JASON, Iam not proposing "open source" here what IAM saying is that any P2P system should be based on a transparent and open system just like previous examples TCP/IP and SMTP for email and HTTP/HTML for the world wide web.
If you look at the history of the internet and networking I'll think you'll see that all proprietary network distribution mechanisms and protocols eventually get routed around by more OPEN though possibly sometimes technically inferior solutions. They end up being an irrelevance to what the bulk of people are doing and using and creating new apps for. All I was doing was trying to implore RT to avoid the futility of trying to create a closed P2P system with them as the central hub as I believe such an approach would have some limited success at best and is more probably "DOOMED" to fail from the start. AOL Instant Messaging though hugely popular is not a money maker for AOL and is another example of a proprietary internet service which we are in the process of seeing this being routed around by the restof the net because of AOL's closed approach to interoperability. The same applies to Yahoo & MSN Instant Messaging. the only thing these proprietary systems have done is fragment the market and now much effort is being poured into finding and establishing an open common standard for IM and IM interoperability. The overall system has to be open and transparent - not necessarily the end-point applications. That's all. Mark Dickson In a message dated Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:11:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Jason Cunliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Just hope Carl or REBOL aren't thinking or planning any stupid proprietary > P2P system, Morpheous and others are already competing in the space with > varying degrees of success and failure, and Iam confident that the only way > any internet distribution system is going to succeed is by being based on > completely open protocols and not proprietary - the world wide web and email > are perfect examples of these. > > > > Anything else is backing a loser. > > Not so fast.. anything which works and lets people do what they want easily > is not always a 'loser'... > > The easiest way to have *secure* P2P is to develop some [obscure] > proprietary, non-published set of matching tools. End of story. > > OpenSource is one of the great modern adventures in multi-cultural > collaboration. I love it, but it has its problems too. When you use xyz > electronic appliance [telephone, PC, HiFi, Bank ATM machine.. > Airplane...etc] You don't particularly want or need to get inside those > subcompenents at a very low level. Ever since integrated circuits became the > norm, opensource electronics has been completely beyond most people's reach. > But what replaced it was a different higher-level order of open modularity.. > and things accelerated wildly[somewhere around 1975 ?? ] > > For P2P to really succeed, it needs a [globally] acceptable construct, > though it may in fact mostly be applied in many small groups and many > communities. We need not necessarily a language, but a language-like > approach - which lets people describe useful kinds of interaction, services > and situations. Something which can be applied and implemented regardless > of the underlying technology. Just as digital electronics enabled open > development though based on proprietary eveolving chip families. > > Nobody really undertsands the P2P problem or application domains yet > anyway.. there's gonna have to be _lots_ of hands-on trial and error, both > technical and social. Rapid Prototyping and keen grasp of changing human > workflow patterns will be perhasp the most critical ingredients. Rebol is > well suited for its rapid prototyping, as is Python, FlashMX etc. > > The military arena is probably the biggest customer. Again and again > communications are where accidents happen. Same story in WTC911. > > If the military are the first to commission and specify new tech, the Sex > [+drugsnvice] industries are usually the first to appropriate new technology > [VHS, 900-lines, Minitel in France, pagers, web subscriptions, > streaming-Video-on-demand]. > > I can see lots of other social uses for P2P. But these are most likely to > make it happen first. > > Longterm, I think the largest social change and benefits of P2P will be > Transportation and Medecine. I fear medicine will the last last to sanely > embrace P2P in America because is so !@#$-ed by insurance system. > > Europe and Asia seem most likely. But then maybe this century will truly > surprise us, and Africa will be transformed. > > ./Jason > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes. -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
