Applications haven't been "monolithic" for a long time.
I agree 100% However, now try telling an IT manager that the intranet they're developing isn't a monolithic application.;-)
In fact your comment, "It's all in the economics - you have to be able to update one part of the application without the changes propagating throughout the whole application" is exactly what I was trying to get across. In the old client-server model when you changed an application its interface went with it. Because the interface and the content delivery were so tightly bound together changing the application meant the interface, out of necessaity, changed also. So all of the training and interoperability issues reared their head.
With web-based delivery that isn't the case. Designed properly, the interface and content of a web site are segregated from each other. Designed properly, you can switch out the backend without the user ever even noticing. Or, you can redesign the front end look and feel without ever having to touch the backend apps. Rhe people who keep mushing content and interface together in one entity are going to have maintenance problems, the shops that don't are going to spend much less time spinning the wheels corrected self-inflicted wounds.
I think a lot of IT Departments haven't dialed into what a website really is yet. They view a website as a large monolithic application.
Management is trying to apply the tools of application design to web design (and by design I mean the structure/function of it -- not the eye candy). Management is also trying to reduce the toolkit design down to one integrated package. Of course, it is also very much in the interest of the large software companies to promote that same concept... fufill all your needs from us, etc., etc.
To me, reduced to its simplest, a website is nothing more than navigation scheme for a large information space. That information is plugged in through a large number of essentially descrete applications. As long as the front end of the site looks the same, it doesn't matter how that content is being handled on the backend.
I read a paper a long time ago where the author argues that the seperation of the interface from the content was one of the misunderstood strengths of web delivered content. That since virtually any backend application could be plugged into the interface, it could effectively break the monopoly that venders have on IT shops. Oracle gets to be to expensive? Port your data to another DB and change the ODBC drivers and say adios to 'em.
For now the lure of the monolithic approach has traction with IT managers used to that approach. It will cost them in flexibility down the road. Just like the big iron mainframe folks had to adopt to the world of client-server networked PCs, the client-server folks are going to have to adapt to the logic of web delivered apps IMO.
Once the you receive a judgement in your favor the next step is to request liens on the defendants assets. That's where the spammers will really get nailed by the Feds -- because you know they are going to pull every sleazey trick in the book to disguise their assests. With that, they enter the realm of tax fraud.
What I expect to see is a spammer pushing the case up through the appeals process. And I don't think that is any kind of a guaranteed slam dunk victory It's hard to say how the Supreme Court would blance spam/Freedom of speech.
Going about it the wrong way...
on
Copyright as Cudgel
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Bad kaws get wriiten all the time, but they do frequently get over turned eventually. One of the best means of arguing against a law is to develop a 'literature' of archtypical examples of that law being abused.
One of the reason thye anti-DMCA and Bono Act forces aren't getting traction with the public is they are doing a poor job of building that 'literature of abuse'. We need to get away from the examples involving hacker groups, cryptologists discussing obscure algorythms and p2p piracy (never allow them to couple p2p with copyright -- two different issues). Instead we need to concentrate on examples that resonate with the mythical Joe Sixpack.
A week or so ago I had dinner with a couple of journalists... neither of them particularily Tech savy. Some how the conversation turned to these copyright issues. I've reak a lot of the stuff on Chilling Effects quite carefully. I started out with the stories of the Underwater Gardening mailgroup problems and the poor lady and her Dragon Art that got stomped on by Anne McCaffrey. Both of those stories resonatedwith my listeners because they were "little guy getting squashed" stories. We then moved onto the Bona Act and some of the DMCA issues Both of these journalists requested the URL to Chilling Effects so they could read further.
In short, don't present a non-technical person with technical examples they'll have difficulting sympathizing with. Use some simple marketting and engage them with human interest stories... stories they can relate to. The little guy getting screwed never sits well with the public, we need to build up a literature of those types of stories to redefine the 'spin' of the debate.
Slashdot Mirror
The Navy must be planning on setting up underwater grocery stores for dolphins. Well, they'll have the market cornered...
I agree 100% However, now try telling an IT manager that the intranet they're developing isn't a monolithic application. ;-)
In fact your comment, "It's all in the economics - you have to be able to update one part of the application without the changes propagating throughout the whole application" is exactly what I was trying to get across. In the old client-server model when you changed an application its interface went with it. Because the interface and the content delivery were so tightly bound together changing the application meant the interface, out of necessaity, changed also. So all of the training and interoperability issues reared their head.
With web-based delivery that isn't the case. Designed properly, the interface and content of a web site are segregated from each other. Designed properly, you can switch out the backend without the user ever even noticing. Or, you can redesign the front end look and feel without ever having to touch the backend apps. Rhe people who keep mushing content and interface together in one entity are going to have maintenance problems, the shops that don't are going to spend much less time spinning the wheels corrected self-inflicted wounds.
Web delivery is a deceptively different model.
Management is trying to apply the tools of application design to web design (and by design I mean the structure/function of it -- not the eye candy). Management is also trying to reduce the toolkit design down to one integrated package. Of course, it is also very much in the interest of the large software companies to promote that same concept... fufill all your needs from us, etc., etc. To me, reduced to its simplest, a website is nothing more than navigation scheme for a large information space. That information is plugged in through a large number of essentially descrete applications. As long as the front end of the site looks the same, it doesn't matter how that content is being handled on the backend. I read a paper a long time ago where the author argues that the seperation of the interface from the content was one of the misunderstood strengths of web delivered content. That since virtually any backend application could be plugged into the interface, it could effectively break the monopoly that venders have on IT shops. Oracle gets to be to expensive? Port your data to another DB and change the ODBC drivers and say adios to 'em. For now the lure of the monolithic approach has traction with IT managers used to that approach. It will cost them in flexibility down the road. Just like the big iron mainframe folks had to adopt to the world of client-server networked PCs, the client-server folks are going to have to adapt to the logic of web delivered apps IMO.
Once the you receive a judgement in your favor the next step is to request liens on the defendants assets. That's where the spammers will really get nailed by the Feds -- because you know they are going to pull every sleazey trick in the book to disguise their assests. With that, they enter the realm of tax fraud. What I expect to see is a spammer pushing the case up through the appeals process. And I don't think that is any kind of a guaranteed slam dunk victory It's hard to say how the Supreme Court would blance spam/Freedom of speech.
Bad kaws get wriiten all the time, but they do frequently get over turned eventually. One of the best means of arguing against a law is to develop a 'literature' of archtypical examples of that law being abused.
One of the reason thye anti-DMCA and Bono Act forces aren't getting traction with the public is they are doing a poor job of building that 'literature of abuse'. We need to get away from the examples involving hacker groups, cryptologists discussing obscure algorythms and p2p piracy (never allow them to couple p2p with copyright -- two different issues). Instead we need to concentrate on examples that resonate with the mythical Joe Sixpack.
A week or so ago I had dinner with a couple of journalists... neither of them particularily Tech savy. Some how the conversation turned to these copyright issues. I've reak a lot of the stuff on Chilling Effects quite carefully. I started out with the stories of the Underwater Gardening mailgroup problems and the poor lady and her Dragon Art that got stomped on by Anne McCaffrey. Both of those stories resonatedwith my listeners because they were "little guy getting squashed" stories. We then moved onto the Bona Act and some of the DMCA issues Both of these journalists requested the URL to Chilling Effects so they could read further.
In short, don't present a non-technical person with technical examples they'll have difficulting sympathizing with. Use some simple marketting and engage them with human interest stories... stories they can relate to. The little guy getting screwed never sits well with the public, we need to build up a literature of those types of stories to redefine the 'spin' of the debate.