[Sigia-l] The future of WWW...

[Listera]

Dave:
> 1. Being named "David" I often feel compelled to play the underdog
> game, but of late analysis needs to be done on that approach from a
> cost benefit perspective.

Take a deep breath and consider the colossal consequences of ceding the
Internet to Microsoft. Not just to a single company (which is abhorrent
enough) but to a persistent monopoly abuser hell-bent on destroying its
competitors.
 
> 2. MS is in it for themselves, no doubt. So is everyone else though.

But that's *exactly* the rationale behind a competitive marketplace:
competition among self-interests. Your capitulation to XAML/MS destroys it.

> As I said before I think that b/c the Internet and the technologies that run
> over it are so important to 1st ammendment rights I actually believe that they
> require international control and should not be corporatized in the manner
> that they are...

Well, you need to come to terms with this. Do you or don't you want to
capitulate to a persistent, ruthless monopoly abuser?

> Choice is not a user benefit in this case. This is not about buying
> cars or bicycles.

Especially for an IA, access is everything. Access trumps every other
consideration. No access no nothin'. So if you are callously prepared to
deny access to millions of non-Longhorn users, because of your capitulation
to XAML, then you are in an indefensible position from a user's perspective.

> They all basically do the same thing and adhere to a set of standards.

STANDARDS THAT ARE NOT OWNED BY A SINGLE COMPANY, WHOSE PLATFORM IS THE ONLY
ONE THAT THEY RUN ON.

> The computer industry needs to start doing the same for users. How? I
> have no idea. 

Yes, you do :-) You've been advocating lock-in to single platform, Avalon.

> but the proliferation of different standards is a negative for users.

Choice is bad for users?

> Interroperability is at issue as well as economies of scale that other
> industries have accomplished so well.

Yes, interop. Something that XAML HAS THE LEAST TO OFFER to the rest of the
industry, running on a yet-unshipped variant of Windows that requires a
pretty hefty hardware spec.

> This is why Flash and XUL are not real solutions for me. B/c they themselves
> are just alternative solutions.

Alternative to what? Flash is supposed to have better penetration than any
single version of Windows.

> They don't interroperate and they cause yet another layer of choice like Real
> vs. WMP vs. Quicktime.

Flash MX interoperates with: Mac, Linux, Win, HTTP, HTML, XML, SOAP, J2EE
and soon .NET, among others.
 
> Users REALLY don't care about OSs or Browsers or technology.

Until they are locked out or when their bill payments go up.

> If Amazon.com ran perfectly well by speaking to their machine and saying "Shop
> Amazon"...

This is trivial to do, today.
 
> Basically, you think that MS is the problem, but I think they won and
> I'm sick of fighting this fact and am well, just giving in.

At least you're admitting it openly. However, capitulating is also
abdicating your role as the advocate of the user. Especially, those millions
of non-Longhorn users who would surely be severely affected by your
decision.

> Back to Flash ... I'm a huge advocate for flash, but b/c it is built
> on the plug-in architecture it is not viable for many compliant and
> secure industries (maybe that is on purpose from MS).

What do you mean? New Flash MX has a deployment strategy that explicitly
restricts it to approved domains that some developers find "too secure."

You need to stop looking at your Windows box for so long, go out to the
Bryant Park, bathe in the glory of free and open WiFi, then go talk to the
Naked Cowboy not far from your office and ask him if he only sings to
Longhorn users. Be ecumenical. :-)

Ziya
Nullius in Verba