Craig Gullixson <craig@xxxxxxx> espoused:
> In article <41g1c5-96v.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> [Stupidly jumping back in...]
>
> Sorry, cutting essentially what are sound bytes out of a paragraph
> or two of a response, in order to give you something to support your
> arguments *is* editing my responses to suit your purposes.
>
No, there is an accepted difference between "editing" and "snipping" in
the Usenet context. Editing is used to refer to the deliberate changing
of meaning by removing or changing key words. What I did was
"snipping", and I did it vertically, ie., I responded to what I saw
first, which is what you wrote first. If you didn't like what you
wrote, that's your problem. I merely removed what was after the point
and didn't affect it.
Anyway, the tactic you're now using is one of changing the subject. The
question I raise is "who is you", which is something you've completely
avoided responding to by making specious claims regarding post editing.
So, again, Who is "you"?
>
>
>>>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...
>>
>
>
> I do not expect everyone to agree with my position.
Apparently you did.
> In the real
> world, people do come from different backgrounds and experiences.
> The issue is that we were going around and around on the issue of
> whether formal standards are useful or not. I believe that they
> are, you clearly don't.
Not true at all. For the record, I was an ITU Special Rapporteur for
many years, and have considerable experience in the writing of standards
in ITU-T, ITU-R and ETSI.
For state-machines and file formats, the source code is massively
superior.
> When you started editing my arguments to
> suit your purposes, there was not much point of continuing the
> discussion, especially as only you and I were really the only ones
> in on the discussion.
No, I didn't do that. I did *not* edit your argument, in any way. That
is an out and out lie.
I have no time for liars, and you are one.
I'll be happy to discuss with you, but you *must* stop being dishonest
about my actions. Basically, if you're prepared to be dishonest about
that, you'll be dishonest about anything; *I* do not have the time to
waste on dishonest people.
I do not read further once people have lied about me.
<snip>
--
| 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! |
|
|
