6 posts • joined 4 Jun 2009
Ho ho ho
There's a famous (in business geek circles) book called "The Innovator's Dilemma" which is all about introducing new technology to an existing industry that initially the biggest customers in that industry think is crap, only for that technology to get better and better until it becomes the norm, replacing the previous technologies. With the depth of irony that only El Reg can deliver, that book uses the hard drive industry as it's case study! Oh, and it does so with evidence not just opinion.
So what was wrong with Scala then? Too hard? They don't even mention it on the site.
I did wonder if you had a reporter down this way with the stories that have been popping up so it's nice to have that explained.
It's all good news to me. This is a global industry and a global community so global news seems entirely appropriate. Most expats I know still read El Reg years even some years after moving and plenty of locals too.
Might be nice to let us see what the front pages for other regions look like through a menu on the front page.
A different kind of ambition
Google blew it because they only shipped half a product and every developer with any sense spotted that straight away.
The crucial missing bit is a client-server protocol, despite it being obvious that Google has written one for their own client. The impact of that is to crudely, very crudely, push developers towards writing server add-ons (robots etc) because that is the path of least resistance. Anyone wanting to innovate at the client has to write some serious code before they get anywhere near innovation.
To make it even worse, the Google Wave client is closed and designed around a single communications paradigm that has little relevance to most people. The contrast between the open server and the tightly controlled client could not be more noticeable.
If Google really wants Wave to be a success then it would take very little effort, open the client and the c-s protocol and let people develop innovative ways to use the server, but that is clearly not the intent. Google's decision to kill Wave speaks volumes about Google. Not about their willingness to take risks though, but about their unwillingness to lose control even if that means the project dies and their reputation suffers.
IPv6 was specifically designed not to need NAT. There is even an RFC that explains that part of the design and how to do with IPv6 what you used to use NAT for:
Worth a read.
Have you got a link to this announcement because I can't find mention of it on either the NTIA or ICANN sites?
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Apple SILENCES Bose, YANKS headphones from stores
- Nobody wants to look at your boobs: Snapchat gets ads 'that interest you'
- TV Review Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots
- Vid NASA eyeballs SOLAR HEAT BOMBS, MINI-TORNADOES and NANOFLARES on Sun