RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Learning Groove
John, Care to elaborate on this? (01)
Jack (02)
At 01:55 PM 4/11/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>"...instead of shoehorning weak functionality into a thin computing
>environment in the name of interoperability ..." (03)
Jack, (04)
Thanks for your messge. (05)
That passage refers to the age-old question of system design and
deployment -- Will the design and implementation target the least common
denominator or strive to advance new computing methods and work paradigms? (06)
For example, current Internet orthodoxy calls for some sort of Web browser
as the main user information access mechanism. One advantage is point access
from a broad variety of end user computing devices across a variety of
networks and speeds. (07)
What has evolved is this information access technique used to container all
manner of collaboration, access, interface, development and application
technique in a 'browser.' (?) The idea was to constrain the interactive
application to the browser container to achieve the greatest level of
heterogeneous client access. (08)
Everybody asked, "Gee, does it run in a Web browser? Great!" Beyond
rendering simple HTML for text and graphical access (the original design
intent), the results have not been very good at all. In the corporate
setting, so-called thin-client (browser) computing has been an abject
failure. The dot.com failures adopting this model are legend. Beyond simple
text and graphical access, conventional Web architectures are weak. (09)
The lesson from computing history is, "Trust the Users!" Users understand
Moore's Law and like it. The want the rich flexibility of a 800Mhz
processor, 256MB of RAM, and 10MB LAN connection (and double that in
3-years). They want proximal applications, spreadsheet, word processing and
graphics paired with fat pipes. They want more and more control. They want
natural collaboration, community and social interaction. They want to have
fun. (010)
Users want 'shippable places' that creates an environment of effortless
sharing, unconscious collaboration and transparent computing. Their
objective is to maximize the efficiencies & effectiveness of mental
concentration, imagination and attention management using electronic media.
This is the objective and strength of the Capabilities Infrastructure in
general, and Groove's vision and current offering, in particular. (011)
To the chagrin of Open Systems folks, most users are ambivalent about MS. (012)
Why would any responsible designer deliberately abrogate Moore's Law and
leave all this bandwidth on the table just so access is available to a 6
year old desktop or some arcane workstation in the data center or print
shop? It just doesn't make any sense... (013)
Users also get Open Systems and innovation. They desperately require to
shared more and more. The recognize the trade-offs. It is one reason certain
approaches prevail. It may not be the engineering or computing ideal, but
the Capabilities Infrastructure, OHS and Collective IQ mantra must be 'In
Users we Trust." (014)
Too often anthropology is compromised for technology. This needs to stop. (015)
More future-focused designers target the greatest common divisor, plus some
near-term achievable infrastructure goal. Sometimes pushing the envelope, it
helps advance the state of computing by moving technology from the lab into
the user mainstream. It is innovation versus acquiescence. (016)
Challenging the status quo is risky, but it also helps rationalize new
deployments and drives productivity through rich media and highly socialized
technology like telephony and video into the integrating work and computing
environment. The trade-off is that some specialists or tiny edge groups may
be left behind or it may take longer to bring them on board. (017)
The capital 'W' Web and the Internet are not synonymous and often confused.
The trajectory of each is very different. Capabilities Infrastructures will
emerge from the latter, having learned a lot from the former. (018)
Cheers, (019)
-jtm (020)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
[mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Jack Park
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 7:20 PM
To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
Subject: RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Learning Groove (021)
John, Care to elaborate on this? (022)
Jack (023)
At 01:55 PM 4/11/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>"...instead of shoehorning weak functionality into a thin computing
>environment in the name of interoperability ..." (024)