of a rant this afternoon and glossed over lots of stuff – in the post about MS. So let me clarify one or two things. First, yes, I do think it’s a complete smokescreen, that MS has no real intention of doing any of this, at least in the complete, all-encompassing way they are trying to sell. Second, for 99 percent of companies in the world I agree that it’s a GOOD thing not a negative that there are tons of others in this space already. Microsoft just doesn’t seem to be one of them, based on past performance. Third, if they were really serious about this, practically the whole presentation would have been about wireless. dot-NET type systems only make sense when you’re talking about a radically different landscape made up of massively-deployed wireless networks using standards-based protocols like IPv6. Microsoft has a good record with their browser to date, but I don’t see them betting the farm on external standards. Which means, to me, that it’s either not serious or will never happen regardless.
even venturing into this fray, but my thoughts following the latest re: winerlog and editthispage (aka Dave Winer) donnybrook go along two lines. First, just like you can’t be “partly” a virgin, you’re either a blank, common-carrier style host or you’re not. No one, not Conexion, Mr Winer, or anyone else, can have it both ways. Second, Mr Winer seems to think this is new, unexplored territory. It’s not. Places like The Well, Café Utne and Caucus have been dealing with these issues for years. Norms have been developed. And that’s not to mention the norms and standards that surround the ISP industry. I don’t see how hosting through a webapp like Manila is any different than the issues raised in these far more mature communities.