google

Google Referral

July 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by Typepad

« WebIS Pocket Informant v8 and Birdsoft eXtreme Agenda v3.1, a comparison | Main | Quarterly results - Apple keeps on trucking, Microsoft skids »

April 22, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chris Carlin

The article's a puff piece full over oversimplifications and people patting themselves on the back.

Most significantly, it completely fails to tell the other side of the story. While it lays out the view from one particular group of academics (a group seeking funding, mind you), it fails to mention the viewpoints of other academics or of the entire industry that actually builds and operates the services.

Let's hope, firstly, the relevant organizations take a good hard look at whether to provide this funding, and secondly, that not too many people take this article to heart.

Stephen Skarlatos

Off course this is a fluff piece, it is an alumni magazine written by an alumnus about alumni. But that does not take away the fact that it is informative and provides some historical insight for people who are not familiar with the subject.

The article does provide a tidbit of the opposition view. I still believe we need a revolutionary rather than evolutionary approach to fixing the issues of the Internet's infrastructure. Let's face it we have a deck of cards which theoretically could crumble at any time, although I have to concede that the historical data has shown the infrastructure to be resilient.

However, as users want more and more real time data, I am not sure our good fortune will continue without major upgrades.

The comments to this entry are closed.