Subject: Re: "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
From: Peter Wayner <>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:55:37 -0400

At 3:08 PM -0700 4/9/02, Tim O'Reilly wrote:
>I found that William Gibson quote a few months ago, and it struc
>As many of you know, I periodically get into activism about emerging
>technologies that I think are important.  So I'm trying to get open source
>developers to think further out about the implications of some of the
>technological changes that are upon us.  Sun and Microsoft are gearing up
>for a battle to control next generation network computing architectures.
>What's important to me is that we build that next generation internet
>operating system in a way that supports participation, innovation and
>unintended consequences, which to me are what matters most about open
>source.  There's a lot of great work happening in the open source world, but
>it's not clear to the mainstream where it fits in, and it's sometimes seems
>that it's not as clear to the OSS developers as it should be where the
>opportunities lie.

I just came from a Java talk where the speaker claimed that the 
server side of Java was not controlled by Sun at all. The reference 
implementation of the Servlet 2.3 spec is Tomcat 4.0, a product of 
the Apache realm and the BSD license. The other stuff is bundled 
under Sun's Community process.

Now, I realize that this may be a thin veneer of open source, but it 
seems that there's some mixing going on. It may not be as open as 
people want, but it seems like a start.

MS is offering some code visibility now. It's also not what people 
want. Their move seems like more of a start.

Can we debate which compromise is better?