Re: BofA+Netscape

> Amanda complained that Netscape pisses all over the
> standardization committees.
> 
> Well guys, the victor has room to move.  It must come as a big
> shock to Apple, Microsoft, and IBM, but reality is that Netscape
> can set WWW standards and they cannot.

I disagree.  The WWW is no longer a research project, and if it is to
survive it will have to do so by consensus, either formal or informal.
That's what standards committees, and groups like the IETF, exist to
facilitate.

The alternative is fragmentation, which we're already starting to see
(in part because of Netscape's unilateral changes to HTML).

Let me re-iterate something here: I'm biased.  I'm a commercial vendor.
I'm perfectly happy to live by the sword and die by the sword if that's
how the market ends up--I just think it would be better for the Internet
as a whole if the actual on-the-wire protocols and formats become standards,
so that people don't have to worry about what clients or servers they are
talking to.  UI, performance, service, and such are fair game.  Infastructure
has to be consensus-based or it fails.

But hey, if Netscape can innovate by fiat, so can anyone else.  Right now,
I'm betting that Netscape will decide it's worth cooperating with the
standards process.  If they don't, they'll just fragment their own market.
I can live with that, but I think it would be a shame.


Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation

I wrote:
> > Well guys, the victor has room to move.  It must come as a big
> > shock to Apple, Microsoft, and IBM, but reality is that Netscape
> > can set WWW standards and they cannot.

Amanda Walker writes
> I disagree.  The WWW is no longer a research project, and if it is to
> survive it will have to do so by consensus, either formal or informal.
> That's what standards committees, and groups like the IETF, exist to
> facilitate.

Consensus between who and who?  When they implement crypto, perhaps
they should listen to us cypherpunks, but when they add new SGML
tags, and new subfields for existing tags, why should they give
a tinkers dam what Apple thinks?

Now plainly they should listen very carefully to what the guys
at CERN say about SGML tags, but as far as I can see, the groups that
you want them to take consensus with, have no standing in this matter.

What right has apple got to demand that its views be considered?

They should discuss SGML with Mosaic, and encryption with RSA,
but I have seen little good come out of these standards committees.

Open standards are great, but a camel is a horse designed
by a committee.

CERN came down from the mountain top, and decreed what
HTML and HTTP should be, and that was a truly open and 
successful standard.

Very few such standards have emerged from comittees.  If
anything Netscape is paying too much attention to official
committees and too little attention to reality.  (for
example their irrelevant ID protocol for secure 
transfer.)

and if Netscape descends from
the mountain and proclaims a superset of HTML and additional
HTTP behavior, then provided that they are open and retain
backward compatibility, that is the way to go.

If their proclamation is flawed, they will not get away with
it.  If their proclamation is OK, being developed from
practice instead of bureaucratic politicing, then they
will get away with it.

For example consider the standards committee on SQL.  It is just
a political issue:  What companies on the standards committee decide
to do is deemed good, what others do is deemed bad.  As 
a result the SQL "standard" is now just a random pile
that does not make any sense.

This is OK when the standards committee is dominated by those
on the leading edge of technology, but irrelevant and harmful
when they are lagging.

A few years back, when the standards for new RAM chips
were debated, those who were lagging decreed that any
ram chip beyond their technology to make was deemed
to be non standard.  Needless to say, today we all use
non standard RAM chips.  A similar thing occurred with
the move to higher floppy disk densities.  Those who
could not double, decreed the next density increase
would not be to double the previous density.  Again,
the floppy standard was non standard.

In short, when the leading edge company dominates the
standards committee, it is of little use, when the 
old companies dominate the standards committee, it is
actually harmful.

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com

How many times will there remain the confusion between what is
achievably optimal and what is permitted?

   From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)

   Now plainly they should listen very carefully to what the guys
   at CERN say about SGML tags, but as far as I can see, the groups that
   you want them to take consensus with, have no standing in this matter.

This is all very Libertarianly Correct, certainly, but it may also be
downright stupid.

If one WWW company manages to fragment the web, the total value
available to all drops, and it may also be that individual value is
also less.  Communications technologies have use-value superlinear in
the number of people using compatible systems, so fragmentation always
reduces total value.  Whether the individual fragmented value is
greater or larger than an individual non-fragmented value I cannot
say.  I do know that free software has this tendency to be easily
replaceable.

Eric

Eric Hughes flames away without first reading:

Eric, read more, flame less, you might learn something.
>
> How many times will there remain the confusion between what is
> achievably optimal and what is permitted?
>
>    From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)
>
>    Now plainly they should listen very carefully to what the guys
>    at CERN say about SGML tags, but as far as I can see, the groups that
>    you want them to take consensus with, have no standing in this matter.
>
> This is all very Libertarianly Correct, certainly, but it may also be
> downright stupid.
 
In future Eric, pleas read before flaming. 
 
I posted a lengthy explanation of why it was counter productive 
to take consensus with those who are lagging. 

Here follows the material, that you apparently deleted 
without reading:

  ------------

Open standards are great, but a camel is a horse designed
by a committee.

CERN came down from the mountain top, and decreed what
HTML and HTTP should be, and that was a truly open and 
successful standard.

Very few such standards have emerged from comittees.  If
anything Netscape is paying too much attention to official
committees and too little attention to reality.  (for
example their irrelevant ID protocol for secure 
transfer.)

and if Netscape descends from
the mountain and proclaims a superset of HTML and additional
HTTP behavior, then provided that they are open and retain
backward compatibility, that is the way to go.


If their proclamation is flawed, they will not get away with
it.  If their proclamation is OK, being developed from
practice instead of bureaucratic politicing, then they
will get away with it.

For example consider the standards committee on SQL.  It is just
a political issue:  What companies on the standards committee decide
to do is deemed good, what others do is deemed bad.  As 
a result the SQL "standard" is now just a random pile
that does not make any sense.

This is OK when the standards committee is dominated by those
on the leading edge of technology, but irrelevant and harmful
when they are lagging.

A few years back, when the standards for new RAM chips
were debated, those who were lagging decreed that any
ram chip beyond their technology to make was deemed
to be non standard.  Needless to say, today we all use
non standard RAM chips, which were belatedly defined to 
be standard.  A similar thing occurred with
the move to higher floppy disk densities.  Those who
could not double, decreed the next density increase
would not be to double the previous density.  Again,
the floppy standard was non standard until the standards
people reluctantly and belatedly accepted reality.


In short, when the leading edge company dominates the
standards committee, it is of little use, and when the 
old companies dominate the standards committee, it is
actually harmful.


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com

From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)

   Eric, read more, flame less, you might learn something.

Ah, I see.  Disagreement equals flaming.

   I posted a lengthy explanation of why it was counter productive 
   to take consensus with those who are lagging. 

And since they were _your_ ideas, they were correct.  You did not
reply to the substance of my own comments.  I now must hypothesize
that you didn't understand them.  I am at least polite enough to
refrain from implying that you didn't read them.

   A few years back, when the standards for new RAM chips
   were debated

The analogy between physical manufactures and compatible software is
inaccurate.  I implied that in my post, but I take it you didn't
follow my conclusion very far.

   In short, when the leading edge company dominates the
   standards committee, it is of little use, and when the 
   old companies dominate the standards committee, it is
   actually harmful.

The domain of applicability of this situation is not universal.

There is good reason to believe that it does not apply here.

Eric

> 
I wrote:
>    Eric, read more, flame less, you might learn something.
> 
Eric Hughes writes
> [...] You did not
> reply to the substance of my own comments.

Because they did not have any substance.  You claimed I was
arguing from libertarian correctness.

This was not the case, as you now implicitly acknowldge
by belatedly addressing the argument I did make instead
of the argument that you alleged I made.

Since you earlier criticized the argument that you thought I made,
instead of the argument that I did make, a reasonable
conclusion is that you did not read it before opening fire.

The short of your argument is that Netscape will fragment the
net by running out there and dumping something in the market
place without consensing with all the big boys.

Bunkum:  Look at the RS232 standard.  Remember how we
were always futzing around trying to make one companies
RS232 talk to another companies RS232.  Similarly
the SCSI-1 standard.

The best way to make standards that stick is for the
front runner to proclaim them from the mountain
by fiat.

If apple and IBM and microsoft got together and agreed
on a standard:  

1.  We would all be old and grey.
2.  They still would not interoperate.
3.  Netscape would not be out there doing really cool stuff
    and promising to bring crypto to the masses.



-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com

From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)

   Because they did not have any substance.  You claimed I was
   arguing from libertarian correctness.

Perhaps you don't know the meaning of whitespace and paragraph breaks.

I did claim you were arguing from libertarian correctness.  Now that's
just an insult, which I do not retract.

In a second paragraph, I began a new argument which did not depend on
your subjective state of mind.  I currently think that you just got a
weensy little inflamed and didn't bother to try to understand the
argument, projecting that the remainder must be similar.

   This was not the case, as you now implicitly acknowldge
   by belatedly addressing the argument I did make instead
   of the argument that you alleged I made.

Oh, please.  Go back and read what I originally wrote.  Perhaps I
overestimate your ability to ascertain relevance, though.

   The short of your argument is that Netscape will fragment the
   net by running out there and dumping something in the market
   place without consensing with all the big boys.

This is not an argument.  This is a premise.  I suggest you go back
and try to summarize what I actually said.  (Hint: it has to do with
game theory.)

Eric

From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)
> > You claimed I was
> > arguing from libertarian correctness.

Eric Hughes replies:
> Perhaps you don't know the meaning of whitespace and paragraph breaks.

And then he contradicts himself:

> I did claim you were arguing from libertarian correctness.  Now that's
> just an insult, which I do not retract.
 
>
> [...]
 
> 
> Oh, please.  Go back and read what I originally wrote.  Perhaps I
> overestimate your ability to ascertain relevance, though.
 
You do not demonstrate much ability to think rationally
in this posting.  A self contradiction in three lines,
above, and some interesting logic to follow:
 
I wrote:
> > The short of your argument is that Netscape will fragment the
> > net by running out there and dumping something in the market
> > place without consensing with all the big boys.

you wrote:
> This is not an argument.  This is a premise. 
 
I see:  So you start off with the assumption that what
I was arguing was false, and because that is a premise 
not an argument, you do not have to defend it or support it. 
 
Nice piece of logic there.
 
I accused you of flaming before reading.  Now you claim
that you did read it, but the laws of logic exempt you
from having to make rational criticism of what I wrote.
 
I think your defense denigrates you more than my original 
accusation did. 

Now back to some slight crypto relevance:

Each posting I made was about the standards making process.

I argue that good standards are created by victory in the
market place, and bad standards are made by committees
and consensus.

You argue game theory that would be valid given your premise
that cooperation works in this case.  Since the whole point
of each of my letters on this thread is that cooperation
with lagging competitors does not work in setting standards,
game theory is irrelevant to this issue.

Your so called "game theory" is just code for the moral
assumption that Netscape are wicked not to engage in consensus.

I do what you pretend to do.  I deduce moral truths from
game theory.  You instead start off with an unjustified moral 
assumption, and express that assumption in 
inappropriate game theoretic language, so that you can
cloak your arbitrary prejudices in pretended moral neutrality.

You do not reason using game theory, you use it as a code
to express moral claims without having to justify them.

 
--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com

From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)

----------------------

1. Plain talk.

   you wrote:
   > This is not an argument.  This is a premise. 

   I see:  So you start off with the assumption that what
   I was arguing was false, and because that is a premise 
   not an argument, you do not have to defend it or support it. 

You claimed that what you were saying was my argument.  I pointed out
that it wasn't an argument at all, that it was merely a premise for an
argument.  Pardon me, though, for assuming that you know the
difference between a deduction and an assertion.  What you summarized
was merely an assertion.  A deduction has some sense of the word
"therefore" in it.  What you summarized did not.

Perhaps you thought you were summarizing the conclusion of my
argument, which would have the form of an assertion.  But if you were
doing that, then you really did confuse an argument with its
conclusion.

Now, let me be perfectly clear here.  I quote your summary just to
make sure:

> > The short of your argument is that Netscape will fragment the
> > net by running out there and dumping something in the market
> > place without consensing with all the big boys.

This was a premise of my argument.  Since you managed to restate one
of my premises, I now know that you are able of taking letters of text
and forming them into coherent sentences.  What you have not yet
demonstrated is the capacity for taking _all_ the letters of text and
attempting an understanding of a complete position.

----------------------

2. Typographically Challenged.

   Eric Hughes replies:
   > Perhaps you don't know the meaning of whitespace and paragraph breaks.

   And then he contradicts himself:

   > I did claim you were arguing from libertarian correctness.  Now that's
   > just an insult, which I do not retract.

Aren't we dense today?

Paragraph 1: Insult

Paragraph 2: Argument

Whitespace and line breaks are used as thematic separators.  Let me
use very small words now: The first paragraph was about one thing, and
the second paragraph was about something else.  There was a blank line
between the two which means that these two things are not like each
other.

----------------------

3. Semper Fidelis.

   I accused you of flaming before reading.  Now you claim
   that you did read it, but the laws of logic exempt you
   from having to make rational criticism of what I wrote.

I asked you to summarize what you thought I meant.  I no longer
believe that you're making a good faith effort to talk about the same
thing, so I wanted at least to try to make explicit the lack of
agreement about each other's positions.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time to discuss a topic where
there's not basic agreement on the other's position.  Were it not for
the fact that you continue to address the actual issue after insults
of your own, I would have already ignored this thread.

----------------------

4. Striving to think.

   I argue that good standards are created by victory in the
   market place, and bad standards are made by committees
   and consensus.

Without altering the denotation of the sentence I can interpret this
as "all good standards" and "all bad standards".  Well, that sounds
like an example of Libertarian Correctness to me.

The flies in the market place _uber alles_!

   You argue game theory that would be valid given your premise
   that cooperation works in this case.  

You are seriously misrepresenting my position in this restatement.
First, you will not distinguish between a simple indicative and a
modal form.  What I was pointing out is that it's not clear that
cooperation doesn't work, i.e. it may work.  "May" here is the modal
form.  Second, you will not distinguish an implication from its
converse.  I argued that, given plausible game-theoretic assumptions,
that the best outcome is cooperation.  Game theory is the premise;
cooperation is the conclusion.

Mind you, I'm talking to the _rest_ of the list here.

----------------------

5. In the boat with Chomsky.

And now The Amazing James, reader of minds, will tell me what I really
meant to say:

   Your so called "game theory" is just code for the moral
   assumption that Netscape are wicked not to engage in consensus.

De mortuis mentis, nil nisi Latinum.

----------------------

6. A tip: avoid auctions.

   You do not reason using game theory, you use it as a code
   to express moral claims without having to justify them.

James Donald asked be asked me what iterated dominance was a couple of
weeks ago.

James, do you know _anything_ about game theory?  Anything at all?

Eric

James --

You seem to be reacting to a number of deliberate
hot-button items in the projected mythos of Netscape.

1) Do you really think that Internet standards are
   set by "the big boys?" Get a grip. Windows _still_
   doesn't include a TCP/IP stack, which much be
   grafted on with some pain. Apple has done a better 
   job, but only recently started shipping machines 
   with it.

2) Internet standards are set by the participants in
   the internet. They move much more quickly than any
   other standards body I've had the (mis)fortune of
   dealing with, the standards are open and freely available,
   and free reference implementations are required.
   I cannot think of a more favorable set of circumstances
   for the "little guy."

3) NCOM, by not merely circumventing but COMPLETELY
   IGNORING the Internet standards setting process and
   adjunct development of reference implementations, has
   set forth to reinvent the wheel, and badly at that.

4) This is completely incidental to the way they have
   soiled the community nest for WWW development, which
   contains not only the "big boys", who can probably
   take this sort of thing on the chin without blinking,
   but also a horde of other "little guys," many of whom
   are even smaller than NCOM.

Doug [ who has never worked on anything "for the masses", unless
       the users of AIX or Non-Stop UX are "the masses" ]

Doug Barnes writes
> 2) Internet standards are set by the participants in
>    the internet. They move much more quickly than any
>    other standards body I've had the (mis)fortune of
>    dealing with, the standards are open and freely available,
>    and free reference implementations are required.

The reason the internet standards process works so well
is because there is usually no money involved.

On this matter, there is money.

Every example I gave, where the standards setting process
failed, is because lagging players want bad standards.
It is in their financial interest.

Secondly, the Internet Standards process is itself 
a substitute for the marketplace in a non money
environment.  Netscape is working in the real
marketplace.


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com