IPV6 could well be DOA, because it solves the wrong problem.
IPV6 solves the problems of the Internet, as originally conceived - egalitarian and end-to-end.
Nobody in power wants that any more. I'm sure that those in power would mostly prefer that the Internet would just go back and hide under the rock it came from, but they DO like the benefits it gives to THEM. If IPV6 goes forward, it'll only be because it has enough momentum as the "logical successor," and because TPTB can't propose what they'd really like.
If IPV6 were being designed TODAY: It would have DRM built-in for the ??AA, as well as router-based monitors and controls for peer-to-peer networking. It would have built-in provisions for wiretapping, even at the opportunistic VPN level, for government TLAs. It would have content and traffic filtering provisions, for China and the Religious Right.
Of course IPV6 really runs counter to all of these "design criteria."
>Agreed. This is nothing more than a sligtly sophisticated form of "I want free JPEGs!!!1".
IANAL, but...
IMHO, this is at least akin to equitable estoppel, while wiping its nose with kleenex. (NOT TM)
1: When did jpeg compression start becoming known, and multiple independent implementations available? 2: When did jpeg compression become practically ubiquitous, the de-facto "standard of the industry" for image compression? 3: When did Compression Labs begin trying to assert ownership against jpeg compression? 4: PROFIT!!!
Equitable estoppel essentially says you can't go back on an agreement. In this case, there was no actual agreement made to allow jpeg compression to be royalty-free, but we can say that there was an implied agreement. That's why I brought up the word "kleenex", and note that it's not capitalized. "Kleenex," and in this case I would have capitalized it, even had it not begun the sentence, used to be a trademark. The makers wanted to own the paper handkerchief market, so they wanted "Kleenex" to be practically synonymous with "paper handkerchief." But on the road to ubiquity, they succeeded too well, and by not asserting their trademark, they lost it. You can't have it both ways, you can have a trademark, or you can have a descriptive term.
IMHO, assertion of patent rights in a case like this must be done promptly, or be lost. It's rather underhanded to let your IP become a de-facto (or de-jur, for that matter) standard, and THEN assert rights. Had people known that jpeg compression was encumbered when it first came out, they would have responded the same way the png counters gif. The "appearance of free use" was what allowed jpeg to become a de-facto standard. Also IMHO, giving that "appearance of free use" is the agreement that makes this equitable estoppel.
I wouldn't count on that. At the moment, I think it's far more likely that the ??AA and US Congress are FAR more likely to drive techonological innovation away from the US than they are to fix our laws. Messing up our IP laws "fixes" bottom lines today, or at least gives that appearance, and who cares that we've sacrificed the future of our technology industries.
Perhaps unfortunately, engineers have always been more interested in engineering and making things that work than in politicking, and this is the price we pay. When I graduated from college, I took the first part of the NSPE test, not that I had any plans of becoming a Professional Engineer, but because "There's no better time to take it, when you've just had all the stuff." I got the magazine for some years, and was surprised to see how much of it was taken up by politicking, and that was part of the reason I let it drop. I know better, now.
I imagine that the dual-core chips are already quite stable. Expensive is another matter, and like you I don't currently need that much power. I recently got an Athlon64 3000, and am quite happy with the speed bump from my old K6-3-400. It's also on a socket 939, so by the time the board obsolescence rolls around, I may well pick up a cheapo dual-core and extend its life a few more years. That presumes something else isn't driving replacement, but then again, my current server is an ancient Celeron 300A, and I just barely got rid of the P150.
"but this technology could allow anyone to set up as an ISP."
I'm sure there are some heavily-moneyed parties who would rather not see things de-centralize. This is part of a larger losing picture for the whole computer/networking technology arena. We've become everyone's beating boy, and so far everyone has succeeded in doing this. If only our industry had a fraction of the clout of the NRA. If only the Founding Fathers had understood the concept of end-to-end networking. Oh well. We'll probably figure out that making computer/networking technology responsible for everyone else's woes was a bad idea, after it's too late. (If it isn't already)
1. Sorry, I don't plan on taking a job with Steve Jobs. 2. Sorry, I don't plan on taking a job in the Bush Administration. 3. Then what's the speed of light after one too many? 4. Does that mean that Joe 6pak's (forgive me for calling Joe a dim bulb.) chips won't run at the same speed? 5.... 6. PROFIT!!!
I know you're giving a serious response to a joke, but it makes me come up with an even further off the wall, but still serious, response...
Which vacuum?
In physics, there seems to be the possiblility of other vacuum states than the one we happen to have in our observed Universe. Since this is Slashdot, it's worth mentioning that science fiction has at least 2 books where the concept of alternate vacuum states plays a plot-driving role, "Schild's Ladder" by Greg Egan and "The Forever Peace" by Joe Haldeman.
But I wonder what the value of C would be in these alternative vacuum states...
I hate to make a simple, shameless plug, so I'll just give my reasoning.
I pretty much always buy my memory from (Company X) because they're owned by (Company Y) who actually makes memory chips. I figure they own it, they built it, they tested it, their name goes on it, and there's no dilution by being able to point the finger at someone else. I also like the fact that I can buy from a memory maker, rather than some reseller or DIMM builder.
I recently had a DIMM from (Company X) go bad. I called them up, told them my story, and exchanged the bad one for a new one, no problems or hassles at all.
It had a lifetime warranty, and was about 1.5 years old.
The NASA way is the worst possible way, and whatever approach NASA takes *becomes* the worst possible approach, even if it's the approach we praise the Russian (or any other) space program for using.
I read it on Slashdot. (or sci.space.tech, or just about anywhere else.)
Been to a few places like that. As a poor example, not the least is Moab, Utah, which seems to be a favorite of car commercials. For that matter, our last full day in Utah, my daughter and I were hiking in the place where in Hulk, General Ross said, "Make it a parking lot."
But none of them can be reached for the price of a theater ticket, even if I added in the price of popcorn. It's also the surreality of it that I'm looking for.
I've heard that there will be some familiar scenes in it. Did you notice any places from Doom 1, 2, or 3? (1 or 3, most likely, since they were on Mars and 2 was on Earth.) It would be kind of amusing to see a movie, and get the "I've been there," feeling. Would you suggest replaying any particular levels before going?
Now that you mention it, I don't. You might try asking on comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips, and for that matter I might, now that you've called me on it.
Both parent post and grandparent post are making the mistake of assuming Intel's current problems are technical, and the result of engineering. That's utterly wrong, the problem is higher up - a product of corporate culture, management, and myopia.
Since you brought up IA64... While I'd be one of the last to argue against the ugliness of the x86 instruction set, that does not mean that IA64 is necessarily better. From an instruction architecture point of view, IMHO IA64 looks like an academic exercise got sold to the executives well before it was really ready for prime time. Look at the sheer amount of money Intel and HP have dumped into IA64, Sure, they can get some impressive results, but I suspect that given THAT amount of cash, time, and engineering, x86, Alpha, Power, etc all could have reached at least the same performance level.
It's necessary to realize that the number 1 problem it was designed for had nothing whatsoever to do with performance. IMHO, the prime purpose of IA64 was to prevent cloning. Neither Intel nor HP hold any of the IP on IA64 - it's all held by a third company, and Intel and HP are the licensees. That's because both Intel and HP are extensively cross-licensed with others in the business, including AMD. Had Intel and HP owned the IP for IA64, it would have come in under those cross-licensing agreements. By setting up the third company, there is no cross-licensing involved, and ONLY Intel and HP can product IA64.
So IA64 is a product of "corporate myopia," of Intel being more concerned about it's internal problem of cloning than customers' external problems of power and performance, and I once heard it was another attempt by Carly Fiorina to "reset the clock" on her tenure by announcing a grand new strategy that needed her at the helm. Both are driven by internal politics, not the marketplace. It's a classic problem of big companies
Before you use it the first time, or any other time it's been powered down for a while, you'll first have to lick part of it for 15 min to 1/2 hour. THEN you can apply power.
The UI isn't the easiest, and it'll be a while before you get anything other than squeaks and squawks out of it.
But I spoke of this all-IPV6, all-accessible network as being within the Great Firewall of China, and I expect that there would be extensive monitoring within. In such a situation, I'd be scared to even try building a zombie network, because it wouldn't be guys in black suits at my door, it would be the Red Army.
Another post suggests that Cisco's newer routers have better IPV6 support than what is currently installed. So if IPV6 were to become widespread, presumably upgrade fever would follow.
After a little thought, I agree with you, but each nation will have a different reason.
India will want to roll out forefront technology because they see that as opportunity for their nation.
China will want to roll out IPV6 for the same reason, PLUS: With IPV6 no NAT is needed, and in fact they could probably find a way to disallow all NAT within the country. That puts every computer on the country directly on their Internet, making government tracking and hacking much easier.
Aah, but is that information put in the packet in such a way that they can charge more for better priority and routing? I'm under the impression that they're currently looking at ways to do that stuff with IPV4 for "preferred customers." In that sense, ISPs would clearly not want to see QOS become "fair," because they lose a value-add revenue option.
And here you've just hit the crux of the issue, and perhaps the biggest stumbling block in widespread IPV6 adoption. All of us (the Slashdot, Technocrat, and tech crowd in general) believe that end-to-end, peer-to-peer is the way things are supposed to work. I imagine that most of our ISPs sternly disagree with this philosophy, and *like* the client-server model, since it lowers support costs. Plus we know which model the ??AA prefers.
I suspect that as others have said, Cisco sees IPV6 as an opportunity to sell more hardware, probably more than once, because there will be evolution as it sees real-world use.
I can easily foresee a two-tier Internet, where there is IPV6 at some level "up there," but us unwashed masses will continue to get IPV4. Besides support, there's a cost issue. For instance, our ISPs can adopt IPV6 at their next-level-up feeds with a little bit of hardware. But I suspect most of their hardware investment is much lower down, closer to us, and if it works, they'd just as soon keep the old IPV4 hardware in place. Even if it could be a firmware upgrade, it's still a nightmare to roll out over thousands of users.
The interesting question would be corporate interests. I suspect they'd like to get some of the benefits of IPV6, but probably would prefer to keep the tighter control over their lans that is "justified" by IPV4.
An "intelligent" designer would know that patenting genes is STUPID, and that to really enforce your patent you have to take every mother to court for infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
IPV6 could well be DOA, because it solves the wrong problem.
IPV6 solves the problems of the Internet, as originally conceived - egalitarian and end-to-end.
Nobody in power wants that any more. I'm sure that those in power would mostly prefer that the Internet would just go back and hide under the rock it came from, but they DO like the benefits it gives to THEM. If IPV6 goes forward, it'll only be because it has enough momentum as the "logical successor," and because TPTB can't propose what they'd really like.
If IPV6 were being designed TODAY:
It would have DRM built-in for the ??AA, as well as router-based monitors and controls for peer-to-peer networking.
It would have built-in provisions for wiretapping, even at the opportunistic VPN level, for government TLAs.
It would have content and traffic filtering provisions, for China and the Religious Right.
Of course IPV6 really runs counter to all of these "design criteria."
>Agreed. This is nothing more than a sligtly sophisticated form of "I want free JPEGs!!!1".
IANAL, but...
IMHO, this is at least akin to equitable estoppel, while wiping its nose with kleenex. (NOT TM)
1: When did jpeg compression start becoming known, and multiple independent implementations available?
2: When did jpeg compression become practically ubiquitous, the de-facto "standard of the industry" for image compression?
3: When did Compression Labs begin trying to assert ownership against jpeg compression?
4: PROFIT!!!
Equitable estoppel essentially says you can't go back on an agreement. In this case, there was no actual agreement made to allow jpeg compression to be royalty-free, but we can say that there was an implied agreement. That's why I brought up the word "kleenex", and note that it's not capitalized. "Kleenex," and in this case I would have capitalized it, even had it not begun the sentence, used to be a trademark. The makers wanted to own the paper handkerchief market, so they wanted "Kleenex" to be practically synonymous with "paper handkerchief." But on the road to ubiquity, they succeeded too well, and by not asserting their trademark, they lost it. You can't have it both ways, you can have a trademark, or you can have a descriptive term.
IMHO, assertion of patent rights in a case like this must be done promptly, or be lost. It's rather underhanded to let your IP become a de-facto (or de-jur, for that matter) standard, and THEN assert rights. Had people known that jpeg compression was encumbered when it first came out, they would have responded the same way the png counters gif. The "appearance of free use" was what allowed jpeg to become a de-facto standard. Also IMHO, giving that "appearance of free use" is the agreement that makes this equitable estoppel.
We need to understand that "Noooooooooo!!" a little better.
Is it the classic, high-pitched "Nooooooooooo!!"
or
Is it the neuvo Star Wars, low-pitched, newly-minted Darth Vader "Noooooooooooo!!"
I wouldn't count on that. At the moment, I think it's far more likely that the ??AA and US Congress are FAR more likely to drive techonological innovation away from the US than they are to fix our laws. Messing up our IP laws "fixes" bottom lines today, or at least gives that appearance, and who cares that we've sacrificed the future of our technology industries.
Perhaps unfortunately, engineers have always been more interested in engineering and making things that work than in politicking, and this is the price we pay. When I graduated from college, I took the first part of the NSPE test, not that I had any plans of becoming a Professional Engineer, but because "There's no better time to take it, when you've just had all the stuff." I got the magazine for some years, and was surprised to see how much of it was taken up by politicking, and that was part of the reason I let it drop. I know better, now.
This thread is on finches, not swallows! You're off-topic!
I imagine that the dual-core chips are already quite stable. Expensive is another matter, and like you I don't currently need that much power. I recently got an Athlon64 3000, and am quite happy with the speed bump from my old K6-3-400. It's also on a socket 939, so by the time the board obsolescence rolls around, I may well pick up a cheapo dual-core and extend its life a few more years. That presumes something else isn't driving replacement, but then again, my current server is an ancient Celeron 300A, and I just barely got rid of the P150.
"but this technology could allow anyone to set up as an ISP."
I'm sure there are some heavily-moneyed parties who would rather not see things de-centralize. This is part of a larger losing picture for the whole computer/networking technology arena. We've become everyone's beating boy, and so far everyone has succeeded in doing this. If only our industry had a fraction of the clout of the NRA. If only the Founding Fathers had understood the concept of end-to-end networking. Oh well. We'll probably figure out that making computer/networking technology responsible for everyone else's woes was a bad idea, after it's too late. (If it isn't already)
"Business Method Patents" are well established. (unfortunately)
Of course if such things were filed as business method patents, it would probably have to be done by a hooker/gigolo or representing attorney.
Speaking of BOTH sides, now let's hear from a Libertarian or a Progressive.
1. Sorry, I don't plan on taking a job with Steve Jobs. ...
2. Sorry, I don't plan on taking a job in the Bush Administration.
3. Then what's the speed of light after one too many?
4. Does that mean that Joe 6pak's (forgive me for calling Joe a dim bulb.) chips won't run at the same speed?
5.
6. PROFIT!!!
I know you're giving a serious response to a joke, but it makes me come up with an even further off the wall, but still serious, response...
Which vacuum?
In physics, there seems to be the possiblility of other vacuum states than the one we happen to have in our observed Universe. Since this is Slashdot, it's worth mentioning that science fiction has at least 2 books where the concept of alternate vacuum states plays a plot-driving role, "Schild's Ladder" by Greg Egan and "The Forever Peace" by Joe Haldeman.
But I wonder what the value of C would be in these alternative vacuum states...
But that would have been a shameless plug.
I hate to make a simple, shameless plug, so I'll just give my reasoning.
I pretty much always buy my memory from (Company X) because they're owned by (Company Y) who actually makes memory chips. I figure they own it, they built it, they tested it, their name goes on it, and there's no dilution by being able to point the finger at someone else. I also like the fact that I can buy from a memory maker, rather than some reseller or DIMM builder.
I recently had a DIMM from (Company X) go bad. I called them up, told them my story, and exchanged the bad one for a new one, no problems or hassles at all.
It had a lifetime warranty, and was about 1.5 years old.
No possible way!
The NASA way is the worst possible way, and whatever approach NASA takes *becomes* the worst possible approach, even if it's the approach we praise the Russian (or any other) space program for using.
I read it on Slashdot. (or sci.space.tech, or just about anywhere else.)
Been to a few places like that. As a poor example, not the least is Moab, Utah, which seems to be a favorite of car commercials. For that matter, our last full day in Utah, my daughter and I were hiking in the place where in Hulk, General Ross said, "Make it a parking lot."
But none of them can be reached for the price of a theater ticket, even if I added in the price of popcorn. It's also the surreality of it that I'm looking for.
I've heard that there will be some familiar scenes in it. Did you notice any places from Doom 1, 2, or 3? (1 or 3, most likely, since they were on Mars and 2 was on Earth.) It would be kind of amusing to see a movie, and get the "I've been there," feeling. Would you suggest replaying any particular levels before going?
Now that you mention it, I don't. You might try asking on comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips, and for that matter I might, now that you've called me on it.
Both parent post and grandparent post are making the mistake of assuming Intel's current problems are technical, and the result of engineering. That's utterly wrong, the problem is higher up - a product of corporate culture, management, and myopia.
Since you brought up IA64...
While I'd be one of the last to argue against the ugliness of the x86 instruction set, that does not mean that IA64 is necessarily better. From an instruction architecture point of view, IMHO IA64 looks like an academic exercise got sold to the executives well before it was really ready for prime time. Look at the sheer amount of money Intel and HP have dumped into IA64, Sure, they can get some impressive results, but I suspect that given THAT amount of cash, time, and engineering, x86, Alpha, Power, etc all could have reached at least the same performance level.
It's necessary to realize that the number 1 problem it was designed for had nothing whatsoever to do with performance. IMHO, the prime purpose of IA64 was to prevent cloning. Neither Intel nor HP hold any of the IP on IA64 - it's all held by a third company, and Intel and HP are the licensees. That's because both Intel and HP are extensively cross-licensed with others in the business, including AMD. Had Intel and HP owned the IP for IA64, it would have come in under those cross-licensing agreements. By setting up the third company, there is no cross-licensing involved, and ONLY Intel and HP can product IA64.
So IA64 is a product of "corporate myopia," of Intel being more concerned about it's internal problem of cloning than customers' external problems of power and performance, and I once heard it was another attempt by Carly Fiorina to "reset the clock" on her tenure by announcing a grand new strategy that needed her at the helm. Both are driven by internal politics, not the marketplace. It's a classic problem of big companies
Naah, we know a few other relevant things...
Before you use it the first time, or any other time it's been powered down for a while, you'll first have to lick part of it for 15 min to 1/2 hour. THEN you can apply power.
The UI isn't the easiest, and it'll be a while before you get anything other than squeaks and squawks out of it.
But I spoke of this all-IPV6, all-accessible network as being within the Great Firewall of China, and I expect that there would be extensive monitoring within. In such a situation, I'd be scared to even try building a zombie network, because it wouldn't be guys in black suits at my door, it would be the Red Army.
Another post suggests that Cisco's newer routers have better IPV6 support than what is currently installed. So if IPV6 were to become widespread, presumably upgrade fever would follow.
After a little thought, I agree with you, but each nation will have a different reason.
India will want to roll out forefront technology because they see that as opportunity for their nation.
China will want to roll out IPV6 for the same reason, PLUS: With IPV6 no NAT is needed, and in fact they could probably find a way to disallow all NAT within the country. That puts every computer on the country directly on their Internet, making government tracking and hacking much easier.
Aah, but is that information put in the packet in such a way that they can charge more for better priority and routing? I'm under the impression that they're currently looking at ways to do that stuff with IPV4 for "preferred customers." In that sense, ISPs would clearly not want to see QOS become "fair," because they lose a value-add revenue option.
And here you've just hit the crux of the issue, and perhaps the biggest stumbling block in widespread IPV6 adoption. All of us (the Slashdot, Technocrat, and tech crowd in general) believe that end-to-end, peer-to-peer is the way things are supposed to work. I imagine that most of our ISPs sternly disagree with this philosophy, and *like* the client-server model, since it lowers support costs. Plus we know which model the ??AA prefers.
I suspect that as others have said, Cisco sees IPV6 as an opportunity to sell more hardware, probably more than once, because there will be evolution as it sees real-world use.
I can easily foresee a two-tier Internet, where there is IPV6 at some level "up there," but us unwashed masses will continue to get IPV4. Besides support, there's a cost issue. For instance, our ISPs can adopt IPV6 at their next-level-up feeds with a little bit of hardware. But I suspect most of their hardware investment is much lower down, closer to us, and if it works, they'd just as soon keep the old IPV4 hardware in place. Even if it could be a firmware upgrade, it's still a nightmare to roll out over thousands of users.
The interesting question would be corporate interests. I suspect they'd like to get some of the benefits of IPV6, but probably would prefer to keep the tighter control over their lans that is "justified" by IPV4.
An "intelligent" designer would know that patenting genes is STUPID, and that to really enforce your patent you have to take every mother to court for infringement.