Um, IBM still makes big standards in almost every area of the market. If you mean standardizing hacks for speed-to-market purposes then IBM still does those too, so whatever "Economist."
I work for a particular cellular phone provider in software development. Here are some thoughts...
----------
In a basestation fault scenario like the author
proposed, assuming people consider SMS a viable alternative to other forms of communication...
--There would be too many messages for handsets to be supportive.
--Continuity among various handset vendors would be required to make this feature work suggesting potentially years of specification development time.
--Fault tolerance means a whole of different things to alot of different people. To a fault tolerance engineer this idea is a dirty hack we might call "best effort service."
----------
Most people would probably just use a payphone or landline to communicate because SMS messages are tedious to enter on cell phones for more than a few words.
----------
Peer to telecommunication is a great idea and useful. Cutting down on network hits for simple problems has benefits but may not come of age because cellular providers would have difficulty billing such services unless handsets kept tallies while disconnected and then pushed them to the server when it came back up. This brings up the issue of user tamporing, et al. Right now, billing, believe it or no, is a huge issue for providers as so many new features and network types must all be coordinated into one or more billing service applications.
----------
Next generation wireless networks may provide greater overlap and currently multi-mode phones help with network failures in some cases.
----------
Not a bad idea, certainly a logical paradigm for the future, but not without its complications.
Check ya.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, IBM still makes big standards in almost every area of the market. If you mean standardizing hacks for speed-to-market purposes then IBM still does those too, so whatever "Economist."
While maybe I should examine myself as well
it is a bit frustrating that MS with its multitude
of terrorist-like business practices, software hitches
and the fact that its software is probably the
largest known virus in the community, has made such a claim.
I work for a particular cellular phone provider in software development. Here are some thoughts... ---------- In a basestation fault scenario like the author proposed, assuming people consider SMS a viable alternative to other forms of communication... --There would be too many messages for handsets to be supportive. --Continuity among various handset vendors would be required to make this feature work suggesting potentially years of specification development time. --Fault tolerance means a whole of different things to alot of different people. To a fault tolerance engineer this idea is a dirty hack we might call "best effort service." ---------- Most people would probably just use a payphone or landline to communicate because SMS messages are tedious to enter on cell phones for more than a few words. ---------- Peer to telecommunication is a great idea and useful. Cutting down on network hits for simple problems has benefits but may not come of age because cellular providers would have difficulty billing such services unless handsets kept tallies while disconnected and then pushed them to the server when it came back up. This brings up the issue of user tamporing, et al. Right now, billing, believe it or no, is a huge issue for providers as so many new features and network types must all be coordinated into one or more billing service applications. ---------- Next generation wireless networks may provide greater overlap and currently multi-mode phones help with network failures in some cases. ---------- Not a bad idea, certainly a logical paradigm for the future, but not without its complications. Check ya.
Though I'm glad the NSA has been so helpful; do you really think they would release a version that they didn't have a back door for?