From: Adam L. Beberg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 22 2000 - 16:34:17 PDT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Jeff Bone wrote:
> In general, I agree with Adam's screed, here, but I will note that
> TCP does *not* in itself provide semantics for object-level naming
> and invocation of operations on thusly named objects.
Yes yes, details, but the overall idea is what's happening, taking
existing stuff, wrapping XML around it, and calling it new.
> Side note: Adam, if you're so against wheel reinvention, ahem
> semantic extension and layering, why are *you* doing it too?
> Admitting to only a cursory level of understanding, it's not clear
> to me what class of applicaitons are enabled / what unique problems
> are solved by COSM that weren't solved by any of: ONC RPC, DCE,
> Sprite, Linda, Amoeba, CORBA, PVM, Clouds, Helios, etc. etc. etc.
Well, if any of the Cosm info was actually public somewhere.. but it's
not.. so... Cosm itself isn't groundbreaking, it's the stuff around it
that is new... Yes we're having a "branding" problem, since Cosm is the
project, not a product, and it's a name not an acronym.
The thing, whatever we end up naming itm is really a giant kick in the
arse to the industry (and the open sourcers too). Stay tuned, who knows
if I can pull this off or not.
- Adam L. Beberg
Mithral Communications & Design, Inc.
The Cosm Project - http://cosm.mithral.com/
email@example.com - http://www.iit.edu/~beberg/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 22 2000 - 16:38:02 PDT