|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
To: Hex Star <hexstar@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:39:48 PDT."
<5dc6fd9e0710221939h2d373ee1sb0dd860edee85cb8@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:10:45 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1193116245_3033P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:39:48 PDT, Hex Star said:
> I can see "advanced operating systems" consuming much more bandwidth
> in the near future then is currently the case, especially with the web
> 2.0 hype.
You obviously have a different concept of "near future" than the rest of us,
and you've apparently never been on the pushing end of a software deployment
where the pulling end doesn't feel like pulling. I suggest you look at the
uptake rate on Vista and various Linux distros and think about how hard it will
be to get people to run something *really* different.
> the operating system interface will allow it to potentially be
> offloaded onto a central server allowing for really quick seamless
> deployment of updates and security policies as well as reducing the
> necessary size of client machine hard drives. Not only this but it'd
I hate to say it, but Microsoft's Patch Tuesday probably *is* already pretty
close to "as good as we can make it for real systems". Trying to do
*really* seamless updates is a horrorshow, as any refugee from software
development for telco switches will testify. (And yes, I spent enough time
as a mainframe sysadmin to wish for the days where you'd update once, and
all 1,297 online users got the updates at the same time...)
Also, the last time I checked, operating systems were growing more slowly
than hard drive capacities. So trying to reduce the size is really a fool's
errand, unless you're trying to hit a specific size point (for example, once
it gets too big to fit on a 700M CD, and you decide to go to DVD, there
really is *no* reason to scrimp until you're trying to get it in under 4.7G).
You want to make my day? Come up with a way that Joe Sixpack can *back up*
that 500 gigabyte hard drive that's in a $600 computer (in other words, if
that backup scheme costs Joe much more than $50, *it wont happen*).
--==_Exmh_1193116245_3033P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFHHYJVcC3lWbTT17ARAhD7AKCp7tlUq+5uRCtnG9BXEY8UFkZ8nwCg/OaY
9EelgtsxbMl+HauR4+QcqF0=
=fSBC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1193116245_3033P--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |