Intel Predicts Death Of WWW

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:19PM from the any-time-now dept.

LostCluster writes "Forbes is running a report saying that Intel's CTO claims that the WWW is 'running up on some architectural limitations' that will eventually cause its downfall. He's pushing a project called PlanetLab that has Princeton, Cambridge, Hewlett-Packard and AT&T on board, but Cisco is notably absent from that team."

14 of 300 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well... by spieters · 2004-09-12 23:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Don't bother to RTFA this time, the article's about as low on info as the summary.

--
Instant Karma's gonna get you Gonna look you right in the face -- John Lennon
1. Re:Well... by Ranx · 2004-09-13 01:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Intel's press release about the same speech has a little bit more information, although nothing technical.
  
  http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20 040909corp.htm
  
  Also interesting: a link to the open platform website:
  
  http://www.planet-lab.org/
  
  Interesting quotes:
  
  "Applications run on PlanetLab are decentralized, with pieces running on many machines spread across the global Internet. They can also self-organize to form their own networks, and include some form of application processing inside the network (instead of at the edges), adding new intelligence and capabilities to the Internet."
  
  "It would provide a platform on which Web services can run and a way to connect grid computing sites and utility data centers. It sits above the new physical infrastructure supplied by Internet 2 and above the networking layer where IPv6 functions, adding a new stratum of higher-level functionality to the Internet."
  
  Why it has to replace the current TCP/IP-infrastructure is still unclear (apart from selling more hardware).
  
  --
  
  Me
2. Re:Well... by Skjellifetti · 2004-09-13 01:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Forbes once wrote an article about 64 bit computing where they defined a 64 bit machine as one that could address 64! bytes of memory. There writers and editors really don't have much of a clue about technology.
  
  --
  FreeSpeech.org
3. Re:Well... by Alsee · 2004-09-13 02:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well first you need compliant hardware with a Trust chip that can keep secrets from you and lock you out of your own files and able to deny you control of your own machine.
  
  Assuming have have that chip built in, then you just turn it on and "voluntarily" give up ownership of your own computer. While Cisco's router has you "quarantined", it likely is configured to give you access to the required files and website to seize control of your machine. From there it will probably handle all of the work of bringing your machine into compliance and placing chains and handcuffs and locks on everything, prohibiting you from being able to do anything they do not want you to be able to do.
  
  After that you get network access. You will then find, for example, that it is impossible for you to save pictures from websites, it will be impossible for you to run a pop-up blocker or ad blocker when visting various websites.
  
  You are always free to turn the Trust chip back off and regain your freedom, but if you do you lose network access again. You'll also find you are locked out of all of the new files and any new software and whatnot.
  
  Turn on the Trust chip and you can play your music so long as you pay your $9.95 monthly fee, however you cannot copy the music files or edit them or play them in an alternate music player.
  
  Turn off your Trust chip and you cannot play your music files at all.
  
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
4. Re:Well... by Alsee · 2004-09-13 04:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  this would be the first time I've heard it suggested for use in the wider internet.
  
  PDF link From the last two paragraphs on page 11 through page 14 is a transcript of Bush's Cyber Security advisor addressing a Gobal Technology Summit in Washington DC in 2001 and directly calling on ISP's to start making plans to make such a system mandatory as part of ISP terms of service. To fight viruses, to secure our National Information Infrastructure, to fight terrorists, to defend our way of life, to fight Osama bin Laden himself! LOL.
  
  TCPA is a refference to the Trust chip. "Forcing down patches" is done through Trusted Computing, enforcing the use of firewalls, and on and on, all Trusted Computing.
  
  Obviously ISP's can't start locking out non-compliant systems until most of their customers already have Trusted-capable hardware. Well, they have just started rolling out ordinary PC's with Trust chips embedded in the motherboard. It is expected to become standard on all new motherboards in under a year. No one will specifically buy a machine with a Trust chip, people will simply be handed a machine with a Trust chip when they by any new computer. My rough estimate is that over a period of four years or so the vast majority of machines will have gone throught the normal obsolecence cycle and been replaced. By default they will all have been replaced by a Trusted capable machines.
  
  So in around 4 years ISP's could fairly safely install these routers and make Trusted Computing mandatory (all in the name of fighting viruses naturally). The few people who do not yet have Trusted hardware will be blamed for having obsolete and non-compatible hardware.
  
  It's a horrifyingly plausible scenario. Anyone who refuses to submit to Trusted Computing and give up control and ownership of his own computer will be effectively excluded from the internet. Refusal to submit becomes an internet death sentence.
  
  But it will start creeping in long before it becomes mandatory. First it will be online music and movie stores that require Trusted Computing to be able to access the files. Then you will start seeing software with optional Trusted Computing "enhancements", and software that will not install execpt under Trusted Computing. And you'll start seeing tons of websites that only work with a Trusted browser. On those Trusted websites it will be impossible to run ad-blockers or anything similar. Trusted Computing will enforce it as impossible to view the website without also viewing the ads. Tons of websites will jump at such a chance to enforce ad display. Other websites will require Trusted Computing to prohibit you from copying any of the pictures or text or other content. Website/community logins can be done through Trusted Computing. It can also be used to enforce all sorts of terms and restrictions. For example Slashdot could do all sorts of client-side lamness filtering and karma tracking and troll blocking and post rate restrictions. Oh, and Slashdot could use it with the membership-fee deal.
  
  Oh, and don't forget that Microsoft has already started touting Trusted Computing based e-mail. You sart getting "secure" e-mail from friends, family, perhaps even your boss. And if you haven't gone Trusted Compliant then you can't read the mail. And according you your friends, your family, and your boss, it's YOUR FAULT for not upgrading to an enhanced and compatible machine. It's YOUR FAULT you can't read their mail. Sigh.
  
  The only thing that can stop Trusted Computing is if there is a massive public backlash.
  
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Swamped in dupes by BenjyD · 2004-09-12 23:23 · Score: 4, Informative

Dupes
"InterWeb" by Scoria · 2004-09-12 23:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Article summary: FUD.

However, it is somewhat humorous that the writer often substitutes "World Wide Web" for "Internet." Considering that the number of estimated Internet users increased from 38,000,000 at the end of 1994 to 604,000,000 in 2004, I am somewhat incredulous to the belief that our current architecture is incapable of accommodating expansion. It may not be inexpensive, but it is possible.

Aside from that, the article contains no other information. A substantial percentage of the article body is actually dedicated to FinancialWire and StreetSignals.

--
Do you like German cars?
Re:Dupe by 808140 · 2004-09-13 00:28 · Score: 4, Informative

No, I think it's meant to be to the tune of "Duke of Earl", which is much funnier, imho.
Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 00:29 · Score: 0, Informative

Or maybe to the tune of DUKE OF EARL you fucking idiot.
standard business practice by consciousmind · 2004-09-13 00:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Invent a "problem", then offer a solution.

The history is filled with these types of marketing schemes. In the 1930s there was a product called Listerine, made to treat throat infections. A guy called Gerald Lambert made a marketing scheme, "inventing" a problem ("bad breath") and offered the solution (his product), the birth of mouthwash products.
Ref: http://chnm.gmu.edu/features/sidelights/whoinvente dbo.html
Planetlab connection by FU_Fish · 2004-09-13 02:12 · Score: 4, Informative

As a user of both the WWW and Planetlab I can say that they are totally unrelated. The WWW is a source for finding/exchanging existing data. Planetlab is a testbed for new networking/computing technologies. Planetlab produces data, the WWW distributes data.
What the hell? by BuBu_ · 2004-09-13 02:13 · Score: 2, Informative

In the slashdot posting we get this: He's pushing a project called PlanetLab that has Princeton, Cambridge, Hewlett-Packard and AT&T on board, but Cisco is notably absent from that team."

Yet, when we look at the article: It's a vision apparently shared by Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO), Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) and AT&T Corp. (NYSE: T), all of whom are working feverishly, either together or apart to save the World Wide Web, which Intel and others see as becoming so overloaded it will eventually break. Ripping good show, sport!
Re:You bet by atomic-penguin · 2004-09-13 02:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Funny you should mention, "...you can forget about using linux on the desktop...". Planet Lab is built on Linux. Since this article is, in fact, about Planet Lab. Linux is a very large part of the picture.

--
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
PlanetLab as an alternative for WWW? by InfiniteWisdom · 2004-09-13 07:49 · Score: 3, Informative

If Intel's CTO really said that its time for him to be fired. Except that he didn't. What he really said is this

Planetlab isn't an alternative to anything. Its not even a network really. Its a research testbed, for people who want to evaluate their protocols on more realistic network conditions than the LAN in their labs. Its a good tool to help design the next generation Internet, but Plantlab in itself isn't going to do anything.

I know this because I happen to be one of the people who does network research on Planetlab, and one of those 429 happens to sit on a table across the room from me right now.