From dev-return-11351-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Mon Aug 16 21:06:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 51165 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2010 21:06:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2010 21:06:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 76504 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2010 21:06:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 76457 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2010 21:06:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 76449 invoked by uid 99); 16 Aug 2010 21:06:55 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:06:55 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mfidelman@meetinghouse.net designates 207.154.13.48 as permitted sender) Received: from [207.154.13.48] (HELO server1.neighborhoods.net) (207.154.13.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:06:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2702DCC1EC for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:06:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ISx14o+HMduO for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from new-host-7.home (pool-173-76-134-212.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.134.212]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95304CCAE3 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C69A84C.30404@meetinghouse.net> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:06:20 -0400 From: Miles Fidelman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100701 SeaMonkey/2.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Subject: Re: why erlang? References: <4C697B3C.9010000@meetinghouse.net> <4C6981E2.3020803@meetinghouse.net> <3142D1BC-BE06-465E-B163-3B965430BCAC@apache.org> <4C6989B0.70909@meetinghouse.net> <3874F95E-8079-4CFA-96E7-32DA8C0A3C2C@apache.org> <4C6996FD.4010207@meetinghouse.net> <4C699F10.3030603@meetinghouse.net> <500E9375-A656-4125-9168-81844E8EC544@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <500E9375-A656-4125-9168-81844E8EC544@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Noah Slater wrote: > On 16 Aug 2010, at 21:26, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > >>> My reply would be to state that the Web subsumes the Internet in many ways. >>> >>> >> My reply would be that I sure hope not. The trend toward pushing lower level functionality on top of application layer protocols really breaks a lot of the resiliency and flexibility that comes from layering. >> > Oops, my bad. You are right of course. I meant to illustrate that the Web is built on top of things, huge things. Like the Internet, and the telephone networks, or anything else you can shove TCP/IP over. I guess I think of it as being bigger than them because of that, if not technically, then conceptually. I'm very probably biased though. I'm probably biased too - though in the other direction. For what its worth, I tend to think in terms of subsets. Web traffic is a subset of IP traffic, email is another subset, XMPP (twitter) traffic is another, VoIP is another. The superset is more complex than any of the subsets. I used to like pointing out that email traffic dwarfs web traffic - not (for a long time) in terms of bandwidth, but in terms of individual transactions (particularly these days - just think of the spam that accumulates while reading one web page). These days, though, video and VoIP dwarf both web and email in bandwidth, and I expect that tweets and SMS messages dwarf email in terms of message counts. (Come to think of it, a twitter channel might make a nice vehicle for Couch replication. :-) -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra