• To: 'Paul Prescod' <paul@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Traditional RPC
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:15:48 -0600

The popularity wasn't based on the protocol.  It was based 
on the *free* content.   I'd be surprised if most of the 
people using Napster understood two groats about P2P.  Just 
like Mosaic, they understood they could install a client 
for free by download, then download music and burn CDs. 
Cheap CD burners and the plummeting price in CD blanks 
had a lot to do with it too. 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...]

I don't think that this is what Dave is saying because I don't think
anyone has been arguing that standardization is the make or break factor
for applications. So it would be attacking a strawman. I see Dave's
argument as "popularity beats rigor."

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Traditional RPC
    • From: "Dave Winer" <dave@u...>
  • Re: Traditional RPC
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Traditional RPC
• Next by Date: Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Previous by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Next by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread