[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Sigh..
It is a good way for the customer to purchase based on a
precise definition rather than a loose and unbounded
requirement for which they have no FAT test. We prefer
to do business honestly, not by relying on buzz and
open systems rant.
So MS is the Big Bad Wolf? Ok. Consider another
point of view:
The same open source environment that creates Linux
creates Klez. The web as a business medium is made
more fragile and a risky investment because of it. Part
of the slowing momentum for XML is because it is
On The Web and The Web is getting a nasty reputation
for overselling, underthinking, and simply being a
bad place to do business. Groups that need interoperation
fast and reliably are starting to look for alternatives
to open systems design. Port 80 is too risky.
Viruses can be "killer apps". An ecosystem does
not need a single event (the Catastrophe) to
collapse. It only needs to drop below a critical threshold
of reproductive momentum. This can be because of a
combination of events, eg, a perception that the
web (and therefore web services) cannot be made
reliable on the Web (although they can work fine
if the public access is removed), and the proof
that swapping virus code is making them too strong
a threat to take the risk.
At that point, just what the heck will the TAG
be architecting?
len
From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
>
> Our customers really don't know much about XML. It is a
> checkbox. Again, if they do that, say yes and take their
> money. If they say "NENA spec'd ANI/ALI using the XML
> format", it is money for value.
This is a great way to get rich but an appalling way to design good
software. Microsoft made a mint doing it, but also left us with horribly
difficult and badly designed languages such as COM and VB.
You decide which one you want.
|
