Beta
×

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!

Auerbach on Internet Cruft

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the spring-cleaning dept.

The Internet 327

Captain Beefheart writes "Karl Auerbach has a story on CircleID in which he declares '...Between spam, anti-spam blacklists, rogue packets, never-forgetting search engines, viruses, old machines, bad regulatory bodies, and bad implementations, I fear that the open Internet is going to die sooner than I would have expected.' The Balkanization of the 'Net appears to be upon us."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Summary (5, Funny)

aridhol (112307) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818136)

The Internet is dying

Right after Usenet, *BSD, Stephen King, etc.

Full Text (5, Informative)

calebtucker (691882) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818279)

Slashdotted.. here's the text..

There are indications that the Internet, at least the Internet as we know it today, is dying.

I am always amazed, and appalled, when I fire up a packet monitor and watch the continuous flow of useless junk that arrives at my demarcation routers' interfaces.

That background traffic has increased to the point where it makes noticeable lines on my MRTG graphs. And I have little reason for optimism that this increase will cease. Quite the contrary, I find more reason to be pessimistic and believe that this background noise will become a Niagara-like roar that drowns the usability of the Internet.

Between viruses and spammers and just plain old bad code, the net is now subject to a heavy, and increasing level of background packet radiation. And the net has very long memory - I still get DNS queries sent to IP addresses that haven't hosted a DNS server - or even an active computer - in nearly a decade. Search engines still come around sniffing for web sites that disappeared (along with the computer that hosted them, and the IP address on which that computer was found) long ago.

Sure, most of this stuff never makes it past the filters in my demarcation routers, much less past my inner firewalls. But it does burn a lot of resources. Not only do those useless packets burn bits on my access links, but they also waste bits, routing cycles, and buffers on every hop that those useless packets traverse.

It will not take long before the cumulative weight of this garbage traffic starts to poison the net. Already it is quite common for individual IP addresses to be contaminated from prior use. I am aware of people who are continuously bombarded by file access queries because a prior user of that address shared files from that address. Entire blocks of IP addresses are also contaminated, perhaps permanently, because they once hosted spammers thus causing those address blocks to be entombed into the memories of an unknown number of anti-spam filters not merely at the end user level but also deep in the routing infrastructure of the net. And a denial-of-service virus, once out on the net, can only be quieted, not eliminated; such viruses remain virulent and ready to spring back to life.

The net does not have infinite resources - even if IPv6 is deployed the contamination of IP address space will merely be slowed, not stopped.

Better security measures, particularly on the sources of traffic, will help, but again, unless something radical happens, the contamination will merely be slowed, not stopped.

I believe that something radical will happen: We may see the rapid end to the "end-to-end" principle on the Internet.

We are already observing the balkanization of the net for political and commercial reasons. Self-defense against the rising tide of the net's background packet radiation may be another compelling reason (or excuse) for net communities to isolate themselves and permit traffic to enter (and exit) only through a few well-protected portals.

This balkanization may be given additional impetus by a desire to escape from the ill effects of poorly designed regulatory systems, such as ICANN.

So, between spam, anti-spam blacklists, rogue packets, never-forgetting search engines, viruses, old machines, bad regulatory bodies, and bad implementations, I fear that the open Internet is going to die sooner than I would have expected. In its place I expect to see a more fragmented network - one in which only "approved" end-to-end communications will be permitted.

The loss of open end-to-end communications will, in itself, be a great loss.

But of even more concern will be the fact that these portals, or gates, will require gatekeepers, which is merely a polite word for censors. Our experience with ICANN has shown us how easily it is for focused and well-financed interests to capture a gatekeeper. In the present political climate in which government powers are conferred, without a counterbalancing obligation of accountability, onto private bodies, the loss will be much greater.

AUERBACH IS ON TEH SPOKE!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818324)

asdf asdf asdf , lkjh ljkh

i know how to type.

fck u all k? im gh3y, thnx.

Friendly warning to the ACs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818495)

It's now apparent that not only the /. editors, who have been long known to abuse their power, but also the subscribers can see your IP when you post AC:

ANONYMOUS COWARD DOES NOT MEAN ANONYMOUS!

From now on, we'll post only via the anonymizing proxies and keep informing the public that the AC does not mean Anonymous Coward but "All Clear".

This is a betrayal of the worst kind.

The scariest part about Balkanization. (1)

(54)T-Dub (642521) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818140)

The loss of open end-to-end communications will, in itself, be a great loss.

But of even more concern will be the fact that these portals, or gates, will require gatekeepers, which is merely a polite word for censors. Our experience with ICANN has shown us how easily it is for focused and well-financed interests to capture a gatekeeper. In the present political climate in which government powers are conferred, without a counterbalancing obligation of accountability, onto private bodies, the loss will be much greater.


It makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. I feel that the Internet is our last source of un-censored and un-biased information.

Re:The scariest part about Balkanization. (5, Insightful)

aborchers (471342) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818165)

I feel that the Internet is our last source of un-censored and un-biased information.


You're half right...

Re:The scariest part about Balkanization. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818185)

I feel that the Internet is our last source of un-censored and un-biased information.

See Slashdot for an example.

Re:The scariest part about Balkanization. (4, Funny)

cK-Gunslinger (443452) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818187)


"I feel that the Internet is our last source of un-censored and un-biased information."

I think you're forgetting about Fox News...

Re:The scariest part about Balkanization. (1)

saforrest (184929) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818259)

"I feel that the Internet is our last source of un-censored and un-biased information."

I think you're forgetting about Fox News...

Um, that could be taken two ways. Which way do you mean: the right one or the wrong one?

Re:The scariest part about Balkanization. (1)

cK-Gunslinger (443452) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818298)

"Which way do you mean: the right one or the wrong one? "

The "+3 Funny" one..

Re:The scariest part about Balkanization. (4, Funny)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818303)

you misspelled 'faux' there. common mistake.

Re:The scariest part about Balkanization. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818235)

> I feel that the Internet is our last source of un-censored and un-biased information.

It's getting worse. Now only Slashdot is our last source.

Balkanization? (2, Funny)

The Old Burke (679901) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818282)

Why did he have drag Balkan ino this?

Lets see:
>Between spam,: Yeah, that came from Balkan
>anti-spam blacklists,: Definetly more Balkan
>rogue packets,: Ok, maybe some Balkan here
>never-forgetting search engines,: Balkans fault
>viruses, Balkan is evil
>old machines,: Ok, some Balkan
>bad regulatory bodies,: Everything is Balkan's fault
>and bad implementations: Blame Balkan

So please give the peaceful people at Balkan a break!
Blame the those who tries to regulate Internet instead. And blame those that makes tools that makes it posible to do all above. Hey, accidentaly that would mean some of all those Open Source tools..
Uhh, but that can't be right, blame the evil corporations

Re:The scariest part about Balkanization. (4, Insightful)

noname3 (580108) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818338)

It makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. I feel that the Internet is our last source of un-censored and un-biased information.

Hope lies in the blogs. :)

Mirror (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818149)

In case the site is slow, here [martin-studio.com] is a mirror.

Martin Studio Slashdot Policy. [martin-studio.com]

Recipe for success: (-1, Funny)

jared_hanson (514797) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818157)

Recipe for success:

1. I, for one, welcome our new [Insert Subject Here] overlords.
2. Post sentence constructed from 1. to Slashdot.
3. Profit!!!

I, for one, welcome our new Internet cruft creating overlords.

die (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818194)

slowly and painfuly

Re:Recipe for success: (-1, Offtopic)

Hatta (162192) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818343)

1) Notice a trend.
2) Write a plan starting with the trend, proceeding though some unknown step, and ending with profit.
3) ???
4) Profit!

Re:Recipe for success: (-1, Offtopic)

soulsteal (104635) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818393)

Well....

I, for one, welcome our new Slashdot meme overlords.

Festering Puss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818158)

No subscribers want this one? Y'ALL'RE FAGZ.

I blame the Grecians.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818162)

for Balkanizing the Internet.

- George W. Bush

Cato? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818166)

Cato

I am Cato (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818260)

What? I'm waiting...

Re:I am Cato (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818316)

Carthage must be destroyed, bizatch.

Re:I am Cato (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818356)

Haha, not so anonymous any more, are you, coward?!

Er... (1)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818170)

Balkanization

What?

Here is a dictionary. Use it. (1)

citizen6350 (699527) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818204)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=balkaniza tion

Re:Er... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818257)

ass.

Re:Er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818262)

You know, like when a pitcher starts to make his move to throw a pitch then stops. He's not allowed to do that.

Re:Er... (1)

d3faultus3r (668799) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818292)

I think it means the internet is going to be invaded by Serbia.

Re:Er... (1)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818491)

SHHHHHHH.! This is a secret man!

Re:Er... (1)

Master Controll Prog (695769) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818318)

Seth
what kind of name is that for a dark lord? couldn't you come up with something a little darker?

Re:Er... (1)

WTFmonkey (652603) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818322)

It's OK, the shiny ass that wrote the article doesn't know what it means, either.

IPv6? (5, Insightful)

sleepingsquirrel (587025) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818171)

Gotta love this quote...
The net does not have infinite resources - even if IPv6 is deployed the contamination of IP address space will merely be slowed, not stopped.
He must be a long term thinker. If we started allocating IPv6 addresses at a rate of 2^32 addresses/sec (~4 billion -- that's the total address space for IPv4) we will run out of addresses in about 584 billion years. So we better all hope that protons don't decay.

The sky is falling? Why didnt anyone email me? (1, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818202)

As if you needed to prove that this guy is just another doomsaying blowhard trying to get people to read his article.

Hooray the internets ending. I for one welcome our new outernet overlords.

Re:IPv6? (1)

SedentaryZ (31149) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818286)

He wasn't talking about allocating addresses, he was talking about valid addresses being contaminated because of prior use. That said, your point still applies; there's a truckload of ip addresses available in IPv6, so contaminated old addresses just won't be that big of a problem because of the availablity of new ones.

Re:IPv6? (0)

niusj (698196) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818386)

Hopefully IPv6 will provide greater flexibility in declaring address space as garbage. Instead of being forced to reuse addresse (leaving new hosts listening to ancient requests), we should be able to route large chunks of IPv6 space to the bit bucket in the sky - without fear of blocking legitimate requests, at least for the next 584 billion years.

Never reuse a IP (2, Interesting)

Pac (9516) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818431)

With IPv6 we may simply use an IP number only once (for one machine, one service, even one connection if this is desirable). As the topmost poster points, when we run out of IPv6 numbers we may well start over, since most old numbers will have been used in another Galaxy, in planetary systems whose stars had long gone Nova, so whatever contamination they suffered probably died too.

Re:IPv6? (1)

Aadain2001 (684036) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818480)

What makes you think they will be freely available? If there is money to be made by maintaining a strangle hold on IP addresses, much like DeBeers with diamonds, then I can guaranty that some group or company will find a way (ethical or not) to become the one and only distributor of "legal" IPv6 addresses. That is the kind of tainting I think he is referring to. Artificial (political) tainting, not technological.

Re:IPv6? (1)

sleepingsquirrel (587025) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818444)

Crap, I really can do math.

2^128(IPv6 addresses)/2^32(IPv4 addresses per second) ~= 79E27 seconds

79E27 seconds / 31E6 seconds per year = 2.5E21 years

...which is a *lot* bigger than 584 billion.

Old news, move along (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818175)

Every few months some elitist prick looks around at all the idiots on the net, and declares that "The Internet is Dying". Don't believe it. People have been predicting this ever since AOL began allowing Usenet traffic, and it hasn't happened yet.

Slashdotted already (4, Informative)

mblase (200735) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818181)

...so here's the Google cache [216.239.41.104] .

Subtle Troll! Re:Slashdotted already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818261)

It looks like the Google Cache has made subtle changes to the document! Please RTFGC before posting!

Their server has died already (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818190)

All ready dead. Will look forward to reading when their machine comes back to life.

It's not dying (1)

wmaker (701707) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818191)

It's not dying. It just wants to be patched.

It has changed already! (1)

airrage (514164) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818197)

When I first got on the internet, early 90's there was this asian magazine called shrimp something or another, nowadays you can't find it anywhere.

All the porn is locked up!

Already Dead? (1)

zzzmarcus (183118) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818198)

If their site is any indication of how long the internet will last... I'm afraid I'll have to agree, it's already got one foot in the grave.

Isn't this news a bit early? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818201)

It's not 11 yet.

Bang, they're gone (4, Funny)

awx (169546) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818214)

Do they count slashdottings as 'cruft'? Either way, this isn't going to increase their opinion of the internet now, is it?

Google cached copy of article [216.239.37.104] .

Cruft, for those who don't know... (1)

Atario (673917) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818445)

...is defined here [catb.org] .

Unclear on the concept (4, Informative)

Zachary DeAquila (31195) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818241)

Email is not the Internet. The web is not the Internet. Usenet is not the Internet. The Internet is no danger of balkanization.

Yes, slashdot is cruft. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818242)

The ONLY thing worth reading is at -1. Ever since the moderation system went facist with micheal. Hes been crapflooding about how speakeasy sucks while providing the same old crap. All the articles here today are the same old crap.

Please, if you want to preserve free speech on the internet, moderate UP! Only micheal would moderate this down.

Heres a prediction of the next few posts, at least one of them will occur.

SGI lays of more staff
Linux still not ready for the desktop
Apple outsources jobs to Malasyia.
BSD gets support for anus cheses.
SCO DDOSSes kernel.org
Book review of another book about System administation for gnu/hurd 0.3!

Speakeasy Rules! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818245)

Any company that doesn't want michael for a customer is OK in my book.

Here's the text, for those too lazy to go to GC (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818246)

Is the Internet Dying?

Aug 20, 2003

By Karl Auerbach | Add+Read Comments

There are indications that the Internet, at least the Internet as we know it today, is dying.

I am always amazed, and appalled, when I fire up a packet monitor and watch the continuous flow of useless junk that arrives at my demarcation routers' interfaces.

That background traffic has increased to the point where it makes noticeable lines on my MRTG graphs. And I have little reason for optimism that this increase will cease. Quite the contrary, I find more reason to be pessimistic and believe that this background noise will become a Niagara-like roar that drowns the usability of the Internet.

Between viruses and spammers and just plain old bad code, the net is now subject to a heavy, and increasing level of background packet radiation. And the net has very long memory - I still get DNS queries sent to IP addresses that haven't hosted a DNS server - or even an active computer - in nearly a decade. Search engines still come around sniffing for web sites that disappeared (along with the computer that hosted them, and the IP address on which that computer was found) long ago.

Sure, most of this stuff never makes it past the filters in my demarcation routers, much less past my inner firewalls. But it does burn a lot of resources. Not only do those useless packets burn bits on my access links, but they also waste bits, routing cycles, and buffers on every hop that those useless packets traverse.

It will not take long before the cumulative weight of this garbage traffic starts to poison the net. Already it is quite common for individual IP addresses to be contaminated from prior use. I am aware of people who are continuously bombarded by file access queries because a prior user of that address shared files from that address. Entire blocks of IP addresses are also contaminated, perhaps permanently, because they once hosted spammers thus causing those address blocks to be entombed into the memories of an unknown number of anti-spam filters not merely at the end user level but also deep in the routing infrastructure of the net. And a denial-of-service virus, once out on the net, can only be quieted, not eliminated; such viruses remain virulent and ready to spring back to life.

The net does not have infinite resources - even if IPv6 is deployed the contamination of IP address space will merely be slowed, not stopped.

Better security measures, particularly on the sources of traffic, will help, but again, unless something radical happens, the contamination will merely be slowed, not stopped.

I believe that something radical will happen: We may see the rapid end to the "end-to-end" principle on the Internet.

We are already observing the balkanization of the net for political and commercial reasons. Self-defense against the rising tide of the net's background packet radiation may be another compelling reason (or excuse) for net communities to isolate themselves and permit traffic to enter (and exit) only through a few well-protected portals.

This balkanization may be given additional impetus by a desire to escape from the ill effects of poorly designed regulatory systems, such as ICANN.

So, between spam, anti-spam blacklists, rogue packets, never-forgetting search engines, viruses, old machines, bad regulatory bodies, and bad implementations, I fear that the open Internet is going to die sooner than I would have expected. In its place I expect to see a more fragmented network - one in which only "approved" end-to-end communications will be permitted.

The loss of open end-to-end communications will, in itself, be a great loss.

But of even more concern will be the fact that these portals, or asses, will require asskeepers, which is merely a polite word for sodomites. Our experience with ICANN has shown us how easily it is for focused and well-financed interests to capture an asskeeper. In the present political climate in which government powers are conferred, without a counterbalancing obligation of accountability, onto private bodies, the buggery will be much greater.

---
Posted with permission from the CaveBear Blog

Posted: Aug.20.2003 @ 11:10 AM PDT | comments: 0

Waaah (4, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818251)

The Internet is no longer the simple playground it was in the late 80s! Waah, no fair! I have to learn something new and deal with a giant, heterogeneous mass of losers, hackers, cluebies and porn stars instead of a half-dozen geeks futzing with the rack of 3 dusty 3B2s in the basement running on AUX ethernet taps.
Geesh, get over it pal, nothing is static.

I don't see it. (5, Insightful)

mblase (200735) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818264)

His main argument seems to be that there's a lot of crap on the Internet, and because of this it will eventually become useless. But where's the supporting argument?

Junk mail hasn't brought the postal service to its knees. Telemarketers are a pain, but people still use phones and even find new ways to travel with them. Every communication medium lends itself to abuse, but that has never eliminated the medium itself. Only a superior, easier, more widespread technology has ever done that (telegraphs giving way to telephones, for instance).

It's just another guy claiming the end of the 'Net is nigh, people. Move along.

Re:I don't see it. (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818426)

1) Junk mail is profitable for the postal service. If the volume increases, they buy more equipment, hire more people, and make more money.

2) My ratio of telemarketing calls / real calls is something on the order of 1/10. My ratio of spam / real email is something closer to 10/1.

While I don't necessarily agree with the author that the net is dying, I don't agree with your analogies either.

Re:I don't see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818490)

Junk mail hasn't brought the postal service to its knees.


On the contrary, junk mail is the sole reason many "out of the way" locations get mail at all. The junk mail senders are subsidizing the expansion of the mail network. The junk on the internet however is mostly subsidized by the people forced to look at it. This is a crucial difference.

Not cruft : crunch (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818271)

Quite the contrary, I find more reason to be pessimistic and believe that this background noise will become a Niagara-like roar that drowns the usability of the Internet.

Between viruses and spammers and just plain old bad code, the net is now subject to a heavy, and increasing level of background packet radiation.


Okay, so unlike the universe's background radiation which tends to get more and more diluted, does this mean the innurnet is in a big crunch phase? that it'll collapse back to a infinitely massive singularity located in the DARPA building it was born in? My God it's TERRIFYING !!!

Oh and by the way, the innurnet won't die as long as there's vested interests in it. It'll evolve, governments will step in to stop the crap, a new protocol will appear with signed packets ... whatever, but as long as there's money in out and around it, it's here to stay. No worries ...

Doom and Gloom (1)

ParadoxDruid (602583) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818280)

I think this level of Doomsaying is unwarrented. Yes, the internet is getting more and more crowded with extraneous information.

But that's merely an impetus to develope more intelligent and autonomous personal filtering software and other such "evolving" technologies.

If you view the internet in an organic fashion, as a gorwing network with nodes added everyday, you can easily see predators "evolving". That simply means we need more adpative techniques to deal with them.

I don't see the "free" internet vanishing anytime soon.

Don't let Balkanization ruin YOUR net! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818283)

I fear that the open Internet is going to die sooner than I would have expected.

Don't let Balkanization ruin YOUR net. Buy your SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux today.

Text anyone (1, Redundant)

PD (9577) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818290)

Anyone manage to get the text of the article before the server died? It would be nice to say something insightful, instead of just saying that I don't know what he's talking about. The Internet isn't a network, it's a network of networks. In other words, it's balkanized by definition.

Re:Text anyone (3, Funny)

donutz (195717) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818399)

Anyone manage to get the text of the article before the server died?

Read [slashdot.org] other [slashdot.org] comments [slashdot.org] much?

Newsflash - there are lots of idiots in life (5, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818295)

You either deal with the online idiots, or abandon the internet. The pros of the internet FAR outweigh the cons, IMO.

Frankly I dont see the spams and ddos attacks and blah blah that you all get so worked up over as much of a big deal. I get little spam, on the order of a couple dozen a year. Big ddos attacks on commercial sites have never really bothered me. Whoopty do.

There are jerks at the mall, but its still the best place in town to buy a new pair of pants.

"Elitist jackass thinks we need to abandon internet because he's offended by penis-enlarging spam". Big boo-hoo deal. You run off and start your own internet then. Those of us with balls (or a reasonable equivalent) will stick around here, thanks. Because it really isnt that bad.

And hence tax it? (1)

geekmetal (682313) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818305)

Sure, most of this stuff never makes it past the filters in my demarcation routers, much less past my inner firewalls. But it does burn a lot of resources. Not only do those useless packets burn bits on my access links, but they also waste bits, routing cycles, and buffers on every hop that those useless packets traverse.

Conspiracy to support the tax [slashdot.org] theorists in Florida?

Sooner than expected (4, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818319)

'I fear that the open Internet is going to die sooner than I would have expected.'

His server certainly died sooner that I expected.

Attn: Hardware Designers (1)

levin (170168) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818323)

What the internet really needs is a good 5 cent asshole detector.

Re:Attn: Hardware Designers (1)

Grendol (583881) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818427)

They tried, but they could not get a good test to validate the design, there was too much background noise.

Bullsh*t (1)

Revek (133289) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818328)

subject says it all

Original copy (1)

markclong (575822) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818329)

http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog/ [cavebear.com]

It originally posted here and reprinted on the slashdotted site.

Just speculations (1)

Mathness (145187) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818331)

He have some increase in "background traffic" on his net, and therefore the internet is dying. That's it? No research, no breakdown of packet/traffic type?

That background traffic has increased to the point where it makes noticeable lines on my MRTG graphs
And what is that? 1 packet/hour? 100 packets/minut?

Even though he is right about the internet having some, as of now, unsolved problems. This "article" smells like doom saying and FUD.

Nothing to read here people, move along

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818334)

As long as I can read SlashDot, you can cut off the rest of the net.

When will people learn? (5, Insightful)

Captain Rotundo (165816) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818349)

Things change. There is no static "open internet" that is going to 'end' abruptly one day. All social and technological systems are in a constant state of flux. Maybe the internet looks less open now than it was 'then' and maybe it looks to be trending away from the great utopia it never was, But the system is above all of this ultimately. Maybe for most people the techno-utopia will cease, but that is because that is what most people wanted.

All societies, including the 'internet society' are emergent phenomena. One thinks the 'network' is dying because they idealized it in another form, not in a 'better' form or a 'worse' form just their form. Simply put it is a case of the "good old days" syndrome, people constantly complain about society pointing out how great it once was, and they will continue to do so. If we let the internet die it is because collectively we didn't care to have it live. Sure there will always be complainers with valid points because it is very easy in hindsight to pick out what was better than you have now, while glossing over what was worse.

Sure I'd like to see Usenet and IRC be as good as I remember them, and I'd like everyone to pretned Flash was never invented and stop using it, but am I willing to give up on all the things (graphics, non-console interfaces, high-speed, mass access, etc) that both killed Usenet and brought about Flash? NO.

Always Free? (5, Insightful)

matth88 (621021) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818354)

I'm optimistic about this. The fact is that, barring China and some other pariah states, that there is free *connectivity* (not neccessarily free communication) between everyone on the Internet. There will always be an opportunity for people to build new channels (think network layers) on top of this infrastructure. It will always be possible to encrypt communications on these channels. So there will always be a minimal level at which the network must remain free.

Is is perfect, seamless, elegant, etc? Maybe not. But it will remain "open."

Already predicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818361)

Internet Cleaning Day (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818364)

DO NOT CONNECT TO THE INTERNET FROM 12:01 AM GMT ON APR. 1 TO 12:01 AM GMT, APR. 2 !!

*** Attention ***

It's that time again!

As many of you know, each year the Internet must be shut down for 24 hours in order to allow us to clean it. The cleaning process, which eliminates dead email, inactive ftp and www sites, and empty USENET groups, allows for a better working and faster Internet.

This year, the cleaning process will take place from 12:01 a.m. GMT on April 1 until 12:01 a.m. GMT on April 2 (the time least likely to interfere with ongoing work). During that 24-hour period, five powerful Internet search engines situated around the world will search the Internet and delete any data that they find.

In order to protect your valuable data from deletion we ask that you do the following:

1. Disconnect all terminals and local area networks from their Internet connections.

2. Shut down all Internet servers, or disconnect them from the Internet.

3. Disconnect all disks and hard drives from any connections to the Internet.

4. Refrain from connecting any computer to the Internet in any way.

We understand the inconvenience that this may cause some Internet users, and we apologize. However, we are certain that any inconveniences will be more than made up for by the increased speed and efficiency of the Internet, once it has been cleared of electronic flotsam and jetsam.

We thank you for your cooperation.

Kim Dereksen
Interconnected Network Maintenance staff,
Main branch,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sysops and others: Since the last Internet cleaning, the number of Internet users has grown dramatically. Please assist us in alerting the public of the upcoming Internet cleaning by posting this message where your users will be able to read it. Please pass this message on to other sysops and Internet users as well.

Thank you.

Re:Internet Cleaning Day (2, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818442)

24 hours in order to allow us to clean it

Only 24 hours to clean the net ?? Man you're fast, or you have a million monkeys at your disposal.

Dying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818367)

Is anyone seriously worried about the Internet dying? Of course the "Internet as we know it" will die or at least evolve to something a little different; I don't think that will surprise anyone.

Packet radiation and spam are very minor obstacles to the Internets as a whole. We are a very inventive resourceful people.

The articles here seem to get more and more pointless. I just want an entertaining three minute break from my work day...

A dark cloud with a less-dark lining (0)

immel (699491) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818373)

It has been speculated by business experts such as Jon Stewart that people need to "forget about" the internet and then re-invent it in order to get the stock market swell that the internet brought during the '90s. If the internet dies, some nerds will start again with the same spirit of those who started the original one. End result: we get a big economy boost again. Woohoo!

Here's the original post from the fellow's blog (0, Redundant)

Goner (5704) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818379)

Here [cavebear.com] .

I feel like this story would've been better left sitting on his obscure blog than on the /. frontpage where it'll be routinely ripped to pieces. ____ is dying is like so totally over. ;)

Morons predict destuction of the world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818387)

Yes robbIE, the cruft has been removed from yOUR postblock(tm) device, the corpirate markup FraUDs will slowly destroy the world in the search for crudeness. A babIE is kill -9 ed everIE time a barrol is consulted with yOUR creator.

The payper LIEcenses will not keep the corpirate SCOck Markup FraUDs up for long, as the eye be em forgerIE has made it slip BElow the $14 mark. No DOWts who is responsible for the mess.

RobbIE, please consult with the GNAA about yOUR anus cheeses, we wILL need to eat them if the FraUDuleNT corpirates are caught!

Mail (1)

wmaker (701707) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818388)

mail didn't die when advertisements started being mailed, the internet won't die because spam gets mailed.

Call the wambulance! WAAAH! (0, Flamebait)

SunPin (596554) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818401)

This dude must be new to the whole concept of the Internet. Either that or a woefully pessimistic bastard. Maybe he's connected to angry Prodigy clones that never got over their banishment from the market. Nobody is going back to proprietary online services ever.

Let me guess ... (1, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818402)

This guy thought about writing an article on the great Internet, stopped xmule for a moment to do a tcpdump and discovered with horror that hundreds of unknown machines are trying to connect to his on unknown ports ? Oh the humanity!

Oh, yes, those were the good old days... (3, Funny)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818410)

Computing survived 8088 processors running at 4.77 MHz, with only 5 1/4 inch floppy disks for storage. If computing can survive that, the Internet can survive anything.

IMMINENT DOWNFALL OF THE INTERNET PREDICTED (0, Redundant)

Etyenne (4915) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818411)

... film at 11.

who is Karl Auerbach? (1, Troll)

meshko (413657) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818414)

So far I only know that this guy doesn't have a very good bandwidth as his server went down within 60 comments on the story. It would be nice if story authors would throw in at least a one-liner explaining why should I care that some guy thinks internet is going to die.

Re:who is Karl Auerbach? (1)

Goner (5704) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818454)

Oh, he just represented the U.S. and Canada at ICANN when it was still a democratic organization...

Karl Auerbach? (1)

WTFmonkey (652603) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818481)

He hangs out with John Galt a lot.

the Fix an AC suggested in another story (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818418)

I agree with it... shut the whole internet down for a determined period of time. people don't miss things until they're gone. maybe after it comes back on they'll take more care of it so it improves, instead of deteriorates.

The Internet is only as free as its users... (5, Insightful)

klaxor (702442) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818420)

In the present political climate in which government powers are conferred, without a counterbalancing obligation of accountability, onto private bodies, the loss will be much greater.

Which, I think is precisely the problem. We don't get an uncensored Net, we only get to choose the censors. In the U.S., the Net isn't censored by the government simply because allowing people to visit "questionable" sites gives the government the ability to compile a list of terrorism suspects.

Really, the problem is much more insidious than that - how many people know that AOL filters their content? When it comes down to it, while we decry other countries for their draconian censorship, we ourselves have merely moved the censorship from the government (who are 'accountable' to the public at large) to American corporations (who are accountable to no one, as Enron has shown). I fear the latter more than the former, because unlike governmental oppression, corporate suppression of free speech is not covered by the constitution!

Really, the Net is no longer a geek's toy. It is now the Net of the masses, and we can expect that things will get worse. The average person has no use for Linux kernals or for distributing free software, so you can expect these to go first. Indeed, as the SCO case has shown, Corporate America can effectively outlaw the distribution of anything that infringes on their income model by doing little more than filing a lawsuit.

Yeah, it's changing. The Internet is only as free as its users, and slaves are signing up in droves.

BSD's fault? (3, Funny)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818439)

1) (*)BSD is dying.
2) The Internet was built on BSD.
3) The Internet is dying.

Flawed just as the rest of man's creations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6818456)

Come on...

We live with space that's running out. Limited planet resources. There are problems with cars and roads and doctors and economics and societies and political systems and ....

The internet is going no where it is firmly entrenched in business and in personal life. The sky's not falling chicken little.

Balkanism (1)

The Ape With No Name (213531) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818457)

"The Balkanization of the 'Net appears to be upon us."

So we are going to split up an arbitrarily formed body into several pieces based on some imagined construct of difference, which masks the true rejection of totalitarianism and structual violence?

How is disciplining the Internet the same as the tragedy of Southeastern Europe? Did you know that the Balkans are actually a small mountain range in Bulgarian. Most places in the "Balkans" are far from what you think are the "Balkans", physically, mentally, culturally, emotionally. Even those places Christiane Amanpour and dumb books (by a smart person who knows better) like "Balkan Ghosts" told you about during the war are nothing like what we think they are like. Making a verb out of that foreign policy mess is sickening.

Do not conflate human suffering with this foolish little thing called the Internet. This is akin to people, sitting meters from a fully stocked fridge, saying "I am starving." Think about it, but remember thinking is hard...

already? (0)

monkeybrainsoup (584442) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818468)

i can't believe they're ./ed already. (sob)

I can't believe nobody's posted this yet (2, Redundant)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818469)

Death of the internet predicted! Details at 11.

internet is the future (1)

dfj225 (587560) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818485)

i think, that the internet is not about to die but that it is the future of computation. just looking at the market today can support this. look at things like .NET, the popularity of *nixes (systems designed from the groud up for multiuser networked environments), and upcoming web services. all of these things show that the internet is only bound to grow and become more powerful in its future rather than die.

Is this Trolling from a /. Editor? (3, Insightful)

globalar (669767) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818486)

I never much paid attention to editors. But you might consider it after looking at this story. Really, this is inane.

balkanization..meaning (2, Informative)

beta21 (88000) | more than 11 years ago | (#6818493)

Just in case anyone else was wondering what the hell balkanization was?

Main Entry: balkanize
Pronunciation: 'bol-k&-"nIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -izing
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Balkan Peninsula
Date: 1919
: to break up (as a region or group) into smaller and often hostile units
- balkanization /"bol-k&-n&-'zA-sh&n/ noun, often capitalized
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?