3 ms·
I think you read my comment backwards. You wrote: why IP is somehow not "enough" How did you get that from my comment? I said we have almost 8,000 RFCs, IP is
by lkrubner 4y ago
I think you read my comment backwards. You wrote:
why IP is somehow not "enough"
How did you get that from my comment? I said we have almost 8,000 RFCs, IP is very robust, but in its complexity there is a certain minimum, unavoidable expense. If we're looking for a protocol that is cheaper, and therefore easier to subsidize, I'd guess that we need a spec so simple that you could write it out in a 50 page document.
- switchbak 4y agoOk, I get the last part, bad choice of words on "enough". But the idea that we can't have a grassroots socially networked connection of computers on the internet because of the protocols? I just don't see how you've made a case for that. I certainly don't see why it'd have to be text only. The complexity of the internet has grown organically based on responding to limitations (mostly). No doubt there's some unnecessary complexity in there, but what you're talking about is essentially throwing everything away. I just don't see how you've made a compelling case for such an expensive proposition.
- lkrubner 4y ago"for such an expensive proposition" We need something cheaper than what we have now. People gravitate to walled gardens like Facebook because setting up their own systems is too expensive. "No doubt there's some unnecessary complexity in there" At no point did I mention the unnecessary complexity of IP/TCP/UDP, I'm not sure where you got that. I'm only talking about the necessary complexity. It's a great protocol that enables the modern Web. But it is complex enough that there is some expense to setting everything up, and that is why humanity ends up in walled gardens like Facebook. If you want to destroy the walled gardens, then you will need a simpler, cheaper protocol.