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."
They come out with the coolest technologies and they just work great!
That's what she said.
I can't believe I actually posted this. Wait...Yeah, I can.
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.
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.
"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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
If you hurry, you might be able to get one in time to save Valentine's Day.
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.
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/
If these Apple press release are anything to go by, then Rendezvous has already made huge headway:
-
TiVo, Brother & Aspyr Announce Rendezvous Networked Products
- Developers Rapidly Adopt Apple's Rendezvous Networking Technology
- Epson, HP & Lexmark Support Apple's Rendezvous Technology
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.
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.
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:
Apple has said that they designed ZeroConf to generate significantly less traffic than AppleTalk.