Slashdot Mirror
Intel Predicts Death Of WWW
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."
Is he also, by any chance, suggesting a solution: buy more, newever, faster Intel chips!?
Simpy
Yeah, and Beta's been "dead" for 20 years. But I still can go buy tapes for it.
Chris Knight is my hero.
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
Intel predicts that it will be able to convince the world to abandon the unscalable approach of following standards, including upcoming standards like XForms and IPv6, and open P2P systems, and instead invent its own propietary system.
X-Has-Sig: yes
... it has already happened!?
"The Internet will end when 1 million slashdotters click this link"
Dupes
WWW may be dying, but repeating old stories is forever
I'd love to see how much of the nets resources are taken up by spam mail, viruses, worms, and the like. I would imagine (although I am totally uneducated in the arena of 'tech') that if these problems were wrapped up for good, a whole lot of stress would be removed from the Internets shoulders.
I'm also cynical enough to predict that intel are saying;
"The net is dying... AND WE HAVE THE SOLUTION! SIGN UP NOW FOR ONLY $5.99 TO GET A STARTER PACK"
Dupe, Dupe, Dupe, Dupe of URL
Dupe of URL.
Dupe of URL.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
WWW may reach the same level Gopher is today, it is not so popular (mainstream) but it's contents can be very interesting if you perform some data mining (geekly speaking of course).
The end of Usenet/NNTP has been predicted many times as well. It's a stage that every successful protocol eventually reaches. Our baby is growing up!
Perhaps the internet will be killed by the fact that, with constant breeding of duplicated news stories, one will eventually reach critical mass and overwhelm all other information.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
They're doing what they can to get some publicity to the PlanetLab project.
this is not my signature.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered the Internet community when IDC confirmed that the Internet market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that the Internet has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. the Internet is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict the Internet's future. The hand writing is on the wall: the Internet faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the Internet because the Internet is dying. Things are looking very bad for the Internet. As many of us are already aware, the Internet continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
All major surveys show that the Internet has steadily declined in market share. the Internet is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the Internet is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. the Internet continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, the Internet is dead.
Fact: the Internet is dying
You know TFA is a load of crap when the excerpt is about the same size as the actual article...and half of the article's page is devoted to promoting some financial news service.
This is, by far, one of the worst news posts EVER on slashdot.
In fact, do go to the article and witness the historic event.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
It strikes me that this 'new internet over the existing one' is an extremely vague idea.
At least to me, they have not said what the problems are to begin with and further more have not said how they are going to address each one.
All this tells us is 'X Corp is working on an unknown problem with an unknown solution'.
Adding a network on the existing one doesn't sound like a great solution either because it uses the apparently flied infrastructure to construct a method to make that structure more stable..? Sounds like building on sand to me..
It's unfortunate that while a newer, faster version of the internet is in the works, it's supposedly going to be limited to use by scientists and other researchers. Perhaps the system with increased complexity that was previously reported on slashdot is the answer to our difficulties?
Any article that confuses the Internet with the world wide web can't be taken seriously.
Well god bless them. I remember the day vividly when my shiney new Pentium 3 arrived, and i was finally able to browse the internet.
And why hardware limitation exactly are they refering to; heat from your cpu exhaust instantly melting through your patch cable?
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
I looked at the article and it had..
:-O
"Beware of the End of the World (Wide Web), " Says Intel
Clearly the " the start of the internet corruption.
On a more serious note, the news story doesn't actually tell you anything except use Intel stuff.
I thought that the HTTP protocol was going to die? But no, they are talking about the Internet switches and routers being overloaded. And it will only get worse as more people use broadband - that means ISPs will have to upgrade their equipment! (shock! horror!) The WWW is going to break with all the """ codes in the article, too.
Gelsinger's solution is to build a new network over the current Internet,
The WWW is a network over the current Internet... Oh well
--
no sig for you. come back one year.
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?
"Gentleman, the bad news is that there isn't much more money to be made selling Internet hardware. Profit levels in Internet-related hardware are down 300% from 5 years ago.
The good news? We've just landed a top notch PR firm to help sell our message that we must upgrade and overhaul the whole infrastructure. We'll be monitoring the impact of this message over the next several months. If successful, we expect to see profit levels soar again within 3 years."
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
A worthless article to be sure, with no discussion of the web's architectural problems. (bad Slashdot) There is obviously more to the architectural problem than will be solved by IPv6, but allowing for IPv6 and higher capacity routers alone, I'm sure the web could go a long time with no other upgrade. I can only wonder how much money Intel will spend on convincing people that the web will die "sooner than you think." If it's anything like the $300 million they spent on telling people they have the best/only Wi-Fi solution, we'll be hearing this for a long time.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
Has he linked his project to the War on Terror(TM)? If not, he won't stand a chance of getting any funding or attention. The virus protection scam comes close, but he needs to throw in a little more doom and gloom...
davejenkins.com |
I really think the future lays in some sort of system that distributes server load to clients. sort of like an interactive bittorent.
A lot of things that are done these days over the web are extremely simple and could be done on the client side, but can overwhelm a server when it needs to be done for thousands or millions of people. And bandwidth still isn't free.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The Web was not created by companies like Intel. It wasn't created by companies at all, only in some cases co-opted by them.
When companies like Intel pitch these wide-ranging changes, it comes over like some seedy traveling salesman pitching a monorail.
If we want to make changes to the web, we will.
Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
The WWW will eventually die, along with other common Internet technologies!
PlanetLab? Not RTFA, I suppose that's to make a new planet for us?
Thanks, Intel!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Pentel, the world's leading provider of 0.5mm mechanical pencils has predicted the World Wide Web cannot continue to function at its present level for much longer. Pentel is offering an alternative, called WSD, or Writing Stuff Down, that is virtually immune to scaling problems currently plaguing the Web. Industry experts have been slow to respond to this proposal but their responses are expected any day now, via another new technology called the Post Office.
A little piece of the WWW dies every day. But after it has spent it's 12 hours on the front page of /. it will be back. Don't worry, the death is only temporary...
No, I think it's meant to be to the tune of "Duke of Earl", which is much funnier, imho.
Invent a "problem", then offer a solution.
e dbo.html
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/whoinvent
As "Erm, vaguely, something, some day"?!
An while they are at it, how about defining the out-of-context "collapse" and "some architectural limitations" for this article to have any meaning whatsoever?
OMG. Aren't we all just stunned by the writer's clarity, precision and thorough understanding of all things technical...
If there's an "anti-Pulitzer", a prize for the worst misachievements in journalism, Forbes&FinancialWire may just have given us a very promising "Candidate of the Year".
Here is how the "trusted internet" will fail:
1. Claim that the internet, with the advent of widespread broadband, is going to crash. Cause the herd to panic. Bypass your IT manager. Put it right in Forbes and Fortune 500. Make them demand it from the top down.
2. Speak of adding a new functionality (like a new and improved clippy) and then slide in DRM to prevent "hackers" from getting into your machine. This of course, will never prevent hackers. All it will do is make the hackers get into the BIOS level of your computer when you allow a shell at that level.
3. Roll out "trusted computing." Pretty soon, your computer won't trust you to let you do what you want on it. You will feel a sudden twinge as millions of Joe Users will cry out in agony, and then suddenly, silence.
4. Geeks will find and work with corporations that are not on trusted computing. They will be fine. They will know where to get the useful mobos and processors. Their side of the internet will not change at all, ever.
5. One generation of "Joe User" will find that all of the interesting things that made owning a computer are now blocked and will become frustrated. They will blame the computer instead of the architecture. "My Dell won't let me do what I want!" Gateway, Dell, and other Windows syncophants will start going belly up in the slimmest of markets after they drove all of the profit out of the business. IBM will be fine with Linux for the business market. Comcast will hemmorage profits when people can't get to what they really want, and then suddenly turn on all of the other companies. AT&T will suck it up, those losing more traction in the real world as usual.
6. The industry will dump DRM and trusted computing while it is still hot, because basically, there won't be any purchases, and people have to sell computers to pay the bills. Word will get out to the common person, quickly, and they will sit on the shelves and rot.
Why do I think it will happen just like this?
The whole "trusted drinking" thing worked so well during prohibition. A group of Holy rollers thought that banning things or preventing them would stop bad activity. All prohibition did was make "bad" activity more expensive... and much more aggressive and organized. These "trusted computing" twits are insane. If they think that it is going to work, they're nuts. Go ahead and delay Longhorn or whatever. Simply put, it ain't going to work. Look, if geeks need to get their chips from Burma, or Morrocco, or wherever, rest assured that they will find a way.
A bunch of companies have different solutions which disrupt the original shared code cooperative model and Unix dies.
A bunch of companies have different solutions which disrupt the opriginal standards based model and the Internet dies.
I might accept the idea but it does not belong to Intel, Princeton, AT&T, nor Cambridge. It belongs in the bucket with all the other ideas that eventually get implemented. Otherwise the Net will be just like television.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
1) Flying cars only 10 years away (for the last 60 years).
2) Y2K will end life as we know it.
3) WWW now officially dead. Close your browser.
I guess that sums it up. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
"No support for quote marks", says Forbes
"The WWW has never shown that it can consistantly produce the quotation marks we need
when we need, and for this reason it needs to go back to the drawing board", said an unnamed source with the Forbes web design team.
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.
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!
The ethernet (and mostly internet) protocol was predicted to die 30 years ago. People offered alternatives like ATM and MicroSofts early 90s protocol (failed attempted hijacking of the Net), but none really caught. A mediocre standard used by billions of computers perseveres.
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}$/
Can't Al Gore do anything right? No wonder he is so pissed off now.
reverse engineering such a system would be illegal under the DMCA
I've been putting quite a bit of thought into this, but actually no. Cracking the security on your Trusted Computer should technically not violate the DMCA. At east not the generic break itself. The DMCA specificly applies to circumventing the access control system specifically protecting someone else's specific copyrighted work. When you first receive/activate your Trusted Computer it is either protecting nothing, or only protecting your own files. It is perfectly legal to circumvent a system protecting your own works or protecting nothing.
Furthermore, the Trusted Computing Group and everyone else involved is busy swearing up and down that Trusted Computing itself *is not a DRM system*. They go on and on about how it is merely a platform and all sorts of applications can be built on top of it.
[sweet innocent voice]
You see, it's merely a coincidence that people happen to be able to write DRM software on top of Trusted Computing. And if someone were to actually do such a thing, well then it would be their mean nastry software that was the DRM! It's not our fault! We just made a sweet innocent Trusted Computing system and all sorts of wonderful features, there's no mean nasty DRM inside Trusted Computing itself! We are all sugare and spice and everything nice!
[/sweet innocent voice]
Chuckle. If you dig around you can find countless rock solid quotes you could cite in court that Trusted Computing is not itself in any way a DRM system, heh heh heh.
Between those two points, no, there should be no problem cracking the Trust system itself.
However if you crack your Trust hardware and then proceed to circumvent some DRM software trying to run on top of it then you might well have DMCA problems, but it would be a particularly complex case. It could go either way.
Oh, and a third point: The DMCA has been around for about 6 years, but there STILL has never been a single conviction for any of the circumvention provisions. Not a single one. I personally think it should be tossed as unconstitutional (I'll skip the explantion), but you generally can't get a law thrown out as invalid until someone is actually convicted and gets a chance to appeal.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The entire idea is asinine. To paraphrase who many simply call the inventor:
-- Sir Tim Berners-LeeI was wondering.. Now, I understand that Intel is trying to drum up some business. Ok, fine..but I also understand that there is a natural progression to evrything, and without getting into religion, there is an evolution to things as well. That being said, was not a major part of the history of the Internet the direct result of a collaboration of Digital, Intel and Xerox (DIX)? If so, (and I could be confusing my facts here), but does it not make sense that such a collaboration be necessary to evolve the Internet into it's next state? Also, it seems to me that the whole other network overtop of the Internet amounts to little more than a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.
Decaffeinated coffee is kinda like kissing your sister.
I was at the IDF Keynote, and I bounced some questions off Gelsinger afterwards. There are two problems with this that make it a non-starter in my opinion.
First, they are talking about layering another level of obfuscation on top of the net as a fix for the underlying problems. Rather than dealing with the problems, they ignore them, and make a shiny thing. Wow, that's architecture for you!
Next, with the innovation fom HP lately, and the fact that they are going commercial with it rather than open and standards based, it is doomed to be a niche idea at best. As one questioner afterwards pointed out, the internet was built on open ideas. This is looking to go the opposite way. NEXT!
Vint Cerf was cool though. They said there would be a special guest, but to my horror, they only meant Vint. No telletubbies in bondage gear this year. I can only hope for spring 2005 IDF....
I plan to rant about this on the Inq as soon as I recover from last week.
-Charlie
Nothing scary there, just what almost every computer company strives for.
How reassuring...
SCNR
As an operational model, this fails. Either the system gets take over by hostile code, or there's some central adminstration that controls who runs what. (This last is the 3G cell phone services model. It's not working.)
This is one of those ideas, like "push technology" and "micropayments", which fail because the people who benefit are separate from those who absorb the costs. Only in a monopoly situation can that work.
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.
I wonder if this has any relationship to the Internet2 academic network that's been going on for a while with nodes at various universities, incl. my alma mater. http://www.internet2.edu/