In-Reply-To: <199504100402.AAA17822@allison.clark.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, Robert D. Seidman wrote:

> Rex, since this isn't really too "online-newsy" I'm just sending
> the reply to you.  If you want to bounce it back to the list, I'll
> let that be your call.
> 
> >It's quite likely that AOL and CompuServe will offer locallized 
> >nationwide SLIP or PPP connectivitiy in conjunction with Fire-Wall 
> >protections, and the AOL/Compuserver services themselves will just be 
> >services on the Internet.  The most expensive part of running a 
> >nationwide network is the Telecommunications links.  The X.25 links are 
> >not as efficient as PPP/Slip links with VJ Compression, and the links can 
> >be upgraded to frame-relay or ATM.  In simpler terms, by carrying 
> >internet traffic, the cost/hour/user drops from $6.00 to about $0.02
> 
> Well, it is more than quite likely with regard to offering SLIP and PPP
> access.  They are going to do that for sure.  As for offering access ONLY via
> their own networks...they can just switch to surcharging for access over
> X.25.  CIS does that now.  AOL has a good deal with Sprint so I'm not
> sure what will happen when they have their own "AOLNET" up and running
> in most places.  

I actually have first hand knowledge that the X.25 switch vendors for
tymenet, telenet, compuserve, and sprintnet are all upgrading their X.25
switches to support IP/PPP directly onto the Internet.  In addition, they
are providing secure intercarrier routes.  In other words, you don't have
to worry that your traffic will get routed through "hacker university". 

The net result of this is that you can turn on packet filtering and have 
the same security with TCP/IP as you had with X.25.  Since commercial 
customers can now share the same links, the cost/user/megabyte will drop 
substantially.

> >That isn't a bright move.  If AOL just adds user/host authentication to 
> >their http server, they can pick up more "High margin" customers who will 
> >pay $5-$10/month for access rights.  Since AOL doesn't have to pay the 
> >telecomms cost, this would be pure profit.
> 
> I think their HTTP servers run on HP's running unix.  I am only talking
> about the AOL client software.  Same for Prodigy...when AOL begins offering
> its own PPP/SLIP service, I would guess they'd let any platform on, though
> they will likely leverage their purchases of Navisoft and Booklink and package
> with Windows based TCP/IP apps.

There are two issues here.  If everyone starts making their own custom 
and incompatible HTTP servers and clients with extensions that break each 
other, the commercial internet will collapse under it's own competition.  
If the vendors focus on the services they provide and charge for 
authentication, they can put the authentication mechanism under General 
Public License.

Now that PCs are functioning as workstations (server as well as client), 
there is more need for multitasking and multiuser capability.  This may 
be the "Killer app" that puts Unix/Linux on the PC.  Windows NT is still 
to resource hungry, and Windows 95 still does not support full 32 bit 
preemtive multitasking.  I just discovered in Dr. Dobbs that Microsoft is 
releasing MFC for Unix.  If they support Linux, this could be a double 
win for Microsoft, the Unix community, and the Internet User and provider 
community.

> >> software should debut in both Windows and Mac flavors.  Prodigy is 
> >> currently only available for the Windows platform, and I'm told that at 
> >> launch, Web access via CompuServe will also only be available via Windows.
> >Again, custom servers defeat the whole point of being on the internet in 
> >the first place.  Besides, I would like to be able to access one of these 
> >services from my Linux box.  The only time I use MS-Windows any more is 
> >when I have to log into Prodigy.

> You probably don't represent the average user.  If you did, I think
> Delphi would be more successful!  Again, I don't think this is an issue
> of their servers, but rather their client software. In the case of AOL,
> I am sure that is the case.  With Prodigy, I'm just guessing.

Linux isn't just a Unix command line interface clone, it is a fully 
windowed graphical interface with the same types of applications that you 
would find in the Windows for Workgroups/Microsoft Office Professional 
bundle.  That's just the beginning.  You also get NFS client AND server
(gotta pay big $$ for NT Server), and with X11, I can run graphics 
applications on other X11 hosts.  A single Terminal/mouse/keyboard can 
interact with 20 or 30 hosts at the same time.

Even with Windows-NT, it was necessary to have a separate server for each 
application, a separate console (or console multiplexor) for each server, 
and real-time applications like feed-handlers would slow down to the 
point of losing data when the operator moved the mouse or raised a window.

> >MSN might be pretty good, but after being ripped off to the tune of about 
> >$3 million, I'm a bit reluctant to put my paycheck into "Billy's Bank".
> 
> If I'd lost 3 million in the deal, I'd certainly feel the same way.
> 
> Robert
> 
If you consider opportunity costs, time wasted waiting for Windows, and 
time lost to  recoveries, your company has probably lost 
a million in the last two years.

	Rex Ballard.


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Mon Apr 10 11:46:30 1995
Status: O
X-Status: