This seems to be politics rearing its head and not so much about Microsoft.
There seems to be an underlying current that seems to point to a battle between those with a preference for Microsoft and those with a preference for Linux.
Linux lovers: "But it has to be secure." Microsoft lovers: "Huh? But I like Word." Linux lovers: "Yeah, Linux has all these great things to make it secure but Microsoft doesn't." Microsoft lovers: "Huh? But I like Excel." Linux lovers: "Well, I guess we could possibly use Microsoft code (wink, wink). We'll just write them a letter, get the source code, and we'll write our own secure stuff (wink, wink)."
(Microsoft tells them to go take a flying leap.)
Linux lovers: "Well, that's too bad. It looks like Microsoft isn't going to be secure. We can't use it. Boo hoo (wink, wink)."
A big part of the confusion that comes from these kinds of statistics is failure to understand the problem well. There are many parts to the equation of Internet growth and these statistics are a gross oversimplification to anyone who's in the telecom industry.
A simple example is the difference between access networks and core networks. Access networks are those such as phone lines or DSL to the home. Core networks are those such as UUNET. Companies buy big pipes from those guys. Both types of networks need to be in place and operating before Internet access will grow. If one slows down, the other slows down because they are positively correlated (I hope that's the right term).
So, you've got the access networks (ISPs and RBOCs for example) preaching their growth numbers and core networks (UUNET, Global Crossing and AT&T for example) preaching their numbers and no one looks at the big picture.
Taking this example to the Internet boom, where we are today is that core networks are way overbuilt and access networks suck eggs. The ISPs just don't have the subscriber base to support them buying more bandwidth from the core network providers.
(Keep in mind, this is on the service provider side of the equation. There is a whole other side that's the enterprise side of the equation, where big companies buy bandwidth from access and/or core network providers to connect their people together. It's a big part of the market and is almost the only thing keeping these network providers afloat these days until the service provider market returns.)
Making bigger and bigger pipes is the way of the net. The technology just has to get better by making the rates higher and the packages smaller.
The next question is, what do we do with all this new capacity? The telecommunications industry is finding all this out since so much infrastructure was built during the boom and everything went bust. There was so much infrastructure out there that was completely useless (think dark fiber) because of incomplete implementation.
They put plenty of fiber in the ground and run out of money before they can get any equipment to light it up. They put plenty of DWDM equipment to light the fiber but they can't sell a whole OC-48 to anyone at a competitive price. They get tons of metro networking equipment but they've just spent all their money and can't make a management system to turn up any metro circuits.
So, these kinds of technological improvements are the greatest thing in the world and they have to keep pushing the envelope. However, there must be concurrent development along all other lines to manage all these ass-kicking boxes and make them usable! If not, no one will buy it because it can't contribute to a sustainable business model.
The whole idea of this article isn't anything new. The basic idea that I see in it has been understood for a very long time, and that is, "whoever has the most attention has the most power."
Part of the lives we all live (and have lived) is that there is something that feeds on our attention. In this article, it's represented as marketers and advertisers and big companies. It has a voracious appetite and can never get enough attention. You could say it is addicted to sucking up attention. It is definitely not us, but something else. It certainly involves us and can even masquerade as us sometimes, but those are times when it is most powerful and has us most in its grasp. I mean us as a society and at smaller levels down to us as individuals and even smaller than that.
This is something that has been with us for a very long time and seems to be present in every society that has ever existed. It's the genesis of competition, oneupsmanship, addiction, hatred, violence, prejudice, punishment and fear. Greed, hate and delusion. This is what can really be seen in this advertising, marketing and these companies. This same thing can be seen in ourselves.
So, you see, this is much larger than this article implies. This is the battle for our lives. Who has the courage to face it? What would that look like?
Slashdot Mirror
This seems to be politics rearing its head and not so much about Microsoft.
There seems to be an underlying current that seems to point to a battle between those with a preference for Microsoft and those with a preference for Linux.
Linux lovers: "But it has to be secure."
Microsoft lovers: "Huh? But I like Word."
Linux lovers: "Yeah, Linux has all these great things to make it secure but Microsoft doesn't."
Microsoft lovers: "Huh? But I like Excel."
Linux lovers: "Well, I guess we could possibly use Microsoft code (wink, wink). We'll just write them a letter, get the source code, and we'll write our own secure stuff (wink, wink)."
(Microsoft tells them to go take a flying leap.)
Linux lovers: "Well, that's too bad. It looks like Microsoft isn't going to be secure. We can't use it. Boo hoo (wink, wink)."
A big part of the confusion that comes from these kinds of statistics is failure to understand the problem well. There are many parts to the equation of Internet growth and these statistics are a gross oversimplification to anyone who's in the telecom industry.
A simple example is the difference between access networks and core networks. Access networks are those such as phone lines or DSL to the home. Core networks are those such as UUNET. Companies buy big pipes from those guys. Both types of networks need to be in place and operating before Internet access will grow. If one slows down, the other slows down because they are positively correlated (I hope that's the right term).
So, you've got the access networks (ISPs and RBOCs for example) preaching their growth numbers and core networks (UUNET, Global Crossing and AT&T for example) preaching their numbers and no one looks at the big picture.
Taking this example to the Internet boom, where we are today is that core networks are way overbuilt and access networks suck eggs. The ISPs just don't have the subscriber base to support them buying more bandwidth from the core network providers.
(Keep in mind, this is on the service provider side of the equation. There is a whole other side that's the enterprise side of the equation, where big companies buy bandwidth from access and/or core network providers to connect their people together. It's a big part of the market and is almost the only thing keeping these network providers afloat these days until the service provider market returns.)
Making bigger and bigger pipes is the way of the net. The technology just has to get better by making the rates higher and the packages smaller.
The next question is, what do we do with all this new capacity? The telecommunications industry is finding all this out since so much infrastructure was built during the boom and everything went bust. There was so much infrastructure out there that was completely useless (think dark fiber) because of incomplete implementation.
They put plenty of fiber in the ground and run out of money before they can get any equipment to light it up. They put plenty of DWDM equipment to light the fiber but they can't sell a whole OC-48 to anyone at a competitive price. They get tons of metro networking equipment but they've just spent all their money and can't make a management system to turn up any metro circuits.
So, these kinds of technological improvements are the greatest thing in the world and they have to keep pushing the envelope. However, there must be concurrent development along all other lines to manage all these ass-kicking boxes and make them usable! If not, no one will buy it because it can't contribute to a sustainable business model.
The whole idea of this article isn't anything new. The basic idea that I see in it has been understood for a very long time, and that is, "whoever has the most attention has the most power."
Part of the lives we all live (and have lived) is that there is something that feeds on our attention. In this article, it's represented as marketers and advertisers and big companies. It has a voracious appetite and can never get enough attention. You could say it is addicted to sucking up attention. It is definitely not us, but something else. It certainly involves us and can even masquerade as us sometimes, but those are times when it is most powerful and has us most in its grasp. I mean us as a society and at smaller levels down to us as individuals and even smaller than that.
This is something that has been with us for a very long time and seems to be present in every society that has ever existed. It's the genesis of competition, oneupsmanship, addiction, hatred, violence, prejudice, punishment and fear. Greed, hate and delusion. This is what can really be seen in this advertising, marketing and these companies. This same thing can be seen in ourselves.
So, you see, this is much larger than this article implies. This is the battle for our lives. Who has the courage to face it? What would that look like?