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

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.

-- 
| 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!       |


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