On 5/18/14, 12:53 AM, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT&Internet) wrote:
On 18. Mai 2014 04:59:03 MESZ, Ofer Inbar <cos(_at_)aaaaa(_dot_)org> wrote:
The Internet isn't just for everyone to use, but also, the Internet
is for all of its "users" to *develop*. The Internet is for
participants.
ACK, but exactly these and similiar terms remembers me about the "Web
2.0" pseudo-paradigm with which "IT-analysts" and "experts" tried to
make us happy some years ago, but the result was a new set of
centralized, proprietary internet services like the "social media"
gigants which - by the end of the day - made connectivity between
peoples not easier nor flexible at all.
You're confusing outcomes and causes...
analysts don't make large economies of scale attractive, numbers do.
Why i.e. in 2014 it is still not possible for users to have just
"one" data record as their "primary internet address" on their i.e.
business card (and this while having full freedom about where/on
which server/provider having which service or part of service - i.e.
in the old "fashioned" form of user@host (like in Email)?
By RFCs and i.e. DNS infrastructure there still ARE enough open
standards / protocols allowing (simplified) to "phone" or "talk"
(SIP/RTP, XMPP etc.), to "email" (SMTP), to "publish content" (HTTP,
FTP, DAV etc.) or even "authenticate"/"sign" and much more over the
same "address" and but by practice most of that lacks of realized
interoperability of systems (i.e. most phones - devices and networks
- still did not allow to input / process alphanumerics), XMPP is in a
minor market position and "SIP is not SIP". The DNS still offers
features covering most of such an "address resolution" but not all
client software can handle DNS so far.
The "web 2.0" aera brought "single points of contacts" for users, but
most users have more then a hand full of different "contact
addresses", URIs to "be reachable" for different audiences of
different customers of different service providers. A business card
is as long as never before in many situations.
Is'nt that "crazy"?
A similiar situation we have in the widely proprietary "internet
search market" where we was "going away" from former (and outdated)
protocols/standards without something new, leaded to a oligopolized
commercial search infrastructure and it could'nt be a "solution" to
have more and more web spiders/robots running each web site or
internet ressources, generating more and more overhead for more and
more data redundancy in practice (tried to concept a open
"solution" on http://www.seeky.org some times ago with a couple of
colleagues).
What i want to say here: There is a lot of further potential even in
"old" and sometimes called "outdated" standards which we did not used
in their full potential. On the other hand slightly standard
extensions could offer a huge amount of user flexibility/freedom and
ergonomics in practice for any user.
Just my two cents...
best regards,
Niels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature