Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Saving A Fortune by Acquiring Open Source Cisco Alternatives

  • Subject: Re: [News] Saving A Fortune by Acquiring Open Source Cisco Alternatives
  • From: Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:42:32 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • References: <4243527.Zb6RxZG6lo@schestowitz.com>
  • User-agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1152885
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Check out this Open Source, commercially supported Linux based router.
>| I seriously saved my company thousands... Go small guy!
> `----
> 
> http://digg.com/hardware/I_just_saved_my_company_8_000_by_NOT_buying_Disco
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Related article to exemplify why Cisco is evil in attempts to crush OS
> competition:
> 
> Why the world needs openness, not interoperability.
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| This NAC/NAP lovefest would be laughable if it weren't such
>| a kick-in-the-teeth to the rest of the industry, enterprise IT, and
>| all Internet users. A Cisco/Microsoft oligopoly stalls implementation,
>| stifles innovation, and makes the network less secure. In this way, Cisco
>| and Microsoft are standing in the way of progress.
> `----
> 
> http://news.com.com/2061-11203_3-6112960.html?part=rss&tag=6112960&subj=news

I particularly liked the bit about Cisco not working with Industry
Consortia over standards.  This is quite funny, in that it's true, they
don't, they drop their proprietary stuff onto the IETF and/or IEEE or
wherever.

In the 1990s, Cisco and others did a great job of hugely criticising the
ITU, complaining that they were /slow/.  The reason they were slow (and
not that slow, to be honest) was that they worked to have things
interoperate, and to take account of everyone's requirements.  The modus
operadi of the IETF are rather different, they include having something
working and then you get to impose a standard, and they also include
ignoring everyone else.

I don't know much about the IEEE, but I hope it's rather better than the
IETF.

If we /really/ want interoperability, then proper standards (a la ITU)
would do the trick, however, we have a new and much better weapon which
we can use against proprietary locks; use the source.

Using standards to describe state-machine in English is riddled with
risks and problems, not the least of which is that translation into
other langauges and dialects (eg., US English) causes misapprehension.
Source code suffers no such problem.

Whilst not perfect, using the source gets interoperability much closer,
and actively prevents lock-in.  It also permits such time-honoured
phrases as "Use the source, Luke!" when looking from protection from
viruses and so on, like MS Blaster.

-- 
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
Although golf was originally restricted to wealthy, overweight Protestants,
today it's open to anybody who owns hideous clothing.
		-- Dave Barry

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index