[p2p-research] [OK] Re: [VBbuilders] Why and how work together?

[Matt Cooperrider]

Sam, I think you are right on about protocols, and am glad to hear that you
think Wave has what it takes. I have a gut feeling about this, but not the
expertise to evaluate it.

I was lucky enough to have breakfast with lead Wave engineer Stephanie
Hannon in Sydney recently. She says they are working hard to extract
proprietary code from their Wave client, so that others can get their own
clients up more easily.

But they have a lot of other pressures and deadlines, and need to show mass
adoption first and foremost. So use those invites!!!

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Sam Putman <atmanistan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > So where we are is with this flourishing of myriad initiatives, each
> trying
> > to re-invent the wheel and duplicating efforts,
> >
> > BUT, we can use each other's differential strengths to rally around
> certain
> > initiatives for certain goals, and around others for other goals,
> >
> >
> > at this stage, this is unavoidable,
> >
> > Michel
>
> This is an invisible consequence of poor protocol design on the part
> of the Internet community.
>
> Back in the (g)olden days, the trend was to solve a communication
> challenge by designing a protocol that was robust, easy to implement,
> and would therefore let any server anywhere implement the protocol.
> Such are email, usenet, IRC, and HTML, and the suite of lower-level
> and supporting technologies.
>
> bittorrent is an example of a protocol from the more modern era which
> was developed correctly. It is inevitable, unstoppable, and
> democratic. These protocols can succumb to poor design (as usenet
> largely has) but when executed well they are what let us organize in a
> peer-to-peer fashion.
>
> Internet existed in competition with many walled gardens: Compuserve,
> Prodigy, AOL and the countless bulletin boards. All are gone, or
> assimilated into the collective; for the most part, the work that went
> into making them, the content they hosted, is lost.
>
> Facebook may look 'too big to fail' but AOL once bought Time-Warner. A
> walled garden is simply not an Internet-compatible solution; what's
> needed is a Social Networking Protocol, something that works in a
> fine-grained way to let someone define their own social network across
> the entire Internet, without prejudice of provider, and interact with
> that as they move from node to node.
>
> Wave, from my perusal of it, has (more than) what it takes to do this.
> Modern Internet standards tend to have the relatively obese quality of
> Wave, with XML as the shining example. Wave has a long way to go
> before we can set up a Wave server as fast and easily as we can throw
> up Apache now, but when that time comes, Wave may well have what it
> takes.
>
> In the meantime, we'll muddle along with forums, Drupal sites, and a
> thousand and one passwords. However, if we keep in mind the kind of
> architecture we actually need, it will be faster and easier to
> eventually get it.
>
> cheers,
> -Sam Putman.
>
> --
> This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en
> To post to this group, send email to openkollab at googlegroups.com
>



-- 
Matt Cooperrider
Strategic Account Manager, Collabforge pty ltd
collaboration ~ mass collaboration ~ social software
+ 61 (0) 468 954 779 ~ 239 Rathdowne St, Carlton, Melbourne 3053
collabforge.com ~ twitter.com/mattcoop
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100421/7518cbc0/attachment.html>