All the arguments I am seeing here are missing the mark because they buy into the premise that only computers connected via Ethernet represent a LAN. A LAN is just a group of computers connected together in relatively close physical proximity, as in within a room, building, campus, etc. Wireless networks CAN BE and usually ARE a type of LAN! LANs are NOT defined by the technology used to build them. I think to predict the death of the LAN is downright silly because the LAN is more of a conceptual view of a group of networked hosts rather than a specific technology, protocol, etc, and killing and idea is a pretty tough proposition. As long as it remains useful to treat a bunch of machines connected in close proximity as a unit for whatever purpose, we will have LANs.
We keep hearing these arguments from the Telco's and Cable COs about how much more difficult it will be to build and maintain an open Internet because of the bandwidth requirements that imposes. Enlighten us as to why this is now a problem considering the major Telecom bust that occurred a few years back was due to the overcapacity you had built into your networks? Google is going around buying up dark fiber from you guys while you're complaining about lack of infrastructure? Nonsense. I don't believe you guys can't figure out a model to make this work for you and us without getting the government involved.
If you re-read the article, I don't think he literally meant they got patents on the work, just that they owned them in the sense that they developed them first.
Amen to the above post. Let's allow a little Darwinism in the selection of what to waste those storage bits on before we create the official book of useless knowledge.
For all those who keep saying RTFA to the posters who see this article for what it is:
I have RTFA and there is certainly NOT enough information to draw ANY type of conclusions with regard to performance of this architecture, other than that the author's "interpretation" of the patent looks good on paper. Present the article to any other computer and systems engineer and they will tell you the same.
I deeply dislike the fact that the Internet has become a breeding ground for speculation and FUD such as this. Can we please investigate sources before posting this stuff? This man has produced an articles about 1.) how to develop a gravity drive while taking into account all the problems presented in Star Trek 2.) Claims to have solved several problems relating to time travel, while admitting it's not possible 3.) freely admits he is not qualified to speak about anything at all and uses Issac Newton as his excuse for taking editorial license.
I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that it shouldn't be published in a location where impressionable readers can be mislead, or propagated by people who don't know any better.
You are already seeing the knowledge of many Alpha engineers being put to work in products from AMD. If you recall when the Athlon was first introduced they talked about the bus design being based on the Alpha EV6.
No kidding. Taking into account that they bash the Apple/Quicktime MPEG-4 quality, and that the article is published by Ziff-Davis (Who I consider to be the least credible source for information in the industry), you might as well be reading an article published by Microsoft about how great WMV is.
Slashdot Mirror
All the arguments I am seeing here are missing the mark because they buy into the premise that only computers connected via Ethernet represent a LAN. A LAN is just a group of computers connected together in relatively close physical proximity, as in within a room, building, campus, etc. Wireless networks CAN BE and usually ARE a type of LAN! LANs are NOT defined by the technology used to build them. I think to predict the death of the LAN is downright silly because the LAN is more of a conceptual view of a group of networked hosts rather than a specific technology, protocol, etc, and killing and idea is a pretty tough proposition. As long as it remains useful to treat a bunch of machines connected in close proximity as a unit for whatever purpose, we will have LANs.
To the Bandwidth Providers:
We keep hearing these arguments from the Telco's and Cable COs about how much more difficult it will be to build and maintain an open Internet because of the bandwidth requirements that imposes. Enlighten us as to why this is now a problem considering the major Telecom bust that occurred a few years back was due to the overcapacity you had built into your networks? Google is going around buying up dark fiber from you guys while you're complaining about lack of infrastructure? Nonsense. I don't believe you guys can't figure out a model to make this work for you and us without getting the government involved.
Actually, I just re-re-read it and now cannot convince myself of my own comment. Perhaps he is just mistaken? :-)
If you re-read the article, I don't think he literally meant they got patents on the work, just that they owned them in the sense that they developed them first.
Amen to the above post. Let's allow a little Darwinism in the selection of what to waste those storage bits on before we create the official book of useless knowledge.
For all those who keep saying RTFA to the posters who see this article for what it is: I have RTFA and there is certainly NOT enough information to draw ANY type of conclusions with regard to performance of this architecture, other than that the author's "interpretation" of the patent looks good on paper. Present the article to any other computer and systems engineer and they will tell you the same. I deeply dislike the fact that the Internet has become a breeding ground for speculation and FUD such as this. Can we please investigate sources before posting this stuff? This man has produced an articles about 1.) how to develop a gravity drive while taking into account all the problems presented in Star Trek 2.) Claims to have solved several problems relating to time travel, while admitting it's not possible 3.) freely admits he is not qualified to speak about anything at all and uses Issac Newton as his excuse for taking editorial license. I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that it shouldn't be published in a location where impressionable readers can be mislead, or propagated by people who don't know any better.
You are already seeing the knowledge of many Alpha engineers being put to work in products from AMD. If you recall when the Athlon was first introduced they talked about the bus design being based on the Alpha EV6.
No kidding. Taking into account that they bash the Apple/Quicktime MPEG-4 quality, and that the article is published by Ziff-Davis (Who I consider to be the least credible source for information in the industry), you might as well be reading an article published by Microsoft about how great WMV is.