|
| Sunday, December 23, 2001 |
 |
Boingo, cont'd 
| | Glenn enlarges on his enthusiasm for Boingo, which I would share if I had faith that it would also work for Mac and Linux. Earlier he explained why people like me, who remain unenthused, are missing something: |
| | Why lock into a specific proprietary software package thus creating the potential for a non-standard network? |
| | This misses the mark due to what I would term a completely understandable blurring of the lines between the Web and the Internet. The Web runs on top of the TCP/IP stack, a layer of protocols that allows programs to break data into pieces and send it to a known address over any kind of medium (Ethernet, Wi-Fi, dial-up, ATM, etc.). |
| | Boingo's software dips down below where the Web (even with Java) can go into protocol layers below applications. By using these lower layers, Boingo is employing standards to tie together disparate wireless network operators. The point is: anyone can do what they're doing; they just have to do it. |
| | I think I understand that. I also think it's beside my point, which is that something that makes the Internet available wirelessly only to Windows serves to lock the wireless Internet to Windows. Right now the wireless internet is largely undeveloped. If Boingo does what it says it will, and doesn't make it available to other platforms, that's a de facto lock in, regardless of the technologies involved. |
| | Unless, of course, Boingo has competition. So far I don't see any. |
| | Boingo is not a software platform locking users in. In fact, it's a standards-based tool that relies on only standard protocols to ease the process for its users. Other companies will be able to come along, using different or identical protocols and still transit TCP/IP data on the Internet. They'll have to negotiate their own contracts with wireless infrastructure providers, but that will be the case in any vision of the future of Wi-Fi. |
| | I hope he's right, and I hope they do. |
Lintosh
Back up
| | Had some kind of major crash this evening, when the kid was running SimSafari. The HD disappeared beyond the reach of Norton, Disk First Aid, everything. I finally pulled the plug and the battery, let it sit for a few hours, started it up, and ... it was like nothing had gone wrong. So weird. |
| | I've been dragging my butt about moving this thing over to OS X, but I think I'll make the move sooner than later. Not crashing is a major sell. The OS X desktop machine only goes down when the power grid goes out. |
| | Anyway, I'm gonna crash myself while this thing backs itself up. See ya in the morning. |
Loading the Canon
A little AND logic, please
| | Between this and this and this, you'd think that Linux was failing on the desktop. It's not, any more than, say, Saab is failing on the highway. Linux is a near-universal OS. It does all kinds of stuff, including desktop work. OS X Server is a fine server OS too, just not an especially practical one in the kinds of places where Linux shows up huge. So what's the problem? Nothing. It takes all kinds. That's the real point. |
discuss
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
