It's a dessert topping, it's a floor wax! (fwd)

"C.K.Work" <C.K.Work@soton.ac.uk> Thu, 06 April 1995 12:03 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01533; 6 Apr 95 8:03 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01528; 6 Apr 95 8:03 EDT
Received: from norn.ncl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03828; 6 Apr 95 8:03 EDT
Received: by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id <MAA08996@norn.mailbase.ac.uk> (8.6.11/ for mailbase.ac.uk); Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:37:46 +0100
Received: from beech.soton.ac.uk by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id <MAA08986@norn.mailbase.ac.uk> (8.6.11/ for mailbase.ac.uk) with ESMTP; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:37:43 +0100
Received: from oak.soton.ac.uk (oak.soton.ac.uk [152.78.128.89]) by beech.soton.ac.uk (8.6.10/hub-8.5) with ESMTP id MAA22496 for <nir@mailbase.ac.uk>; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:37:41 +0100
Received: (from ckw@localhost) by oak.soton.ac.uk (8.6.10/client-8.8) id MAA22663 for nir@mailbase.ac.uk; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:37:39 +0100
Message-Id: <199504061137.MAA22663@oak.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: It's a dessert topping, it's a floor wax! (fwd)
To: nir@mailbase.ac.uk
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:37:37 +0100 (BST)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "C.K.Work" <C.K.Work@soton.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1839
X-List: nir@mailbase.ac.uk
Reply-To: "C.K.Work" <C.K.Work@soton.ac.uk>
X-Orig-Sender: nir-request@mailbase.ac.uk
Precedence: list

I said:
> 
> 
> } .  .  .  Unless I'm misunderstanding things,
> } 
> } Everything I've seen would indicate that the only real future is with
> } Web - but I'm only too happy to be corrected on this! :)
> 
Clearly I did (in part) and Peter has very usefully corrected me. OK
I agree ... it is too early, and perhaps meaningless to say WWW is
better than Gopher (better for who?). But lets look at this from a
service provider's point of view - do I offer a Gopher or Web service (I
can't afford to do both properly)?

1) my users want WWW ... its pretty and Gopher is "yesterday's
technology" - whether or not this is true, a result of media hype,
whatever the reason, my users perceive WWW to be better

2) as service provider I want a range of products, I need support, and I
need to see development paths. I can SEE a lot of effort being put into
WWW, a lot less going into Gopher. I can also see Microsoft, Novell etc.
jumping on to the WWW band wagon. This doesn't mean its right, but it
will be made to seem right.

3) because of 2, isn't it likely that we will see WWW (or perhaps I should
say the elements which consitute web space) refinements and enhancements
to address problem areas much more quickly than we will see similar
activity in the Gopher world? Much more likely we will see web-tools
with-the-best-of-Gopher than the other way round.

4) because of the above, as a service provider, I'm opting for WWW, as
have many others. Of course because of this, I'm contributing to 2 and
3.

To some extent, the "rightness" of the product becomes irrelevant (could
OS/2 ever oust Windows?). Market and user forces are much more powerful!



> 


-- 
_________________________________________________ 
Colin K. Work
Computing Services
University of Southampton

email C.K.Work@Southampton.ac.uk
tel.  01703 593090 (direct line)