On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Dave Crossland wrote:
On 27/11/2007, Billy Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is naieve to think that a choice of providers will have identical
functionality.
I wasn't clear - I meant common open APIs, ie. the same API with different
vendors behind it. That way they will offer very similar levels of
functionality, with the choice being based on how good they run.
Sure, and I'm suggesting that a common API will be a base that each
gatekeeper will add bespoke features too. I'll be surprised if similar
services offered with a "common open API" from Google and Yahoo and
Microsoft do not have any specialist features to differentiate them.
That is the obvious point that somehow flew straight over my head. Now I
don't like common APIs as much. Boo.
Freedom means more than a choice of lords.
You can happily run your own things and then be your own lord,
...but not if the gatekeepers continue to offer software to the public
without making the source code to that software public.
In order to get the gatekeepers to offer that software they need to have
an incentive to do so. Apart from idealistic ones who are doing it for the
reason of wanting the software to be free, I don't currently see what the
incentive is for the others. While I'd like to be able to get the software
(so that anyone can run their own service and also have the potential to
grab the software and run their own service if their provider goes tits
up) I can understand why people don't give it out for free.
Pleae let me know if I am missing a reason why people should, outside of
idealogical reasons.
--billy
--
Hey, it's our constitutional right to complain about the products we
have willingly purchased without any forethought of consequences.
Billy Abbott billy at cowfish dot org dot uk
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
