Huh? What is so amazing about the idea? There was WAIS, Gopher and a host of other such ideas that predated the web, and some of them did not even suffer from the weaknesses of the web (HTTP, etc). Transfer protocols... It shouldn't need an RFC search to find the plethora of transfer protocols that existed before the poorly designed HTTP/1.0.
> That is a shame, because there are three things that we need to
> understand about the web. First, it is more amazing than we think.
> Second, the conjunction of technologies that made the web successful
> was extremely unlikely. Third, we probably would not create it, or any
> technology like it, today. In fact, we would be more likely to cripple
> it, or declare it illegal.
I don't think I agree with any of the above. The web, or more appropriately the Internet, is not more amazing than I think. It doesn't seem any more unique than other technological advances. And I do not see why it would not be created in the current climate (more below).
> But now? When is the last time you looked in an
> encyclopedia? When is the last time that your curiosity – what is the
> collective noun for larks? Is Gerald Ford alive? Why is the sky blue?
> – remained unsatisfied for more than a moment? (An "exaltation", yes
> and look it up for yourself.) Much of that information is provided by
> volunteers who delight in sharing their knowledge. Consider the range
> of culture, science and literature – from the Public Library of
> Science and Wikipedia, to Project Gutenberg and the National Map. The
> web does not bring us to the point where all can have access to, and
> can add to, the culture and knowledge of the world. We cannot ensure
> global literacy let alone global connectedness. But it brings us
> closer.
So, yeah, the Internet helps.
> Imagine a network with the opposite design. Imagine that your terminal
> came hardwired from the manufacturer with a particular set of programs
> and functions. No experimenting with new technologies developed by
> third parties – instant messaging, Google Earth, flash animations . .
Almost all instant messaging (apart from Google, last I checked, and even that is incomplete) is not done over open protocols. Same with flash animation, which is mostly a waste of time anyway. My "terminal" being a general purpose computer has nothing to do with "the web".
> More like pay-television than web. No one can decide on a whim
> to create a new site. The New York Times might secure a foothold on
> such a network. Your blog, or Wikipedia, or Jib Jab need not apply.
> Imagine that the software and protocols were proprietary. You could
> not design a new service to run on this system, because you do not
> know what the system is and, anyway, it might be illegal. Imagine
> something with all the excitement and creativity of a train timetable.
Eh wot? Most "whim new sites", "blogs", etc are indeed as exciting and creative as a train timetable!
> The web developed because we went in the opposite direction – towards
> openness and lack of centralised control. Unless you believe that some
> invisible hand of technological inevitability is pushing us towards
> openness – I am a sceptic – we have a remarkable historical
> conjunction of technologies.
Open methods, standards, etc are in no way unique to the Internet. A lot of science, and various public activities that predate science, it can probably be shown, used and relied on such methods. Also, words like "openness" have to be better defined. The IESG, IETF, etc have their own quirky notions of control and philosophies.
> Why might we not create the web today? The web became hugely popular
> too quickly to control.
This seems to rely on the false assumption/terminology of this entire piece: "the web" sprang in the 90s out of nowhere. The truth is that the web is a particular application (and an excellent one) that sits on top of a network called the Internet, which has been around for more than 30 years, most of its development carried within small, elite circles, with government oversight, and such. "Instant messaging" is NOT "the web". Email is not "the web". File transfer and sharing is NOT "the web". All these applications, interestingly, predate "the web", some by more than a decade.
> And of course it is. But it is also much, much more. The lawyers have
> learnt their lesson now. The regulation of technological development
> proceeds apace. When the next disruptive communications technology –
> the next worldwide web – is thought up, the lawyers and the logic of
> control will be much more evident. That is not a happy thought.
If you truly wish to discuss what limits the Internet, you would start not by talking about regulations and lawyers, but about corporations like Microsoft that circumvent the consensus building nature of the initial Internet development with closed applications and protocols. Arguably, you may wish to contrast GNU/FSF to those that came later, including the Creative Commons group.
At the end of the day, it seems if he is true to his claims, Bill Gates will do more for public literacy and such than that accidental demi-god Tim-Berners Lee. I say, more power than to Microsoft, and fuck "the web". ;-)
--ravi