Subject: RE: MS's OS Vision
To: None <>
From: None <>
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 09/24/2001 11:34:21
Sitting here using MICRO~01 products (sorry, we're actually required to =
Outlook and I don't know how to make it quote properly or wrap text in =
way programs developed 20 years ago are able to do) I can only say =
much anything will be an improvement.  At this point the world's number =
marketeer of "operating systems" may realize they are a commodity much =
the protocols they implement: but their vision of the future sounds a =
like a cross between TV, the "Windows95 Internet", and the telephone =
... If
it happens hopefully it'll have better content than MSNBC.

Speaking of phone companies hasn't Bell done a pretty decent job with =
as far as really "distributed" operating systems go?  It seemed to me =
the last time I looked at it the whole conception of Plan9 was so
distributed that CORBA COM Java weren't really even necessary. Mind you
Plan9 as well would work more easily if there were only "one system" =
Plan9) on the network ;)

Graham Todd
Industry Canada/Industries Canada
Smart Communities/Collectivit=E9s ing=E9nieuses

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Michael Wanka []
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 8:06 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: MS's OS Vision
> Hi,
> On 22 Sep 2001, at 13:57, Mike Cheponis wrote:
> > Also, it would be sortta cool if people could look at the=20
> proposal in
> > a non-emotional way, that is, in a cooly professional way.  I =
> let me try it: Many things like the software runs on every hardware=20
> etc. were the goals of the ACE so they are allmost ten years old.
> It is not needed, and unwanted. Most pieces of informtion are not=20
> intended for everyone. Currently everything is unpublished, until we=20
> put it in a place accessible by the public. This will not change! So=20
> using the principles described in the "New Machine/New Network"=20
> sections, that would imply, that the first thing to be done=20
> is to deny=20
> every access (even for configuration, as this data could eventually=20
> be dangerous in the wrong hands) to the machine or network, and=20
> then open the few things wanted for public access.
> This is an altruistic approach: if I have ressources for fast=20
> computation and storage, and others use it, I wanted to benefit=20
> from that. Or the other way: why should I spend money in a fast=20
> machine, when I can use the ressources of others? Given that most=20
> do not have something to spend, there will be a payment system=20
> neccessary.
> If copy protected materials or intellectual properties can be shared, =

> a tracking, monitoring and payment system must exist, to keep it=20
> legal. Otherwise it was just another Napstar.
> In such an environment user profiles could be so precise, that other=20
> biometrical authentification shemes are no longer needed. Such=20
> environment has the potential of permanent monitoring.
> Operating systems have to provide the user with the needed=20
> applications. The user has to accomplish a task and therfore uses=20
> an application. Many users I know eg. are not able to save an e-
> mail attachment in the right place and open it with the correct=20
> application, if they cannot doubleclick it and the=20
> application pops up=20
> and they can save the data with this application they are lost. Such=20
> users cannot be left alone with the possibility to save=20
> sensitive data=20
> in a place where it could be accessible by the public.
> The situation described in "Hardware Failure" can be done more=20
> efficient with terminals and redundant servers and a good backup=20
> strategy.
> The situation described in "Web Service" again is not realistic, as I =

> have to pay for bandwidht and or transfer volume. If my servers and=20
> bandwidht are used for others content I would not want to pay for it. =

> Here again a payment system was needed.=20
> So the majority will have no real advantages, but are under=20
> permanent surveillance. This will be a costly system (and the cost=20
> are probably shared between all) but only very few have an=20
> advantage. Note: no illegal copies of Microsoft products are=20
> possible in such environment.
> > These ideas are, I believe, extremely powerful and timely.  (Never
> > mind that a few years ago I strongly argued for some of=20
> them on -tech
> > and got flamed to a crisp.  The point is: do we stagnate, or do we
> > innovate?)
> I do not think this is an innovation. It might be seen as the=20
> "killerapp"=20
> the industry is looking for for years. The point of saturation in the =

> PC market is close or reached and people do not want to purchase=20
> a new computer every year.=20
> mike