On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Carlo v. Loesch <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:04:25PM +0000, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Carlo v. Loesch <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > If you don't accept social graph protection as a more important > > > priority than interoperability, > > > > "Interoperability" is a posh word for "works". > > So you mean Tor is interoperable, although just with itself? > No, that'd be "intraoperable". That's not a word, though. Building something interoperable means that the design is known to work - it's possible to build a new implementation from scratch and have it work alongside and with the existing deployment. There's implications of the design being fully specified, reliable, and so on. Without interoperability, you might get functionality, but it'll be either a silo or a monoculture. If it's a monoculture it won't stay that way - you'll end up with version drift - in which case you'll either need to figure out interoperability (hard to do in retrospect for a fracturing monoculture) or else eventually suffer functionality fracture. If it's a silo... Well, we don't like silos, I think we can agree there. Dave.
