Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: discussion: February 2003:
[aclug-L] Re: colocation options
Home

[aclug-L] Re: colocation options

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: colocation options
From: Lars von dem Ast <prenzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:24:46 -0600
Reply-to: discussion@xxxxxxxxx

Chris Owen wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Lars von dem Ast wrote:
>
>  
>
>>That's why I don't blame the Web hosting people that much: I'm sure
>>it's complex. Still, everything would be much simpler if the Internet
>>had evolved along its original peer-to-peer road. (See the O'Reilly
>>book "Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Benefits of a Disruptive
>>Technology" or check out http://openp2p.com ).
>>    
>>
>
>Simpler?  Maybe.  Less reliable?  Definitely.
>
>30 servers having what you want and none of them actually reachable is all
>fine and good when you are trying to steal software or download porn but
>it isn't going to cut it for general use.  Nothing on earth is more
>frustrating than looking for a driver that is only available in Tiawan
>behind some janked up 64K connection that is only available 30% of the
>time.
>
>Good. Fast. Cheap.  Pick two.
>
>Chris
>  
>
This all gets back to The Fall of Unix. It's the story of how the Unixae 
blew it and let Microsoft take over the desktop. The reason we have 
GNU/Linux/BSD etc. today is concerned citizens (Torvalds, Stallman, Joy 
et al) couldn't allow MS to hijack computing, or for that matter, the 
Unix vendors to self-destruct and the "Unix way" to perish. If the 
original Unix vendors had offered desktop workstations to the masses, 
the original p2p model would rule today. As far as "30 servers...and 
none reachable," the fact that they're not "reachable" is exactly 
because of the anti-p2p turn the Internet has taken since the Web took 
off. Back when the Internet was a bunch of Sun workstations at colleges 
and research labs, it was pure p2p. (I'll entertain arguments that that 
model was really not scalable.) So, why aren't they "reachable?" I'd say 
the commercial side of the Internet has been playing "bandwidth 
keep-away" for fun and profit. Damned obvious. In a more progressive 
world, the public sector would provide bandwidth, the same way they 
provide roads. But in a global free market world, the citizen is first 
and foremost a cash-cow. (Too bad the cash-cow milking machine 
manufacturers need fewer and fewer workers these day. LOL!)

Lb

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]