World: r3wp

It seems Win Mobile is doomed. MS woke up too late. Sony and HTC 
completly moved off of Win Mobile. Nokia probably too. And now MS 
has mostly lost Samsung too ...

More on Bada here - http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Samsung-Bada/
, http://www.bada.com

HTC is still on Win Mobile, but it doesn't matter: They write their 
own UI and just port it from OS to OS. Right now HTC has Win and 
Android phones (the vast majority being Win), but they could drop 
both easily if they want.

Pretty cool optical technology coming next year:
http://techresearch.intel.com/articles/None/1813.htm

http://blog.chromium.org/2009/11/2x-faster-web.html


Google experiment with a new protocol to speed webserver transfers 
up about 2x from HTTP.

hmm, where does google lead us? Thru averaging web technologies to 
advancements? so screw the standards, let's go the google way.

Hehe, ppl seem to smash them, having enough of the We-are-gods-work-for-us-as-we-have-nothing-innovative-ourselves-we-just-ripp-others-work 
...

http://www.osnews.com/comments/22486

I don't get that statement. This is a network protocol, which they 
came up with (aka: innovation) and they are providing as a proposed 
open standard with an open source reference implementation (read: 
giving, not taking). Network protocols require both ends of the connection 
to talk the same protocol, so if they want others to talk to their 
servers, they need for the others to understand and use the protocol. 
Which they are providing for free.


This is an example of best practices, and of Google being a good 
corporate citizen (which they aren't always). The protocol is even 
pro-privacy (take that, China and Iran!). It even seems easy enough 
to implement that we could build it into the HTTP scheme of R3. So, 
where is the downside of this, exactly?

I see commenters claim that this is a ripoff of Opera Unite (it isn't 
in any way anything like Opera Unite), and others claim that Google 
is trying to get others to do their work (misunderstanding the concept 
of open standards).

The downsize is in google, being "always in beta", dictating "standards", 
just from the multibillion position

Sorry, "dictating" standards? There is no dictation here. It's a 
proposal, a Request For Comment (though less formal than an RFC yet).

if it would come from any other company, it would get ignored. The 
same goes for Chrome - it is in no way unique, just a rip-off of 
others, plus minus few things done differently (tasks per tab).

So you can't see it? There is no concept in google, just slow domination. 
They are either dumb enough, not having some top level gurus/designer, 
not having complete idea, or they are way too much clever - throwsing 
various things at us, slowly leading to their total domination.

If people start getting pissed off at Google for actually having 
and using the money to fund research *which they are giving away*, 
then we are doomed. The protocol looks good so far. If it sucks, 
it should get ignored (see SOAP). If it doesn't suck, it should be 
adopted. There is no reason to give a crap about "domination" because 
Google isn't trying to control network protocols, just to improve 
them for all.


It makes sense to complain about their domination in search and advertising, 
and their kowtowing to local tyrants at times. But this is not one 
of those cases. They are giving the protocol away for free. They 
aren't tying it to a platform like MS. It is even encrypted end-to-end, 
so the tyrant governments can't easily read it. They even are providing 
an open-source reference model, *and* asking for advice on implementation 
strategies.


There is no down side for us here. The only upside for them is not 
exclusively for them: Anyone who implements a protocol like this 
would gain the same benefit. For that matter, there is no way for 
them to gain from this over anyone else in the only ways which they 
do dominate: search and advertising, or even online apps. If they 
were closing this protocol then maybe they could gain over others, 
but they are opening it so it is only gain for all.

I read the same OSNews coments that you did, and these people need 
to learn to read the article before commenting.

yes, you can see it in reactions. I have much deeper respect to proprietary 
guys like IBM or MS lately. Their technologies give me total picture 
of what I can use in our company. Well designed stuff. Those things 
might be complex, but well engineered (WebSphere). I will always 
be one refusing the servility. I have the same problem with Apple 
(Jobs). There is no problem with their products, but the problem 
is with the attitude and it starts to show. Even if Jobs introduces 
new icon on the desktop, he would get fanatical following. I can 
see the same wave of google fanatics emerging. The so called "google 
culture" is ... hyped.

They can't even patent this protocol since they have already released 
the description of how this works *and* reference code.

In comparison to MS or IBM I can see no top designers in google, 
having actually a vision, a complete one. They throw things here 
or there, they can do whatever (almost unlimited resources), and 
you can bet, that they lead us to lock-in ....

I don't give a crap about Google culture. If the protocol is good 
(and it looks good so far) I'll write the R3 support for it.

The lock in is in mentality. All the cloud crap, not having the date 
at my location everything on server. Welcome matrix :-)

An open protocol doesn't have to be used with Google servers.

This is not cloud crap. It has nothing to do with lock-in. THis is 
a much lower-level protocol than that.

You talk about the protocol all the time, I talk about generally 
Google submitting another thing and world swallowing anything they 
drop onto us. The protocol might be actually good. I just hate things 
being accepted just because they are provided by the "beloved one".

The protocol is the Tech News. All the rest of the complaints about 
Google are not related to this Tech News.

And it is too soon to see if the protocol would be accepted just 
because it came from Google, or because it is good on its own merits, 
or *at all*, because it hasn't been accepted at all yet, just proposed. 
And since it was proposed I will look at it. If it sucks, I won't 
give it a second thought. Who gives a crap that it came from Google?

That AJAX that people like so much now: It came from Microsoft at 
first, and that doesn't make it greater. So did SOAP, and that doesn't 
make it suck less. Where it came from doesn't matter, all that matters 
is whether it benefits you and you are allowed to use it. In this 
case, I don't yet know whether it would benefit us (though it looks 
promising) but it does look like we would be allowed to use it (they 
probably can't patent it if they release it this way). If it is good, 
it would help REBOL/

...Services. No Google needed.

I'll take SPDY and compiled JS over the alternative any day. Others 
are free to stick with HTTP, slow JS and 9600 baud modems if they 
so choose ...

Well, who are the largest contributors to RFC? Without companies 
researching these things rather than universities, then we won't 
move forward.

a stateful http...

Microsoft to open-up compilers - http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/microsoft-open-compilers-visual-basic-c-894

Google unveils ChromeOS -

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/releasing-chromium-os-open-source.html
http://www.osnews.com/story/22505/Google_Unveils_Chrome_OS

hmm... so REBOL isn't going to be terribly interesting in ChromeOS 
unless it can get into the browser.

They'll have to jazz up the rebol home page then :)

I guess we'll just have to build a REBOL/OS now.

What's wrong with running everything inside a rebol plugin ?

well, that's just too limited for us rebolers :-)

let's see .. there's one Carl .. and an unfjinished r3 .. and you 
want to restart wildman?  :)

I guess it should be wildman

Maybe that other Karl ( Robillard ) can switch his efforts from Boron 
to wildman instead :)

I think the development of Boron is a bit of a shame. The effort 
should be directed towards R3 instead.

exactly. I can understand open-source freaks. But open-sourcing something 
is not a mantra. Look at AROS, look at Orca - how is that it has 
not more users, than official distros?

the old saying .. united we conquer, divided we fall

R2, architecture wise, in comparison to R3, is so old school, that 
it is not even funny to compare. Now having Orca/Boron following 
R2 model would be a mistake too. I think that if Karl wants Boron 
to succeed, then why not to use R3 host, and just re-create the interpreter 
(a DLL)? Of course we know nothing about the licence of R3 yet, maybe 
such a step will be prohibited?

Graham - exactly - I think that we have many things to do - port 
R3 to many platforms, create browser plugin, etc.  There is where 
our energy should be put. R3 is free. How more cheap you want it 
to have?

Of course we can't prevent ppl from anything. Boron might be good 
test-base for the interpreter itself ...

is the license GPL? In that case that would explain some things.

The thing is, the mafia and other internet criminals are dictating 
how we use our PCs.

Viruses, malware, phishing etc are all forcing us to a self healing 
OS like Chrome where everything lives on the cloud.