Granted that XML is not a solution in and of itself. The point I was trying to make is that using EDI specs and proprietarty VANs is really inefficient. A number of the companies I've worked for have been taking their EDI solutions which are software with transfer maechanisms and document translation to multiple formats, and moving them to HTTP based XML transfers. Simplifies the software considerably. I was asking, why bother with the EDI spec (OK legacy apps are one reason). But if somenone is building a new "extranet" solution, it seems that it may a bad idea to latch onto EDI, when cheaper more efficient tools are out there.
I know EDI has been around a long time, but why EDI?
These days XML is as capable, or more capable than the EDI systems, and for that matter there are a lot of tools for doing XML based messaging.
I've been working for a year on a project (contract) writing client-side interfaces to CLEC OSS interfaces based in HTTP and XML. Development is fast (it's convincing my client to take the time to design the client side APIs and do the integration work correctly the first time - man they wanted quick one offs that don't scale).
Some of us in Virginia have been active against UCITA. Unfortunately, we live in the state with AOHell and any number of ISVs in the NoVA area.
We can't compete against their wealth and a number are essentially buying legislators. Also, the VA government is controlled primarily by probusiness, profarm factions. NoVA does not have a voice commensurate (sp?) with the wealth we produce.
Many voters in VA don't see how this hurts them (most simply accept EULAs as gospel anyway). I would be hard pressed to get rid of my representatives because of the stupidity of their vote on UCITA, my reps generally do a good job, but they get snowed by all of the crap from the industry. They also seem to think that any "uniform code" is good code (generally true).
I've been calling my state senator (called by delegate yesterday). Hopefully the Senate will be more intelligent.
Be came to the market late and hit the high-barriers to entry that the consumer OS market provides. This isn't MS's fault
Read Judge Jackson's Finding of Fact. He seems to think so, and it's his opinion that matters.
Microsoft may have taken advantage of many market barriers and created a couple (exclusive licensing) - but they did not have much to do cuonsumers becoming resistant to change - it's a human condition (look at the reactionaries around you). Linux and Open Source are growing because they have prostletysed (sp?) continually and convinced the business community that they are an excellent alternative. There still has not been a large impact in the consumer impact
I don't think the lack of consumer Unix based systems had anything to do with MS monopoly in 90-94
There was no lack of consumer Unix. Minix cost less than a copy of Windows 3.0, and one could get Xenix, from Microsoft, for only slightly more. Hell, buying my first 386 Olivetti cost LESS with Xenix than with their 'standard' Windows developer package.
That may be true - but they certainly weren't marketed at the consumer now were they. This survey is almost certainly been answered in the majrotiy by a consumers - not geeks. Consumers wanted "user friendliness". No one marketed Xenix or Minix as a consumer OS.
Although OS2, Be, and Apple market a consumer OS, the public perception of MS isn't just the result of MS marketing prowess. Be came to the market late and hit the high-barriers to entry that the consumer OS market provides. This isn't MS's fault, most people are creatures of habit; they don't like learning new systems and they don't want to change when they have a device that works "good enough" (however debatable that term may be). Apple shot themselves in the foot by refusing to license their OS(es). They charged higher prices than PC clone makers. Say what you will about quality, price/performance is usually the determining factor in consumer PC purchases. And the subtle advantages of Apple didn't show up in puchasing. Business is even worse, it's lowest cost period (short term decision making). OS/2 probably is the one OS squashed by the MS marketing juggernaut - although IBM's complete incompetence in consumer marketing also had an impact. The Unix crowd ain't got much room to complain about marketing - until the last year or two, no one was even attempting to market to the consumer. The systems were aimed at back office business processing and academia/science. The only consumers using Unix systems weren't the average consumer - geeks make up a fraction of the desktop market. I don't think the lack of consumer Unix based systems had anything to do with MS monopoly in 90-94. Alot of it was the focus on the higher margins at the higher end of the spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually MSNBC has a better story, including the reply from Network Associates that they think it's pretty much low risk.
Also names the file which goes under two names
QuickFlick.mpg.exe or MySissy.mpg.exe
If their so sure that the movie file is a trojan horse, why didn't they name the file?
Granted that XML is not a solution in and of itself. The point I was trying to make is that using EDI specs and proprietarty VANs is really inefficient. A number of the companies I've worked for have been taking their EDI solutions which are software with transfer maechanisms and document translation to multiple formats, and moving them to HTTP based XML transfers. Simplifies the software considerably. I was asking, why bother with the EDI spec (OK legacy apps are one reason). But if somenone is building a new "extranet" solution, it seems that it may a bad idea to latch onto EDI, when cheaper more efficient tools are out there.
I know EDI has been around a long time, but why EDI?
These days XML is as capable, or more capable than the EDI systems, and for that matter there are a lot of tools for doing XML based messaging.
I've been working for a year on a project (contract) writing client-side interfaces to CLEC OSS interfaces based in HTTP and XML. Development is fast (it's convincing my client to take the time to design the client side APIs and do the integration work correctly the first time - man they wanted quick one offs that don't scale).
Some of us in Virginia have been active against UCITA. Unfortunately, we live in the state with AOHell and any number of ISVs in the NoVA area.
We can't compete against their wealth and a number are essentially buying legislators. Also, the VA government is controlled primarily by probusiness, profarm factions. NoVA does not have a voice commensurate (sp?) with the wealth we produce.
Many voters in VA don't see how this hurts them (most simply accept EULAs as gospel anyway). I would be hard pressed to get rid of my representatives because of the stupidity of their vote on UCITA, my reps generally do a good job, but they get snowed by all of the crap from the industry. They also seem to think that any "uniform code" is good code (generally true).
I've been calling my state senator (called by delegate yesterday). Hopefully the Senate will be more intelligent.
Be came to the market late and hit the high-barriers to entry that the consumer OS market provides. This isn't MS's fault
Read Judge Jackson's Finding of Fact. He seems to think so, and it's his opinion that matters.
Microsoft may have taken advantage of many market barriers and created a couple (exclusive licensing) - but they did not have much to do cuonsumers becoming resistant to change - it's a human condition (look at the reactionaries around you). Linux and Open Source are growing because they have prostletysed (sp?) continually and convinced the business community that they are an excellent alternative. There still has not been a large impact in the consumer impact
I don't think the lack of consumer Unix based systems had anything to do with MS monopoly in 90-94
There was no lack of consumer Unix. Minix cost less than a copy of Windows 3.0, and one could get Xenix, from Microsoft, for only slightly more. Hell, buying my first 386 Olivetti cost LESS with Xenix than with their 'standard' Windows developer package.
That may be true - but they certainly weren't marketed at the consumer now were they. This survey is almost certainly been answered in the majrotiy by a consumers - not geeks. Consumers wanted "user friendliness". No one marketed Xenix or Minix as a consumer OS.
Although OS2, Be, and Apple market a consumer OS, the public perception of MS isn't just the result of MS marketing prowess. Be came to the market late and hit the high-barriers to entry that the consumer OS market provides. This isn't MS's fault, most people are creatures of habit; they don't like learning new systems and they don't want to change when they have a device that works "good enough" (however debatable that term may be). Apple shot themselves in the foot by refusing to license their OS(es). They charged higher prices than PC clone makers. Say what you will about quality, price/performance is usually the determining factor in consumer PC purchases. And the subtle advantages of Apple didn't show up in puchasing. Business is even worse, it's lowest cost period (short term decision making). OS/2 probably is the one OS squashed by the MS marketing juggernaut - although IBM's complete incompetence in consumer marketing also had an impact. The Unix crowd ain't got much room to complain about marketing - until the last year or two, no one was even attempting to market to the consumer. The systems were aimed at back office business processing and academia/science. The only consumers using Unix systems weren't the average consumer - geeks make up a fraction of the desktop market. I don't think the lack of consumer Unix based systems had anything to do with MS monopoly in 90-94. Alot of it was the focus on the higher margins at the higher end of the spectrum.