Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess
Julian, I'm not sure I understand your proposal, but I do think what Google does is not something trivial, straightforward or easy to automate. I remember reading an article about Google's ranking strategy. IIRC, they use the patterns of mutual linking between websites. So far, so good. But then, when Google became popular, some companies started to build link farms, to make themselves look more important to Google. When Google finds out about this behavior, they kick the company to the bottom of the index. I'm sure they have many secret automated schemes to do this kind of thing, but it's essentially an arms race, and it takes constant human attention. Local search is much less problematic, but still you can end up with a huge pile of unstructured data, or a huge bowl of linked spaghetti mess, so it may well make sense to ask a third party for help to sort it out. I don't think there's anything architecturally centralized about using Google as a search engine, it's just a matter of popularity. You also have Bing, Duckduckgo, whatever. On the other hand, data storage and bandwidth are very centralized. Dropbox, Google docs, iCloud, are all sympthoms of the fact that PC operating systems were designed for local storage. I've been looking at possible alternatives. There's distributed fault-tolerant network filesystems like Xtreemfs (and even the Linux-based XtreemOS), or Tahoe-LAFS (with object-capabilities!), or maybe a more P2P approach such as Tribler (a tracker-free bittorrent), and for shared bandwidth apparently there is a BittorrentLive (P2P streaming). But I don't know how to put all that together into a usable computing experience. For instance, squeak is a single file image, so I guess it can't benefit from file-based capabilities, except if the objects were mapped to files in some way. Oh, well, this is for another thread. -Best Martin On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net wrote: Right you are. Centralised search seems a bit silly to me. Take object orientedism and apply it to search and you get a thing where each node searches itself when asked... apply this to a local-focussed topology (ie spider web serch out) and utilise intelligent caching (so search the localised caches first) and you get a better thing, no? Why not do it like that? Or am I limited in my thinking about this? Julian On 02/03/2012, at 4:26 AM, David Barbour wrote: ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess
On 3/2/2012 8:37 AM, Martin Baldan wrote: Julian, I'm not sure I understand your proposal, but I do think what Google does is not something trivial, straightforward or easy to automate. I remember reading an article about Google's ranking strategy. IIRC, they use the patterns of mutual linking between websites. So far, so good. But then, when Google became popular, some companies started to build link farms, to make themselves look more important to Google. When Google finds out about this behavior, they kick the company to the bottom of the index. I'm sure they have many secret automated schemes to do this kind of thing, but it's essentially an arms race, and it takes constant human attention. Local search is much less problematic, but still you can end up with a huge pile of unstructured data, or a huge bowl of linked spaghetti mess, so it may well make sense to ask a third party for help to sort it out. I don't think there's anything architecturally centralized about using Google as a search engine, it's just a matter of popularity. You also have Bing, Duckduckgo, whatever. yeah. the main thing Google does is scavenging and aggregating data. and, they have done fairly well at it... and they make money mostly via ads... On the other hand, data storage and bandwidth are very centralized. Dropbox, Google docs, iCloud, are all sympthoms of the fact that PC operating systems were designed for local storage. I've been looking at possible alternatives. There's distributed fault-tolerant network filesystems like Xtreemfs (and even the Linux-based XtreemOS), or Tahoe-LAFS (with object-capabilities!), or maybe a more P2P approach such as Tribler (a tracker-free bittorrent), and for shared bandwidth apparently there is a BittorrentLive (P2P streaming). But I don't know how to put all that together into a usable computing experience. For instance, squeak is a single file image, so I guess it can't benefit from file-based capabilities, except if the objects were mapped to files in some way. Oh, well, this is for another thread. agreed. just because I might want to have better internet file-systems, doesn't necessarily mean I want all my data to be off on someones' server somewhere. much more preferable would be if I could remotely access data stored on my own computer. the problem is that neither OS's nor networking hardware were really designed for this: broadband routers tend to assume by default that the network is being used purely for pulling content off the internet, ... at this point, it means convenience either requires some sort of central server to pull data from, or bouncing off of such a server (sort of like some sort of Reverse FTP, the computer holding the data connects to a server, and in turn makes its data visible on said server, and other computers connect to the server to access data stored on their PC, probably with some file-proxy magic and mirroring and similar...). technically, the above could be like a more organized version of a P2P file-sharing system, and could instead focus more on sharing for individuals (between their devices) or between groups. unlike with a central server, it allows for much more storage space (one can easily have TB of shared space, rather than worrying about several GB or similar on some server somewhere). nicer would be if it could offer a higher-performance alternative to a Mercurial or GIT or similar style system or similar (rather than simply being a raw shared filesystem). better though would be if broadband routers and DNS worked in a way which made it fairly trivial for pretty much any computer to be easily accessible remotely, without having to jerk off with port-forwarding and other things. potentially, if/when the last mile internet migrates to IPv6, this could help (as then presumably both NAT and dynamic IP addresses can partly go away). but, it is taking its time, and neither ISPs nor broadband routers seem to yet support IPv6... -Best Martin On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Julian Levistonjul...@leviston.net wrote: Right you are. Centralised search seems a bit silly to me. Take object orientedism and apply it to search and you get a thing where each node searches itself when asked... apply this to a local-focussed topology (ie spider web serch out) and utilise intelligent caching (so search the localised caches first) and you get a better thing, no? Why not do it like that? Or am I limited in my thinking about this? Julian On 02/03/2012, at 4:26 AM, David Barbour wrote: ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess
Loup, I agree that the Web is a mess. The original sin was to assume that people would only want to connect to other computers in order to retrieve a limited set of static documents. I think the reason for this was that everyone sticked to the Unix security model, where everything you run has all the permissions you have. That's why you don't want to run code from untrusted sources. If they had used a capablity-based security model from the start, this concern would probably not have arised. Also, a deeper culprit, in my opinion, is Intellectual Property. There were several great networking protocols before the internet, but they were usually proprietary protocols for proprietary operatinog systems. Don't forget that, for instance, Plan9 was not open sourced until 2000 or 2002. Now there's a lot of talk of open standards, but there was a time when the main source of open standards were half-baked government projects. The main reason why the IBM PC architecture dominates is that Compaq managed to clone it legally. The main reason why Microsoft operating systems got to dominate is that they were ready from the start to run on those cheap and widespread IBM PC clones, both technically and legally. I also think that the internet, with its silly limited IP numbers and DNS servers smack of premature optimization. I mean, configuring a network feels a bit like programming in machine code. There's also the issue of one-way links, which creates the need for complex feedback mechanisms such as RSS, moreover, the fact that regular URLs are so ephemeral, which gave rise to permalinks. Then again, if it were all based on two-way links, maybe we would need a complex system for transparent anonymous linking, some kind of virtual link. That said, I don't see why you have an issue with search engines and search services. Even on your own machine, searching files with complex properties is far from trivial. When outside, untrusted sources are involved, you need someone to tell you what is relevant, what is not, who is lying, and so on. Google got to dominate that niche for the right reasons, namely, being much better than the competition. Best, -Martin ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess
Martin Baldan wrote: That said, I don't see why you have an issue with search engines and search services. Even on your own machine, searching files with complex properties is far from trivial. When outside, untrusted sources are involved, you need someone to tell you what is relevant, what is not, who is lying, and so on. Google got to dominate that niche for the right reasons, namely, being much better than the competition. I wasn't clear. Actually, I didn't want to state my opinion. I can't find the message, but I (incorrectly?) remembered Alan saying that one-way links basically created the need for big search engines. As I couldn't imagine an architecture that could do away with centralized search engines, I wanted to ask about it. That said, I do have issues with Big Data search engines: they are centralized. That alone gives them more power than I'd like them to have. If we could remove the centralization while keeping the good stuff (namely, finding things), that would be really cool. Loup. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess
Hi Loup Someone else said that about links. Browsing about either knowing where you are (and going) and/or about dealing with a rough max of 100 items. After that search is necessary. However, Ted Nelson said a lot in each of the last 5 decades about what kinds of linking do the most good. (Chase down what he has to say about why one-way links are not what should be done.) He advocated from the beginning that the provenance of links must be preserved (which also means that you cannot copy what is being pointed to without also copying its provenance). This allows a much better way to deal with all manner of usage, embeddings, etc. -- including both fair use and also various forms of micropayments and subscriptions. One way to handle this requirement is via protection mechanisms that real objects can supply. Cheers, Alan From: Loup Vaillant l...@loup-vaillant.fr To: fonc@vpri.org Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess Martin Baldan wrote: That said, I don't see why you have an issue with search engines and search services. Even on your own machine, searching files with complex properties is far from trivial. When outside, untrusted sources are involved, you need someone to tell you what is relevant, what is not, who is lying, and so on. Google got to dominate that niche for the right reasons, namely, being much better than the competition. I wasn't clear. Actually, I didn't want to state my opinion. I can't find the message, but I (incorrectly?) remembered Alan saying that one-way links basically created the need for big search engines. As I couldn't imagine an architecture that could do away with centralized search engines, I wanted to ask about it. That said, I do have issues with Big Data search engines: they are centralized. That alone gives them more power than I'd like them to have. If we could remove the centralization while keeping the good stuff (namely, finding things), that would be really cool. Loup. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Martin Baldan martino...@gmail.com wrote: I think it was Julian, in message: http://vpri.org/mailman/private/fonc/2012/003131.html BTW, I'm having a hard time trying to find who said what in this mailing list. Maybe I'm missing something, I feel a bit silly, but here's the problem: _ Apparently, Google can't search this mailing list, I guess it's because of its private nature. For instance, the query: google site:http://vpri.org/mailman/private/fonc/2012/thread.html shields no results. _ I can search e-mails for keywords in my Gmail account, but when I find one, I don't know what message number it is. I only see the date and time. _ The mailing list web interface lets me arrange messages by date, but it doesn't show me the date of each message in a column. So what should I do? http://www.mail-archive.com/fonc@vpri.org/ As for centralization, I don't think you can avoid some degree of natural centralization of trust. For instance, I tend to trust the VPRI people when it comes to programming-related theory and ideas. Am I giving them too much power? ;) What should be avoided is single points of failure in infrastructure. I should be able to decide whom to trust, without artificial limits imposed by the technology. Best, -Martin ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess
Ah, thanks! :) On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:26 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/fonc@vpri.org/ ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Loup snip However, Ted Nelson said a lot in each of the last 5 decades about what kinds of linking do the most good. (Chase down what he has to say about why one-way links are not what should be done.) He advocated from the beginning that the provenance of links must be preserved (which also means that you cannot copy what is being pointed to without also copying its provenance). This allows a much better way to deal with all manner of usage, embeddings, etc. -- including both fair use and also various forms of micropayments and subscriptions. If only we could find a way to finally deal with all that intertwingularity! One way to handle this requirement is via protection mechanisms that real objects can supply. Cheers, Alan -- *From:* Loup Vaillant l...@loup-vaillant.fr *To:* fonc@vpri.org *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2012 6:36 AM *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess Martin Baldan wrote: That said, I don't see why you have an issue with search engines and search services. Even on your own machine, searching files with complex properties is far from trivial. When outside, untrusted sources are involved, you need someone to tell you what is relevant, what is not, who is lying, and so on. Google got to dominate that niche for the right reasons, namely, being much better than the competition. I wasn't clear. Actually, I didn't want to state my opinion. I can't find the message, but I (incorrectly?) remembered Alan saying that one-way links basically created the need for big search engines. As I couldn't imagine an architecture that could do away with centralized search engines, I wanted to ask about it. That said, I do have issues with Big Data search engines: they are centralized. That alone gives them more power than I'd like them to have. If we could remove the centralization while keeping the good stuff (namely, finding things), that would be really cool. Loup. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Casey Ransberger ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess
Nelson's still kicking, you know: see http://gzigzag.sourceforge.net/ for some recent spin-offs. -- Max On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Loup snip However, Ted Nelson said a lot in each of the last 5 decades about what kinds of linking do the most good. (Chase down what he has to say about why one-way links are not what should be done.) He advocated from the beginning that the provenance of links must be preserved (which also means that you cannot copy what is being pointed to without also copying its provenance). This allows a much better way to deal with all manner of usage, embeddings, etc. -- including both fair use and also various forms of micropayments and subscriptions. If only we could find a way to finally deal with all that intertwingularity! One way to handle this requirement is via protection mechanisms that real objects can supply. Cheers, Alan -- *From:* Loup Vaillant l...@loup-vaillant.fr *To:* fonc@vpri.org *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2012 6:36 AM *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess Martin Baldan wrote: That said, I don't see why you have an issue with search engines and search services. Even on your own machine, searching files with complex properties is far from trivial. When outside, untrusted sources are involved, you need someone to tell you what is relevant, what is not, who is lying, and so on. Google got to dominate that niche for the right reasons, namely, being much better than the competition. I wasn't clear. Actually, I didn't want to state my opinion. I can't find the message, but I (incorrectly?) remembered Alan saying that one-way links basically created the need for big search engines. As I couldn't imagine an architecture that could do away with centralized search engines, I wanted to ask about it. That said, I do have issues with Big Data search engines: they are centralized. That alone gives them more power than I'd like them to have. If we could remove the centralization while keeping the good stuff (namely, finding things), that would be really cool. Loup. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Casey Ransberger ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Sorting the WWW mess
Right you are. Centralised search seems a bit silly to me. Take object orientedism and apply it to search and you get a thing where each node searches itself when asked... apply this to a local-focussed topology (ie spider web serch out) and utilise intelligent caching (so search the localised caches first) and you get a better thing, no? Why not do it like that? Or am I limited in my thinking about this? Julian On 02/03/2012, at 4:26 AM, David Barbour wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Martin Baldan martino...@gmail.com wrote: I think it was Julian, in message: http://vpri.org/mailman/private/fonc/2012/003131.html BTW, I'm having a hard time trying to find who said what in this mailing list. Maybe I'm missing something, I feel a bit silly, but here's the problem: _ Apparently, Google can't search this mailing list, I guess it's because of its private nature. For instance, the query: google site:http://vpri.org/mailman/private/fonc/2012/thread.html shields no results. _ I can search e-mails for keywords in my Gmail account, but when I find one, I don't know what message number it is. I only see the date and time. _ The mailing list web interface lets me arrange messages by date, but it doesn't show me the date of each message in a column. So what should I do? http://www.mail-archive.com/fonc@vpri.org/ As for centralization, I don't think you can avoid some degree of natural centralization of trust. For instance, I tend to trust the VPRI people when it comes to programming-related theory and ideas. Am I giving them too much power? ;) What should be avoided is single points of failure in infrastructure. I should be able to decide whom to trust, without artificial limits imposed by the technology. Best, -Martin ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
