Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Frank Coluccio Technology Forum - ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (155)	10/31/1999 11:32:00 AM
From: mact	Respond to of 1782

frank...im a newbie to ur thread...ive appreciated ur insightful and thorough posts...just wish i understood it more<gg>...may i ask what u do exactly?...im trying to read as much as possible within this sector but just like my own field, there is only so much u can truly understand without formal training...for example, is there a difference between ffiv's load balancing equipment and aton/fdry's ethernet gigabit switches and adapters?...sometimes they appear to do the same things while other times they do not...thanks in advance if u have the time to respond. mact

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (155)	10/31/1999 6:04:00 PM
From: Jay Lowe	Respond to of 1782

>> The hawk maintained that the imminent abundance of bandwidth ... >> The accountant countered that the turnpike and corridor effects .. Hi Frank ... I've been hiding out in Win2k internals and writing business plans. I am having major deja vu here. This sounds like the same conversation that held the mike at the 1974 Fall Joint Computer Conference ... only the nouns plugged into the dynamic at that time were about the desirability of more powerful programming languages. "More Power! More power in the language will solve everything" ... same-same with bandwidth now ... then, we were fixated on the ability to express abstractions coherently ... now, we are fixated on the ability to move data around coherently. The meeting divided into two camps, around the mike, the More is Better camp and the Less is Beautiful camp. The more guys liked PL1-like ideas ... the less guys liked C. Neither of these two arguments makes any sense without a "context of expectation" ... the act of "wanting" ... or having a goal ... itself defines a horizon of the possible beyond which one cannot look without invalidating that short-term goal. I commented then that no matter how much "concept power" designers built into new languages, programmers would conceive of programs that lay beyond the power of the language to express coherently. Today, the same is true. No matter how much bandwidth we have to play with, we will design systems that demand more. It's all about cycles of expectation. And whenever this structure appears, it means there is some underlying truth that's being ignored. I believe the underlying truth here is that the current economic model of the web is not aligned with the eventual technical model. This thought has immensely powerful implications ... and I believe it to be a compelling investment concept for long-termers like me. 1. The technical model of the web must necessarily evolve toward a generalized system which automatically positions pages optimally, managing servers and links just as a PC operating system manages PC resources. 2. The concept of "ownership" will change radically. Currently we think "this is my server", "this is my rack", "this is my wire", "I sell you the use of these". This socio-economic gestalt is doomed by the realities of inevitable progress toward a truly intelligent web. 3. The concept of "innovation" will change radically. Years ago, we internals programmers made money by innovating new enhancements to "operating systems" ... we wrote cool TSRs, applets that did this or that ... add-ons for an incompletely envisioned environment. Now this market is nearly dead ... Microsoft has "envisioned" itself into a position which subtends all such efforts ... if anything you invent is useful, it will become part of Windows. Similarly, when the web is "completely envisioned", then all these petty differences in web infrastructure technology will become moot ... the surviving methodologies will be incorporated into the larger paradigm and the innovation process itself is transformed in the process ... becoming more standardized and less diverse and more locally efficent. 4. Some companies are more likely to prosper in this transition than others. Some companies have Microsoft-like traits such as a willingness to beg/steal/borrow external ideas, flexibility is self-description, the ability to morph their structure, etc, etc. These are more likely survivors than companies whose "identity" depends on a specific technology. 5. The facts of the transition are more knowable that the relative details of competing technologies. Remember the competing desktops systems of the early 80's ... the competing languages ... the competing bus systems? Who could really predict one would win over another? Many surprises occured. One could, however, predict how the underlying trends would move toward a conclusion ... amd who was attitudinally positioned to survive. Anyway ... that's what comes to mind.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (155)	10/31/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: Jay Lowe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1782

>> While I don't accept the premise that b-w will ease the problem to the degree that the hawk maintained, I do think it's obvious at this point that much of this trend has already come to pass in some solution areas. Here again, the race between increasing bandwidth supplies and the encroachment of traffic creep will be a determining factor << A simpler way of leading to my hypothesis is to suggest that "the race" you mention is irrelevant. We have seen this pattern before in dozens of areas. What is the "truth" underlying the noise level of "the race" ... and who is position to enter into the "truth"? I think that is the more value-able question - the question more likely to create value. In 2003, much of what we deal with as specific objects will have become virtualized ... just grist for automatic management by the meta-web "operating system". You don't own your server ... the web operating system owns it. You just bought it, and get checks. You don't buy hosting service from an ISP, and put pages there ... you check pages into a desired level of service within a context. The web paradigm will be de-geographfied ... all these 100's and 1,000's of things that humans interact around ... "I'll sell you this" ... "What do you want for that" ... will poof! ... disappear into the maw of inevitable virtualization and be automatically administered. How far down to the wire and the rack will the virtualization extend? Will rack space become virtualized? Will the meta-web schedule the installation of new servers in Rack 56 at location XYZ? Maybe not, but the meta-web will totally influence the decision ... just as Windows tells you you need more RAM. Who is going to build the meta-web technology? It will happen, and completely change the economic landscape of the web. To me, this is the compelling universe of discourse. An example landmark event will be when a powerful network management company merges with a powerful caching company. This will mark the union of physical and logical layers of resource management ... and create a company with a world-view large enough to envision the real future.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (155)	10/31/1999 9:25:00 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 1782

Turnpike and Corridor will be discussed in another post. Would someone indulge us here? Ray? T&C?? Huh? Hey dude, I live out on the left coast, we got dem FREEways out here. Corregidor is in the Philipines, you definitely went too far if you went der. I'll review this matter, take it under advisement as it were. We'll see, maybe there is something to this. Just when I should be hunting matzutakis, you've got me hunting URLs, sheesh....... Bye, Ry