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.
> 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.
> 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.
--
| 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! |
|
|
