Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The browser is the key piece (was Re: [decentralization] De-centralizing single sign on.)

Expand Messages
  • Todd Boyle
    ... I don t know if you re prodding developers to develop, or telling the yakkers to stop yakking? Just as in the classroom, there are geniuses, and ordinary
    Message 1 of 27 , Sep 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:25 AM 9/5/01, Bram Cohen wrote:
      >All this yakking will amount to nought if none of you intend to actually
      >*implement* anything.
      >
      >-Bram Cohen
      >
      >"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
      > -- John Maynard Keynes

      I don't know if you're prodding developers to develop, or telling
      the yakkers to stop yakking?

      Just as in the classroom, there are geniuses, and ordinary folks.

      Even if you're a genius, and don't need the yakking, some of
      us benefit from it. You should probably filter me,

      Todd

      --' and you wise men don't know how it feels...
      to be thick as a brick'
    • Bill Kearney
      ... actually ... My point exactly. All this FUD about how Microsoft is evil ignores the fact that they have workable solutions in place, NOW. Not some future
      Message 2 of 27 , Sep 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In decentralization@y..., Bram Cohen <BRAM@G...> wrote:
        > All this yakking will amount to nought if none of you intend to
        actually
        > *implement* anything.

        My point exactly. All this FUD about how Microsoft is evil ignores
        the fact that they have workable solutions in place, NOW. Not some
        future set of possibilities but real software that can be used TODAY.

        This, I think, leads into the troubling area of intellectual property
        theft. I'm amazed to see the number of programmers that are afraid
        to even look at another product for fear of somehow being tainted.

        If something like Microsoft's hailstorm and passport are sufficiently
        suitable then is it wrong to mimic them? Or would that be stealing
        their IP? Perhaps all the naysayers out there are among the non-
        disclosure bound group that saw the initial hailstorm presentations.
        While they might be obligated not to discuss what they've seen, maybe
        they're trying to make MS look bad enough for other ideas
        to 'suddenly emerge' and replace it.

        But enough with the conspiracy theories.

        -Bill Kearney
      • Bram Cohen
        ... Yeesh. Not everything is covered under property law (slavery comes to mind). If you don t sign an NDA and don t outright rip off code, then unless it s
        Message 3 of 27 , Sep 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Bill Kearney wrote:

          > This, I think, leads into the troubling area of intellectual property
          > theft. I'm amazed to see the number of programmers that are afraid
          > to even look at another product for fear of somehow being tainted.

          Yeesh. Not everything is covered under property law (slavery comes to
          mind). If you don't sign an NDA and don't outright rip off code, then
          unless it's patented you're in the clear.

          Of course, everything is patented, but that's a whole other issue.

          -Bram Cohen

          "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
          -- John Maynard Keynes
        • Eric M. Hopper
          ... Oh, I will never, ever use a Microsoft solution because every single one is designed to trap you into their world. I may consider using them once they
          Message 4 of 27 , Sep 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 11:17:59PM -0000, Bill Kearney wrote:
            > --- In decentralization@y..., Bram Cohen <BRAM@G...> wrote:
            > > All this yakking will amount to nought if none of you intend to
            > actually
            > > *implement* anything.
            >
            > My point exactly. All this FUD about how Microsoft is evil ignores
            > the fact that they have workable solutions in place, NOW. Not some
            > future set of possibilities but real software that can be used TODAY.

            Oh, I will never, ever use a Microsoft solution because every
            single one is designed to trap you into their world. I may consider
            using them once they have demonstrated that this has changed, but as
            yet, they haven't. It will take a transformation on the order of IBMs
            to convince me of this.

            Have fun (if at all possible),
            --
            "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
            It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --- Thomas Jefferson
            "Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain
            -- Eric Hopper (hopper@... http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper) --
          • Brian Behlendorf
            ... Me, to Craig Mundie, Senior VP at Microsoft, at the ORA OSCON in San Diego in July, in front of a large audience: Does Microsoft own patents on Passport
            Message 5 of 27 , Sep 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Bill Kearney wrote:
              > If something like Microsoft's hailstorm and passport are sufficiently
              > suitable then is it wrong to mimic them?

              Me, to Craig Mundie, Senior VP at Microsoft, at the ORA OSCON in San Diego
              in July, in front of a large audience:

              "Does Microsoft own patents on Passport and Hailstorm that they will
              enforce against independent implementations?"

              Mundie:

              "Yes, of course."

              No conspiracy theories needed.

              I've been looking around for patents dealing with the idea of single
              sign-on (since Kerberos has been around so long I doubt there are any
              worth worrying about) as well as the idea of "context services" a la
              Hailstorm (LDAP being around so long kinda makes me doubt there are, but
              who knows). Anyone have knowlege/experience in this space?

              Brian
            • Julian Bond
              In article , Eric M. Hopper writes ... I m curious about this. Developers seem to fall into
              Message 6 of 27 , Sep 5, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                In article <20010905213622.A25102@...>, Eric M. Hopper
                <hopper@...> writes
                > Oh, I will never, ever use a Microsoft solution because every
                >single one is designed to trap you into their world. I may consider
                >using them once they have demonstrated that this has changed, but as
                >yet, they haven't. It will take a transformation on the order of IBMs
                >to convince me of this.

                I'm curious about this. Developers seem to fall into either the pro or
                anti camp and stay there. I'm seeing a lot of corporate jobs that
                require VB6, ADO, .Net, SQL SVR etc etc and another set that require
                J2EE, EJB etc. But they're very rarely combined. From the corp
                standpoint MS is hard to ignore because those hoards of microserfs keep
                churning out code. The end result is projects like this one.
                http://www.aspelle.com As far as I can tell, they've implemented and are
                using real WAN access via thin clients and SSL fire wall tunnelling to
                the corporate systems. And all just by cobbling together the current set
                of MS code.

                --
                Julian Bond email: julian_bond@...
                CV/Resume: http://www.voidstar.com/cv/
                WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/
                HomeURL: http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk/
                M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                ICQ:33679568 tag:So many words, so little time
              • Lucas Gonze
                ... I believe that copyrights on the schema are at least as important. If there s an OSS toolkit for handling some schema, will that be threatened even if it
                Message 7 of 27 , Sep 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  > "Does Microsoft own patents on Passport and Hailstorm that they will
                  > enforce against independent implementations?"
                  ...
                  > "Yes, of course."

                  I believe that copyrights on the schema are at least as important. If there's
                  an OSS toolkit for handling some schema, will that be threatened even if it
                  doesn't use patented methods? What are the dividing lines between W3C standards
                  (which are supposed to be free of IP restrictions) and MS' proprietary
                  extensions?

                  ...not to mention that it's pretty wierd, on an intuitive level, to consider use
                  of a schema something that could violate a copyright, since an actual instance
                  of the schema would be a mix of new and standard content. This is really a gray
                  area between a patent and a copyright. I wonder what the outcome would be of a
                  court challenge to the idea of copyrighting schema?

                  - Lucas
                • Bram Cohen
                  ... I believe not except for DMCA restrictions, which are actually quite far-reaching and scary, but untested in court. With regards to Passport specifically,
                  Message 8 of 27 , Sep 6, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Lucas Gonze wrote:

                    > I believe that copyrights on the schema are at least as important. If there's
                    > an OSS toolkit for handling some schema, will that be threatened even if it
                    > doesn't use patented methods?

                    I believe not except for DMCA restrictions, which are actually quite
                    far-reaching and scary, but untested in court.

                    With regards to Passport specifically, I believe it has a hard-coded
                    central key, so reproducing it completely verbatim would be pointless
                    anyway.

                    > This is really a gray area between a patent and a copyright.

                    No there isn't - if something isn't covered by copyright or patent or
                    trademark, it isn't intellectual property. (Except for trade
                    secrets.)

                    -Bram Cohen

                    "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
                    -- John Maynard Keynes
                  • Wesley Felter
                    ... IIRC there is precedent saying that APIs, protocols, and file formats are not copyrightable because they are not expressive. A schema is a file format and
                    Message 9 of 27 , Sep 6, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Lucas Gonze wrote:

                      > > "Does Microsoft own patents on Passport and Hailstorm that they will
                      > > enforce against independent implementations?"
                      > ...
                      > > "Yes, of course."
                      >
                      > I believe that copyrights on the schema are at least as important.

                      IIRC there is precedent saying that APIs, protocols, and file formats are
                      not copyrightable because they are not expressive. A schema is a file
                      format and thus uncopyrightable. Whether the courts will respect the
                      precedent is something I don't want to try to predict.

                      Microsoft already has a patent broad enough to cover all uses of their ASF
                      file format, so I wouldn't be surprised to see patents on schemas (or
                      rather, on the processes necessary to manipulate data following a certain
                      schema).

                      Wesley Felter - wesley@... - http://felter.org/wesley/
                    • Lucas Gonze
                      ... So many aspects of .NET make no sense at all... Some aspects of processing might be novel, but most will be generic, and Microsoft isn t saying which are
                      Message 10 of 27 , Sep 7, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        per Wes:
                        > Microsoft already has a patent broad enough to cover all uses of their ASF
                        > file format, so I wouldn't be surprised to see patents on schemas (or
                        > rather, on the processes necessary to manipulate data following a certain
                        > schema).

                        So many aspects of .NET make no sense at all...

                        Some aspects of processing might be novel, but most will be generic, and
                        Microsoft isn't saying which are which. The only way to find out which pieces
                        you can't build is to clone them all and wait for the lawyers to arrive. The
                        impact is that FUD is keeping third parties from building interoperable tools.
                        If they want to keep third parties out, why use open protocols?

                        Incrutable.
                      • Bill Kearney
                        ... generic, and ... which pieces ... arrive. The ... interoperable tools. ... Inscrutable indeed. It would appear Microsoft has had to do almost nothing to
                        Message 11 of 27 , Sep 7, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > So many aspects of .NET make no sense at all...
                          >
                          > Some aspects of processing might be novel, but most will be
                          generic, and
                          > Microsoft isn't saying which are which. The only way to find out
                          which pieces
                          > you can't build is to clone them all and wait for the lawyers to
                          arrive. The
                          > impact is that FUD is keeping third parties from building
                          interoperable tools.
                          > If they want to keep third parties out, why use open protocols?

                          Inscrutable indeed.

                          It would appear Microsoft has had to do almost nothing to spread
                          FUD. The naysayers are doing it for them.

                          I can recall telling a MS .NET *programming* person that the
                          whole 'rent not buy' marketing aspect of .NET was train wreck. IHMO,
                          the market is just NOT going to buy into renting (as in paying) for
                          software on some kind of subscription basis. The budgets of most
                          companies just don't seem to be tuned into this idea.

                          That and the .NET programming environment is not the same thing as
                          Hailstorm. Hailstorm can conceivably live without being .NET
                          (programming) driven.

                          That said, the things espoused by Hailstorm as well worth
                          considering. Whether it's with MS tools is another matter. I'd like
                          to see some folks actually pick apart what's going on and reverse
                          engineer tools on other platforms. This is generally what's happened
                          for the rest of the stuff. But it seems folks have gotten themselves
                          wrapped up in such a wad they can't move forward.

                          -Bill Kearney
                        • Jim Winstead
                          ... i don t believe that budgets have anything to do with it. there are a host of companies that are already essentially on a subscription plan with major
                          Message 12 of 27 , Sep 7, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 08:27:22PM -0000, Bill Kearney wrote:
                            > I can recall telling a MS .NET *programming* person that the
                            > whole 'rent not buy' marketing aspect of .NET was train wreck. IHMO,
                            > the market is just NOT going to buy into renting (as in paying) for
                            > software on some kind of subscription basis. The budgets of most
                            > companies just don't seem to be tuned into this idea.

                            i don't believe that budgets have anything to do with it. there are a
                            host of companies that are already essentially on a subscription plan
                            with major products (photoshop, director, windows, office, etc) which
                            have major upgrades every year or so that they always end up buying
                            without giving it a second thought.

                            the goal of software subscriptions appears to be to take away the
                            option for a company to get off that treadmill.

                            there may very well be a price point, or set of new features, that
                            will make it appealing for some companies to subscribe to their
                            software rather than buy it. but i certainly don't expect the whole
                            software market to move in that direction.

                            and i can't imagine subscriptions for many types of software ever
                            being very compelling to home users. maybe if some company had some
                            sort of monopoly position, they could cram it down people's throats.

                            jim
                          • Todd Boyle
                            ... If you look out the window and see a cougar in the backyard, do you invite him in for tea? Of course not. We don t hate cougars, we just know what is
                            Message 13 of 27 , Sep 7, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 01:27 PM 9/7/01, Bill Kearney wrote:

                              > > Some aspects of processing might be novel, but most will be
                              > > generic, and Microsoft isn't saying which are which
                              >
                              >Inscrutable indeed.
                              >
                              >It would appear Microsoft has had to do almost nothing to spread
                              >FUD. The naysayers are doing it for them.

                              If you look out the window and see a cougar in the backyard,
                              do you invite him in for tea? Of course not. We don't hate cougars,
                              we just know what is their nature, and everything is fine.

                              >I can recall telling a MS .NET *programming* person that the
                              >whole 'rent not buy' marketing aspect of .NET was train wreck. IHMO,
                              >the market is just NOT going to buy into renting (as in paying) for
                              >software on some kind of subscription basis. The budgets of most
                              >companies just don't seem to be tuned into this idea.

                              The strategic power of maintaining the words, balances, functionality
                              are very great. Even though it is more costly to maintain software
                              on 100 million sovereign, independent computers, it is becoming
                              clear that the cost is very well justified.

                              I submit that the reason computing platforms, and more recently,
                              communications platforms seem to hover between $1000 - $2500
                              for so many years, even as they became massively more powerful,
                              is that most individuals and companies have no choice but to maintain
                              a capability to manage information that is reasonably competitive
                              with the rest of the economy.

                              I'd like to point out a concrete example: an accounting system is
                              essentially something you must maintain yourself and must never
                              fall into the hands of anybody you deal with, or potentially may
                              deal with because by changing the data, they literally can take
                              money. In a broader sense, the facts and impressions and image
                              you are able to project into the minds of everybody in your immediate
                              environment are what give you viability and economic advantage.

                              These things are very much affected by the capabilities the software
                              vendor sees fit to include in your computer. In my opinion it is
                              crystal clear that Microsoft is no friend of the indivdual and makes
                              all its architecture decisions around only one objective: its own
                              profits. They must of course give you something. But not very
                              much. Microsoft has accorded high priority to preventing any
                              competitor getting into their desktop and giving you things. They
                              have not accorded any priority to giving users sovereignty over
                              their machine or providing a sword they may wield in the
                              workplace against the interests of employers, etc.

                              TOdd
                            • Wesley Felter
                              ... Since we were talking about schemas, I assumed that we were mostly talking about Hailstorm and not all of .NET. I think the reason people are not building
                              Message 14 of 27 , Sep 7, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Lucas Gonze wrote:

                                > So many aspects of .NET make no sense at all...
                                >
                                > Some aspects of processing might be novel, but most will be generic, and
                                > Microsoft isn't saying which are which. The only way to find out which pieces
                                > you can't build is to clone them all and wait for the lawyers to arrive. The
                                > impact is that FUD is keeping third parties from building interoperable tools.

                                Since we were talking about schemas, I assumed that we were mostly talking
                                about Hailstorm and not all of .NET. I think the reason people are not
                                building tools to interop with Hailstorm is that it's impossible because
                                there are no detailed docs/implementations of Hailstorm out there.

                                > If they want to keep third parties out, why use open protocols?

                                They want people to create Hailstorm clients for every platform under the
                                Sun (and Sun, too), so it has to be somewhat open. They don't want people
                                creating alternate servers, so it has to be somewhat closed.

                                Wesley Felter - wesley@... - http://felter.org/wesley/
                              • Clay Shirky
                                ... Who said they wanted to keep third parties out? They desperately want third parties in -- part way. MS has taken the standard NIH problem of most software
                                Message 15 of 27 , Sep 7, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > If they want to keep third parties out, why use open protocols?

                                  Who said they wanted to keep third parties out? They desperately want
                                  third parties in -- part way. MS has taken the standard NIH problem of
                                  most software companies and turned into a strategic weapon in the form
                                  of NIHY -- Not Invented Here Yet.

                                  When they see innovation from a foreign quarter that threatens to
                                  alienate them from some significant part of their user's day, they
                                  almost simultaneously launch two press releases: That's Not Important
                                  and We're Building That.

                                  Java is Bad and He-e-e-e-re's C#
                                  OS is Cancer and Did We Mention Our Shared Source Initiative?

                                  and so on.

                                  So here's the situation they're in right now. Half a decade or so
                                  after announcing Windows Everywhere, Windows is still mainly on the
                                  desktop. They don't have a majority market share, much less a
                                  monopoly, in any other device class -- not phones, not set top boxes,
                                  not PDAs, not game consoles, not even servers, which was supposed to
                                  be a cakewalk. They may eventually get to majority share on at least
                                  some kinds of devices, but it won't be quick, it won't be cheap, and
                                  even then it may look more like 60% than 90%.

                                  Even worse, whole new device classes keep sprouting like dandelions --
                                  Palm, Tivo and the Blackberry all came out of nowhere, and despite the
                                  downturn, things like embedded Linux and 802.11b keep lowering the bar
                                  for creating new kinds of devices.

                                  So what they want is to triangulate -- their ideal strategy in a world
                                  where they only have one monopoly is to find a way to sell software
                                  onto all devices, with an MS OS or not, while not hampering their
                                  drive to own those devices eventually as well. So they'd like to let those
                                  devices use MS software _as clients_ without creating a world where
                                  two clients can interoperate without an intermediary server.

                                  Both their insistence on calling SOAP-compliant devices Endpoints,
                                  rather than anything like nodes or transceivers or clervers, coupled
                                  with their constant emphasis on being able to maintain _huge_ server
                                  farms in all the initial HS literature, suggests that, as with "C#: The
                                  Benefits of Java Without the Threat of WORA" and "Shared Source:
                                  Developer Energy Without Developer Freedom", this strategy is
                                  "Hailstorm: The Ubiquity of Interop Without Giving Up Control of the
                                  Transactions."

                                  Now they're smart enough to know that they can't get all of the
                                  benefits of openess with none of the downside, so I'm pretty sure that
                                  part of the lack of definition around HS is that they are still
                                  figuring out how to triangulate -- the risk of too much openess is
                                  visible out their left-hand window in things like the IBM-compatible
                                  PC and the Hayes-compatible modem, and the risk of too little is out
                                  the right window in companies like DEC.

                                  And getting just the Goldilocks amount of third-party participation is
                                  a big part of that triangulation.

                                  -clay
                                • Lucas Gonze
                                  The fog lifts. They re splitting client-side software into client/server pieces in order to create a presence on other OSen without losing the leverage of
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Sep 8, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    The fog lifts.

                                    They're splitting client-side software into client/server pieces in order to
                                    create a presence on other OSen without losing the leverage of their OS
                                    dominance. That creates a potential migration path away from an MS-dominated
                                    world, where third parties point MS clients towards third party servers, making
                                    MS just another ISV. So the servers are there to protect their leverage, and
                                    the IP is there to protect the servers.

                                    Then there's an incentive for third party clients to point at MS servers -- the
                                    number of users on Passport and Messenger.

                                    In Napoleonic mode, this is pretty damn insightful. The EIOS belongs to those
                                    who control the hotspots. Hardware and software are irrelevant, topography is
                                    everything.

                                    ...and insanely risky at the same time. Why shouldn't third parties in places
                                    with different IP law just ignore the patents and provide competitive servers?
                                    Why couldn't third parties build completely decentralized, e.g. freenet based,
                                    servers?
                                  • Bill Kearney
                                    ... freenet based, ... Too much infighting and petty jealousy. Look at the RSS/XML-RPC situation. Ego and more of it than cooperation. What better than an
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Sep 10, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > Why couldn't third parties build completely decentralized, e.g.
                                      freenet based,
                                      > servers?

                                      Too much infighting and petty jealousy. Look at the RSS/XML-RPC
                                      situation. Ego and more of it than cooperation. What better than an
                                      enemy that fights amongst itself?

                                      ISTM that a lot of the 'free' stuff out there rises just barely above
                                      the level of usefulness to the geeks writing it. I can confess to
                                      doing exactly this myself. It's when 'real' users start pushing
                                      things that the free stuff tends to be unable to rise to meet their
                                      needs. If anything, someone in a 'corporate' environment literally
                                      can't contribute because of some stupid licensing hassle.

                                      And before we degrade into a 'but what about Apache..., etc'
                                      argument, I agree there are PLENTY of examples that work.

                                      Meanwhile, Redmond writes stuff, sells it, makes money and largely
                                      satisfies their user base.

                                      What's it going to be written in? Using whose license? "I won't
                                      work on it if it's ever intended to run under Win32", etc.

                                      From the MS .NET perspective, you won't care what it's written in, as
                                      long as can be compiled to the CLR. You won't care about licensing
                                      because you're already in a 'pay to play' mode. It's likely to
                                      already BE a Win32 situation. Or it interfaces to resources on all
                                      kinds of other platforms. And management will grok the concept
                                      thanks to sales/marketing/advertising brainwashing.

                                      -Bill Kearney
                                    • Brandon Wiley
                                      ... I just joined the list so I may be missing some context, but if you re talking about this as opposed to .NET then it s not really comparable. What .NET
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Sep 10, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > > Why couldn't third parties build completely decentralized, e.g. freenet based,
                                        > > servers?

                                        I just joined the list so I may be missing some context, but if you're
                                        talking about this as opposed to .NET then it's not really comparable.
                                        What .NET offers is not all that related to decentralized applications
                                        ("web services"). What .NET offers is for the most part a standard library
                                        which is callable from multiple languages. You could just as well write
                                        JVM bytecode compilers for various languages. Kawa, for instance, allows
                                        you to write programs in Scheme which can call the standard Java class
                                        library.

                                        So third parties can build completely decentralized servers without or
                                        without using Freenet as a backend and certainly without using .NET. As a
                                        developer of decentralized applications, .NET doesn't offer me much that I
                                        want. It has a fat library, but I'm happy with the Java and Python
                                        standard libraries. Freenet offers something if you want to write certain
                                        kinds of applications but is unsuitable for a lots of things.
                                      • Dave Winer
                                        ... XML-RPC is in fine shape. Today we got some very high praise from the CTO at Infoworld [1], he said: When I grow confused about what Web services means, I
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Sep 10, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          > Too much infighting and petty jealousy. Look at the RSS/XML-RPC
                                          > situation. Ego and more of it than cooperation. What better than an
                                          > enemy that fights amongst itself?

                                          XML-RPC is in fine shape.

                                          Today we got some very high praise from the CTO at Infoworld [1], he said:
                                          "When I grow confused about what Web services means, I read the XML-RPC spec
                                          [2] and it makes sense again."

                                          There's more great soundbites in the piece, highly recommended reading.

                                          And watching the traffic on the Syndication list, I think there's some hope
                                          for RSS healing.

                                          As for Bill Kearney, I still wonder who he is and what axe he has to grind.
                                          I've not seen much in the way of contributions from him in either community,
                                          mostly he posts negative stuff, personal critiques, etc. As with most
                                          personal advice, it's better to work on self-improvement than working
                                          towards the improvement of others. More likely to achieve satisfying results
                                          that way.

                                          Have a nice day one and all!

                                          Dave

                                          [1] http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/09/10/010910opconnection.xml
                                          [2] http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec
                                        • Eric M. Hopper
                                          ... I don t know how well MS goes about satisfying their customers. I think they largely have a captive audience with some people who worship authoritarian
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Sep 10, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 08:10:05PM -0000, Bill Kearney wrote:
                                            >
                                            > What's it going to be written in? Using whose license? "I won't
                                            > work on it if it's ever intended to run under Win32", etc.

                                            I don't know how well MS goes about satisfying their customers.
                                            I think they largely have a captive audience with some people who
                                            worship authoritarian bigness and people who make money clinging
                                            ferociously to the idea that they make good stuff.

                                            As for all of those others... I think the OSS world suffers
                                            from people seeing their dirty underwear. There is a lot of conflict,
                                            grudges, stupid opinions and what not. Just like you'd see in any large
                                            company if you lifted up the lid. It's just all hanging out there for
                                            anybody to see in OSS.

                                            I, personally, will not develop for the Win32 platform. But, if
                                            someone ports my work to it, more power to them. I do try to explicity
                                            abstract out platform dependencies in a way that I know will make it
                                            easier to do.

                                            I also don't develop in Java, but I don't think it's an awful
                                            language. I tend to be prickly about it because everybody thinks I
                                            SHOULD develope in Java, and assumes I'm a stuck-in-my-ways kind of
                                            person (I tried porting one of the first JVMs to my platform many years
                                            ago).

                                            And, as for the GPL... Well, I don't like the BSD license much
                                            because it largely allows people to coopt my work and start selling it,
                                            duping people as to what they created. The GPL and LGPL prevent that.

                                            I don't think the state of things is as bad as you think. And I
                                            think that fear, hatred and distrust of Microsoft are entirely justified
                                            given the company's clear history and status as a convicted felon.

                                            Have fun (if at all possible),
                                            --
                                            "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
                                            It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --- Thomas Jefferson
                                            "Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain
                                            -- Eric Hopper (hopper@... http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper) --
                                          • Zane Thomas
                                            Eric, ... People who worship authoritarian bigness? Seems that the propaganda campaign has added to its bag of tricks maligning people who develop for the
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Sep 10, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Eric,

                                              >I don't know how well MS goes about satisfying their customers.
                                              >I think they largely have a captive audience with some people who
                                              >worship authoritarian bigness and people who make money clinging
                                              >ferociously to the idea that they make good stuff.

                                              People who worship authoritarian bigness? Seems that the propaganda
                                              campaign has added to its bag of tricks maligning people who develop for the
                                              platform.

                                              My company which develops components for MS supports, oh let's see, roughly
                                              30 people. We are scattered across the western hemisphere, from Romania to
                                              Washington State, and we are the sort of independent virtual corporation
                                              there has been much blah blah about. MS has been *very* supportive of us
                                              over the years and MS provides a big-enough market so that we can make a
                                              living. Sometimes I wonder what all of y'all ideological purists are doing
                                              for a living.

                                              >I, personally, will not develop for the Win32 platform.

                                              Good, that's one less potential competitor in my market. :-)

                                              >And I think that fear, hatred and distrust of Microsoft are entirely
                                              justified
                                              >given the company's clear history and status as a convicted felon.

                                              I take it you also refuse to buy any GE products, fly in Boeing jets, etc
                                              etc. And, speaking of things legal, have you noticed that the new
                                              administration appears to be backing way down in its persecution of MS?
                                              Funny thing the way politics works - had Gates and Co. been playing the game
                                              instead of developing technology when Clinton first ran for office they
                                              would have noticed the huge sums of cash which flowed from Sun et al into
                                              Clinton's coffer, and they would have recognized the danger on the horizon.

                                              Bah!

                                              I've sat quietly back through a whole lot of MS bashing on this list, trying
                                              to focus on the interesting technical bits. Is this list is going to turn
                                              into yet another slagging match? I've valued the _technical_ content here
                                              in the past and hope to see more of it in the future. I don't really have
                                              much use for hearing the usual (you can read them anywyhere) rants about MS.

                                              IceZ
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.