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

Re: [News] [SOT] Lessig Calls for Government Not to Be Run by Corporations, Shareholders

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.



>>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.  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.  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.  As I am massively busy with code development
and have a long queue of projects to do, I don't have a lot of time
to spend in the usenet playground.  I tend to try to get in, say my
piece, and then go back to work.  I do not have time to spend in
threads where people are beating each other up on their positions
article after article after article.

I think I put forth a reasonable case on why there are reasons to care
about standards (and that rapid code development can be complementary
to standards development).  If you don't, fine.  Perhaps someone else
reading this thread got something to think about from the discussion.

In another article in this thread where you were replying to Linonut,
you said:

> It's hard for people to cope when the world is changing, and I think
> Craig was hoping to hold onto something he was familiar with, namely the
> legacy standards processes, however, they are so broken, so and corrupt
> as to have become essentially worthless.  The new world is running on
> rapidly developed source code, and we all need to recognise this.

I think your are a little naive in beliving that standards don't
matter.  The C standard matters, the POSIX standard matters, the
TCP standard matters, etc.  For those who want government contracts,
standards matter.  That the standardization process is currently
somewhat broken does not make it useless.  The light being shown on
the OOXML corruption in this group is a step in the right direction
for making the process better.

Some developers, such as myself, need some level of stability, or
the systems we put together are not *maintainable*.  Just saying
that we're in a world where things are rapidly evolving, so just
get used to it, doesn't hack it.  You are pretty much telling me
to choose between vendor lockin and DLL hell, and a world where
one is in constant maintainance cycles, trying to keep up with
releases of all sorts of tools and libraries evolving in all sorts
of directions.  Neither option is satisfactory.


---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

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