Subject: Re: WAP - What A Problem...

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:10:02 +0100

a technical discussion worth reading is at
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MikeBanahan/MikeBanahan1.html

it would seeem (as i've suspected for a while) that the community in
charge of this development has the same problem as the guy who built
jurassic park - they haev no discipline, or understanding of computing
and the software/jhardware interface tradeoffs  - this is qutie a
common problem in communications work - people come from one side of
the tracks (either jsut software or just engineering, or ust plain
theory) - systems architecture is hard stuff, but there is little
point standing on the toes of giants, when its possible to stand on
their shoulders....it both ends of the problem space, whether
application level and devising new markup languages for restricted
display, or low level work in customising
protocol stacks for resource scarce environments  , there is a body of
public work out there, and of researchers who are willing to
cosntructively critique proposals provided they are carried out in a
public way with optimally zero cost for access to early drafts, but
at least low entry cost - it is also a good idea to let those wacky
media lab types get their hands on hardware prototypes, since they
will (as william gibson puts it) "find a street use for things" - its
instructive to see how wavelan and its cousins have fared so well
after being handed over to the ietf - if we'd have PCMCIA GSM and GPRS
(and bluetooth) cards, despite battery power or other clunkiness
problems, we might haev made less of a dogs dinner of things...(when i
say we, i mean the interdisciplinary, apparently unstructured, but
actually highly organised force that will fit anything to IP, and not
vice versa)

give me a level long enough and we can moev the earth - give the wrong
end of the same level to the wrong people and they can crush a
diamond.

j.

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:29:15 +0200

I don't understand why so much effort is expended on things like WAP when
99% of the real world still doesn't have any access at all to the Internet,
much less wireless access.  And even of those who do, most have such slow
connections that even download a simple test page is an ordeal.

I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys, but doesn't anyone ever
work on improving and democratizing existing infrastructure instead of
widening the gap between what people really have and what looks cool in the
lab?

  -- Anthony

---

From: Gilbert Cattoire <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:11:52 +0200

>connections that even download a simple test page is an ordeal.

Refreshing...

>widening the gap between what people really have and what looks cool in the

Yes indeed. It would be interesting to know how many of us on this 
list agree with you.

Yet again, as I just mentioned in an earlier post, isn't it a matter 
regarding business models rather than technology?
What looks cool in the lab is quite often related to what is dear to 
investors'eyes.
WAP is just such a thing, regardless of technical niceties : a closed 
proprietary system built for a closed business model blessed with 
himalayan piles of cash.
Is it healthy ? With the Internet spirit in mind, does anyone need to 
dwell in the intricacies of gateways and so on to answer this 
question ? I would suggest this daring task : when in doubt, reboot 
your mindset.

best to all,

Gilbert Cattoire

==================================
+33 (0)6 08 35 15 82
[email-masked]
==================================

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:21:45 -0400

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> work on improving and democratizing existing infrastructure

Well, sure.  Improving--look at MPLS.  Democratizing--there used to be (maybe
still is) an annual effort called Net Day, where volunteers would come out to
schools and install LANs and stuff.  But that's not something that's going to
be technically controversial, since what gets donated is almost always
commodity equipment--both because it's cheap and because it means the schools
will have an easier time maintaining it.

--
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |==============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"Why did you become a spokesmodel?" "Oh, well,|
[email-masked]|I've always liked pointing." -- _LA Story_    |
\===============================================================/

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:37:52 +1000

Date:        Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:29:15 +0200
    From:        "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I know it's not very sexy to drop the blue-sky toys, but doesn't anyone ever
  | work on improving and democratizing existing infrastructure instead of
  | widening the gap between what people really have and what looks cool in the
  | lab?

There is plenty of the former going on - not as much as could be done
perhaps, but there isn't none either.

But it would be a grave mistake to cease working on future developments
while waiting for everyone to be able to share what we have now - and
that's not looking form the perspective of those who already have and
don't want to be held back.  If we insisted that everyone had ethernet
in their buildings before we took the next step forward, there'd be all
these buildings in parts of the world still having thick orange cable
dragged through them - but because network research and advances didn't
stop, much of the world got to avoid that step, and even the thinner
more flexible black cable - perhaps now much of it might even be able to
avoid cabling altogether.

This doesn't mean that we should stop assisting the rest of the world
until we have the one perfect technology, that would be absurd, but neither
should be be slowing down on advances just because some don't yet have
what we currently use - if we're good enough, they may never need to.

kre

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:08:05 +0100 (BST)

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Jon Crowcroft wrote:

> jurassic park

Jurassic Park?

[Oh, you haven't seen the film _or_ read the book? Lucky you.]

Do you mean that WAP is:
- overhyped?
- overweight?
- shortsighted?
- what comes from worrying about tight resource budgets?
- what results when it's decided it's time for all the
  networks to die? 
- a result of commercial pressures and time to market?
- badly driven?
- going completely the wrong way?
- ugly and likely to bite you even if it's wrapped in pretty
  colours?
- about to be eaten alive by things that were roaming the Earth
  long, long before?
- suffering from extremely bad long textual descriptions
  with conveniently altered outcomes?
- what happens when doctors don't get enough practice?
- an unconnected island in the middle of nowhere?
- exotic and attractive until you have to live there, when you pine
  for the comfort and safety of home?
- designed not to lead to a next generation of itself?
- something needing a lot of work to be brought back from the dead?
- really dull and tedious when viewed
  ...on a small screen?
  ...on any screen?
  ...in a mirror, where it won't look any larger?
- really hard to avoid and escape?
- a short ride not going anywhere?
- a travesty of the widely-understood record?
- misusing other people's concepts and terminology?
- no fun to play with?
- something that needs solicitous gatekeepers that cost you?
- about to be caught with its pants down?
- about to be shot in the head?
- ready to be torn apart in front of us?
- a whole world we'll be quite happy to lose?
- lacking enough characters in the line(up)?
- laying the ground for a sequel?
- a lot smarter than it first appears?
- likely to be an eventual success due to pervasive marketing?
- plagued with advertisements for itself?
- only really appreciated by everyone under the age of ten?

(I think I might have accidentally described WinCE instead. oops.)

> systems architecture is hard stuff,

and systems engineering is harder - because you can't get away with
blaming the engineers when your design doesn't work in reality. a big
hello to all you OSI system architects out there. And Lord Foster.

(I see 'Lost World' added a systems specialist. Too late.)

> there is a body of
> at least low entry cost

criticism should always be free. Or at least subsidised in some
completely orthogonal manner. Buying truth is hard.

> give me a level long enough and we can moev the earth 

you need a lever _and_ a fulcrum. A pulpit in front of the choir just
won't do it...

L.

thinks 'Airframe' is better than most Crichton. That
time-travel reworking of Connie Willis just sucks.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:50:19 +0200

> But it would be a grave mistake to cease working on
> future developments while waiting for everyone to be
> able to share what we have now ...

It hasn't gotten as far as sharing.  We don't even have the "old" stuff in
place and running, and already people want to replace it.

You know, I'd much rather have greatly improved cellular-telephone voice
quality than a tiny screen on a tiny phone for Internet services that I'll
never use.  I'd like to see the older technologies actually implemented and
working smoothly before they are thrown away in favor of ever newer
technologies.

Right now I have a DSL line that is _supposed_ to allow 1000 kbps on the
downlink.  However, since nobody bothers to update the infrastructure behind
it, sometimes I get more like 32 kbps on the line.  And now people are
talking about wireless connections.  Well, I'd rather keep my DSL and see it
actually run at its rated speed than adopt yet another jury-rigged lab
experiment that will be declared obsolete before it even works correctly.
Some of us have work to do, and we don't have the luxury or desire to just
sit around trying to imagine "what next?"

> ... and that's not looking form the perspective of those
> who already have and don't want to be held back.

I want what I've already been promised before they get what they are still
dreaming about.

> This doesn't mean that we should stop assisting the
> rest of the world ...

Why the rest of the world?  Look in your own backyard.  How many people do
you know with even a broadband connection?  For an accurate assessment, stop
people on the street and ask them if they have broadband Internet access,
and see what numbers you come up with.

> ... but neither should be be slowing down on advances
> just because some don't yet have what we currently use -
> if we're good enough, they may never need to.

If we don't stop dreaming and start actually implementing, they'll never
have anything at all.