On 5/18/14, 12:53 AM, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT&Internet) wrote: > On 18. Mai 2014 04:59:03 MESZ, Ofer Inbar <cos@xxxxxxxxx> 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 search market" where we was "going away" from former (and outdated) 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 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature