Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft

Microsoft Joins Internet2 Coalition 126

Posted by Hemos from the time-to-contribute dept.
Quite a number of people wrote in to alert everyone to Microsoft's joining of the Internet2 Consortium. They becoming a corporate partner, meaning they will contribute at least 1 million in goods and services to universities involved in the I2 project.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Joins Internet2 Coalition More

Microsoft Joins Internet2 Coalition

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Right, M$oft isn't evil, they just want to make money. They create standards which may not be technologically superior, but they manage to sell them to enough people that there is (at least the illusion of) a group advantage to owning M$oft products. IBM did the same thing with microchannel and token ring technologies, and look at the binary incompatibility between major proprietary unix versions. In fact, aside from Open Source software, there is always an interplay between setting a new (better) standard and sticking with the safe bet old (inferior) standard. When there's money to be made, the purity is instantly drained from the issue, and nobody really cares about the long term. Let's face it, M$oft just did the same kind of thing that everyone else was doing... they just did so well at it that many of us (and the DOJ) recently began to realize that the status quo may not have been ideal to perpetuate technological growth.

    But why draw the line here and now with M$? No reason. The fact is, M$ should have been stopped a long time ago when Apple sued them over the win95 gui. The court ruled in favor of M$ and thereby helped to sink Apple and MacOS, and also gave M$ a big advantage that it didn't deserve.

    So before everyone starts M$ bashing, realize that most of what makes a business successful is luck. Bill Gates isn't the evil genius everyone makes him out to be. He's a good businessman with better-than-average insights into what makes computer markets work. He's also a risk taker. Nobody was afraid of M$oft before they started giving Internet Explorer away free. Regardless of what you attribute the value of a particular piece of M$ software to be, people are out there buying it, and in the money game, that's all that matters. And if people actually enjoy using Word and Excel and all of the other crash-prone and bloated "productivity-enhancers" that M$ can create and upgrade and upgrade and upgrade... then I think they are just proof of the old saying that "ignorance is bliss"...

    What's next, M$Word fruity lime edition?

    There's a strong activist component to the linux community. I started using linux in December and have never been happier. It's a great thing, but I have to say I've put off studying more this semester than I ever have before in my life. Why? I've been using/learning linux.

  • more slashdot fud (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Would any of you, if you owned a company, IGNORE I2? Microsoft ignored the internet once before.

    If you were smart and trying to stay on top of the latest tech and market, you'd be stupid not to be onboard with I2.

    Everything MS does is not evil and not everything they do is crap. Like anything, some proportion of their output sucks, and some of it is good, and only the ratios are different. Just look at MS's work on WebDAV, IPP, XML, XSL, XSchema, etc.
    Just grow up a little. This is a standard business move that all organizations and companies are going to take.

    Then we have idiots calling MS's donation of software to schools as "not real money", because they can stamp a CD for less than $1. What if Microsoft gave them $1million in cold cash instead of $1million in software. That's real money right? But those schools would very likely turn around and spend a large fraction of that cash on MS software, so we end up with the same situation as giving them 1 million in software.

    It's just like the IMF/WorldBank giving poor countries money to buy US/European products.

    I'm still waiting for Slashdot for Adult Linux Users and OS Atheists to emerge.

  • oh well (Score:1)

    by drwiii ( 434 )
    Might as well move on to Internet3, the borg will eventually assimilate Internet2.

    Seriously though, I wonder what harm this will do to open standards on the network?

    "We'll pour in 5 million more billy bucks if everyone uses NetBEUI as a default transport. 10 million more if everyone uses Internet Exploder running on a Windows NT Workstation."

  • Tele-medicine + unreliable products = dead people.

    I guess the term "Blue Screen of Death" will have a bit more merit, now..

  • Why is everyone fawning over this??

    Because most of people have pretty good idea, what those "money" are -- copies of NT4 and Windoze 2000 betas are "products", and Microsoft's internal spendings on the development of their proprietary software are "services".

  • Would any of you, if you owned a company, IGNORE I2? Microsoft ignored the internet once before.

    Internet succeeded because Microsoft and other idiots ignored it, so smart people did the development instead of them.

    If you were smart and trying to stay on top of the latest tech and market, you'd be stupid not to be onboard with I2.

    If it's truly open standards, why stick your nose into consortium and "donate" software? It's not like Microsoft is good at developing standards.

    Everything MS does is not evil and not everything they do is crap. Like anything, some proportion of their output sucks, and some of it is good, and only the ratios are different. Just look at MS's work on WebDAV, IPP, XML, XSL, XSchema, etc.

    And in which of them Microsoft's participation made anything good?

    Just grow up a little. This is a standard business move that all organizations and companies are going to take.

    This is a move made by Microsoft, and we know pretty well what results the same move caused in the past.

    Then we have idiots calling MS's donation of software to schools as "not real money", because they can stamp a CD for less than $1. What if Microsoft gave them $1million in cold cash instead of $1million in software. That's real money right?

    Right, but it never happened -- either M$ gives their software, or expects something outlandish in demand (like naming biuldings after Gates)

    But those schools would very likely turn around and spend a large fraction of that cash on MS software, so we end up with the same situation as giving them 1 million in software.

    Then why it never happened? Why not give schools some freedom of choice? Maybe because otherwise some of those money would be spent on non-Microsoft products?

    It's just like the IMF/WorldBank giving poor countries money to buy US/European products.

    Really? Then your view of international economy is seriously distorted.

    I'm still waiting for Slashdot for Adult Linux Users and OS Atheists to emerge.

    Your definition of adult is suspiciously close to my definition of a spineless coward.

  • Damn (Score:1)

    by gavinhall ( 33 )
    Posted by DratSomeoneTookMyName:

    There goes the neighborhood.

    Or, I'm assuming, now it will be called the "Network Neighborhood".

    -adam a
  • The University where I work is one that is in the Internet2 consortium. Crud. Just what we need - more 'mandatory' Wintel crap floating around campus. (I don't like the "donating machinery" part of the deal. MS is only doing this so that Windows doesn't get left behind by Internet2. They want to ensure that there's enough Internet2 work done *on* Windows by giving this donation. Money speaks louder than sound technical decisions.

  • Oh that was real bright. While many companies were trying to get internet software out, Microsoft was still thought the net was an obscure curiosity that wasn't fit for mainstream use. They were pushing their proprietary MSN. They would have the control there. They would dictate who could play and who couldn't and how much it would cost. The point is that Microsoft does what is best for Microsoft. Not for users. Not for OEMs. They do what they have to do to appease them sometimes, but they are forever focusing on what will keep them in power and shut out competition. Don't ever forget that.

  • Microsoft was never essential. They were there at the right time and place to attach themselves to the computer revolution like the leaches they are. They innovate practically nothing. They watch and wait for something good to come along and then copy it and take credit for it while the real innovators are forgotten. Make no mistake, if Microsoft hadn't come along and changed the rules, we would have been using Macs or something else altogether. We'd probably be alot better off too. I can only hope that the DOJ squashes Microsoft just as Microsoft has squashed many an innovative company in its time. They've got it coming.

  • Well, since everybody else is just assuming that what Microsoft is donating is worth a million dollars, it seems only right for someone to point out that that may not be (and IMO, is probably not, judging by MS's past contributions) so.

  • Just because someone doesn't like MS doesn't mean they are happy with other monopolies or companies that abuse their power and commit anti-competitive acts against other companies. MS just happens to be the topic of this discussion and is related to many of the topics we discuss on /.

    As for other monopolies and abusive corporations, I wish I had time to study them all and formulate opinions based on the information I find. Unfortunately I don't have that much spare time. It's hard enough just keeping tabs on Microsoft. They seem to be growing like a fungus in a warm, damp place. Bill has his fingers in too many cookie jars. He needs to have them slapped sometimes.

    I'll have to leave other investigations and opinions to those who have the time and inclination to study other companies. I don't consider "MS bashing" to be juvenile. I call 'em like I see 'em. MS has done more to hurt the computer industry than it ever has to help it. If MS hadn't come along, then maybe we'd all have been happily using Macs until OS/2 came around. We could speculate all day long, but don't give Microsoft credit where it isn't deserved. Microsoft is a leach. Plain and simple. They either buy or steal the ideas of smaller companies and take credit for them. Then everyone can marvel at all of Bill's "innovations." He was once asked to name 3 things that Microsoft innovated. He tried, but none of them were Microsoft innovations. Don't defend them. They don't deserve it.

  • MS used these tactics to twist the arms of the OEMs, why not in this case too?

  • Hmm.. that must make it ok. MS should educate its salesdroids or replace them with simple brochures. As long as they aren't lying to customers or potential customers I don't care which.

  • MS may have only bought one seat at the table, but it does exert serious influence in the industry. Perhaps it has the power to influence others on the board. It has often used special prices and other incentives, as well as threats and anti-competitive behavior to influence OEMs and other companies in the past. What makes you think they won't do that here as well?

  • Oh come on. A hut in deepest Africa? How about looking at their major competitors? Is that too much to ask of someone who professes to speak for the company about a product? That's beyond ignorance. It's willfull ignorance at the very least. I know you were just pointing out that they are salespeople. I guess I've just had enough of salespeople that either don't know what they're talking about or are just outright lying. My point is that whatever the case really is, the customer is still being deceived.

  • How could anyone truly believe that MS is essential to *anything*?


    i'll probably get flamed for this, but objectively speaking, so far in the history of computing microsoft have been far more essential than linux ever has, and this is unlikely to change.

  • An excellent point. But since they haven't done this since the DoJ trial, I am cautious not to make assumptions.

    At this point, I'd say the situation merits some cautious observation. But the point still stands that M$ has not done anything worrisome yet.

    Posted by the Proteus

  • Smart Business vs. Takeover Tactics (Score:3)

    by Proteus ( 1926 ) on Thursday April 29, 1999 @09:31AM (#1911173) Homepage Journal
    As much as it pains me to admit it... I can't find any fault with M$ here.

    Many, many of the things that M$ has done - past, present, and no doubt future - do constitute takeover tactics... but not this. Ask yourself one simple question: would any company trying to gain a foothold in the Internet marketplace (and who has the money) not do whatever possible to be in on I2?

    Very simply put - M$ now has a seat at the I2 table, but it is far from a controlling seat. This one is just a smart business move folks. Why? PR, market positioning, a voice on standards, etc.

    For those worried about an M$ takeover of I2: I wouldn't start worrying just yet. M$ is but one voice here.

    Ugh. I feel so dirty, defending M$ like that... but the truth must be told :P

    Posted by the Proteus

  • it's just that alot of people here need to grow up and realize that not everything microsoft does is evil. home and business computing - and i dare say the amount of consumers using the web now - wouldn't be anywhere near what it is right now without microsoft.

    Ummmm You have to grow up ... everything Microsoft does is evil. Why don't you go read some of those e-mails that the DOJ is releasing. How does "KNIFE THE BABY" or "SMILE WHEN WE KILL THEM" sound. Or did you miss the grown ups in Washington putting Microsoft on trial? You also have to be quite thick to think Microsoft did anything to get people on the internet. As far as I can remember, a bunch of other companies did while MS pushed MSN. Remember Trumpet WinSock?
  • All new heart-lung and drug dosing machines will be both Y2K and W2K compliant.

    You need to be running an approved operating system in order for your new internet2 connection to work.

    Oh, the blue screen of death? Don't worry about that, unless you are running unapproved third party applications on your computer. Or, perhaps the current service pack is expired and you need to purchace and start the installation of a thousand reboots. Always be sure to run the latest antivirus program for your health and safety.
  • once upon a time i think that at least MS-DOS is original invention made by MS. i was shocked when i get information, that even that poor DOS was bought from someone else.

    since then i fail to name just ONE MS' invention (like mr. gates himself :) if i'm counting only technology, not marketing (as i'm better in IT than economy)

    and just to add: did you know that those famous MS marketing practises like FUD are not theire inventions too? i heard IBM used that back in 70s :)

    so there remain question: how can be someone that unproductive still exist in business? it's sick, isn't it?

  • i do not like arguments like "what it would be if ..."; there is always counterargument to that (exactly oposite) and both are speculative and both can be near the truth or far away from truth (an maybe both)

    wouldn't be IT world better without MS? i do not know, i do not want to speculate so i do not think about "amount of consumers using the web now - wouldn't be anywhere near what it is right now without microsoft"

  • Yeah, like that should buy about half a router. C'mon! The equipment and infrastructure for I2 are quite expensive (IPv6 high-speed routers, gigabit ATM switches, laying fiber)...$1M is nothing more than a token contribution, mere pennies in the bucket for Microsoft. Why is everyone fawning over this??
    David E. Weekly (dew)
  • is to disbelieve everything M$ flacks, lawyers, salesmen, employees, contractors, etc. say. Sometimes you'll be wrong but more often you'll be right.
  • Tele-medicine + unreliable products = dead people.

    I suspect (hope?) it will be a while before MS is involved in telemedicine.
  • Hmm... MS involvement in the I2 team. Well, a lot of what probably happens in these groups is a lot of politicking. How many of the companies involved in the effort have some sort of servitude deal, be it good deals on enterprise-wide site licensing or comarketing deals, with MS in other markets? How many of the universities in the I2 group also have pretty killer site licenses for MS software?

    Sure, it would be petty for Microsoft to mention these things when such agreements were up for renewal, regarding the voting by others on such and such.

    I don't know...

    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/365.pdf

    ...is a good place to start on Microsoft "benevolency".

  • This "insanity" is driven by Microsoft's history. We have all watched them smash, bully, and steal their way into a position of great power in the industry. It is rational to fear a company that is equally willing to destroy partners and competitors. Ever read the story of the frog and the scorpion? :)

    As for the possibility of a single party dominating the effort, how many of your partners are vulnerable to Bill's bullying?
  • Actually Microsoft Research has an IPv6 stack available for NT4.
    Home page for the Microsoft Research Team [microsoft.com]
    And note that they are using a third-party GPL'd product as their IPv6 Web Server.
  • in regards to Win98 2nd Edition, all the bug fixes that appear there are downloadable for free from the Windows Update website. This includes IE5. There actually are a few (but not many!) new features in the new version, like Internet connection sharing.

    For those who can't afford to spend hours and hours downloading things from the Net, getting the CD (which supposedly was going to be fairly cheap for current 98 users, rather than full upgrade price) may very well be worth it.

    It's selling the convenience of having everything on the CD, plus some new features, rather than the bug fixes themselves.
  • Now that microsoft has the IETF.. and soon Internet2... we may still wind up with windoze 2000 running the world. *sigh*



    --
  • "Sorry, your flue messed our medical care. We have to shut you down."

    Imagine the future:

    All services, selling and buying are based on the Net. The Net v2 is based on proprietary products. [internet2.edu] Nobody can detect what this closed system does. Except for the corporations running it. Who yields the power? Books (like 1984) would burn again :)

    Will the international community buy to I2 if it's closed source?
  • Your placid, matter-of-fact tone belies nominal intelligence. Yet, some of the details also belie naivete' and shortsightedness.


    it would be ignorant to forget that consumers and businesses (client side) rely on microsoft everyday to do what they need to do.


    This is changing so fast, it'll all be history before you realize it. Caldera is making rapid inroads to desktop viability of linux. MS is on the wane (their marketers and PR reps are bailing as fast as they can, but the ship is still sinking).


    this story is about microsoft contributing money to a project that could use it, not taking it over.
    Once again, I reiterate. Nowhere in this article (press release) does it say that MS is contributing "money". They're only contributing 'goods and services' with a dollar value applied by MS. If MS offered the same 'goods and services' to the FSF (or some other non-MS-dependent entity), how much do you think the FSF would claim it is worth? I confidently assert that it would probably be in the sub-$1.00 range (if the CDs were rewritable, this value would increase according to the price of CDs).

    Still not taking the bait.

  • I've got news for you.... My mom [mmind.net] will probably be using Linux with StarOffice after the next StarOffice release (SO still has some stability issues to correct). She's already expressed (to me) great resentment about MS's tendency to mock the intelligence of average humans by: a) exploiting their lack of tech-savvy at exorbitant off-the-shelf prices, b) putting PR spins into the media to put a friendly facade onto their most viscious (and, I hope, soon to be ruled illegal) activities, and c) now, under MS's newest business tactic, charging for an upgrade to fix the bugs in software that has already been paid for (ref: the planned release of the next Win98).

    Moms and dads are smarter than you think. Investors, on the other hand, don't care about the quality of the company they invest in. They only care about making money (the one thing Gates/MS have proven they can do), even at the expense of healthy economic competition.

    Still not taking the bait.

  • At present, I2 is in development, which means it has no standards yet (open or proprietary). The 'in other news' comment at the bottom of that article was a 'free clue' (no purchase necessary, all rights released, can lead to enlightenment when used as directed). Didn't you read the Halloween memo?
  • Answer me this, how many open standards has MS successfully subjegated over the years? I'm thinking a big fat zero.


    Not to mention a whole plethora of 'features' in FrontPage98 that only function when viewed with MSIE, here's this [slashdot.org] for you to chew on.

  • This is blatant 'embrace and extend' on the part of Microsoft.


    Note that they're not donating a single dollar of currency to the project. Much like Benevolent Bill's donation of a billion dollars worth of MS products to schools and libraries a few weeks ago (at $0.50 per CD, it's easy for them to donate a billion dollars worth of $500 software), MS is not about to cut into their cash reserves for anything they don't fully own.


    'Microsoft has a tremendous potential to contribute to systems and networking areas of Internet2,' said Ron Johnson, vice president of computing and communications, University of Washington. 'The potential for delivering robust, real-time tele-immersion, tele-medicine and high-quality demand video, television, telephony and multimedia, as well as network-aware and adaptive applications and the 'trust fabric' middleware needed for pervasive electronic business, is no longer just a dream. But to make it real across the desktops of the world it's essential to have Microsoft's research and product development at the table.'


    I just added the name 'Ron Johnson' to my list of people apparently owned by MS. Whoever he is, he just started his 15 minutes of fame with a -1 credibility rating, IMO. How could anyone truly believe that MS is essential to *anything*?

  • Giving of 'goods and services' on the part of MS amounts to this..

    We'll burn a few hundred 50-cent CD's of our most expensive software and give them to you. And, we'll pay a few of our spies^H^H^H^H^H programmers to work on the project.

    Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. This is not a 'contribution' by MS. It's their way of 'bartering for a first class ticket' (i.e, good PR) on the next technology train. If you honestly think they've contributed *anything* at this point (or even made a promise to do so), I'll gladly add you to the aforementioned list.

    Thanks, but I'm not taking the bait.

  • Oh, but M$ IS the evil spawn of Satan - just look how you can change "Bill Gates" into ASCII, then add 3 (for III) and get 666 [rim.or.jp], or did you know that you can rearrange the letters of "Microsoft Incorporated" to spell "Sacred to moronic profit"?? What more proof do you need?!?!

    But seriously, if history is any guide, and unless they've suddenly sprouted a 'nice' gene, I'd be very suspicious of anything the cash flow sucking vampires do, or any 'R&D' they offer as tantamount to the privitization and commoditization of what should remain a public utility.

    Chuck
  • Didn't they help destroy Opendoc.
  • This is changing so fast, it'll all be history before you realize it. Caldera is making rapid inroads to desktop viability of linux. MS is on the wane (their marketers and PR reps are bailing as fast as they can, but the ship is still sinking).

    it will be history - implying that it is true right now. history is facts of actually events that have passed us by, and your statement bascially admits that right now and for some time people have relied on microsoft products to get their work done on the consumer and client side business market. you can't point to something that will happen in the future as a rebuke about a statement concerning the present or past.

    i'm not saying there isn't something better coming, or that microsoft's glory days aren't over. my point is simply what it started out to be, that microsoft is essential to *something* - if that will be true in the future is something that neither of use will be able to know until it happens.
  • I just added the name 'Ron Johnson' to my list of people apparently owned by MS. Whoever he is, he just started his 15 minutes of fame with a -1 credibility rating, IMO. How could anyone truly believe that MS is essential to *anything*?

    well, i can think of one thing that microsoft is essential for - the home computing market. As much as it's "cool" to hate microsoft these days, and for as much as you might be able to get around using just linux and not any microsoft products, it would be ignorant to forget that consumers and businesses (client side) rely on microsoft everyday to do what they need to do.

    this story is about microsoft contributing money to a project that could use it, not taking it over.

    this isn't a attack on you, it's just that alot of people here need to grow up and realize that not everything microsoft does is evil. home and business computing - and i dare say the amount of consumers using the web now - wouldn't be anywhere near what it is right now without microsoft.
  • ...and your enemies closer. Remember CSS! Viva los Halloween Memos!

    K.
    -


    --
    To the extent that I wear skirts and cheap nylon slips, I've gone native.
  • Also, I seem to remember that they were members of OSF - the likenesses between Motif 1.0 and Windows 3 are telltale.

  • My personal opinion on the matter... (Score:3)

    by sboss ( 13167 ) on Thursday April 29, 1999 @09:08AM (#1911199) Homepage
    This is only my personal opinion:

    I think that Microsoft is doing this for three purposes. First off it looks good to the DOJ for the Antitrust trial. Giving money to R&D new technology on the Univerisity level is always good PR. Second they get their feet in the door on I2. Thirdly they can *try* and force people (or convice them they need to) use the M$ programs vs the software from other people including OSS/GNU software.

    I think this is just a ploy to get people thinking M$ is not that bad and to consider using their products. Some of their products are pretty good and some just plainly suck. I like word and have like word since Word for DOS 5.0 (or was it 4.0?) but things like NT for servers make my skin crawl.

    M$'s salesman (including technical sales) tend to lie to customers. Not stretch the truth but baldface lie. A few years ago I had a team of M$ droids try and convice me and my boss (and the other network people) that *only* NT could do DHCP services (be a DHCP server). I *knew* this was a lie since we had a Sun Sparc run Solaris running a BOOTP/DHCP server for the whole campus. They wanted a NT server for DHCP for each subnet. We had one box for all subnets. It just knew which subnet you can from and then gave you an IP based on that subnet. The M$ droids were in total disbelief until we showed them not only the w95 boxes doing DHCP but the server serving the requests. Memories like that make my skin crawl about M$ and their practices. Do not get me wrong they have done things right on some products but as their product list is growing their "done it right" column is not growing.

    That is just the rablings of a Techno Weenie that does not care for M$.

    Any comments, send to scott@sboss.net, all flames go to /dev/null

    Thanks
    Scott
    Scott
    C{E,F,O,T}O
    sboss dot net
    email: scott@sboss.net
  • My understanding is that the technology used in the development of "Internet2" will eventually be used for commercial purposes, just as the existing "Internet" grew from military, to educational, to commercial.

    That's why Algore made such a big deal about it, and that's why MS is concerned. Eventually, everyone might be using Internet2. Thus, it's prudent for MS to be in on the development of it, to know what's coming, and to be prepared for it.
  • No, it's not strange at all. Yes, most research Universities prefer Unix for their research work (you'll only pull NetBSD out of my cold, dead, fingers...) Nevertheless, Windows products are strongly represented in academia. A Windows suite that works well over high-performance (not just high speed) networks, windows products that support advanced services such as QoS and PKI -- that's something that benefits everyone associated with I2.
  • There would be absolutely nothing poetic about it, since Internet2 is not now, and is not ever intended to be a commercial offering.

    But pardon me for confusing you with facts.

  • Stop the insanity -- please! (Score:3)

    by peterb ( 13831 ) on Thursday April 29, 1999 @03:30PM (#1911203) Homepage Journal
    Look, everyone just calm down and stop the ranting for a few minutes. First of all, most of you are talking about Internet2 [internet2.edu] when it's apparently that you misunderstand what it is. I suggest you go to the web site and read up.

    Secondly, I2 has plenty of corporate partners [internet2.edu]. It is unrealistic to think that any one of these partners is going to dominate the effort, particularly given that Internet2 is being run and coordinated by some extremely smart people, who are not in the habit of selecting technically inferior solutions. The I2 engineering staff has a proven history of thinking for the long term.

    This is a good thing. It's a great sign that Microsoft is willing to play by the rules and wants to join in with collaborative efforts rather than compete them into the ground. Are they interested in a profit? Well, I'd imagine so, but so, frankly, is everyone else involved. I welcome Microsoft to the I2 project and hope they will be productive contributors to the community.

    Peter Berger
    Chairman, Internet2 Security Working Group
    speaking only for myself.

  • The thing is, that you don't know for sure what MS is donating other than "$1 million in goods and services". You're just assu( )ing. And we all know what happens when someone does that.
  • no but this means that ipv6 will be moving to Windows

    did they read the halloween memos at Internet2 ? Seem not :-(
  • A fact found in "Caldera Statement of Facts" that is M$ talk makes me think of what M$ may plan for I2.

    http://www.calderathin.com/fullstory/factstat.ht ml#mmptm

    No comment.

    (I did not copy because of copyright concerns, just read it, it's 3 lines long).
  • The donation of goods and services (Cisco and Qwest spring to mind) and federal money dwarf Microsoft's donation. Not to worry here folks, they just want a piece of the limelight. They won't have any say in what is done.
  • M$ is probably jumping on because they've had time to examine the road behind us and realize how badly they missed an opportunity with I1, and they don't want to make the same mistake again.

    I.e., they're now ready to fight the previous war.

    The poetic justice will come in if M$ sinks a lot of money into I2, and then I2 never goes commercial.
  • Was I1 originally intended to be a commercial offering?
  • to disbelieve everything M$ flacks, lawyers, salesmen, employees, contractors, etc. say

    Oh I don't know. I've managed to get two MS sales droids to admit that Unix is more stable under heavy loads than NT. That was quite fun. Of course they quickly added stuff like "for most uses NT is at least as stable as UNIX and NT is much easier to administrate" and similar bollocks. But Just to hear them grugingly admit that UNIX was better under certain circumstances really made my day.

  • Sorry to be a stickler for detail, but NetBEUI cannot be used on anything bigger than a LAN since it's not suitable for routing. Thank the Ghods above and below! ;]


    Herbert von Kammerstein

  • Ronald Johnson
    Vice President
    Computing & Communications
    543-8252
    240 Gerberding Hall
    351208
    ronj@cac.washington.edu
    FAX: 543-4641
  • Does this mean that Window$ will be moving to ipv6 pretty soon. I would really love to get off of ipv4, and the only thing holding us back a move like that is the fact that Micro$oft Windows doesn't support it. I mean 64 bit ip addresses. We'll be back to a time when we don't have to worry about being able to get enough real address space. Oh well, one can only hope.
  • AFAIK, the Inet2 consortium IS open-based.

    Hopefully, that means that microsoft will propose things and they get fixed before release (no, not a troll, it's how i feel)

  • I like the shot that the editor takes at Microsoft at the end of the article...
    In other news, last October an internal memo from Microsoft was released that outlines de-commoditization of open protocols as a way to respond to the threat of Open Source Software. -lt ed
    Anyway, I'm sure that there is more money coming from other places, so I don't think Microsoft will have much influence in the direction of this project.

    I think an internet based on closed standards would fail miserably. And in any case, since the internet is an International community, there is no way that the world would let it be controlled by a single American company.

    Even the US government would be wary to give anyone a controlled monopoly (ie look at what has happened to NSI)

  • I have heard about Internet2 for a while and
    all I know is that it is a project to provide
    an internet with higher bandwidth and speed.

    I imagine that some readers of Slashdot may
    be involving in related research projects -
    e.g. some poor graduate students of those Big-
    Shoot professors ;). Anybody can illuminate us
    on how the whole thing works?

  • I bet 90% of the reason behind this is so m$ can develop client-server DB applications that require OC-12 connections or higher...

    Seriously though... It'seems strange that a corporation that really has very little to do with networking of any type, much less high-cap WAN links is permitted to get involved in a project that was conceived and designed exclusively for reasearch and development between universities...
  • Remember Trumpet WinSock?

    Yeah, I do.... damn Microsoft for actually including a TCP/IP stack with their operating system instead of forcing me to go out and acquire one on my own. This sort of convience is a direct assault to customers, what with it making computing so much easier. This sort of think must not be allowed to stand.
  • Explain to me again how you can have "spies" on a project that uses open standards?
  • No standards yet, huh? Don't tell the people here [internet2.edu]

    Let's see here, IPv6 sounds like a standard to me, an open one at that.

    And yes I read the 'in other news'. Answer me this, how many open standards has MS successfully subjegated over the years? I'm thinking a big fat zero. Sorry if I don't go for the party line paranoia, but a little rational thought is a good thing, you may want to try it sometime. It may even help your code.
  • Please don't tell me you just called Java an open standard.

    As for COM vs CORBA they really don't occupy the same space, since CORBA is multiplatform and COM is not.
  • Please, are you really telling me there are ANY cases where you could use COM where CORBA makes sense? Or visa versa?

    Or am I arguing with same same idiot who called Java an open standard?
  • Yeah, I don't really like Microsoft either, but this has gone way to far. Hell, Microsoft even has a pseudo-open source license for there Ipv6 stuff (you get the source, can change and modify it, but have to give all the modifications back to Microsoft and allow them to do as they will with them). And the webserver they are distributing for Ipv6 is called Fnord! If that isn't cool, I don't know what is :-). A lot of good research comes out of Microsoft Research (I could reference some papers, but I'm too lazy to go find them). Just go poke around on research.microsoft.com and ignore the fact that the business parts of the company suck.

    And finally, Microsoft isn't going to try to control Internet2. What the hell would be the point? They don't make routers. Cisco, on the other hand, could do very well for themselves by controlling I2 (not that I'm suggesting they will, but . . .)

    Mike
  • The concern that I have about this move is that the applications yet to be developed to utilize such an increase in flexibility will primarily come from Redmond. I have to assume that the institutions involved are doing some of this, but what about the commercial market? It is certainly good that Microsoft would start to develope this stuff, but there are long term concerns to be dealt with.
    One major concern that I have is that if Microsoft is the only major investor in high-bandwidth apps, and they are only concerned with putting out a product with a pretty box, who's to stop them from making breaking with standards and creating sloppy programs that take up loads of unnecessary bandwidth. If we're voting, I would prefer that a standards committee make these important decissions, not Microsoft. It's could be a short walk to I3...

  • Corrected Link (Score:3)

    by watanabe ( 27967 ) on Thursday April 29, 1999 @08:09AM (#1911227)

    Correct Link here: http://linuxtoday.com/stories/5454.html [linuxtoday.com]
  • sun, ibm are TERRIBLE consumer companies. especially sun, i mean they wouldnt know how to lead the industry if their life depended on it. theres a power vaccuum opening in the comp industry but it sure as hell wont be sun ibm or apple to fill it. well actually i think apple is a good consumer company, jobs seems to really know what hes doing this time around.
  • look i dislike microsoft as much as the next /. poster but COME ON. this is nothing, one million in cd's is useless to ms, its like less than one cent to you or i (those in the 30-100k bracket). microsoft is a TECHNOLOGY COMPANY. okay? they do technology. the internet. anything coming down the pipe, they gotta know about it. xml, impp, internet2, you name it they have to be involved. so get over it.
  • and i dare say the amount of consumers using the web now - wouldn't be anywhere near what it is right now without microsoft

    And I dare say that you are full of . I postulate that if not for the fact that Microsoft as a company has been so adept at crushing competitors before they even have a chance, there would be a greater acceptance of computers than now exist. Can you prove me wrong? No more that I can discount your statement.

    The only thing that we know for positive is that we have witnessed the birth of the digital age over the past 30 years or so, and that Microsoft has been part of that process. Would another company have taken the place as reigning desktop OS vendor if Mr. Kildair hadn't been golfing on a particular day circa 1980? Would people have simply ignored personal computing and the inherint productivity improvements the devices provided if Bill Gates hadn't shown up to guide the way?

    Are leader bred, trained, or just fall into the position by luck? An old principal I had described luck as the point where opportunity meets preparation. Bill Gates was lucky, and the personal computer industry has advanced while he got rich. However, it does not follow that he caused the advancement.
  • Jeeeeesus....

    I mean, come on! They're salesmen! It's not like they have a clue or anything...

    :)
  • Please, please, please, note the smiley.

    Personally, I agree with you here. However, they're not lying - they're just ignorant. There's a difference.

    If you told me that there was no software in the entire world that could calculate the Nth prime number in 10 iterations of a loop, using 16k of memory -- and two weeks ago, someone in a hut in deepest Africa wrote a program to do it on their laptop, would you be lying?

    No. You would just be ignorant (in the strict definition of the word - no offence intended).

    Subtle difference, but important. On the whole though, I do agree with you.
  • Even the US government would be wary to give anyone a controlled monopoly (ie look at what has happened to NSI) Dude, in case I've been asleep for a long while I still don't have a choice for my local phone company or cable company (which is why I don't have cable). The gov't allows monopolies over regions all the time. Where I live there are at least three companies that have divided up the Metro area for cable service. I will bet anything that they passed money under the table to the municipality and overtly promised a certain level of service. The company that serviced my area never upgraded their service in ten-fifteen years, never added channels that were worth a damn (added BET, shopping channels, but not Comedy Central, History or other requested channels) Only after being bought by Time-Warner-MegaMerger did service get upgraded. I still won't buy svc. from the fsckers!!!!!! So yes Virginia the US gov'mt does allow monopolies and if M$ gets out of its current debacle unscathed it will probably be because the US attorneys waited too long to strike. Maybe they waited till they had enough of the Blue Screen of Death. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
  • Even the US government would be wary to give anyone a controlled monopoly (ie look at what has happened to NSI) Dude, in case I've been asleep for a long while I still don't have a choice for my local phone company or cable company (which is why I don't have cable). The gov't allows monopolies over regions all the time. Where I live there are at least three companies that have divided up the Metro area for cable service. I will bet anything that they passed money under the table to the municipality and overtly promised a certain level of service. The company that serviced my area never upgraded their service in ten-fifteen years, never added channels that were worth a damn (added BET, shopping channels, but not Comedy Central, History or other requested channels) Only after being bought by Time-Warner-MegaMerger did service get upgraded. I still won't buy svc. from the fsckers!!!!!! So yes Virginia the US gov'mt does allow monopolies and if M$ gets out of its current debacle unscathed it will probably be because the US attorneys waited too long to strike. Maybe they waited till they had enough of the Blue Screen of Death. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
  • Even the US government would be wary to give anyone a controlled monopoly (ie look at what has happened to NSI) Dude, in case I've been asleep for a long while I still don't have a choice for my local phone company or cable company (which is why I don't have cable). The gov't allows monopolies over regions all the time. Where I live there are at least three companies that have divided up the Metro area for cable service. I will bet anything that they passed money under the table to the municipality and overtly promised a certain level of service. The company that serviced my area never upgraded their service in 10-15 years, never added channels that were worth a damn (added BET, shopping channels, but not Comedy Central, History or other requested channels) Only after being bought by Time-Warner-MegaMerger did service get upgraded. I still won't buy svc. from the fsckers!!!!!! So yes Virginia the US gov'mt does allow monopolies and if M$ gets out of its current debacle unscathed it will probably be because the US attorneys waited too long to strike. Maybe they waited till they had enough of the Blue Screen of Death. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
  • Why do you people have a hangup on innovation? I can tell many of you haven't worked in positions where you actually have to produce goods and services to keep the doors open and the paychecks flowing.

    I am working like a madman to keep NT out of my serverroom and keep it a Novell/Linux environment. It's not easy. I don't have unlimited resources to write my own PHP3 apps, and I have end users who manage to find all kinds of solutions where Linux is not an option (Our SAP implementation on Windows NT for example, which is why I'm here late tonight).

    In the real world, success in business has less to do with innovation and more to do with IMPLEMENTATION. I got started in this profession in 1980 and I remember when every program came with seperate disks of app specific printer and screen drivers, and you sweated every time to hope your printer/video card was supported by that particular app.

    I have to hand it to Microsoft for IMPLEMENTING the GUI shell on cheap hardware. I don't care who innovated it. Xerox PARC did that, but they didn't put it on my desktop did they? Apple implemented it too, but only on their overpriced (I started on Apple and never looked back) hardware.

    NT is a badly designed system but it works, 95 and 98 are colossal kludges, but they work and they let me (and my clients) get their work done.

    Summation: I don't like Microsoft, the predatory part of me respects their success, the programmer in me just wants to cry over the quality of the product, but given that I'm a rational human being I can see the values as WELL as the pitfalls. Screaming zealots never won an argument and never will. Ask yourself if you've ever switched religion because of a Jehovah's Witness knocking on your door. Drop the anti-microsoft attitudes, figure out what they did right, and let's do it BETTER so I can clean the NT out of my server room instead of being forced into shoveling more money into their pockets.

    URG - back to work...
  • I ejected Sun summarily from my building for making similiarly outrageous claims about Microsoft.

    I'm pissed about it too.

    I was Sun's champion in that situation at our company (i.e. I brought them in and was pushing for them), but when they added lies and FUD to their sales pitch I had to show them the door.
  • Name me 1 thing MicroSoft has invented that the computer industry cannot do without.

    A GUI OS that is easy to use? No Xerox invented that and Apple was running with it long before MS acknowledged it was even a good thing.

    Productivity software? Nope.

    Internet? HA! Not even close.

    The software industry? Nope. It would have existed without MicroSoft. Maybe developers would have a harder job if there was more competition between OS's, since they'd really have to develop for all competing OS's, but that's arguable.

    Microsoft is not essential in any way. If MS dissapeared tomorrow, Sun, IBM, Apple, or Linux would step into their shoes within a month if not sooner.

    BTW, despite my ranting, I'd still like to see your opinion on anything MS has done that is essential to the modern world.
  • The bulk of this thing is a MS Press Release so it is a little biased. The part at the bottom is part of Linux Today's doing. I am glad they did add that though.

  • I can hear the MS bashing now... (Score:3)

    by Rocket Boy ( 34136 ) on Thursday April 29, 1999 @08:29AM (#1911241)
    People, not *everything* MS does is evil. Yes, a lot of what the do can be considered evil.

    AFAIK, the ony thing MS has now is a lighter bank account, a few less researchers, and one vote on the coalition. This doesn't consitiute a takeover when over a 150 other entities are involved.

    RB
  • Internet succeeded because Microsoft and other idiots ignored it, so smart people did the development instead of them.

    How do you define "succeeded" in this context?

    (If you mean achieving a mass market then I think an argument can be made that Microsoft has made a contribution, but I'm not sure that's what you mean. It's not what I would have "succeeded" mean in this context.)

    I don't yet believe the Internet has "succeeded" or "failed" - I feel that it is still a work in progress, with Internet2 an evolutionary rather than revolutionary step.

    Cheers
    Alastair
  • One word here
    Patents

    Microsoft can Patent New technologies while they are being discuessed in this open group !

    I remember an article not too long ago about this .....
  • I was under the impression that Internet2 was intended for use by universities and hospitals in order to facilitate work such as realtime medical operations, image processing, etc; Work which required greater amounts of bandwidth that the regular internet could not provide.

    Where has microsoft been all this time? Internet2 has been in the planning for how many years now? A *supposed* IT leader such as Microsoft should have been in this from the get-go.

    But I think I've got the answer. It simply is not as profitable as giving away IE4(and now 5) to millions in order to establish marketshare. Perhaps it seemed to MS that Internet2 simply was not a good business decision until NOW.

    If I am right about the intended use for Internet2, only a company willing to invest in an intangible profit such as the increased knowledge benefit of high speed communications between learning and medical institutions would have interest in providing funds and/or software/equipment for R&D of this type. To me this proves that profit margins were microsofts only concern until they realized what kind of return could be reaped from R&D such as internet2.

    I hope that microsoft not only realized that this could make the DOJ look differently at them, but also help the IT industry grow by assisting the university graduates who will eventually be working for and running microsoft.
  • NT is faster! Haven't you heard?!

    Micros.... Umm..Urr.. I mean.... Mindcraft did this evaluation and proved that NT was.......
  • I agree...

    However the point I am trying to make is that Internet2 has been under development for quite some time. It wasn't exactly a secret.

    Why is MS, the largest software company in the world, with a CEO with more liquid assets than the FED, just now getting into the action?

    Long run profits are potential for any corporation that invests in Internet2. However, I do not think that these are the profits that microsoft desired at this time. Their opportunity cost was better utilized elsewhere in their business model.

    But..This is all just speculation based on previous happenings in the microsoft strategy. They only help when it is profitable in the short run.
  • No kidding. MS Research has the BIGGEST Natural Language Processing development team in the world from what I understand, and NLP is some damn cool technology. It's true what they say about zealots, they're their own worst enemy.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close