RE: [ECOS] UPnP and Ecos

[danc at iobjects dot com (Dan Conti)]

Don't you see the correlation between people taking a wait-and-see attitude
and UPnP losing momentum? It's a chicken and egg argument, you dont want to
develop UPnP support until microsoft has desktop support, but why would
microsoft want to provide desktop support for something that device
companies aren't committed to? Whether or not it is apparent now, UPnP is a
Good Thing, and will soon be a necessary thing.

-Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecos-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [mailto:ecos-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of Lewin A.R.W.
> Edwards
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 9:10 AM
> To: Jonathan Larmour
> Cc: jean-luc.philippe@mgeups.com; ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [ECOS] UPnP and Ecos
>
>
>
> > > polishing other parts of your product. Microsoft is working on a
> > > "standalone" UPnP implementation. They keep promising and
> re-promising and
> >
> >Is this "coming eventually" like the Microsoft port of ActiveX to Linux?
> >:-)
>
> LOL. Let me put it like this: Every teleconference and in-person
> meeting of
> our working group within UPnP, if a MS guy is present I poke him for it,
> and I bitch and complain at every opportunity. I've also spoken a
> couple of
> times to the actual guy at MS who would be responsible for it
> (whether that
> means he'd be coding it personally or not, I don't know). It's always
> "coming soon". Well, our UPnP-supporting product is "coming soon" too.
>
> Recently someone announced on one of the UPnP lists that they have
> developed a standalone UPnP implementation tested on WinME, so my thought
> is that MS would be best to acquire that and rebadge it (I haven't
> inspected the original poster's product, it may be that their
> definition of
> "standalone" is nothing close to mine. My definition is "compiles
> and runs
> on any system that has standard BSD socket calls").
>
> >And would it be free/open source/royalty free?
>
> I haven't seen any licensing for this part, I guess it would be covered
> under the same license as the current beta SDK (a product I bet
> never goes
> out of beta).
>
> UPnP has lost a fair amount of momentum, and frankly most of the
> interaction models and proposals are utopian nonsense. I won't
> say it will
> never happen, but it is a certainty that today's average consumer doesn't
> want even a tiny fraction of UPnP's complexity. And the money for
> appliance
> sales is in average consumers, not gadget mavens.
>
> === Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (Embedded Engineer)
> Work: http://www.digi-frame.com/
> Personal: http://www.zws.com/ and http://www.larwe.com/
>
> "... a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will
> be tempted
> to refrain from taking part in political life; because [...] the
> situation
> does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship
> but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the
> majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract
> them accordingly."
>