JoAnne Abbott wrote:
> Since Ms Rosenberg did indeed offend me with the language I will
> attempt to reply civilly.
And I'll attempt not to respond to /this/ remark as I feel it deserves.
> Point A. No I don't know all about the inner workings of the present day
> internet. All I remember about using it in 1959 to download Diracs theorem
> from MIT to Berkeley for my masters. It took two hours to setup the protocol
> for a 3 min transfer.
And the various _standards_ have made this soooo much easier.
> Point B. I did not say that protocols could not become defacto standards and
> be maintained by self appointed committees.
Could you define the difference between a protocol and a standard?
And could you perhaps please explain how a protocol can be maintained, and
assorted innovations _openly_ included in the protocol, without some person
or people to maintain it?
And while you're at it, tell us who should appoint these maintainers? At
present, they're done on the ad-hoc basis of 'ok, I've got time and this
seems reasonably important, I'll maintain this bit' - thus the person who
actually goes ahead and _DOES THE JOB_ gets to .. uh .. do the job.
> Point C. The Biggie. ALL those standards prevent innovation. Problem? Naw
> just add another layer or reset the standards to hide it.
If this bothers you, go right ahead and make a new internet - or whatever
it
is that you want. Of course, if you don't interact with the current
protocols
and standards, you'll wind up in the same situation that MSN did, before it
accepted that The People preferred choice.
Unless you do something truly useful, as well as innovative.
Yes, innovation requires experimentation. Yes, experimentation can be
inhibited
by standards. Standards committees are slow and careful because their main
function is reliability, not innovation.
But absolutely _noone_ is stopping you from innovating on your own machine,
or
your own LAN; testing it, and making it reliable. Then - if and only if you
actually
/want/ it to be included in the standard - taking it to the relevent
standards
committee.
The committee will ask you to prove its usefulness, help them define the
adjustments
to the standard, and other such things. But that's the cost of taking
innovation
into the marketplace.
> JoAnne Abbott C.E.T. MSEE, DSM
Ahem.
<sarcasm> Lots of letters after her name. I'm impressed.
</sarcasm>
Is this an attempt to use the 'appeal-to-authority' logical
fallacy?
Jenn V.
--
"We're repairing the coolant loop of a nuclear fusion reactor.
This is women's work!"
Helix, Freefall. http://www.purrsia.com/freefall/
Jenn Vesperman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.simegen.com/~jenn
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
