Letter I sent to Salon.com editor
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 1
Editor:
I used to consider Salon.com a trusted source of information. However, with Peter Wright's recent impartial article about Microsoft's.NET strategy, I no longer trust Salon.com to provide me with the "full picture". I already.NET is pretty good. Tell me about the things that are NOT so great about.NET, like security and the danger of Microsoft extending its monopoly. Don't fawn over Bill Gates and compare him to Gutenburg while comparing.NET to the invention of the mass-produced automobile.
For all of you who posted : "gee, they invented diff again", it's a little more involved than just "diff". I'm sure other schools have similar cheat-detecing programs as well.
Also, why Yahoo decided to pick up on this now and pass it off as news is beyond my comprehension. Maybe they had nothing else better to pass off as news. In my entire 4 years at GA Tech, I only heard about this program once and it's not a big deal.
"There's nothing here to see people. Please move on with your lives."
I agree with the sentiments of some earlier./'ers: The large number of Microsoft votes were probably NOT orchestrated by a high-level MS exec. Most likely, the large number of votes can be attributed to the large number of individuals withing MS, some of whom voted once, others who voted multiple times, and still others who created scripts to vote for them. So, it is difficult to say that, MS as a "corporation", is guilty of any wrong-doing.
However, something is still rotten in Redmond : MS's culture. At best, it embodies a "take no prisoners" attitude. However, I suspect that there are a large number of MS employees, execs or not, that use "manifest destiny" to reason away ammoral acts. I doubt these individuals are ever punished within MS for breaching ethics. Rather, I fear they are lauded for their "loyalist" efforts. Thus, it is the MS culture that encourages employees to "win at all costs", even if it means breaking the law ("just don't get caught doing it, OK ?") or breeching ethics that most humans take for granted.
Is there such a thing as corporate ethics ? How will history look upon MS ?
True, true. Quite true. The picure I painted was broad in scope, but lacked truth in the details. The Class of Service mechanisms in DOCSIS 1.0 aren't as rich as the Quality of Service mechanisms in DOCSIS 1.1, but they are adequate enough to enforce maximum upstream and downstream usage.
I also agree that usage-based billing is the way to go. However, it's ultimately up to your service provider to choose what technology to use and enable to deliver the kind of service they want to deliver to you.
What I said before wasn't the whole truth, just a summary. There actually are "class of service" parameters in DOCSIS 1.0 in the CM config file. Basically, when you boot your cable modem (what brand of CM do you have, by the way ?), it searches for and finds the downstream channel, gets its IP address and gets its config data. The config data consists of many parameters, including maximum bandwidth parameters for upstream and downstream. The CM may enforce the maximum upstream bandwidth. At the same time, the CMTS may also enforce the upstream bandwidth, since it is able to "sniff" the same config data the modem processed in its config file. The CMTS may also enforce the maximum downstream bandwidth as well.
In DOCSIS 1.1, it is mandatory for the CM and CMTS to enforce these parameters. In DOCSIS 1.0, it was optional.
Unfortunately, none of this information gives you a definitive answer. Even more disappointing, I don't know of any hacks to override/remove the upstream and downstream caps:(
The Cisco UBR is the most widely deployed 1.0 CMTS. I don't know much about it personally, but I can imagine it wasn't too hard for Cisco to enforce the Class of Service agreements for 1.0 config files. I have heard that Cisco was/is the only 1.0 CMTS vendor to actually use the class of service parameters in the CM config file.
My point is that with DOCSIS 1.1, the MSOs have more choice than just Cisco now. As a side note, neither a Cisco CMTS nor a CM have been DOCSIS 1.1 qualified yet. I don't know what's going on with Cisco's data-over-cable division, but they seem to have slipped from their leadership position.
I'm sure many of you have seen those hilarious DSL commercials that cast cable-based broadband access in a bad "shared access" light. That's because the current Data Over Cable System Interface Specification (DOCSIS), 1.0, is a best-effort packet delivery system and thus has no guarantees for Quality-of-Service(QoS). Thus, the cable operator (MSO) has no way of throttling bandwidth, especially upstream bandwidth. That's why the MSOs don't like NAT and want to be able to bill their subscribers on a per IP basis.
Enter DOCSIS 1.1, essentially a QoS add-on to DOCSIS 1.0 . With a DOCSIS 1.1 Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) sitting at the MSO's cable head-end and a DOCSIS 1.1 cable modem (CM) sitting at your house, QoS can be guaranteed. That is, the MSO can both limit you to a certain upstream and downstream bandwidth as well as guarantee a minimum upstream and downstream bandwidth. So, given a DOCSIS 1.1 deployment, I see no need for the MSOs to agitate customers with this intrusive CAT proposal, since they now have a way to bill you by bandwidth.
Two months ago, the first set of DOCSIS 1.1 products were certified by CableLabs. However, I don't expect DOCSIS 1.1 deployment and replacement of DOCSIS 1.0 systems to happen in large numbers until the end of 2002.
Another insider note: CableLabs, the entity pushing CAT, is funded by the MSOs, but has no authority to push its proposals into implementation. Only vendors building CAT products and MSOs buying those CAT products have the power to deploy this ludicrous CAT proposal.
I don't understand why Slashdot linked to this article. Then again, this article does feign professionalism by dropping a few names and seemingly related facts only to then make broad and exaggerated statements about consumer Joe, technology in general, and the entire capatalistic system. I guess if Slashdot can post Jon Katz, then it can post Cringely.
I was just thinking that Microsoft is very akin to a mafia operation. Everyone knows they are guilty as sin, but somehow, they never pay for their crimes.
I was not a CS major, so I can't speak from a pure CS point of view. However, as a Computer Engineering major, I was required and encouraged to take numerous CS courses. One of those courses was a Junior-year software engineering course that required teamwork. While accountability and credit within the group was often a problem, sharing work (including code) was not a problem. Even though that was one of the least technical courses I took as a CMPE major, it did help set the stage for the "real world".
Slashdot Mirror
Editor: .NET strategy, I no longer trust Salon.com to provide me with the "full picture". I already .NET is pretty good. Tell me about the things that are NOT so great about .NET, like security and the danger of Microsoft extending its monopoly. Don't fawn over Bill Gates and compare him to Gutenburg while comparing .NET to the invention of the mass-produced automobile.
I used to consider Salon.com a trusted source of information. However, with Peter Wright's recent impartial article about Microsoft's
Respectfully,
David White
For all of you who posted : "gee, they invented diff again", it's a little more involved than just "diff". I'm sure other schools have similar cheat-detecing programs as well. Also, why Yahoo decided to pick up on this now and pass it off as news is beyond my comprehension. Maybe they had nothing else better to pass off as news. In my entire 4 years at GA Tech, I only heard about this program once and it's not a big deal. "There's nothing here to see people. Please move on with your lives."
I agree with the sentiments of some earlier ./'ers: The large number of Microsoft votes were probably NOT orchestrated by a high-level MS exec. Most likely, the large number of votes can be attributed to the large number of individuals withing MS, some of whom voted once, others who voted multiple times, and still others who created scripts to vote for them. So, it is difficult to say that, MS as a "corporation", is guilty of any wrong-doing.
However, something is still rotten in Redmond : MS's culture. At best, it embodies a "take no prisoners" attitude. However, I suspect that there are a large number of MS employees, execs or not, that use "manifest destiny" to reason away ammoral acts. I doubt these individuals are ever punished within MS for breaching ethics. Rather, I fear they are lauded for their "loyalist" efforts. Thus, it is the MS culture that encourages employees to "win at all costs", even if it means breaking the law ("just don't get caught doing it, OK ?") or breeching ethics that most humans take for granted.
Is there such a thing as corporate ethics ? How will history look upon MS ?
A laptop with a fairly lightweight and small docking station might be a solution.
If you want character development, then read the book. Even at 3 hours, LOTR does not have enough time to develop any character.
True, true. Quite true. The picure I painted was broad in scope, but lacked truth in the details. The Class of Service mechanisms in DOCSIS 1.0 aren't as rich as the Quality of Service mechanisms in DOCSIS 1.1, but they are adequate enough to enforce maximum upstream and downstream usage. I also agree that usage-based billing is the way to go. However, it's ultimately up to your service provider to choose what technology to use and enable to deliver the kind of service they want to deliver to you.
What I said before wasn't the whole truth, just a summary. There actually are "class of service" parameters in DOCSIS 1.0 in the CM config file. Basically, when you boot your cable modem (what brand of CM do you have, by the way ?), it searches for and finds the downstream channel, gets its IP address and gets its config data. The config data consists of many parameters, including maximum bandwidth parameters for upstream and downstream. The CM may enforce the maximum upstream bandwidth. At the same time, the CMTS may also enforce the upstream bandwidth, since it is able to "sniff" the same config data the modem processed in its config file. The CMTS may also enforce the maximum downstream bandwidth as well. In DOCSIS 1.1, it is mandatory for the CM and CMTS to enforce these parameters. In DOCSIS 1.0, it was optional. Unfortunately, none of this information gives you a definitive answer. Even more disappointing, I don't know of any hacks to override/remove the upstream and downstream caps :(
The Cisco UBR is the most widely deployed 1.0 CMTS. I don't know much about it personally, but I can imagine it wasn't too hard for Cisco to enforce the Class of Service agreements for 1.0 config files. I have heard that Cisco was/is the only 1.0 CMTS vendor to actually use the class of service parameters in the CM config file. My point is that with DOCSIS 1.1, the MSOs have more choice than just Cisco now. As a side note, neither a Cisco CMTS nor a CM have been DOCSIS 1.1 qualified yet. I don't know what's going on with Cisco's data-over-cable division, but they seem to have slipped from their leadership position.
I'm sure many of you have seen those hilarious DSL commercials that cast cable-based broadband access in a bad "shared access" light. That's because the current Data Over Cable System Interface Specification (DOCSIS), 1.0, is a best-effort packet delivery system and thus has no guarantees for Quality-of-Service(QoS). Thus, the cable operator (MSO) has no way of throttling bandwidth, especially upstream bandwidth. That's why the MSOs don't like NAT and want to be able to bill their subscribers on a per IP basis. Enter DOCSIS 1.1, essentially a QoS add-on to DOCSIS 1.0 . With a DOCSIS 1.1 Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) sitting at the MSO's cable head-end and a DOCSIS 1.1 cable modem (CM) sitting at your house, QoS can be guaranteed. That is, the MSO can both limit you to a certain upstream and downstream bandwidth as well as guarantee a minimum upstream and downstream bandwidth. So, given a DOCSIS 1.1 deployment, I see no need for the MSOs to agitate customers with this intrusive CAT proposal, since they now have a way to bill you by bandwidth. Two months ago, the first set of DOCSIS 1.1 products were certified by CableLabs. However, I don't expect DOCSIS 1.1 deployment and replacement of DOCSIS 1.0 systems to happen in large numbers until the end of 2002. Another insider note: CableLabs, the entity pushing CAT, is funded by the MSOs, but has no authority to push its proposals into implementation. Only vendors building CAT products and MSOs buying those CAT products have the power to deploy this ludicrous CAT proposal.
I don't understand why Slashdot linked to this article. Then again, this article does feign professionalism by dropping a few names and seemingly related facts only to then make broad and exaggerated statements about consumer Joe, technology in general, and the entire capatalistic system. I guess if Slashdot can post Jon Katz, then it can post Cringely.
I was just thinking that Microsoft is very akin to a mafia operation. Everyone knows they are guilty as sin, but somehow, they never pay for their crimes.
I was not a CS major, so I can't speak from a pure CS point of view. However, as a Computer Engineering major, I was required and encouraged to take numerous CS courses. One of those courses was a Junior-year software engineering course that required teamwork. While accountability and credit within the group was often a problem, sharing work (including code) was not a problem. Even though that was one of the least technical courses I took as a CMPE major, it did help set the stage for the "real world".