Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates speaks with CNET News.com's Ina Fried and discusses his vision of each home having a server that will host files for multiple PCs.
Almost contradicting the video though, the Yahoo/AP article quotes Gate's presentation thusly:
But more work remains, Gates said.
"There's still a lot to be done there, especially when you get into rights-oriented content and how simple that can be made so the creative people are happy with it and yet the flexibility (for consumers) is there," he said.
Yahoo also gets the prize for spelling.
Shouldn't "independent" sources at least pick their own headlines?
Ooops. Never mind that idea!
So, the question is: Isn't this so very yesterday?
Is a Windows file server in the home a rescue mission for mass-consumer client/server architecture?
If it makes sense for me to house all my files on a central machine that can be easily accessed by all the other machines in the house (and haven't quite a few of us done this already?) then why doesn't it make more sense to house all my files at Google/MSN/Yahoo/etc?
Wouldn't a good first step toward the "computer is the network" paradigm be a final discarding the SMB file sharing? Buggy, undocumented, exploit prone, it has nothing going for it other than being lowest common denominator technology.
Will the Gates version of what many of us are already doing only work if everything in the house is running Windows or some other product from Microsoft?
Raise your hand if you are not interested in such a solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment