight.... - puts pinkie in corner of mouth.

    ... the software will have the ability to check CPU (central processing unit) usage on other Rendezvous-enabled machines around the office -- and send intensive tasks to the computer currently handling the lightest workload. ... That's a use for Rendezvous no one had thought of before.

    no for sure no-one ever thought to distribute computing load seamlessly across a network. no-one. ever. not ever, nope. just never occured to anyone before. idiot.

    Apple has even obligingly offered the Rendezvous software in Windows code. In fact, Apple has open-sourced Rendezvous and released source code for versions designed to work on Linux machines as well.

    It's called 'written in C' I believe.

    If more Rendezvous-enabled pieces of Windows software start hitting the shelves, slowly but surely, Apple will start to break down the obstacles to switching platforms from Bill's boxes to Steve's elegant machines.

    aside from the obvious frothing at the mouth editorialising here, i think it is in apple's interests to let other people do the work of making windows and linux software. apple sell computers and software, M$ sell software and video games consols. should apple just offer to rewrite MS office et al for bill?

    it's hard to decide if this article is sh1t or fuçking shit.

    ps: If you want a list of software that is Rendezvous compatable, check version tracker.

    --
    I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
  57. Re:Spend Valentine's Day downloading Windows drive by Ponty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That ad got a lot of flack, and I ignored it as I hadn't seen the spot. Last weekend, though, I was checking out the Apple store in NYC and got to see it. She was right! Assume it's Christmas. Dad just got a digital camera. He takes a picture of grandma and wants to print it out on his new photo printer. He plugs the camera and printer into his Windows PC and spends an hour downloading the XP drivers (because the camera only came with WinME), and there's some strange daemon keeping the parallel port open.
    -OR-
    He plugs all the devices into his Mac. iPhoto comes up automatically and he removes grandma's redeye and crops the picture down, then prints it out five minutes later on the new printer.

    That's why I want a Mac. I can (and do) deal with Windows dumbness, but I don't want to have to. On my Mac, I can just do more. My friend tried to get his digital camera working for hours before I came over with my PowerBook and plugged it, opened iMovie, and produced results. That's why I have a Mac.