Is this the new Y2K scam?

[Henry Spencer]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 waltdnes-SLHPyeZ9y/tg9hUCZPvPmw at public.gmane.org wrote:
> > See the URL Hugh quoted for one example of a server they might want
> > to run:  a receiver for voice-over-IP phone calls.  More generally,
> > any service which must be interactive, which can't run in a
> > store-and-forward mode like mail, needs to go direct.
> 
>   Voice apps, like Speak-Freely, could go over the public net to a
> designated port at the corporate gateway.  From there, they could go to
> a central PBX at work, and then be routed to the appropriate client...

It could be done that way, but note that this is basically make-work for
the central server -- it adds no value, considerable complexity, and
probably substantial propagation delay, especially since it will have to
unpack and repackage the data rather than just relaying packets.  This
could easily turn a viable application into a useless toy. 

> > Mail is the exception, not the rule.
> 
>   There is a shared characteristic... do you *REALLY* want to have a
> server, listening to the internet, on every desktop at work ?

If it's providing a useful service, why not? 

I think you're falling into the trap Hugh alluded to, of thinking of the
Internet as providers plus consumers, rather than peers.  (Historically,
this has been encouraged by the fact that a lot of the desktop machines
ran "operating systems" which couldn't walk and chew gum simultaneously.)
There is no reason why running a server on a desktop machine should be
considered inherently peculiar.  Desktops are not second-class machines.

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       henry-lqW1N6Cllo0sV2N9l4h3zg at public.gmane.org

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml