RE: [unrev-II] Re: Intel's new XML network devices

From: Bill Bearden (
Date: Wed May 10 2000 - 08:04:11 PDT

  • Next message: Lee Iverson: "Re: [unrev-II] Re: Intel's new XML network devices"

    Eric wrote.
    > As a species, I am beginning to wonder if we are capable
    > of surviving.

    To answer your literal question, humans won't survive. Eventually we will be
    faced with a challenge we can't overcome or avoid and we'll be gone.
    Hopefully our ancestors will have evolved into something beyond human by
    that time. But there is no guarantee.

    But that isn't what you are really asking. You want to know if this group
    will achieve its stated goal of building a real system that implements
    Doug's ideas. From what I've seen lately, I'm not optimistic. I don't see
    much in the way of common purpose in the discussion.

    One person says they aren't interested unless the resultant software is Open
    Source. Another says they won't contribute if the goal is managing mere
    data; it must be knowledge. No one has successfully answered your "Business
    Model" question, Eric. Do we use Python or Java, Slash or Squish, WBI or
    Wiki or Jiki? Can't decide. And Monday Paul pointed out that Stanford owns
    all of our souls anyway. ;-)

    Ideas are collected. Documents are updated. Wonderful essays are written and
    read. There is a vision here. But there is little consensus. And there is no

    Eugene says be patient. Cool. That is easy for me. I learn something almost
    every time I open up an email from this discussion list. The Colloquium has
    been "the gift that keeps on giving".

    I have my own opinions on what should be coded first and how it should be
    done*. But success is more likely if a number of people accept a common goal
    and a common path. Success matters more than any one person's opinion.
    Success requires compromise.


    *What: We need a better discussion server. How: join an existing OSS project
    like Apache/Jetspeed, Apache/JAMES, or Zope. If necessary, you fork off
    (sounds bad, doesn't it?) to achieve your goal. This leverages what OSS is
    good at: extending not inventing.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 10 2000 - 08:14:42 PDT