Subject: keeping protocols open (was: Returns to ...)
From: "D. V. Henkel-Wallace" <gumby@zembu.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:18:06 -0700

    Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:15:28 +0900 (JST)
    From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>

    I'm well aware of Microsoft's rude behavior with respect to
    standards...  I just don't think they can get away with it
    indefinitely, though.

They don't have to.  It's certainly not a sufficient condition, or
even a necessary one for success.  But it's like a sword fight: you
fling up sand and chairs and whatnot in the other guy's face.  Or to
mix metaphors: Gresham's law of protocols can come into force if
you're merely good enough (look at Unix, which is barely usable late
1960s technology, but _still_ better than Windows).

    Not that that's an excuse for not being noisy about it where we
    can.

Sorry I was unclear; that wasn't my point.  In fact I meant the
opposite: we must be careful to make this point clearly and
convincingly.  Otherwise the bad guys can throw FUD back (e.g.: when
the MS trial began MS marshalled a bunch of people together who said
how much better life was because everything from MS worked together).

ObFSBcontent: if it's not clear, these protocols are crucial to FSBs,
both as an inherent part of their (the companys') libre-ness and as a
way of keeping the bad guys from swamping the boat.

It also means that we can have meaningful competition, which, as a
user, I consider an important part of the `B' in FSB.

-g