I've used MS Tech Support and I have to say that I was quite unimpressed. We were having problems with DB corruption on our Exchange servers and trying to isolate and fix the problem. All the MS folks could seem to do was recite the same things we'd already read in TechNet. Not to mention having to wait on the phone (usually about half an hour) to even speak with someone who could 'help' us.
This was 18 months ago, so maybe things have improved with knowledge level and wait times. It seems to me that there is a lot more in-depth Linux information readily available on the net though... and since most programs and the OS are open source, if you can't find an answer, you can research it on your own. I'd like to see that done w/ Microsoft...
Looking at some of the previous posts from the Australians out there, it would seem that Microsoft has made some valid points in their critique of Australian governmental policies. But then your question becomes, why are they saying those things? Is Microsoft a genuinely benevolent corporation that only wants to vastly improve the lives of the ordinary Australian? Or are they following their own motives?
Apparently it just doesn't occur to most people that you COULD put your original content on the Net and still make money from it. However, systems to adequately compensate for that are not yet developed or implemented. I think that if it were convienent enough to do, most people would gladly pay a couple of cents per song or book to the author -- if they knew it was going to the author/artist themselves and not to benefit the huge corporate beauracraZy. The problem is.. we haven't reached that point yet. When I say easy.. I mean it needs to be user controllable, but otherwise automatic. Web sites where you can log in and 'donate' a couple of bucks to your favorite artist are nice, but the additional steps mean that they'll likely never really catch on.
Here's my favorite quote from the article; "Advertisers would lower the licensing surcharge further by paying ISP's for access to consumers' eyeballs....The Heavenly Jukebox might even be free."
Wow.. isn't there already something like that? What's it called... Television?
Here's a link to youcann.org, a site devoted to promoting alternative TLDs. Looks like they duplicate the 'standard' DNS information and augment it with their own stuff that ICANN doesn't accept.
It's a very interesting idea, but as this Wired article details, bad things happen when people disagree about who on the Internet is in charge of a certain TLD (.biz in this case).
If you're actually interested in doing something, rather that just complaining all the time, here's an opportunity, staring you in the face.
I think this is a great idea... But what happens when all the good TLDs are taken? Hrmmmm...
It's amazing to see the hatred in all these messages. Down with Microsoft, the Evil Empire, blah blah blah. I used to feel that way too. But I stopped and thought about it for a few seconds and then wondered, "Why?" What do I care?
I think a lot of corporations will find the new software 'rental' scheme a good idea. You pretty much upgrade every 3 years or so anyway. As long as the subscription fee is the same or less than what you would expect to be paying anyway.. there's really no difference. It would sure make upgrading a large network easier. You have a much lower initial capital outlay to rent a program for a year, than to buy it outright.
Microsoft is being intelligent for itself and it seems like it really makes everyone else mad to see that. Someone said that once everyone is on the new plan, MS will stop innovating. Well, to be honest, has there been a really significant innovation in Office in the last 10 or 15 years? I don't think so. But companies keep moving forward to the next version.
Everyone seems to have missed the whole idea here.. that software is becoming available for rent -- not just by purchasing it flat out. What if I'm sitting at home, and I think.. oh, I'd like to make a newsletter. So I go rent a copy of FrontPage for a week and develop my newsletter.
Now I paid maybe $5 versus $100.
I think what this issue boils down to is who will control how domain namespace is organized. When this all started up, the US Government controlled it. That was great for the times. We were on a small scale, it provided needed stability and standardization. Then Uncle Sam got out of the Internet business and for a long time things sort of drifted along on their own momentum. But massive growth has led us to a situation where everyone has the same great idea for a catchy name, only to find out that someone beat them to it. Or even more sinister, you get people who decide to take over a domain name and hold it hostage for the highest bidder.
I read through most of the threads on this topic. Some were insightful, some were just whining. But I think there are some points to be considered:
1- Breaking the 3 letter barrier unleashes all sorts of problems and confusion. Some people mentioned we should move toward the USENET naming conventions -- what do you think ICANN's list of TLDs signifies?.museum?.pro? smith.name? Yeah, it's not alt.sex.stories.hermaphrodite, but it's a big step in that direction. I forgot who said it, but someone quipped about how to explain all this to their grandma. It's a good observation about how complex and confused the namespace will get now. In the past, you could basically count on www.whatever.com, it's been a no-brainer. But if these new TLDs take off, where's the consistency? People can't read a simple presidential ballot, c'mon!
2- ICANN, for all its many faults, made a smart move in picking entities that will (should) be able to handle the effort at establishing a TLD, but the fact that so many better options were left out, simply because no one 'reliable' signed on for it is a loss. In addition, as some people here have already shown, these new TLDs will not necessarily be used an they were originally envisioned. And what's to stop someone from monopolizing the new namespace? Amazon.biz, show.biz? You'll run into the same issues.
3- I think serious thought needs to be put into, as several people have already suggested, developing a distributed naming system -- or even better, replacing DNS with something completely different. I admit that I'm at a loss for suitable replacements or where to even start. But I think that it's pretty obvious that the larger something grows, the more impossible it is to maintain centralized control. The fact that ICANN based design decisions on who could provide the service is fundamentally flawed..xxx and.kid or whatever should be created because they're the right design choice, not because of the politics invovled.
Finally, ICANN is basically a pointless beauracracy. I'm American, and I resent the fact that this essentially American organization is telling the world how it is. The Net should decide what is, and is not appropriate -- not someone or some group who thinks they know best.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used MS Tech Support and I have to say that I was quite unimpressed. We were having problems with DB corruption on our Exchange servers and trying to isolate and fix the problem. All the MS folks could seem to do was recite the same things we'd already read in TechNet. Not to mention having to wait on the phone (usually about half an hour) to even speak with someone who could 'help' us.
This was 18 months ago, so maybe things have improved with knowledge level and wait times. It seems to me that there is a lot more in-depth Linux information readily available on the net though... and since most programs and the OS are open source, if you can't find an answer, you can research it on your own. I'd like to see that done w/ Microsoft...
It's called a bag lunch.
Looking at some of the previous posts from the Australians out there, it would seem that Microsoft has made some valid points in their critique of Australian governmental policies. But then your question becomes, why are they saying those things? Is Microsoft a genuinely benevolent corporation that only wants to vastly improve the lives of the ordinary Australian? Or are they following their own motives?
Apparently it just doesn't occur to most people that you COULD put your original content on the Net and still make money from it. However, systems to adequately compensate for that are not yet developed or implemented. I think that if it were convienent enough to do, most people would gladly pay a couple of cents per song or book to the author -- if they knew it was going to the author/artist themselves and not to benefit the huge corporate beauracraZy. The problem is.. we haven't reached that point yet. When I say easy.. I mean it needs to be user controllable, but otherwise automatic. Web sites where you can log in and 'donate' a couple of bucks to your favorite artist are nice, but the additional steps mean that they'll likely never really catch on.
... Television?
Here's my favorite quote from the article; "Advertisers would lower the licensing surcharge further by paying ISP's for access to consumers' eyeballs....The Heavenly Jukebox might even be free."
Wow.. isn't there already something like that? What's it called
Here's a link to youcann.org, a site devoted to promoting alternative TLDs. Looks like they duplicate the 'standard' DNS information and augment it with their own stuff that ICANN doesn't accept.
It's a very interesting idea, but as this Wired article details, bad things happen when people disagree about who on the Internet is in charge of a certain TLD (.biz in this case).
If you're actually interested in doing something, rather that just complaining all the time, here's an opportunity, staring you in the face.
I think this is a great idea... But what happens when all the good TLDs are taken? Hrmmmm...
It's amazing to see the hatred in all these messages. Down with Microsoft, the Evil Empire, blah blah blah. I used to feel that way too. But I stopped and thought about it for a few seconds and then wondered, "Why?" What do I care?
I think a lot of corporations will find the new software 'rental' scheme a good idea. You pretty much upgrade every 3 years or so anyway. As long as the subscription fee is the same or less than what you would expect to be paying anyway.. there's really no difference. It would sure make upgrading a large network easier. You have a much lower initial capital outlay to rent a program for a year, than to buy it outright.
Microsoft is being intelligent for itself and it seems like it really makes everyone else mad to see that. Someone said that once everyone is on the new plan, MS will stop innovating. Well, to be honest, has there been a really significant innovation in Office in the last 10 or 15 years? I don't think so. But companies keep moving forward to the next version.
Everyone seems to have missed the whole idea here.. that software is becoming available for rent -- not just by purchasing it flat out. What if I'm sitting at home, and I think.. oh, I'd like to make a newsletter. So I go rent a copy of FrontPage for a week and develop my newsletter.
Now I paid maybe $5 versus $100.
I think what this issue boils down to is who will control how domain namespace is organized. When this all started up, the US Government controlled it. That was great for the times. We were on a small scale, it provided needed stability and standardization. Then Uncle Sam got out of the Internet business and for a long time things sort of drifted along on their own momentum. But massive growth has led us to a situation where everyone has the same great idea for a catchy name, only to find out that someone beat them to it. Or even more sinister, you get people who decide to take over a domain name and hold it hostage for the highest bidder.
.museum? .pro? smith.name? Yeah, it's not alt.sex.stories.hermaphrodite, but it's a big step in that direction. I forgot who said it, but someone quipped about how to explain all this to their grandma. It's a good observation about how complex and confused the namespace will get now. In the past, you could basically count on www.whatever.com, it's been a no-brainer. But if these new TLDs take off, where's the consistency? People can't read a simple presidential ballot, c'mon!
.xxx and .kid or whatever should be created because they're the right design choice, not because of the politics invovled.
I read through most of the threads on this topic. Some were insightful, some were just whining. But I think there are some points to be considered:
1- Breaking the 3 letter barrier unleashes all sorts of problems and confusion. Some people mentioned we should move toward the USENET naming conventions -- what do you think ICANN's list of TLDs signifies?
2- ICANN, for all its many faults, made a smart move in picking entities that will (should) be able to handle the effort at establishing a TLD, but the fact that so many better options were left out, simply because no one 'reliable' signed on for it is a loss. In addition, as some people here have already shown, these new TLDs will not necessarily be used an they were originally envisioned. And what's to stop someone from monopolizing the new namespace? Amazon.biz, show.biz? You'll run into the same issues.
3- I think serious thought needs to be put into, as several people have already suggested, developing a distributed naming system -- or even better, replacing DNS with something completely different. I admit that I'm at a loss for suitable replacements or where to even start. But I think that it's pretty obvious that the larger something grows, the more impossible it is to maintain centralized control. The fact that ICANN based design decisions on who could provide the service is fundamentally flawed.
Finally, ICANN is basically a pointless beauracracy. I'm American, and I resent the fact that this essentially American organization is telling the world how it is. The Net should decide what is, and is not appropriate -- not someone or some group who thinks they know best.
sorry it's so long...