Article

2006-03-28 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-03-28 08:49|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Fred can start the Navy project just as soon as he gets the FBI systems whipped into shape.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-03-28 09:26|| 2006-03-28 09:26|| Front Page Top

#2 In computing, networking and decentralization have two different functions. The function of networking is communications, the function of decentralization is individual efficiency and security.

In truth you cannot have the best of both worlds, and for a logical reason. People can either focus on the task at hand, or they can focus on communicating something with other people.

You can either bake a cake, or argue with a hundred people about *how* you should bake a cake. Reaching agreements, consensus, approvals, and going through the rest of the "process". This shoots the heck out of efficiency and security.

Invariably, people will know a "better way" of doing something than what is available on the network, and individually efficient, they will use that to give themselves better results. But that will conflict with the network.

In other words, this system is doomed to less-than-satisfactory results.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-28 09:28|| 2006-03-28 09:28|| Front Page Top

#3 NMCI is a piece of crap!

However, the article is wrong on one point. When you are in NMCI, you cannot use a commercial e-mail account like Yahoo, AOL or Hotmail; the system blocks it. If you want to do that, you'll have to step outside the building and find an Internet cafe.

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-03-28 10:05|| 2006-03-28 10:05|| Front Page Top

#4 Wow! You mean that if you encrypt every bit, the processing efficiency goes down? Who would have thought of that? ;)

That's why I have a love/hate relationship with firewalls, or as I call them, LIDs (Latency Introduction Devices).

Anonymoose, if you are talking about bureaucratic process, then I'm in agreement. But if you're talking about technology/communications, I've got to disagree at bit. Decentralization increases processing power and efficiency, but as a network scales upward, standardization is critical to network efficiency. Otherwise, you spend all your resources on maintaining a patchwork quilt of a network trying to accommodate a million one-offs.

Pyscho Hillbilly Network Design Engineer
Slayer of Routing Loops
Buyer of Doughnuts on Fridays

Posted by psychohillbilly 2006-03-28 12:57|| 2006-03-28 12:57|| Front Page Top

#5 psychohillbilly: actually both.

Not just the bureaucratic process, but as you said, "standardization is critical to network efficiency."

But that is network efficiency, not individual efficiency.

I see it as like the old argument of speed vs. maneuverability in aircraft. The more stadardized you make the network, the less diverse it becomes, almost by definition.

Remember when corporations used to inspect for employees who would bring their Macintosh to work, because they could do their job so much better on it, than on a networked IBM? They *wanted* to do a better job than the network would allow.

Even today, many corporations routinely confiscate "non-standard hardware" used by people to do their job better, but that is not compatible with the business hardware and software they use. It is a Dilbert-esque nightmare.

So, in the final analysis, network standardization is great for the people upstairs, who work with a limited number of variables to produce similar outcomes. The people down the chain end up having to be forced to "make it fit", even when it is clearly inefficient and inappropriate. And they know a better way.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-28 13:37|| 2006-03-28 13:37|| Front Page Top

#6 Anonymoose sayeth: "Remember when corporations used to inspect for employees who would bring their Macintosh to work, because they could do their job so much better on it, than on a networked IBM?"

Oh, you bet I remember. I'm the guy that took 'em out back and shot 'em. Do you know how easy it was to kill a network with Apple Talk!? :) Same thing with IPX on Netware. Notice how they both utilize IP now?

You make some good points and I don't totally disagree with you. Individual initiative and innovation should be encouraged and rewarded for sure and an oppressive bureaucratic process shouldn't stifle it. But you take the winning innovations and adapt them to be compatible with the network as a whole. If the greatest thing since sliced bread kills the network, nobody gets any bread. How efficient is that? Dicking around with a very large scale network, even on a localized level, can set off a catastrophic event cascade. Believe me. I've been there, done that and got the burnt comm gear to prove it.

Posted by psychohillbilly 2006-03-28 14:33|| 2006-03-28 14:33|| Front Page Top

23:56 Crap
23:54 Crap
23:52 BigEd
23:35 Broadhead6
23:23 Fred
23:14 Some Dude
22:45 mac
22:19 RD
22:12 Old Patriot
22:12 Old Patriot
22:10 RD
21:58 Zhang Fei
21:49 Slotle Sloluck9318
21:38 Sleth Hupaise1082
21:33 trailing wife
21:32 trailing wife
21:30 trailing wife
21:28 Anonymoose
21:24 Beau
21:21 Eric Jablow
21:21 Darrell
21:13 Redneck Jim
20:49 Zhang Fei
20:40 Redneck Jim