> On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Tim Smith wrote:
>
> > In many cases, the standard protocols aren't optimal. E.g., if one were
> > designing the web from scratch, one could do a lot better than HTTP.
> > If Microsoft picks some place where the standard protocols are not as good
> > as they could be, and defines a Microsoft protocol that performs better,
> > then what we need to do is define an open protocol that addresses the same
> > deficiencies in the standard protocols, and make that open protocol the
> > new standard.
>
> This is all nice, however ISO and IETF are dominated by Microsofties.
> Ex: UTF-8-ization of everything (sorry, I talked about that before, and a
> lot of people claimed that it's good and open solution -- it isn't, it's
> the result of pressure of commercial implementors, and it was nowhere in
> sight until Microsoft started using it).
Since Basic-80, Microsoft software has been a rank growth of
features, often excrescences to the fundamental aim of the package,
which would never pass disciplined review such as occurs in this
list.
I hope that IETF protocols are not changed just because it appears
that side issues may potentially be monstrously expanded to win
more sales. The most unhealthy changes can be represented as
essential to "meet customer demand".
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/