Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Joins Internet2 Coalition
Quite a number of people wrote in to alert everyone to Microsoft's joining of the Internet2 Consortium. They becoming a corporate partner, meaning they will contribute at least 1 million in goods and services to universities involved in the I2 project.
Many, many of the things that M$ has done - past, present, and no doubt future - do constitute takeover tactics... but not this. Ask yourself one simple question: would any company trying to gain a foothold in the Internet marketplace (and who has the money) not do whatever possible to be in on I2?
Very simply put - M$ now has a seat at the I2 table, but it is far from a controlling seat. This one is just a smart business move folks. Why? PR, market positioning, a voice on standards, etc.
For those worried about an M$ takeover of I2: I wouldn't start worrying just yet. M$ is but one voice here.
Ugh. I feel so dirty, defending M$ like that... but the truth must be told :P
Posted by the Proteus
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Yeah, like that should buy about half a router. C'mon! The equipment and infrastructure for I2 are quite expensive (IPv6 high-speed routers, gigabit ATM switches, laying fiber)...$1M is nothing more than a token contribution, mere pennies in the bucket for Microsoft. Why is everyone fawning over this??
David E. Weekly (dew)
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
This is blatant 'embrace and extend' on the part of Microsoft.
Note that they're not donating a single dollar of currency to the project. Much like Benevolent Bill's donation of a billion dollars worth of MS products to schools and libraries a few weeks ago (at $0.50 per CD, it's easy for them to donate a billion dollars worth of $500 software), MS is not about to cut into their cash reserves for anything they don't fully own.
'Microsoft has a tremendous potential to contribute to systems and networking areas of Internet2,' said Ron Johnson, vice president of computing and communications, University of Washington. 'The potential for delivering robust, real-time tele-immersion, tele-medicine and high-quality demand video, television, telephony and multimedia, as well as network-aware and adaptive applications and the 'trust fabric' middleware needed for pervasive electronic business, is no longer just a dream. But to make it real across the desktops of the world it's essential to have Microsoft's research and product development at the table.'
I just added the name 'Ron Johnson' to my list of people apparently owned by MS. Whoever he is, he just started his 15 minutes of fame with a -1 credibility rating, IMO. How could anyone truly believe that MS is essential to *anything*?
~~~~~~~~
Signature illegible, could be somebody else.
Giving of 'goods and services' on the part of MS amounts to this..
We'll burn a few hundred 50-cent CD's of our most expensive software and give them to you. And, we'll pay a few of our spies^H^H^H^H^H programmers to work on the project.
Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. This is not a 'contribution' by MS. It's their way of 'bartering for a first class ticket' (i.e, good PR) on the next technology train. If you honestly think they've contributed *anything* at this point (or even made a promise to do so), I'll gladly add you to the aforementioned list.
Thanks, but I'm not taking the bait.
~~~~~~~~
Signature illegible, could be somebody else.
This is only my personal opinion:
/dev/null
I think that Microsoft is doing this for three purposes. First off it looks good to the DOJ for the Antitrust trial. Giving money to R&D new technology on the Univerisity level is always good PR. Second they get their feet in the door on I2. Thirdly they can *try* and force people (or convice them they need to) use the M$ programs vs the software from other people including OSS/GNU software.
I think this is just a ploy to get people thinking M$ is not that bad and to consider using their products. Some of their products are pretty good and some just plainly suck. I like word and have like word since Word for DOS 5.0 (or was it 4.0?) but things like NT for servers make my skin crawl.
M$'s salesman (including technical sales) tend to lie to customers. Not stretch the truth but baldface lie. A few years ago I had a team of M$ droids try and convice me and my boss (and the other network people) that *only* NT could do DHCP services (be a DHCP server). I *knew* this was a lie since we had a Sun Sparc run Solaris running a BOOTP/DHCP server for the whole campus. They wanted a NT server for DHCP for each subnet. We had one box for all subnets. It just knew which subnet you can from and then gave you an IP based on that subnet. The M$ droids were in total disbelief until we showed them not only the w95 boxes doing DHCP but the server serving the requests. Memories like that make my skin crawl about M$ and their practices. Do not get me wrong they have done things right on some products but as their product list is growing their "done it right" column is not growing.
That is just the rablings of a Techno Weenie that does not care for M$.
Any comments, send to scott@sboss.net, all flames go to
Thanks
Scott
Scott
C{E,F,O,T}O
sboss dot net
email: scott@sboss.net
Scott
janitor
sdn website family
email: scott at sboss dot net
Secondly, I2 has plenty of corporate partners. It is unrealistic to think that any one of these partners is going to dominate the effort, particularly given that Internet2 is being run and coordinated by some extremely smart people, who are not in the habit of selecting technically inferior solutions. The I2 engineering staff has a proven history of thinking for the long term.
This is a good thing. It's a great sign that Microsoft is willing to play by the rules and wants to join in with collaborative efforts rather than compete them into the ground. Are they interested in a profit? Well, I'd imagine so, but so, frankly, is everyone else involved. I welcome Microsoft to the I2 project and hope they will be productive contributors to the community.
Peter Berger
Chairman, Internet2 Security Working Group
speaking only for myself.
I think an internet based on closed standards would fail miserably. And in any case, since the internet is an International community, there is no way that the world would let it be controlled by a single American company.
Even the US government would be wary to give anyone a controlled monopoly (ie look at what has happened to NSI)
Correct Link here: http://linuxtoday.com/stories/5454.html
People, not *everything* MS does is evil. Yes, a lot of what the do can be considered evil.
AFAIK, the ony thing MS has now is a lighter bank account, a few less researchers, and one vote on the coalition. This doesn't consitiute a takeover when over a 150 other entities are involved.
RB