Rich Graves
Since I ordinarily do nothing but bash the journal of hype and unreadable blue-on-orange type, I figured I should express appreciation for Steve Steinberg's "Netheads vs. Bellheads" article starting on page 145 of the October issue. The ATM v. real networks battle is one that is becoming increasingly important at gads of institutions, such as mine.
I liked this article too because it does anticipate something crucial going on in the telecommunications/cyberspace arena. however I think it's a huge disservice to cast the future of the internet in terms of a black/white either/or situation of packet vs. circuit switching (you're already hot into the emotional rhetoric by calling the latter "bit mangling"). who here believes that circuit switching is superior to packet switching or vice versa? it's a lame debate, like arguing whether apples or oranges taste better. the future network is going to be a blending of both. it will be a collision of the cultures mentioned in the article you cite. it won't be a battle, it'll be a blending. both sides already concede that the other side has advantages. already protocols are being designed that incorporate both technologies.
I'd urge people in positions of technical or budgetary responsibility to line up with the good guys, i.e., us netheads.
give me a break. what you are essentially arguing about in the two technologies is a timed, guaranteed bandwidth vs. packets that arrive but without timing constraints. depending on the application, either may be the appropriate choice. the network of the future will support both. please, please do not try to polarize this simple issue. there is absolutely no doubt that much technology, such as audio/video broadcasting, needs "guaranteed bandwidth" as offered by ATM. there is also no doubt that support thing kind of guaranteed bandwidth is expensive and not superior for all applications. You don't
want an Internet controlled by ATM technology. It would make censorship, wiretapping, and other forms of nastiness by government and other armed thugs far too easy. I'm speaking only for myself, of course, and of course there are technical reasons I'd prefer to implement gigabit Ethernet as well.
oh, brother. "circuit switching is the mark of the beast". I find it rare to find technically adept people holding such irrational, almost religious-like beliefs about technology. but it is highly entertaining <g> it never ceases to amaze me how much FUD is generated when a new technology is introduced. a bazillion people all cower and scream, "gosh, could [x] mean the end of [y]?" apparently this is far more fun than realizing, "gosh, [x] will find a niche ALONGSIDE [y], but neither will destroy the other". this happened with Java and all the new languages, it happens with the "network computer", etc. ad nauseaum. sigh!! maybe it is a sign of a certain kind of intelligence that can't simultaneously hold two ideas at the same time (like walking and chewing gum? hee, hee)