Re: Statements against new.net?

[Marshall Eubanks <tme () 21rst-century com>]

How does any of this help me configure my router ?

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > From: Scott Francis [mailto:scott () virtualis com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:13 PM
>
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:47:05PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell
> > had this to say:
> > > > Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large
> > majority of 1) users,
> > > > and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two particular
> > > > segments of the population tend to be.
> > >
> > > Well, those are the people defining your paycheck, sure you
> > want to write
> > > them off so quickly?
> >
> > the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for
> > technical expertise -
>
> Not! They pay for connectivity and for you to meet their expectations.
> Operators are NOT programmers. Operators didn't build the system,
> programmers did. Operators are hired to simply keep the system running.
> Guess who they both work for? ... that's right, Managers whom report to
> owners/stockholders, who want you to keep customers happy, so that they make
> more money. Your technical expertise is almost incidental to that process.
>
> > if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make
> > informed decisions on this type of matter, why would he need
> > to hire a network operator?
>
> Because they would rather be doing more important things, like make money,
> pay mortgages, go on vacation ... It's the reason that AOL stays in
> business.
>
> > I'm not saying that users, clients and management don't have
> > their place -
>
> Wrongo, they don't have a place, they OWN the place! Whatever else they may
> be, the customer is always right! You are simply their servent.
>
> > but I _AM_ saying that place is _not_ in making critical
> > _technical_ decisions that will have a significant,
> > possibly severely detrimental, effect on the
> > future of the networks they have hired _us_ to operate for them.
>
> I remember such statements, from the IBM priest-hood, in the early 80's. It
> was considered beyond arrogant, even then. Tell this to your CEO. They will
> humor you and then do what they want anyway. They may, or maynot, keep you
> around. But, you will certainly be marked  as a typical geek-without-clue
> and upward mobility will thereafter be restricted. It's called a
> glass-ceiling. Back in the day ... you rarely saw ex-IBM System Operators
> higher than middle-management.
>
> > > You might want to take a long, careful, hard look at who has been doing
> > > the sanctioning and how they've been making those decisions before
> jumping
> > > on the bandwagon. Just a friendly suggestion.
> >
> > This whole matter boils down to one question - that being,
> > what way is the
> > Right Way to operate DNS or its equivalent? It seems to me
> > (and a few others)
> > that, logically, any hierarchical system _must_ have an
> > ultimate authority -
> > not 2 or 3 or 27, which is essentially what new.net is trying
> > to do: create an alternate ultimate authority. How exactly will a user
> know
> > which site foo.com takes them to, if new.net's response and the rest of
> > the Internet's response a la *.root-servers.net don't jibe? The concept of
>
> > unique and separate
> > domains breaks down when you have conflicting responses to
> > the question, "Where
> > does this domain actually point?"
> >
> > What some of us are saying is the new.net concept in its current forms is
> > _guaranteed_ to create exactly that kind of confusion, all arguments about
> > politics or alternate addressing possibilities aside.




--
                                 Regards
                                 Marshall Eubanks



T.M. Eubanks
Multicast Technologies, Inc
10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone : 703-293-9624
Fax     : 703-293-9609
e-mail : tme () on-the-i com     tme () multicasttech com

http://www.on-the-i.com http://www.buzzwaves.com