[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft guru: Stamp out HTTP

From: John
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft guru: Stamp out HTTP
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:38:54 -0600

I wouldn't disagree with the one service, per protocol, per port;
however I don't believe that's what Microsoft is leading us to. My
concern here, based on past observations we've all made is that
Microsoft will choose not to create another protocol for a new service
on another port, but to unilaterally expand HTTP for .NET on port 80. We
know they've done it before with other standards. Ask, "Do we want a
defacto HTTP being implemented by Microsoft, which is encumbered by
patents and implemented only on their own platform yet so widespread
that our own stuff won't work."

What's the obvios answer and the obvious preventative measure?

John Le'Brecage

Rhys Weatherley wrote:
> John wrote:
> > Am I wrong that .Net is implemented over HTTP? We saw Microsoft embrace
> > HTTP, now here's the threat to extend? If HTTP were replaced with a
> > non-commodity protocol with technical advantages, where does this leave
> > the broader world of web entities?
> I doubt that HTTP would ever be "replaced", because it
> is well-suited to what it does: delivery of semi-static
> content from a (relatively) small number of Web sites to
> a large audience of passive consumers.
> However, the Microsoft person is correct that it is
> unsuited to many other tasks, including RPC.  We need
> better protocols for that.  But they'll never replace to
> core content delivery mechanisms of HTTP.
> If someone other than Microsoft had raised this, the
> Slashdot crowd would be rushing to agree.  But we see
> ulterior motives because it is Microsoft.
> HTTP has seriously warped and twisted the Internet.
> Pre-HTTP, each service had its own separate protocol
> and port (FTP, SMTP, NNTP, SNMP, telnet, etc).  This
> allowed the protocol to be tuned to the requirements of
> the service.
> Post-HTTP, everyone rushed to build their systems on
> top of HTTP.  This usually involved twisting the service
> to fit the protocol, destroying the value of the service
> in the process.  We need to get back to our roots of
> "one service, one protocol".  It's ironic that it is
> Microsoft that is pointing this out.
> Cheers,
> Rhys.
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]