Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[lonestarnot AT earthling.net]

Microsoft's .Net strategy looks to me a lot like Intel's.
   "Don't sweat it, as we crank up the intrinsic complexity of our
    products, nobody else will have the resources to compete with us."
Intel has _some_ proprietary silicon processing technologies, but 
ownership may be a minor factor.  Intel has the tools NOW.  The tools
are very expensive and very complex.  And Intel invests mightily
to make them ever more expensive and complex.  How will potential
competitors get such sophisticated tools?  Without such tools, can
they really compete.  Intel has distanced itself from everyone but AMD.
And even AMD seems unable to get wide acceptance for any of its own
innovations.  It seems stuck _following_ Intel conceptually, even 
though it has seized the sales and performance leads before.
Isn't Microsoft's .Net strategy quite similar?

From a "people" perspective, Microsoft looks like "The Political Right".
"Open Source", "Free Software" and other themes -- like "The Left" --
seem much less able to focus resources on targets than "The Right" (MS).
The _money_ wielded by both "The Right" and Microsoft garners them 
the talents of "friends", "indifferents", and "reluctants".

The challenge to competing corporations and ideologies seems to be,
  "You just hate us 'cause we have the power you want.
   You may have a half-decent idea here and there, but you take 'em
   out of proportion -- remaining stubbornly clueless to how money 
   really works."


This new competitive thread seems "fair" even while it portends
the demise of LOTS of smaller players.     :-(

Is Microsoft riding XML to global dominance like Cisco rode TCP/IP?
  (yes)
Can we expect Microsoft's dominance to be that benign?
  (No, the technology is more intrinsically bound to Identity.
   Besides, IS Cisco benign?  How was Echelon implemented?)

Bill