Craig Gullixson <craig@xxxxxxx> espoused:
> In article <jthub5-hgh.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Craig Gullixson <craig@xxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> In article <61esb5-igq.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> Craig Gullixson <craig@xxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> In article <up9pb5-l3s.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>> ____/ [H]omer on Tuesday 25 March 2008 22:31 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [quote Martin Bryan]
>>>>>>>>> The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee
>>>>>>>>> generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT
>>>>>>>>> circles. The days of open standards development are fast
>>>>>>>>> disappearing. Instead we are getting ?standardization by corporation?
>>>>>>>> [/quote]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or ?standardisation by corruption?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing to bear in mind, is that the demise of ISO, and other
>>>>>>>> standards bodies, would suit Microsoft's purposes perfectly, indeed it's
>>>>>>>> likely that they /devised/ their downfall to begin with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If Microsoft succeeds in corrupting standards bodies then they win
>>>>>>>> standards ratification (even if those "standards" are unworthy), and if
>>>>>>>> (despite that corruption) they fail in their efforts, then they still
>>>>>>>> "win" by destroying standards bodies (in reputation at least, which for
>>>>>>>> a standards body is /everything/), thus making impartial standardisation
>>>>>>>> irrelevant. All that will remain is *de facto* standards, which
>>>>>>>> Microsoft maintains by protecting its monopoly (and vice versa).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a win/win deal for the Vole, either way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOW this is just Microsoft's typical MO of "assimilate or destroy".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see exactly the same thing happening with Mono, which will either
>>>>>>>> assimilate FOSS into Microsoft's portfolio of Intellectual Monopoly, or
>>>>>>>> destroy it with distrust and division. I'm sure that's the plan, at least.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only hope to stop and reverse this corruption, is to stop Microsoft
>>>>>>>> ... permanently. The only hope we have of doing that, is with the law.
>>>>>>>> But the law is in the pocket of corrupt politicians and corporations, so
>>>>>>>> that just leaves a handful of crusaders like Lessig, or on the other
>>>>>>>> side of the pond - Kroes. And people like us who expose that corruption.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kroes sort of fell for the RAND scam. Hopefully she'll realise this soon. The
>>>>>>> Europa site has recently issued several press releases which favour FOSS. It
>>>>>>> did so very quietly (low profile), some say because it does not want to give
>>>>>>> the impression that it /actively/ fights the abusive monopolist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you say, dead standards bodies and division serve Microsoft. The Novell deal
>>>>>>> is another example and all have crossed my mind before. Money corrupts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a land/state of chaos, the villains rule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The death of standards serves the rise of foss well, though. As
>>>>>> standards become more and more blantantly corrupt, like OOXML, then the
>>>>>> alternatives, such as ODF, which are essentially defined by their source
>>>>>> code, will become important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The need for traditional standards is really a hangover from the days of
>>>>>> 100% proprietary equipment and code, such that the only way of getting
>>>>>> any kind of interoperability was through a standards definition, whereas
>>>>>> now that source code is available and we have COTS hardware, then the
>>>>>> need for standards has waned significantly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There will always be a need for standard hardware platforms and
>>>>>> reference designs, but the source suffices for software, file formats,
>>>>>> protocols and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I beg to differ. As a developer, all I really care about is the
>>>>> published standards.
>>>>
>>>> You should get some experience writing standards, too. It would help
>>>> you understand the issues a little better. Standards for file formats
>>>> require mentally imaging code which hasn't been written, for example.
>>>> This is, at best, a rather silly thing to try to do.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not completely unfamiliar with standards. While standards
>>> documents tend to be long, and often contain code snippets as examples,
>>> they do tell you what you need to do to implement the standard. For
>>> example, after a quick look at the ODF standard, I'm fairly confident
>>> that I could build my own ODF document creator tool if I wanted (and
>>> had the time) to do so. I don't have to reverse engineer code, not
>>> necessarily written in a language that I'm completely familiar with.
>>>
>>
>> ODF is extremely unusual, in that it was created on the back of an
>> open-source implementation, which is why it is implementable. If you
>> really get into trouble, you can just go and look at the source-code.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Source is nice to have as a reference
>>>>> implementation, but parsing such source to determine file formats,
>>>>> protocols, etc., tends to be both difficult and propogates bugs in
>>>>> the reference implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Err? If the source *is* the reference implementation, then as and when
>>>> bugs are found, they can be fixed. The speed of open-source development
>>>> is well in excess of anything every achieved by the standards process.
>>>> Subversion, sourceforge etc., ensure that this can be quickly and easily
>>>> achieved.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Between the time when the reference implementation is released and the
>>> time a bug or logic error is discovered, people have been using the
>>> reference implemtation as a bible in your scenario. One can try to
>>> propogate fixes throughout ciberspace, but effectively, the bug or
>>> logic error is now a part of the standard (much as the leap year bug
>>> Microsoft Excel).
>>
>> As opposed to the standards route, where changes to the standards can
>> take 5 or more years to achieve. You don't seem to know much about this
>> process.
>>
>> Microsoft Excel is not a standard, nor is it open-source, and is
>> therefore not relevant to this discussion.
>>
>> The effectiveness of rapidly fixing code is demonstrated ably by the
>> open-source world. There are numerous linux kernel versions out there,
>> but interoperability between linux-based systems is rarely any kind of
>> problem.
>>
>> Using the source as the standard, as Linux does, if far more effective
>> than the legacy standards-writing processes which abound, and are
>> presently sinking in a quagmire of corruption and incompetence.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> Standards promote competition and
>>>>> prevent vendor lock-in.
>>>>
>>>> Quite incorrect, standards are actively abused on a regular basis in
>>>> order to promote lock-in. Open-source and open platforms, on the other
>>>> hand, promote competition and prevent vendor lock-in.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lock-in due to standards abuse, usally in the form of additional
>>> "features", only happens if you fall for their tricks.
>>
>> You? Who is you?
>>
>> Lock-in due to standards abuse is and has been the mode of operation of
>> most vendors for many years, and continues to be. OOXML is a fantastic
>> example of this kind of corruption.
>>
>
>
> Thank you so much for editing my response to your posting to fit
> into your arguments.
I did *not* edit your post, that is an out and out lie. I've snipped
bits, but I did *not* edit what you said. I responded to the parts I
felt you'd made the points you were trying to make. There's no need to
paddy.
>I would generally only expect such an honor
> from a microsoft supporter in this group. Thank you for the vaguely
> creepy feeling of Hadron supporting some of my statments.
Your position is, at best, highly naive, so I would expect to see you
get strong support from the MS Shilcosystem for much of what you're
saying, as it certainly fits well into the MS view of the future.
> And please
> forgive me for trying to have a real discussion
You'd be one of those people who regards a "real discussion" as one
where everyone agrees with you? And you paddy when they don't... (I
snipped your abuse).
Welcome to the real world.
<snip uncalled-for abuse>
My feeling is that you're simply unable to prove your assertions to be
correct, or prove mine to be incorrect, so you're stomping off...
--
| 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/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
