|
Sunday, December 23, 2001
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Sunday, December 23, 2001
started 12/23/2001; 3:13:55 AM - last post 12/24/2001; 11:23:45 AM
|
|
Doc Searls - Sunday, December 23, 2001 
12/23/2001; 7:13:55 AM (reads: 4811, responses: 1)
|
|
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
|
|
Glenn Fleishman - Re: Oingo
12/24/2001; 3:23:45 PM (reads: 1018, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Now I get you. I couldn't see the lock in before. I guess I'm a combination of optimistic and cynical about the Mac/Linux issue.
Sky Dayton is a Mac user from way back. His house is full of Macs. His colleagues are Mac users. Earthlink was founded to offer ISP service to Macs (it was easier) in the very early days. Earthlink remains the most Mac friendly ISP. Dayton has promised Mac support. Apple has the motivation to support Dayton's desire to support the Mac. Etc.
So all of these factors combine to me to say, if they had infinite resources and developers, the Mac and Windows versions would have shipped simultaneously. Given finite resources, they went for the biggest business traveler buck, which is almost certainly 90 percent or more Windows laptops, maybe even 95 percent. The graphic design market is surely still more like 75-25 split Windows to Mac.
The Linux market consists of a very few people taking their Linux laptops on the road.
From any reasonable viewpoint, it's a good idea to hit Windows first, the others later as resources allow.
Of course, this opens business opportunities. With the market that Boingo has helped to open, a savvy Linux entrepreneur could probably very quickly put together some of what Boingo has: cross-network authentication (maybe not as well developed as Boingo, but still simple), SSH tunneling or freeware IPSec, and consistent pricing.
Ditto for Macs. I wouldn't be surprised that if Boingo lags on the Mac software if Apple didn't put in a skunkworks-like team to create a Mac interface itself. The problem on the Mac side, as I've mentioned, is that you don't have NDIS 5.1 to talk to the hardware, you don't have VPN protocols in the OS (Windows 98/NT/2000/XP), and you don't have the same control over dipping into the lower ISO layers as you can on Windows.
You can do all those things, but I'd guess that developing the Mac version will take 1.5 to 2 times longer than Windows for those reasons. Which is rarely the case, programmers tell me.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
