Topic: MS puts http in the crosshairs
started by: Beldurin
Posted by Beldurin on Mar. 29 2002,05:01
This may be old news for some of you, but...Isn't this interesting? According to ZDNet, Microsoft is plotting a replacement for, get this, http! As if the attempt to stamp out Linux, Java, PHP, and Mac (ok, so they're not <I>all </I> bad) wasn't enough, now they've set their sights on eliminating/replacing one of the two core protocols of the Internet (TCP/IP of course being the other).
MS exec Don Box (nice name) claims that http is too limited, unidirectional, and too slow. He says that intermediary networks won't tolerate long delays occasionally generated by http requests, so despite it's track record and reliability, http really needs to go. An, not suprisingly, he hints that Microsoft has a potential solution. I wonder if it might have any sort of tie-in to a little something called .NET? Perhaps, but MS isn't letting the cat out of the bag yet.
You can find the full story on the < ZDNet > page.
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 31 2002,18:37
http is not going to go away, there are just better applications to run over tcp/ip now that the content is a bit more mature then<html>
<b>Bob's Homepage</b><br>
I like dogs ...do you like dogs?
</html>
There are already many different aplications that run over tcp/ip that expand on http:// and give the browser more functionality. Want streaming media? use mms:// or file transfers? use ftp:// how about a video confrence? use ils:// a file browser? use file:// a bit more security? use https://
There are many different applications that can run on different tcp/ip ports and be accessed via the browser, and in a few years I think the browser will be the shell and replace explorer or progman or any aftermarket shell you're running. This is why Microsoft's claim that they couldn't remove the browser because it was an essential part of the OS is true. I don't think http:// will go away unless the new format that Microsoft puts out is universaly accepted as the greatest transport protocol ever made ....or unless they buy out any opposition.
Posted by incubus on Mar. 31 2002,18:53
| Quote (Wiley @ 31 Mar. 2002,09:37) |
| I don't think http:// will go away unless the new format that Microsoft puts out is universaly accepted as the greatest transport protocol ever made ....or unless they buy out any opposition. |
You can't buy out the opposition when the opposition is an open standard. That's why proprietry standards are bad; if everything is open, people will use the best tool for the job.
Fuck realmedia! Fuck quicktime! Fuck Windows media!
Fuck them all up their assholes with a big rubber dick!
Posted by Beldurin on Mar. 31 2002,23:27
For the most part, I agree, Wiley. The problem is I see MS trying to strongarm some sort of .NETish solution into existance. What will we have then? A divided Internet. If MS succeeds in locking clients into the .NET framework, then hard-wires this new "wonder protocol" or whatever into it (vis a vis IE), then what?Those bastiges.
Posted by ic0n0 on Apr. 01 2002,04:44
| Quote (incubus @ 31 Mar. 2002,03:53) |
| Fuck them all up their assholes with a big rubber dick! |
YEAH WITH A RUBBER DICK!
Posted by incubus on Apr. 01 2002,05:05
<carlin>Fuck you! Fuck you up the asshole with a big rubber dick! Then, I'm gonna break off the rest, and beat you to death with it!</carlin>
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 01 2002,18:23
| Quote (Beldurin @ 31 Mar. 2002,14:27) |
| The problem is I see MS trying to strongarm some sort of .NETish solution into existance. What will we have then? A divided Internet. |
I'm torn between my two loves ...the Internet and the best damn example of ruthless capitalism in existance. I agree that MIcrosoft is trying to strongarm the Internet community into working exclusivly with their applications suite (Windows/IE). Look at what they did to SUNs Java
. And they have been screwing with html for a long time as well. Adding their own tags that don't work with other browsers in the attempt to convert people to IE to be able to view a site properly. I'll agree with anybody that MS is dirty, but whatever new protocol they develop can't take control unless the majority lets it. Unfortunatly the Internet majority is fucking stupid!! (AOL has 12 times the market share of any other ISP doesn't it?)
Posted by Beldurin on Apr. 01 2002,23:25
<DEVIL'S ADVOCATE> But can you deny that MS is largely responsible for the widespread increase in the number of households with computers? You know, easy-to-use OS and all that? Have the contributed to the shrinking of the so-called "digital divide?" To us, the edumicated l33t, MS and Winblows is a joke, but to the layperson...</DEVIL's ADVOCATE>
I know we all cream our jeans when we hear how someone's Linux box has been up for the past 8 months w/out a problem, but the problem is, Linux doesn't pass what I term the "Dave Test." Dave is my father...he loves the Internet (especially Yahoo! jazz chat), but trying to use Linux would make his head explode.
P.S. Wiley, I completely agree...that's capitalism. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that BG is a businessman.
Posted by The_Stomper on Apr. 02 2002,17:51
| Quote (Beldurin @ 01 April 2002,17:25) |
| Quote |
| Originally posted by Beldurin: I know we all cream our jeans when we hear how someone's Linux box has been up for the past 8 months w/out a problem ... |
Maybe you should go see a psychiatrist. It sounds like you have a major fetish issue.
| Quote |
| but the problem is, Linux doesn't pass what I term the "Dave Test." Dave is my father...he loves the Internet (especially Yahoo! jazz chat), but trying to use Linux would make his head explode. |
Precisely why Linux will not make it to Joe User or Dave User's PC any time soon, unless we see some major advances in friendliness.
(Actually, my dad managed to use Midori Linux loaded onto my Compaq IA-1. So far he hasn't even killed the thing.)
Posted by Spydir on Apr. 02 2002,20:52
you're about the linux stuff. Currently, right at this moment, it's definately not a desktop system. When my friends ask "will you help me install linux" i tell them I'll help them install it as long as they don't come bitching to me when they're to lazy to put in work for it. Luckily there are a lot of different projects going on right now that are easing up linux for a more user friendly tone. I remember when I first started using linux (solely) almost 3 years ago, it was hard as shit. And before that it was even harder. It's come a long way, but it's still got a way to go. But we're getting there 
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 02 2002,21:34
The most painful thing I have ever witnessed was my mother using AOL With A Cable Modem!! I tried to explain that she could "just click on the E" but she wouldn't have it. She was trying to convince me that AOL IS the internet.
Posted by Dysorderia on Apr. 03 2002,02:47
| Quote (Wiley @ 02 April 2002,15:34) |
| The most painful thing I have ever witnessed was my mother using AOL With A Cable Modem!! I tried to explain that she could "just click on the E" but she wouldn't have it. She was trying to convince me that AOL IS the internet. |
roflamo
heheheh i needed that after the day i had at work
Posted by editor on Apr. 03 2002,05:45
You're right, Dys, this is an *excellent* thread.
Posted by The_Stomper on Apr. 03 2002,07:12
| Quote |
| Originally spoken by Wiley's Mom: AOL IS the internet |
My god ... it's like one of those Reader's Digest articles ...
"My dad was an alcoholic ... but my mom was even worse. She was addicted to ... AOL. And somehow I've managed to survive and become truly 1337, just like JeffK."
Posted by veistran on Apr. 04 2002,08:05
| Quote (Wiley @ 02 April 2002,14:34) |
| The most painful thing I have ever witnessed was my mother using AOL With A Cable Modem!! I tried to explain that she could "just click on the E" but she wouldn't have it. She was trying to convince me that AOL IS the internet. |
I can't wait until AOL starts just sending out the internet on CD, or DVD as it may be.
Posted by Beldurin on Apr. 04 2002,18:55
| Quote (veistran @ 03 April 2002,23:05) |
| I can't wait until AOL starts just sending out the internet on CD, or DVD as it may be. |
Oh well, AOL/Time Warner will own everything within the next 8 months anyway. I think they bought my liver yesterday.
Posted by ic0n0 on Apr. 04 2002,21:37
It's sad i have RR and that is owned by aol time warner, so in effect i am subscribing to aol!
Posted by Beldurin on Apr. 05 2002,03:11
| Quote (ic0n0 @ 04 April 2002,12:37) |
| It's sad i have RR and that is owned by aol time warner, so in effect i am subscribing to aol! |
whore
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 05 2002,03:20
Wiley's one time ever stock tip.AOL Baby!!
It's on a downward spiral now, but you'll kick yourself in 6mo.
AOL will one day control life as we know it ...and all entertainment. If you want more specifics (and you want me to be your broker and rape you with commissions) send me an email.
Posted by CaptainEO on Apr. 11 2002,20:01
The problem MS is trying to work on is that while HTTP is a great protocol for delivering static content, it's not so great as a foundation for interactive applications. Think of how difficult it is, for instance, to make a working "progress bar" that shows the status of some long-running operation, using only standard HTML. (for that matter, consider how utterly *crappy* bulletin board systems like Ikonboard are, compared to a dedicated NNTP client - comment pages take forever to load, the posting interface is awkward, it's easy to double-post when the server seems slow, etc... It's not that the programmers aren't trying hard enough, it's that HTTP just doesn't make a good basis for interactive applications)HTTP is a nice simple request-response protocol, but now that everyone realizes the benefits of delivering not just static pages but fully interactive applications over the internet, something better needs to be added. According to MS, .NET is the answer (and according to Sun, Java is probably the answer).
But I'm not sure how well all of this is going to work at first... Splitting an application into a client side and a server side is possible, but designing a good communication protocol is not easy - think of how much effort game companies put into their network protocols (and even still, most games have crappy network play).. Now imagine that your email client and on-line shopping systems are implemented this way... I'm not saying the bugs won't eventually get worked out; it's just going to be a rough ride while engineering techniques catch up to the hype.
(also see < Joel on Software >'s essays...)