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. 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. Standards promote competition and
prevent vendor lock-in.
Look at Word for example. One of the reason that Word, in all of
its variations, is so pervasive, is that it has become a defacto
document exchange standard. This has worked well as a revenue
generator as tweeking the "standard" results in pretty much everyone
having to upgrade so that they can read each other's documents. I
submit that even if the source to the various Word versions was freely
available, it still would not be all that useful as it wouldn't be
*stable*. As features are added and other features are implemented
in different ways, chaos would reign when trying to put together
truely portable documents.
Standards bodies can and do bring some order and discipline to the
development of standards and makes various core software packages,
protocols, and formats useful for everyone.
The attempts to corrupt the standards bodies to benefit particular
corporations is not only deplorable, but is also dangerous to the
industry. While the standardization processes need to be modified
to prevent such corruption, I firmly believe that formal standards
are essential for a true competitive environment.
---Craig
________________________________________________________________________
Craig A. Gullixson
Instrument Engineer INTERNET: cgullixson@xxxxxxx
National Solar Observatory/Sac. Peak PHONE: (505) 434-7065
Sunspot, NM 88349 USA FAX: (505) 434-7029
|
|
