[LINK] E-mail viruses blamed as spam rises sharply
devenish at guild.uwa.edu.au
Fri Feb 20 17:08:42 EST 2004
In message <9BD4AE8C2EB1D311982700508BA2498904CBD2D4 at EXCHANGE_AU>
on Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 05:09:01PM +1000, Chirgwin, Richard wrote:
> In message <1077255306.7007.53.camel at andromache>
> on Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 04:05:06PM +1030, Glen Turner wrote:
> > ASN.1 is a good example of the power of a bad standard.
> > As a protocol designer it was simply too hard to use
> > anything else once you were faced with a "standard",
> > especially one like ASN.1 that governments mandated
> > in their various GOSIP efforts and which telcos required.
> > Why fight to use a "proprietary technology" like Sun's
> > XDR?
> Thanks for the history, Glen. I think it's worth applying to our
> understanding of the Internet in a more general sense. It's not that
> "this" is the best way to do something, it's that ubiquity means
> there's no choice.
Okay, that is a genuine issue to consider. And the Internet is clearly
full of systems that can be considered "not the best way of doing
something". SMTP, RFC 822 (2822) mail, HTML and URLs are other examples
that have been discussed recently. Some might like to characterise the
continued use of these protocols as a tragedy of ubiquity. But, as a
form of counterexample, note that a lot of artists, manufacturers,
publishers, and consumers have apparently expected that audio CDs could
be used in audio CD players. How silly! Copy-protected CDs have now
introduced new choice into the ubiquitous CD-based market -- the choice
to unwittingly purchase music that you can't play. In a similar vein,
Microsoft have demonstrated that their choice -- avoiding compliance
with ubiquitous open standards -- affects consumers' choice of products.
More information about the Link