Charles E. Perkins wrote:
What if the market were shaped by:
- using questionable business practices to
- predatory/stupid legislation? (e.g., efforts to
outlaw "French" technology)
- selective failure to enforce existing legislation?
- powerful and misleading advertising?
There certainly is some of it, but it's not everything either.
What I'm concerned about are these guys and gals that say "Cisco routers
are junk. These guys at Cisco don't know jack about routing, it's
fortunate they bought Linksys so they will get clued engineers from the
acquisition, and my router that I put together with a recycled PC and
two pieces of duct tape is really way superior to Cisco products". Yeah,
right. If Cisco became market leader, it is because of their ability to
design and manufacture products that actually work in enterprises and
not because of questionable business practices.
The same people torpedo group efforts to work on difficult issues
because it has to be their way (that's better than the Cisco way or for
the same topic any compromise that a WG could come up with) or no way at
[note: I do not work for Cisco]
Does it mean that we should require new sections in
every Internet Draft explaining how the protocol can
succeed by suggesting some clever strategies for
misleading advertising and so on, or how to kill
competitive protocols? I know you didn't want to
Maybe you didn't really mean what you said. It
amounts to "might makes right".
Not at all. It amount to "no solution because we found more comfortable
to put issues under the rug is worse than an imperfect solution". If we
don't provide a site-local solution, there will be a Microsoft solution,
a Sun solution, a Cisco solution, a Juniper solution, etc. Eventually
one or more of these will become a de-facto standard, and then people
will be whining "how dare these big mighty companies produce solutions
without talking to us; they abuse their power to impose their solution".