IPv6 *is* like AMD
Posted Jan 28, 2011 8:48 UTC (Fri) by khim
In reply to: IPv6 *is* like AMD
Parent article: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net
Ad hominem attacks against DJB-- or anyone else for that matter-- don't prove anything.
Sure, but noone attacks DJB. They attack DJBfiles who push his stupid paln against any logic. And the only question people are asking is: how will this solve real problem - the lack of agreement among ISPs?
The successful transitions always involved a "no regressions" philosophy where existing setups would continue to work just as well, or possibly better, after being upgraded.
Sure. That's why you hand-picked them, right? Let's consider different set of successful transitions: LP to CD, VHS to DVD, TV to DTV, and, heck, even NCP to IPv6. In all cases transition made existing setups either completely useless with no upgrade path or required to change setup just to have the same amount of basic functionality. Now let's consider all these cases one-after-another.
LP -> CD: it was supported from the day one by recording companies. They agreed to participate before the first sale of equipment happened.
VHS -> DVD: the same. Earlier VHS-relpacements (like Laserdisk or Video-CD) were unable to only to replace VHS but to even gain significant traction. Yet DVD pushed VHS to obscurity even if "existing setups" become useless and "upgrade" was worse in many cases (most DVD players had no recording capabilities). Dual-stack players were used for some time, but when major studios stopped selling VHS with new movies - it went away.
TV -> DTV: you needed adapters to watch old channels. Switch was successful because neither TV stations nor users had a choice.
NCP -> IPv4: the same. Internet backbone was switched to IPv4 and you had no way to continue to use Internet without upgrade.
x86 -> x86_64: stagnated for years, only become mainstream when Microsoft (which had a monopoly) started pushing Windows x64 hard. When it was just an offer (Windows XP x64) it was mostly ignored.
Apple's PPC -> x86 transition: my way or the highway. Apple just stopped offering PPC hardware so you had to update - or lose Mac users as customers.
DOS -> Windows: this is the closest case to the IPv4 -> IPv6 transition. Windows was promised in Las-Vegas in 1983, showed in 1985, stagnated for years (the first version to gained recognition and not laughs was Windows 3.0 released in 1990) and it only "killed" DOS when Microsoft stopped selling MS DOS separately after release of Windows 95.
Some examples of failed transitions are Commodore 64 to Commodore 128, x86 to Itanium, and the Apple ][ to the Apple III.
Commodore 64 -> Commodore 128: good example. Unlike Commodore Plus/4 this model was compatible with Commodore 64. Yet it didn't help because computing ladscape changed and people switched to incompatible offers (IBM PC and Mac).
x86 -> Itanium. Itanium successfully killeed incompatible Alpha, PA-RISC, and MIPS (this one only workstations; it was revived as embedded CPU), yet failed to do the same with compatible i386 - because there it had viable and cheaper rival.
Apple ][ -> the Apple III: Again - business moved to incompatibe IBM PC, not to compatible Apple III. There were many reasons, but in the end it was because alternative was available and it was just better.
The failed transitions all have something in common: the people in charge underestimated the importance of having a transition plan.
Well, not exactly. In all cases there was a transition plan - but people found another, often incompatible alternative - and used that.
Transition plan is important, that's absolutely true, but the compatibility itself is not important. In you examples of unsuccessful transitions two times out of three people switched to incompatible alternative where "existing setups" were useless - not to compatible, yet unwanted, "upgrade".
Of course, you're free to disagree with me and insist that IP is fundamentally different than the other transitions described above. But at least give reasons.
It's not different at all: people are choosing the best alternative available. If it's compatible or not is of little importance. Concerted push (like with DVD) or monopoly (like with DTV) may change things rapidly, but "better compatibility mode" only helps you if you have strong backers.
to post comments)