Lists Home |
Date Index |
I'll try to keep that in mind.
By now if you are paying attention, you've
begun to discern that Microsoft, with a closed
code base and EULA policies, could be at a disadvantage
in a system of federated code servers using vetted
and warrantied code that must conform and comply
to royalty-free standards. The open source
community is in a better position, but would
have to step up to warranties and more complete
source control and object models for languages
that have behavioral fidelity requirements.
Speculation: The end result could be a
breaking up of the Microsoft monopoly on
essential facilities for web applications
by market forces, not legal forces. MS
can pay enough lawyers to defend the monopoly.
Can MS step up to a fair fight based on
quality of code? Will it guarantee it?
Or will it take the tactic some think
so unlikely as to be ludicrous: open
its code base for shared development
and warranty the standard?
It could happen. MS got the monopoly because
the environment enabled that and the competitors
in the niche weren't very adaptive or resilient.
When an environment changes, the forces that
kept one competitor dominant can eliminate it
quickly should it prove to be too specialized.
Food for thought in Redmond.
Those questions aside, we are drifting too
far into possible effects of symbol grounding and
away from the means, which are hopefully,
what developers are interested in. So
far, examples of namespace grounding have
been provided, and thanks to Alaric, some potential
means to work within a standard browser framework
have been suggested. You replied with comments
on the Parallel and Embedded models. That is on topic.
In other words, it isn't as you started out saying,
impossible or technically undoable. We may find
out it is difficult to manage or maybe not. URIs
have proven to be remarkably adaptible means.
From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
As long as you don't clutter up the list with offtopic screeds it doesn't
matter which it is.