Re: [xanadu] flecks ?????

[Andrew Pam <xanni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 04:24:26AM +0200, ____Textpert Alert____ wrote:
> > Things like XNS and Mojo Nation not only demonstrate the gradual
> > acceptance or rediscovery of the Xanadu ideas, but indeed could
> > in some cases potentially serve as part of a Xanadu system if
> > compliant with the requirements.
> 
>   Right you are, but what good are these requirements if they
>   change (or "evolve") that drastically with the times, that
>   they start to sound like a travesty of the original item?

While I agree that the change in strategy from a proprietary, monolithic
system to a modular, open system is indeed fairly drastic and in sync
with the times, I don't see how that makes the new Xanadu "a travesty
of the original item".  The goals and specifications have not changed.

>   I for one cannot imagine how it could be done --within current
>   paradigm of IP-based communications-- WITHOUT a proprietary
>   network, a whole new docuverse parallelling (and overlaying?)
>   the open-access WWW, all based on the same proprietary back-
>   end-frontend technology with built-in granular transclusion,
>   accounting and billing capabilities (as per Ted's original
>   concept; in WWW the latter later named "micropayments" --
>   still nowhere near in sight [see url below]).

There is plenty of scope to overlay new protocols and systems over the
existing Internet; this is exactly how email, Usenet, IRC, the Web,
the CNRI handle system, e-gold, paypal, Napster, freenet, XNS and
Mojo Nation (among others) are implemented.  And as many of those have
demonstrated, there's no inherent need for the design or specifications to
be proprietary; in fact open implementations tend to attract more support.

>   Look around you: do you see ANY complex system (of anything)
>   that is *perfect*, elegant, or sticks together without constant
>   infusion of spit, chewing gum and sellotape? I cannot think of
>   any, much less complex ones, that to a large degree aren't
>   kludges, "the usual muddle", compost heaps of conflicting
>   good intentions. Perhaps we humans are predisposed to chaotic
>   management of chaos, and simply feel no need for excellence?
> 
>   That certainly is closer to the spirit of the WWW, which has
>   proved that it works, scales adequately, and is not owned by
>   anyone. But nothing short of perfection will do for Xanadu.
>   In the end the very idea is too elegant, too much of a paper
>   construct, too inherently beautiful for its own good. That's
>   why I called it a  d r e a m.   Don't let me wake you up.

Perhaps that is your dream of Xanadu.  But there are some of us
who have always seen some specific goals and objectives and will
be quite happy to settle for a successive approximation to those
ideals, since true perfection is of course a never-ending quest.

Cheers,
	Andrew
-- 
mailto:xanni@xxxxxxxxxx                         Andrew Pam
http://www.xanadu.com.au/                       Chief Scientist, Xanadu
http://www.glasswings.com.au/                   Technology Manager, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/sc/                   Manager, Serious Cybernetics
P.O. Box 477, Blackburn VIC 3130 Australia	Phone +61 401 258 915