IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New It is indeed scary.
It's hard to imagine IP numbers not eventually being tied to owners the way he suggests. But MS having control over TCP/IP would be a very scary thing indeed. His last comment seems to suggest that he doesn't think it would work though. I'm not so sure...

Interesting article.

What do you folks think about it? How could MS be prevented from implementing a "secure", MS-only, "TCP/MS" and hijacking the internet protocol?

Cheers,
Scott.
New Nope.
If you think they have antitrust problems NOW...

The first time that new protocol gave anyone any problems, they'd have injunctions up the wazoo.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New But would that stop them from implementing it?
They still think they're going to be able to buy a fix on this whole anti-trust thing and get it swept under the carpet. These are people who haven't the slightest hint of respect for law or government - they just think they haven't found the right people to pay off yet.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Nope.
But it's a few years away, and by then they will have been smacked down severely.

District court injunctions are pretty quick to implement.

I just don't think it's that doable on Microsoft's part.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New Well, it might be self fixing.
Given the security quality of Microsoft's offerings, what's to say TCP/MS won't be hacked immediately and become the vector of choice for invading systems and transmitting worms, trojans and viruses, as well as for industrial espionage?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
     Cringley on MS's possible plan..... - (addison) - (27)
         It is indeed scary. - (Another Scott) - (4)
             Nope. - (admin) - (2)
                 But would that stop them from implementing it? - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                     Nope. - (admin)
             Well, it might be self fixing. - (Andrew Grygus)
         MS couldn't even write a decent TCP/IP stack. - (Brandioch) - (11)
             Actually, I think he has a different point. - (static)
             Re: MS couldn't even write a decent TCP/IP stack. - (acagle) - (8)
                 Re: MS couldn't even write a decent TCP/IP stack. - (tjsinclair) - (7)
                     Windows ME winsock.dll copyright says it's Microsoft's. - (a6l6e6x) - (6)
                         So why does it say BSD if it's Microsoft's? -NT - (tjsinclair) - (5)
                             API, not implementation - (kmself) - (4)
                                 What he said! :) I agree. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                 Tried a google search - (wharris2) - (2)
                                     ID number was a point. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                         Re: ID number was a point. - (wharris2)
             the source they released for their original winsock 89? 90? - (boxley)
         they tried this once before and almost lost the company - (boxley) - (9)
             OT - RE; NetWare - (tjsinclair) - (8)
                 Killed? No . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7)
                     So nothing's changed - (tjsinclair)
                     Actually... - (addison) - (5)
                         All the more reason . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                             Pure genius? - (wharris2) - (3)
                                 It may seem stupid to technical person . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                     You mean the DB2 ads, right? - (wharris2)
                                 hey, I still have one of those OS/2 shirts.... -NT - (cforde)

The honey tastes sweeter when you anger the bees.
54 ms