XMPP is just a protocol, in the same way that the core of Skype is.
A lot of people use it, but is there enough there to justify it. I can't see how MS is going to monetise this one. If they ask people to start paying for it they will move onto the next free alternative.
Most of Skypes users aren't paying users. MS makes most of it's money from the corporate space, so it would have to have a plan to sell into this space if it's going to be useful for anything....
"eBay Inc. and Silver Lake Investor Group Settle Skype Litigation with Joltid Limited 11/26/2009
eBay Inc. announced that the investor group led by Silver Lake, which had previously entered into a definitive agreement to acquire a majority stake in Skype from the company, has reached a settlement agreement with Joltid, Ltd. and Joost N.V. that gives Skype ownership over all software previously licensed from Joltid and ends all litigation currently pending against the investor group and eBay at the closing of the acquisition. As part of the settlement agreement, Joltid and Skype founders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis will join the investor group, contributing Joltid software and making a significant capital investment in exchange for a 14% stake in Skype. As a result, Silver Lake and other investors including Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), will together hold 56% of Skype and eBay will retain 30%. As previously announced, eBay will receive approximately $1.9 billion in cash upon the completion of the sale and a note from the buyer in the principal amount of $125 million. The deal, which values Skype at $2.75 billion and is not subject to a financing condition, is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2009."
What are they going to do, integrate it with Windows? Use it as a protocol as part of Office Communicator? Office Communicator uses SIP though (Funnily enough for MS an external standard), so unless they are going to gateway it.... At this point, it just makes more sense to buy a license to the protocol, and not the whole company. Flip the coin to the other side of the fence (To the customer side) and do you think they want to have their bandwidth used as part of the P2P network which is Skype?
I could SORTA see Google using it to expand their reach of Google Voice, but still, given the amount of money that they have, why not go for organic growth, just advertise it and and wait?
Unfortunately, I just don't see the point in Skype when talking about alll this. I see them as basically the ICQ or AIM of voice platforms, sure loads of people use / used it, but at the end of the day the protocol for communication is proprietry. Nearly everyone is embracing XMPP in same shape or form, whether using it internally or externally or both. Hell, Cisco BOUGHT Jabber. This allows people to easily create federations, to automatically connect to users from other domains etc etc.
Someone want to tell me where the synergy is here? Why this is a great idea?
Oh, and let's add in accounting of IPv6, management of associated devices, tech support, billing hassles and every other problem that they are going to have to face....
Said it before, say it again, you need to switch in hardware, not software.
The 6500 Supervisor 720 with MSFC 3 will do 225Mpps (Not enough) as opposed to the 450Mpps that it will do in IPv4 and the other thing that will do it in the Cisco space is the 4948-E which has only just come out. (Not a bad access switch BTW)
The only thing that would have the throughput that they need would be a Juniper 8216, while this has been around for 3 or 4 years, this wasn't available nor a proven tech when 21cn was in it's design phase.
So for all these people who say 'amazingly, the designs for a network upgrade they called "21st century network" didn't originally include IPv6 support...' it only takes a few seconds thought to realise that designing a network that large requires proven technology and takes a LONG time to design and think through.
So running with the assumption that their chief designers aren't complete idiots (And knowing a few people who work for BT doing design work, I would find it difficult to imagine their chief designers being morons) you would have to consider the idea that I'm sure that they considered it important, but there wasn't a proven technology to run with on day 1 to integrate into the network. The only option you really have at that point is when you are in negotiations later with the vendor of choice that you ensure that their later platforms which you use in their network will have the ability to support IPv6.
So stick your nose up at the network all you want, you design a network and put your job on the line for it and see whether you push for IPv6 on unproven tech or not....
I've seen that technology being used as an anti-virus filter, but never seen it to be able to intercept specific streams. Especially pulling everything apart at the application level....
Once this session is in HTTPS how do you determine what's a POST for someone sending text and someone sending data?
The only way to do it would be in the browser and not anywhere in the rest of the network. Simply from a management perspective, this just isn't possible.
Nokia: We've had a good think about it and we're going to start developing for Android Microsoft: What would it take for you to start using and developing for Windows Mobile? Nokia: *Has a think* *Pinky moves towards mouth* ONE BILLION DOLLARS! Microsoft reps: *look at each other, shrug shoulders* Yeah, OK, I can't see any reason why we can't do that.. Nokia: Err, OK, I guess we're using Windows Mobile then....
What I've heard is this. It's all hearsay, so is probably as factual as the FA.
The LSE is trying to (Stupidly) save face. They tried to go live and it was an absolute shit show, typical companies got about 20% compliance. There was no way they could roll forward, they had issues with firewalls, members had issues with routing and firewalls, trades weren't going through the system correctly for settlements, there was more bugs in member's code than ants in a nest. If they had said "We're going live anyway" there wouldn't have been a market on Monday morning. Aside from that, everyone goes into freeze for Christmas due to everyone taking time off, so it wouldn't have been sorted till at least after now, by which time, LSE would have lost so much business to the likes of NYSE (And potentially to Borsa Italiana, which is owned by the LSE) that it would be questionable whether they would still be in business by this stage.
They claimed previously that they were internally sabotaged, well, the running theory was that they just fucked up. To everyone involved that seems like a much more plausible option.
It doesn't matter how wonderful the technology behind thin clients is, or how wonderful it gets... it's a waste of money for most scenarios.
Thank you. You hit it. Thin client is great in hospitals for hot desking, it works great for some trading organisations who want to centralise certain aspects of their business, lawyers who don't want information leakage and all sorts of other things. I have seen (and designed / implemented) these solutions. It's just another tool in the tool box. You use it where it makes sense, in a lot of organisation the requirement to properly administer these solutions costs too much more than running their environment half assed which still satisfies the user requirement.
The whole virtual desktop solution is massively expensive and works only in a small subset of situations. The cost of bringing everything back to the rack, the requirement to have everything on SAN as opposed to local disk, the IO requirements of it means you need a decently sized SAN (And that's not cheap).
Thus, what's the purpose of spending the same amount of money for a thin client machine that one would for a full fledged desktop and full OS?
Well, I don't know how you did your math, but you sorta screwed up some numbers somewhere along the lines.... Thin clients are cheaper, you need to look at patching, and managing all those machines, warranties, and everything else. Thin clients mean that there is no local profiles, no local domain requirements, a stripped down windows means no patching and if you do you netboot the machine and serve it out over TFTP on a saturday when nobody is around (Including you!) and just do another run later to deal with the exceptions. Your down time on a properly implemented thin client solution is a LOT lower than what your going to end up with using standard desktops, as a CTO though, your going to have to realise that your going to pay higher wages to get the right guys who understand the technologies and can properly administer it.
Thin client + network down = pissed off and useless employees.
True, but at the same time, there should be NO local content, whatever you have on your machine and not on the network (Namely for backup purposes or whatever else) is a mistake, so your only option would be to save local because the network isn't there.
Having been in the situation you talk about, you just send the staff out for lunch or tell them to go shopping or whatever else. NOBODY can get away from unforseen outages, this comes as part of the job. Not to flame, contructive criticism, if you can't manage the staff and their expectations, you need to learn how to do your job better.
I'm not sure what you worked on and when, but with native virtualization instructions in modern processors, there is no noticable speed difference, the biggest place where people see issues is with disk contention with a badly designed storage platform behind the virtualization solution.
Ah ha! But reducing the fuel costs would increase profits. Provided that the cost of $arguement (in this case the sail) is cheaper to run (yes) and maintain (Questionable) than a diesel engine.
4.8" ?? How about giving me 24" or 32" at the same res?
FFS, for so long now we haven't been going up in DPI on screens. We just got to a certain point and after that we just went "OOoohhh HD" or basically, "OOOhhhh shiny!"
Fuck them throwing barrels, let's give the pricks shots, tie a flag to their back put them in the shot put and and see if we can get a medal out of them....
From the exchange (Which has as much redundancy as typically possible) through to the rest of the network there is typically n+1 redundancy for calls to pass, it's the last mile that I was specifically referring to here as the statement referred to a redundant setup. SS7 is standard pretty much the world over. The internals of the exchange are now actually moving to VoIP as it's a lot more efficient use of bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
XMPP is just a protocol, in the same way that the core of Skype is.
A lot of people use it, but is there enough there to justify it. I can't see how MS is going to monetise this one. If they ask people to start paying for it they will move onto the next free alternative.
Most of Skypes users aren't paying users. MS makes most of it's money from the corporate space, so it would have to have a plan to sell into this space if it's going to be useful for anything....
I thought that the core of Skype which was joltid was settled....
It is, from: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=35489567
"eBay Inc. and Silver Lake Investor Group Settle Skype Litigation with Joltid Limited
11/26/2009
eBay Inc. announced that the investor group led by Silver Lake, which had previously entered into a definitive agreement to acquire a majority stake in Skype from the company, has reached a settlement agreement with Joltid, Ltd. and Joost N.V. that gives Skype ownership over all software previously licensed from Joltid and ends all litigation currently pending against the investor group and eBay at the closing of the acquisition. As part of the settlement agreement, Joltid and Skype founders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis will join the investor group, contributing Joltid software and making a significant capital investment in exchange for a 14% stake in Skype. As a result, Silver Lake and other investors including Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), will together hold 56% of Skype and eBay will retain 30%. As previously announced, eBay will receive approximately $1.9 billion in cash upon the completion of the sale and a note from the buyer in the principal amount of $125 million. The deal, which values Skype at $2.75 billion and is not subject to a financing condition, is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2009."
But, I just don't see it....
What are they going to do, integrate it with Windows? Use it as a protocol as part of Office Communicator? Office Communicator uses SIP though (Funnily enough for MS an external standard), so unless they are going to gateway it.... At this point, it just makes more sense to buy a license to the protocol, and not the whole company. Flip the coin to the other side of the fence (To the customer side) and do you think they want to have their bandwidth used as part of the P2P network which is Skype?
I could SORTA see Google using it to expand their reach of Google Voice, but still, given the amount of money that they have, why not go for organic growth, just advertise it and and wait?
Unfortunately, I just don't see the point in Skype when talking about alll this. I see them as basically the ICQ or AIM of voice platforms, sure loads of people use / used it, but at the end of the day the protocol for communication is proprietry. Nearly everyone is embracing XMPP in same shape or form, whether using it internally or externally or both. Hell, Cisco BOUGHT Jabber. This allows people to easily create federations, to automatically connect to users from other domains etc etc.
Someone want to tell me where the synergy is here? Why this is a great idea?
> I remember reading how to make a "contact explosive" from iodine and ammonia,
Made it, it worked. Had to play with the ratio a bit though to get the desired effect (I wanted throw downs, not sneeze and blow up...)
Oh, and let's add in accounting of IPv6, management of associated devices, tech support, billing hassles and every other problem that they are going to have to face....
Said it before, say it again, you need to switch in hardware, not software.
The 6500 Supervisor 720 with MSFC 3 will do 225Mpps (Not enough) as opposed to the 450Mpps that it will do in IPv4 and the other thing that will do it in the Cisco space is the 4948-E which has only just come out. (Not a bad access switch BTW)
The only thing that would have the throughput that they need would be a Juniper 8216, while this has been around for 3 or 4 years, this wasn't available nor a proven tech when 21cn was in it's design phase.
So for all these people who say 'amazingly, the designs for a network upgrade they called "21st century network" didn't originally include IPv6 support...' it only takes a few seconds thought to realise that designing a network that large requires proven technology and takes a LONG time to design and think through.
So running with the assumption that their chief designers aren't complete idiots (And knowing a few people who work for BT doing design work, I would find it difficult to imagine their chief designers being morons) you would have to consider the idea that I'm sure that they considered it important, but there wasn't a proven technology to run with on day 1 to integrate into the network. The only option you really have at that point is when you are in negotiations later with the vendor of choice that you ensure that their later platforms which you use in their network will have the ability to support IPv6.
So stick your nose up at the network all you want, you design a network and put your job on the line for it and see whether you push for IPv6 on unproven tech or not....
OK, fair point.
I've seen that technology being used as an anti-virus filter, but never seen it to be able to intercept specific streams. Especially pulling everything apart at the application level....
Once this session is in HTTPS how do you determine what's a POST for someone sending text and someone sending data?
The only way to do it would be in the browser and not anywhere in the rest of the network. Simply from a management perspective, this just isn't possible.
Nokia: We've had a good think about it and we're going to start developing for Android
Microsoft: What would it take for you to start using and developing for Windows Mobile?
Nokia: *Has a think* *Pinky moves towards mouth* ONE BILLION DOLLARS!
Microsoft reps: *look at each other, shrug shoulders* Yeah, OK, I can't see any reason why we can't do that..
Nokia: Err, OK, I guess we're using Windows Mobile then....
I take it this is a Shawshank Redemption reference?
What I've heard is this. It's all hearsay, so is probably as factual as the FA.
The LSE is trying to (Stupidly) save face. They tried to go live and it was an absolute shit show, typical companies got about 20% compliance. There was no way they could roll forward, they had issues with firewalls, members had issues with routing and firewalls, trades weren't going through the system correctly for settlements, there was more bugs in member's code than ants in a nest. If they had said "We're going live anyway" there wouldn't have been a market on Monday morning. Aside from that, everyone goes into freeze for Christmas due to everyone taking time off, so it wouldn't have been sorted till at least after now, by which time, LSE would have lost so much business to the likes of NYSE (And potentially to Borsa Italiana, which is owned by the LSE) that it would be questionable whether they would still be in business by this stage.
They claimed previously that they were internally sabotaged, well, the running theory was that they just fucked up. To everyone involved that seems like a much more plausible option.
I publish applications, not full desktop. Aside from that, youtube and the like isn't exactly a business case is it?
Switch hops these days are measured in microseconds, I know one side of my LAN to the other is 16 micros (to our server network).
I can't see that being user perceivable.....
It doesn't matter how wonderful the technology behind thin clients is, or how wonderful it gets... it's a waste of money for most scenarios.
Thank you. You hit it. Thin client is great in hospitals for hot desking, it works great for some trading organisations who want to centralise certain aspects of their business, lawyers who don't want information leakage and all sorts of other things. I have seen (and designed / implemented) these solutions. It's just another tool in the tool box. You use it where it makes sense, in a lot of organisation the requirement to properly administer these solutions costs too much more than running their environment half assed which still satisfies the user requirement.
The whole virtual desktop solution is massively expensive and works only in a small subset of situations. The cost of bringing everything back to the rack, the requirement to have everything on SAN as opposed to local disk, the IO requirements of it means you need a decently sized SAN (And that's not cheap).
Thus, what's the purpose of spending the same amount of money for a thin client machine that one would for a full fledged desktop and full OS?
Well, I don't know how you did your math, but you sorta screwed up some numbers somewhere along the lines.... Thin clients are cheaper, you need to look at patching, and managing all those machines, warranties, and everything else. Thin clients mean that there is no local profiles, no local domain requirements, a stripped down windows means no patching and if you do you netboot the machine and serve it out over TFTP on a saturday when nobody is around (Including you!) and just do another run later to deal with the exceptions. Your down time on a properly implemented thin client solution is a LOT lower than what your going to end up with using standard desktops, as a CTO though, your going to have to realise that your going to pay higher wages to get the right guys who understand the technologies and can properly administer it.
Thin client + network down = pissed off and useless employees.
True, but at the same time, there should be NO local content, whatever you have on your machine and not on the network (Namely for backup purposes or whatever else) is a mistake, so your only option would be to save local because the network isn't there.
Having been in the situation you talk about, you just send the staff out for lunch or tell them to go shopping or whatever else. NOBODY can get away from unforseen outages, this comes as part of the job. Not to flame, contructive criticism, if you can't manage the staff and their expectations, you need to learn how to do your job better.
I'm not sure what you worked on and when, but with native virtualization instructions in modern processors, there is no noticable speed difference, the biggest place where people see issues is with disk contention with a badly designed storage platform behind the virtualization solution.
Ah ha! But reducing the fuel costs would increase profits. Provided that the cost of $arguement (in this case the sail) is cheaper to run (yes) and maintain (Questionable) than a diesel engine.
How did you do your math on that one?
Why not just do what people do with video walls and just break it up into sections, didn't Matrox do something like this a while ago?
How about that's when they first slip the delivery date?
4.8" ?? How about giving me 24" or 32" at the same res?
FFS, for so long now we haven't been going up in DPI on screens. We just got to a certain point and after that we just went "OOoohhh HD" or basically, "OOOhhhh shiny!"
WTF happened?
I hate people that take drugs, like customs officers....
Sorry, project is the wrong word, I should have read it one more time before hitting post. Given that this fight is only just starting....
Given that this project is only just starting, why can't they just port everything that they need from Harmony into OpenJDK and change over in V4?
I know this is simplictic, but as an idea, where would it fail?
Fuck them throwing barrels, let's give the pricks shots, tie a flag to their back put them in the shot put and and see if we can get a medal out of them....
From the exchange (Which has as much redundancy as typically possible) through to the rest of the network there is typically n+1 redundancy for calls to pass, it's the last mile that I was specifically referring to here as the statement referred to a redundant setup. SS7 is standard pretty much the world over. The internals of the exchange are now actually moving to VoIP as it's a lot more efficient use of bandwidth.