Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GENI To Replace Internet, Gets $12M Funding

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the that-should-be-enough dept.

The Internet 295

Postglobalism writes "A massive project to redesign and rebuild the Internet from scratch is inching along with $12 million in government funding and donations of network capacity by two major research organizations. Many researchers want to rethink the Internet's underlying architecture, saying a 'clean-slate' approach is the only way to truly address security and other challenges that have cropped up since the Internet's birth in 1969."

cancel ×

295 comments

Do we have enough...? (5, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416681)

Do we have enough porn for an entirely new Internet?

Re:Do we have enough...? (5, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416729)

Porn is not a problem. We have the technology. We can rebuild it.

Re:Do we have enough...? (5, Funny)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416771)

Not rebuild it - erect it.

(snicker, snort)

Re:Do we have enough...? (1)

legallyillegal (889865) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416983)

i for one welcome our newer, better, faster, and stronger overlords!

Stronger, Harder, Deeper, Faster (4, Funny)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417265)

Oscar Goldman:
The Internet, A network barely alive. Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic internet. GENI will be that internet. Better than it was before. Better, stronger, harder, deeper, faster.

Re:Stronger, Harder, Deeper, Faster (5, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417475)

A new and 'better' internet?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and guess this 'new' more 'secure' internet will not allow for any type of anonymity, and more ease of tracking who says what and when in a more easily searched and archived format...both for government AND corporations.

After all, the current internet, for some reason, seems not to have been designed with big business commerce nor strict government control. Something that obviously (rolls eyes) needs to be fixed the 2nd time around.

I mean...the nerve of people getting on a system, where every computer is a peer, and can publish their thoughts willy-nilly and interconnect in ways not expressedly sanctioned by our government officials that obviously know what's better and safer for us.

Not to mention how it is often used now to closely monitor and poke fun at said officials...

Re:Do we have enough...? (5, Funny)

Palidase (566673) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416733)

Do we have enough porn for an entirely new Internet?

If you build it, they will.... It's just too easy.

Re:Do we have enough...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24416777)

you can never ever have enough porn!

Re:Do we have enough...? (2, Funny)

rallymatte (707679) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416779)

The question isn't if there is enough, but if there will ever be a fast and good enough Internet for all the porn that's out there?

Re:Do we have enough...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24416841)

Sure, it might seem illogical now. But, there are a lot of problems that we have today that weren't thought of back then. We're constantly patching the fucker to make up for it. Why not build it from scratch, I'm sure it'll be strictly op-in, you know? Unless, this is a ham handed attempt to curb piracy, I'd love to see where this one would go. Even Sir Tim Burners-Lee says it's only an infant...

Re:Do we have enough...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24416887)

with great internets comes greater porn

I can haz new intarnet? (1)

Channard (693317) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417425)

Yes, plenty. Though there may be a shortage of lolcats.

Oh boy! OSI 2.0! (3, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416687)

Web 2.0 isn't good enough, let's have OSI 2.0! Love them X.400 email addresses, wot?

Just what I wanted! (1)

oneal13rru (1322741) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416751)

Oh goody, nothing better than the knowledge that we can just instantaneously shift the entire world from the Internet to something else effectively... I get the feeling big outages will happen... what about backwards compatibility?

Re:Just what I wanted! (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417171)

I'm just surprised that apparently all it takes is $12 million to do it.

Re:Just what I wanted! (0)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417655)

I'm just surprised Al Gore hasn't claimed to create it already...

Actually, 12million doesn't surprise me. It'll probably work over existing hardware, just rewriting some protocols.

Aside from DNS, what would be replaced/updated? A few overhauls to DNS to allow tracking and tracing by Big ^h^h^h^h SIGNAL INTERRUPT ^h^h^h^h tranmission streamlining for faster service.

Re:Just what I wanted! (1)

s.bots (1099921) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417187)

Would it not be possible to have a compatibility layer, such that you could access internet sites securely through GENI? I may be being naive, but it sounds possible...

Re:Just what I wanted! (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417363)

Sure. We'll just get one of those new-fangled web-based operating systems [slashdot.org] everyone is talking about to run in a virtual environment on top of the new GENI internet. I'm sure that'll give us full backwards compatibility to the old internet.

Re:Just what I wanted! (3, Insightful)

Escogido (884359) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417407)

That's what they will have to do if they want at least a chance at surviving - provide a public gateway.

And the libertarian geekdom is actually not interested in this project to survive, because if it does, the governments will eventually push us there, where they will have all those things like internet user IDs and other funny stuff that the only the privacy concerned have bad dreams about today...

Re:Just what I wanted! (1)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417319)

The old internet will never die, it will become like newsgroups are today but with more graphics. The New internet will be an additional network that will coexist with the present internet.

Re:Just what I wanted! (1)

Poorcku (831174) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417357)

backwards compatibility? who are you working for? Microsoft?

Other challenges? (4, Insightful)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416761)

Other challenges, indeed. Such as surveillance, "trusted" computing, IP "protection", etc.

The new internet will be locked down much tighter, I am certain.

Re:Other challenges? (4, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417201)

Yep, that is *all* this is about; control. The existing Internet is just a big huge classic WAN. They want to replace it with something they can lockdown, enforce DRM, and control.

Re:Other challenges? (4, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417395)

They (big media corps & their state accomplices) want to replace the internet with cable TV.

Cable TV to which we will be allowed to contribute by supplying 'user content' for them to exploit (subject to the content being approved).

They want to replace the internet with something where they have control and the only control we have is the remote.

Translation: (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416763)

They need to ditch this open, uncontrollable Internet for something the governments have more control over.

Re:Translation: (4, Informative)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416851)

...which already exists [internet2.edu] .

Re:Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24416987)

Yeah.. what will be their priorities for this new network...

1. Make it easy to block sites.
2. No anonymitity.
3. Easy to block specific protocols (p2p/voip).
4. Requiring everyone to spend lots of money on new hardware.

what did I miss?

Re:Translation: (1)

salparadyse (723684) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417019)

Dat's wight wabbit.

Re:Translation: (5, Funny)

crescente (1334029) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417221)

New internet has DRM built in! It's for your own protection. Really.

Or ditch the government, keep uncontrollable net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24417565)

That's why there is a race to replace the governments with the internet [metagovernment.org] instead.

Which will come first? Complete totalitarianism through the shining screen in your house (exactly like 1984)? Or complete freedom, where no single individual has power over others, and where all individuals collectively define their government?

The decision actually is yours, the nerds, to decide if you want to act or continue to let action be done onto you.

You made the internet what it is. Are you going to let it degrade into order?

Re:Translation: (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417649)

Psssh. It's not so much to give control of "governments" as much as "media companies".

Raiders of the Lost Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24416765)

And the data mining treasure hunt begins as the internet becomes an ancient temple, hooray.

Maybe they can make it like Neuromancer and we can dive in brain-first. >:3

Yeah . . . (1)

ibmjones (52133) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416781)

Because that worked so well with Vista. Oh wait. . . . .

Inertia (5, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416793)

For better or worse, I think that we're stuck with what we've got. We'd really be better off improving the Internet we have (DNSSEC, end-to-end encryption on all protocols by default, PKI for the masses) than redesigning it from the ground up.

12 Million? (4, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416795)

Even if they had 12 billion dollars, it wouldn't scratch the surface of the cost of recreating the Internet.

Re:12 Million? (2, Informative)

Tabernaque86 (1046808) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416871)

Apparently it will only take $350 million. Whether that's accurate or not is another story. Just what TFA says.

Re:12 Million? (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417093)

... Whether that's accurate or not is another story. Just what TFA says ...

Dude,
First rule of /. Never RTFA!
Second rule of /. Never RTFA!
...

Re:12 Million? (1)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417157)

Most large scale projects go over budget... with that said, a budget of $350 million to rebuild the internet from scratch is most likely to be no exception. I can understand the $12 million for the connection between the two facilities, but I believe that the $350 figure is just a number that it may have been pulled from someone's ass. From TFA, it sounds like its still up in the air - and even if it does get approved - it will be years, if at all, before it catches on publically.

Re:12 Million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24416891)

cuil had 25 million... see what good that did.

Re:12 Million? (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417193)

Maybe for 12 million they could buy a single core switch and connect everybody to it... a lot of cable to lay, but that's worth trying, the Internet would be far less complicated. One ISP. One Core Switch. One Zettabyte per second. Amaaaaazing!

Two Questions: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24416799)

Will it run linux? and Will it finally be able to handle IPv6?

Re:Two Questions: (3, Insightful)

Scotteh (885130) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416981)

If it's a completely redesigned internet, will it have IPv6?

Ok I understand the problems of our current set up (1, Offtopic)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416809)

But seriously there are more pressing issues that could use that meager 12 million dollars. How about we cut the defense spending in half and invest it in alternative fuels? That way we won't need to milk other countries for oil. My super over simplified view of the world is entirely mine and no one else!

Re:Ok I understand the problems of our current set (4, Funny)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416973)

How about we cut the defense spending in half and invest it in alternative fuels?

How about cutting wellfare in half and have ten times the money. Exactly how many poor people do we really need anyway?

Re:Ok I understand the problems of our current set (1)

s.bots (1099921) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417237)

Why not cut the half the poor people in half, and feeding the other half of the poor people with the halved poor people? Then you would have (roughly) a bajillion times the money.

Re:Ok I understand the problems of our current set (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417329)

That's a great economic idea!

It's a very green environmentally too!

I know we can call the food...Soylent Green!

Re:Ok I understand the problems of our current set (1, Flamebait)

doti (966971) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417493)

That's a great economic idea!

No, it's not.
Without poor people, there will be no riches, as they depend on exploiting the poor.

Oh wait, maybe it is a good idea after all..

Re:Ok I understand the problems of our current set (4, Interesting)

OwnedByTwoCats (124103) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417387)

2007 US Military spending: $549.2 Billion. Domestic spending: $457.9 Billion. Welfare is a small fraction of domestic spending, so it cannot be 10x defense spending.

Re:Ok I understand the problems of our current set (1)

tristian_was_here (865394) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417443)

How about cutting wellfare in half and have ten times the money. Exactly how many poor people do we really need anyway?

People like you make me laugh. Do you really think poor people choose to be poor?

I know alcohol and drugs are an issue but still though people don't want to sleep in shop door ways and have to beg for food.

Re:Ok I understand the problems of our current set (4, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417589)

How about cutting wellfare in half and have ten times the money.

Eh? Spending on welfare (TANF) is a very small part of the budget, $16.5 billion. [cwla.org] At a population of 301 million, that's $54.80/year/person, fifteen cents a day per person. The base defense budget - not including war funding - is more than $481 billion, $1598/person/year, $4.38 per day per person. U.S. military spending makes up the bulk of world military spending. [globalsecurity.org] We could cut ours in half and still enormously outspend all potential adversaries.

Conservative politicians like to conflate "entitlements" all together, which includes not just welfare but medical spending (prices for which are driven up by the for-profit model and by drug patents, both of which are made possible by government action), veterans affairs and military retirement payments (which should be properly counted under defense), and Social Security spending.

The NSF's budget is $6.065 billion [nsf.gov] , $20.15/year/person, about five and a half cents a day per person.

Re:Ok I understand the problems of our current set (1)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417633)

How about we cut the defense spending in half and invest it in alternative fuels?

How about cutting wellfare in half and have ten times the money. Exactly how many poor people do we really need anyway?

Yes, [wikipedia.org] because [wikipedia.org] poor [wikipedia.org] people [wikipedia.org] are [wikipedia.org] useless. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Ok I understand the problems of our current set (0, Troll)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417309)

Nice ideas. Too bad they would make the world come crashing down around America's ears. Our leadership has completely pissed off so much of the world, that if we cut our defense spending NOW, we'd be welcoming our new Chinese or Middle-Eastern overlords within our lifetimes. I'm not saying that we can't cut it later on, but it'll take DECADES to fix the problems that that Bush & Bush & Company have created for us.

Won't ever happen (5, Informative)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416829)

First off, once you read past the sensationalist headlines, the article just says that they are establishing a very high capacity research network to study new protocols, not trying to create a parallel infrastructure. However, that being said, trying to redesign the Internet's protocols from scratch isn't necessarily a bad idea, the current model is definitely showing its age. For example, TCP has a lot of issues on links with large bandwidth-delay products, resulting in lots of extensions and forks to support these links.

The real problem is getting a critical mass to switch. Just look at the state of IPv6 support in home networking gear and the lack of implementation all over the web. My guess is that this will lead to some new standards that will maybe be used by people doing experiments with tons of data and nobody else. Don't expect to see this work coming to a router near you.

Re:Won't ever happen (2, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417085)

>trying to redesign the Internet's protocols from scratch isn't necessarily a bad idea

Very true. We'd be foolish to blindly freeze our technology in the 20th century.

But whatever redesign shakes out of this might be worse. The US government is funding this with the intention to improve security.

It may not be the users' security they have in mind.

Re:Won't ever happen (5, Informative)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417365)

The grant is from the NSF, not the DoD which implies it is more scientific in nature.

However, even if it was from the DoD or NSA, the government has a strong interest in improving US users' security, so as to protect US companies from foreign espionage. Look at the NSA's contribution to various crypto algorithms (agreed upon by the security community as positive) or to SELinux.

Wheels 2.0 (4, Insightful)

janeuner (815461) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416847)

This new version of the wheel offers an anti-bubblegum coating, side curtain airbags to protect it from damage during a crash, and laser-etched tread for maximum efficiency. Seriously, why use tires when you can have a shiny new set Wheels 2.0?

Think of the rainforests (5, Funny)

AsciiNaut (630729) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416881)

Typical. I've only just finished printing out the current Internet.

Starting with a bang, I see. (1)

Torinaga-Sama (189890) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416905)

This is enormous waste of time. I vote to redirect that 10Gbps line to my house and we can split the 12 mil on beer.

Putting this in a little bit of perspective. 12 Million isn't really all that much money when you consider the cost of a data center, or even a fair size building.

Intel tried to get away from x86 three times (4, Insightful)

peter303 (12292) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416911)

And all were abysmal, expensive failures. The marketplace can be extremely conservative at times.

Bottom up vs Top Down (4, Interesting)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416915)

Since the Internet is really just a collection of smaller privately-owned networks connected on common backbones, is it even possible to 'replace' it? I'm not sure what the goal is here. Sounds like herding cats to me.

Re:Bottom up vs Top Down (1)

Phreakiture (547094) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417603)

Sounds like herding cats to me.

This is not as hard as it sounds.

And we all know its about .... (2, Interesting)

3seas (184403) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416917)

... control, as in censorship, and target marketing. Where you can have a web site but nobody can see it .... now that's security....

So, a system where being on the internet is a right, but being seen on the internet is a privilege you have to pay for.

A tip for Stock Exchange players (5, Funny)

mynickwastaken (690966) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416925)

Invest in Tubes Industry.
They will need a lot of those.

It's going to be hell to re-lay all the tubes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24416929)

nt

Digging in deep (1)

Orleron (835910) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416935)

I can donate some tubes.

Hey, look at that... there's a *NEW* Mexico now! (2)

CorporalKlinger (871715) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416959)

Subject is from The Simpsons, in case you didn't know.

Interesting news. Big issues, though: compatibility with the old internet will have to be maintained during a change-over time period... compatibility with old infrastructure must be maintained (running old IP, IPv6, and whatever else they develop for the "New" Internet on the same lines will be a challenge)... and government regulation and intervention should be minimal, regardless how much $$$ they pump in.

If they pull this off, they'll have really accomplished something worthwhile. Otherwise, it's just vaporware and an interesting experiment in re-designing the wheel.

But but... (3, Interesting)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 5 years ago | (#24416971)

The internet we use today is totally different from 1969 (or 1981, or 1991). The internet evolves Darwin style already. Who uses DecNET or Banyan Vines? How about uunet, gated, gopher, or telnet?

It's gone, baby, gone.

Hell - we're having enough trouble replacing a simply-ass DNS server... who can imagine a peaceful replacement of entire the Internet (other than power-hungry numbnuts?)

They made a typo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24416993)

GoreNet and not GENI

Arrogance (2, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417039)

A new architecture means there are thousands of things to be worked out and fixed before it can get to the same level as the current implementation. Think a decade or two, with significant funding (think billions).

Systems that evolved are often not ideal or perfect, but they do work. Iterative evolution is important, because sometimes it's just not feasible to design something.

Boondoggle? (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417125)

This thing has boondoggle written all over it.

That's it? (1)

Bandman (86149) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417047)

$12 million dollars to design an infrastructure to replace a multi-billion (maybe trillion?) dollar network from the ground up?

I know that they're not implementing the new network right now, but I don't see how this isn't just throwing money away. $12m dollars is the governmental equivalent of chicken scratch

Cuil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24417103)

So... the new Internet gets less than half the funding than a search engine that don't do searches very well?

Schedule a switch date now (5, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417111)

Alright, you guys make this whole "new internet" thing, and we're you're done we'll just all switch to it all at the same time OK? We just need to schedule a date for when to switch to that new Internet thing. We should do it during a quiet time of the year, the month of December sounds appropriate, and I reckon it should take you guys quite a few years..

How does December 21st, 2012 sound? I have nothing in my schedule for *that* day... Too apocalyptic maybe?

Re:Schedule a switch date now (5, Funny)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417467)

I'm actually expecting to be pretty busy on the 21st, but my calendar's completely blank thereafter.

The Internet (orwellian version) (1)

cpearson (809811) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417113)

As previously stated, this new internet will be a surveillance (gov) / marketing (corp) tool that will resemble cable TV only providing approved "channels" (urls) and streams of content.

Re:The Internet (orwellian version) (2, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417545)

There was an old joke in the Soviet Union that there were only four channels on television. The first three were all news and the forth was a KGB agent waving his finger and saying, "No, no, no! Change the channel back!"

Hurdles (1)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417155)

I assume the Internet2 will be an attempt to change the networking protocols from the ground up to remove any inefficiencies that exist in the current protocol and build a faster more efficient internet. But, the main problems that they're definitely going to face are;

a. Rolling this out over the current infrastructure. Any compromise on this will result in a slower speeds wiping out any advantages that the new protocols provide.
b. Requiring both the current and the new protocols to co-exist. No one, especially in developing countries, is going to take in the massive up front costs to rollover to Internet2. It has to be done in phases.
c. Adoption by telecom companies. This is the only way Internet2 will succeed. But in the current state of affairs, they're not even willing to support IPV6. Who's going to convince them to move to Internet2?

Internet 3.0 (1)

killmofasta (460565) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417167)

The internet 3.0 has been laucned, superceding both the internet 1.0, as well as !The!Internet!Public!Beta, and the Internet 2.0. We are taking our time, inching along with this one, as we are completely reinventing the wheel on this one, ( 18 Wheeler, +steering wheel, +3rd wheel comes to an even x14 ( Thats Hexidecimal for 20 )).

Just another private network only for use in ivory towers. Nothing for us serfs....

( Isnt there some long-beard inventing Internet 4.0? )

Hidden Agenda Suspected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24417267)

The current internet was DESIGNED to be a peer-to-peer system, so that the more computers hooked to it, the more capacity everyone theoretically can access. Given what we've seen of attempts to create choke points (throttling) and thus artificial scarcity and high prices, it is logical to suspect any alternative architcture, if it better-accommodates the greed behind such attempts.

this F1P for HGNAA?! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24417283)

I have a bad feeling about this. (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417285)

I'm not saying, by any means, that our present internet is perfect, it isn't, but I am inclined to view any attempt to rebuild it from scratch with grave suspicion. We got lucky the first time, since the academics managed to build something worthwile before the regulators, incumbents, and other vultures took notice. That will not be the case this time. All too often, when somebody says that the internet is broken, they are talking about minor little details like its peer-to-peer structure, relative openness, and concentration of intelligence at the edges of the network, not performance of TCP-IP over high-latency connections or similar.

The mother of all security solutions (1)

krkhan (1071096) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417291)

saying a 'clean-slate' approach is the only way to truly address security and other challenges that have cropped up since the Internet's birth in 1969.

What a revelation. I had this 'clean-slate' approach in mind 3-years ago when I removed the Ethernet controller + modem from the PCI slots of my home PC.

Can they PLEASE do us a small favor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24417295)

When they're done, and they go to replace the Internet, can they also please get rid of Fortran?

Somehow I think they'll have about as much luck with that as they will with replacing the Internet.

And not have a single clue as to why their efforts failed.

Get it started right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24417335)

gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

don't like it (1)

nova.alpha (1287112) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417343)

I dont like it. They don't spend 12M bucks for nothing. Hope they will fail to kill p2p and porn.

Wow. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417355)

A whole new Internet? If you guys really want us to use IPv6, you could have just said so. I mean, damn...

Bleh (1)

JediTrainer (314273) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417373)

and while we're at it, can we toss out and redesign HTML/JavaScript/CSS/etc? Even the whole stateless HTTP protocol.

Web apps make me sick. Poor debugging tools, haphazard implementations and markup languages that have been over-extended make web development feel like we've gone back 20 years in terms of capabilities for software.

AJAX is a hack built upon other hacks. Framework libraries are a dime a dozen and none seem to be flexible enough to do what you need to do. QA'ing a complex web app is a mess. As an aside, does anyone know of any good QA scripting packages (that test the UI? JUnit doesn't count...)? Selenium isn't bad but misses the mark in several areas.

If we're rebooting the Internet, can we scrap the whole thing and rethink it all while we're at it? (yes, I know www != the internet, but the way things are going it might as well be)

That MS isn't learning, that much I knew (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417391)

But can't we at least learn from their mistakes?

I somehow think MS pumped more than petty 12m into MSN. And? Failure. Why? Because it was not what people wanted.

Is that "new internet" what I want? Most likely, it's not. Can we be sure that it will be rife with tools to monitor, to snoop, to dissect my behaviour so to "serve me better" (read: target the ad spam better)? Or to do even worse? I'm kinda inclined to think so, considering the recent developments in laws in general and the "old school" internet in particular.

Do we want that? Can't talk about you, but I for one don't.

Serious concerns (1)

FireStormZ (1315639) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417409)

Privacy and access come to mind...

Privacy: Lets face it the governments of the world *all of them* would love a system that is easer to keep an eye on, protocols that are easier to track, ...., .... The Internet is not perfect but a person with even a modest amount of knowledge can pretty much get around without leaving footprints. You want to read a wiki article on explosives? not without getting flagged you don't...

Access: Corporations would love nothing more than to make sure they are the only ones who can do anything, forget bandwidth shaping as a problem imagine when the mega corps can get together to make sure that small businesses or media that speaks unfairly of them are shut, or slowed down, with more ease than can be done today.

security privacy and freedom (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417433)

when you begin to address privacy and security at the protocol and architecture level, you also begin to enable governmental control

one of the biggest philosophical issues that people don't seem to understand is that there is no such thing as centralized privacy, or government-enforced privacy. you constantly see stories on slashdot bemoaning government's inability to protect your privacy. its completely absurd. the only one who can protect your privacy is you

it is an utter oxymoronic, paradoxical way of thinking to believe government policies and privacy can coexist in the same thought process. people constantly inveigh the government to do more about privacy. no. you don't want to involve the government in privacy, in any way. if you want privacy and security, YOU need to take steps to make that work, on your own. to involve a large controlling entity to do that... what? can we say not getting the concept?

any system built to ensure "privacy" is essentially a command and control system... that can snoop on anything it wants

the same with security

it is GOOD the internet as it is has no internal safeguards for privacy and security. it means it is controlled by no one. get the point?

the riaa and beijing should fund this GENI project

Email could sure use a rebuild (2)

OnTheWay (529387) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417445)

I think their first priority should be rebuilding the email protocols. We are all wasting too much time, money and bandwidth dealing with spam.

TFA doesn't really say anything! (4, Insightful)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417457)

TFA basically boils down to this single statement: "We've got money and some shiny toys to play with, wheee!!!!". It doesn't say anything about what their long-term intentions are specifically. I for one reserve judgement on the issue until I see something more concrete -- with the exception that I agree that nothing of any real substance will come of this for at least a decade.

Ain't nothing more permanent that a temporary fix (2, Insightful)

Grendel_Prime (178874) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417461)

And in this case, there are tons of temporary fixes all over the Internets.

This can't work... (1)

UID30 (176734) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417489)

The internet is more than just the data lines. Its the entire 7 layer burrit... errr ... OSI model. Are they planning on re-defining every protocol implemented? At the very least they would need to address every layer 5, 6, and 7 protocol... on a budget of $12m? heh. Smells like a researcher who knows all the right buzzwords to really confuse a government appropriations committee. mmmmm pork.

Obligatory? (1)

kungfugleek (1314949) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417513)

I'm gonna build my *own* internets. With hookers, and blackjack... oh wait, it has that already.

Clean-slate approach... (1)

olliec420 (1023207) | more than 5 years ago | (#24417599)

Micro$oft could learn a thing or two from that.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...