Hadron Quark <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
I know that I shouldn't, but I'll take the risk of seeing whether you're
actually able to produce anything worth reading. I doubt it, but it's
just possible you've read something or learnt something in the last few
months. Just possible.
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> UPDATE: Cisco not releasing NAC client as open-source code
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| "Cisco is not open-sourcing CTA," said a Cisco spokesperson this
>>>| week. "Cisco is taking a different approach to being open via
>>>| standards" regarding NAC.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/022007-cisco-nac.html
>>>
>>> Shouldn't standards be fundamental, if not mandatory as well? I guess Cisco
>>> learned from its ally Microsoft that standards don't help build and sustain
>>> a monopoly. Never mind the customer and the rest of the industry
>>> (interoperability, see below).
>>>
>>
>> Ah, now you are getting close to the nub of my argument regarding the
>> need for the use of source-code to describe state machines in
>> standardisation bodies. Once any system reaches a particular degree of
>> complexity, it needs to be abstracted into higher-layer objects of some
>> kind, and as the complexity continues to grow, those objects need to
>> become layered as well as showing linear paths between flexibility
>> points.
>
> LOL. What a bullshitter. You must have the biggest head in the whole,
> wide world. It is you really though isn't it Roy?
So you don't understand the point, but want to have a poke anyway? If
you've nothing of note or worthwhile to write, do as the good Mr Kipling
suggested, and risk being thought a fool, rather than confirming it by
typing something.
>
>>
>> There is no philosophical difference between "open standards" and "open
>> source"; in both cases, a description of the operation of some
>
> There is a totally different philosophy between them.
The are philosophically essentially the same, but your inability to
grasp this is highlighted by the fact that you actually broke the
sentence where I explained why, which suggests very strongly that you do
not understand what "operation of some abstracted function is given"
actually means.
Tell you what, when you've actually been involved in some standards
development, why don't you let us all know, then your remarks just might
be worth considering?
>
>> abstracted function is given. There is, however, a fundamental
>> practical difference between the two, which is that open-source can be
>> compiled into a functioning capability of some kind, or if it cannot, it
>> will be fixed until it can, whereas in open-standards, there is no
>> possibility to compile anything, as the descriptive language chosen is
>
> Please tell me you are joking?
No, but then I've written software and written standards, so I know
about this area.
> Are you really telling us that a
> standards document cant be compiled into a program , but source code
> can?
As you failed to grasp the essential point that standards and source
code do the same thing, clearly, you do *not* understand the crucial
significance of the fundamental difference between plain language
abstractions of machines versus source-code abstractions of the same
thing. Because you do not understand that they are both valiant
attempts at describing the same thing.
Whilst I was an ITU rapporteur, some folk in the ITU recognised this
issue long ago, and invented two languages designed to achieve what
open-source does, one was ITU-T SDL - specification and description
language - I still have a textbook about it here, and the other was an
object oriented language designed for describing operational support
systems, or OSS in telco parlance. The problem both of these suffered
was, however, that as real machines and systems were /not/ created using
those languages, there was some gain, but not the degree of gain the
writers had hoped for.
So, hadron quark, why don't you read up about SDL, and see if you can
grasp why it was written. If you get to the bottom of that, you might,
just might, start to understand what my point is all about. Maybe.
> Mark Kent does your ego know no bounds? Did you really think people
> needed telling that?
Clearly you do, as you fail to understand the importance of it.
>
>> typically a subset of normal spoken language. The result is that the
>> open-standards versions are ambiguous, complex and difficult to
>> integrate, and offer no guarantee of interoperability, whereas the
>> open-source versions will allow interoperability.
>
> Cough.
Are you ill?
> You astound me. I didn't think you could talk more rubbish.
Contrarily, you utterly fail to bring any surprises to me here, indeed,
your response was so amazingly predictable I rather wonder why you
bothered to write it.
I wish that you were able to astonish me in some way, but I suspect that
I will be ever disappointed in that hope.
>
>>
>> Cue Tim Smith to fail to grasp this point again.
>>
>
> Or cue Mark Kent talking a load of bollocks and being too thick to
> realise what an idiot he looks.
Of course, you can always fall back on your usual stock-in-trade of
insults when you are unable to offer any meaningful discussion points.
I hope you get paid well for this - I'd hate to have to show so much
ignorance so publicly as you seem to have to.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
