Slashdot Mirror
International Call for Open Standards
tengu1sd writes "The New York Times is carrying a report urging nations to adopt open-information technology standards as 'a vital step to accelerate economic growth, efficiency and innovation'. Sponsored by The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, it also points out that 'open technology standards - the digital equivalent of a common gauge for railroad tracks - are not the same thing as open-source software. Open source is a development model for software in which code is freely shared and improved by a cooperative network of programmers'. This leaves room for companies willing to accept standards, but closes the door to companies unwilling to play nice."
One of the first things you learn at school is to play nice together, or else you don't play at all. The sooner "big business" learns this lesson, the better!
If the 'real world' is anything like the place I work. Standards are a dream, that will never come to be, because everyone likes do do things "their way".
~Belly
Open standards have been the driving force behind the development of the PC. The only reason for closed standards is so that somebody can make money with them.
The big change that permitted science to flourish was the willingness to share information. Because the information was shared, progress was not limited to what one person could create.
The failure to use Open Standards won't send us back to the dark ages. But it will slow progress down as each proprietary standard sets up a roadblock.
The failure to follow standards should be punished in some way. Using basic economics isn't fast, but it will work in the long run.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
It pleases me to see that the good intentions of open source standards are taking a more aggressive approach to defending the open source development method of software.
As all of us
~tim
The key to competing successfully in business is to offer a better value to the customer than they can get somewhere else.
If you run a small grocery, you will typically be outpriced by the large grocery chain down the block, but can keep business by offering your customers other services that keep them coming back. If you make widgets, it's better to be either the cheapest widget provider or the widget provider with the highest quality. In a competition where price and quality are the deciding features, it's best to pick one extreme and go for it.
So what happens with software? If everyone implements open standards, it limits the implementation to the limits of the standard. Ideally, you'd have a flexible enough standard that implementing cool ideas is no more of a break from the standard than implementing the standard verbatim. But for a company that leads the field by a large margin, it doesn't make sense to open up to standards and thus open the doors for your customers to leave the barn. Keep them locked in, and keep providing them with superior product. They will never have the need to switch to another product so long as their needs are met, and they would have a tough time switching anyway as their current data isn't easily transferrable to a new system, no matter how open that new system may be.
I'm of the opinion that companies ought to do what they want with regards to standards. It doesn't matter what package you are using, if the one you are using satisfies your needs. Open standards hardly ever make or break a deal.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
The point is that Open STANDARDS are important - not Open Source. All this fuss over OSS is ridiculous. What should remain is the idea that open standards provide the opportunity for growth in the industry. The actual implementation of the software is much less important.
Open standards and Open Source have nothing to do with each other. There is plenty of closed source software that supports open standards.
From TFA:
An ignorant reader who was reading this article might assume that all open-source software was "free as in beer", whereas we all (should) know that not all open-source software falls into that niche. I would hazard a guess and say that most governments would probably be using OSS that included tech support, ergo not free as in beer. While OSS is a good thing (in my mind), I don't want everyone thinking they can get it without any cost, because then they'll be disappointed.Likewise, what is the definition of "standard"? From dictionary.com:
Now, I know this may cause a potential flame war, but isn't it pretty clear that Microsoft (mostly) fits that bill? Obviously many will hit me with "Yeah, except for the excellence part..." and I'll concede that Microsoft Office does not always work propertly. However, it is the most widely recognized and employed office software. Does that not make it seem that Office "is" a standard? I work at a government research lab and everything we do has to be compatible with MS Office.Sure, everyone wants to crush Microsoft into the ground, but realistically (if I can be so bold as to actually talk realistically), does anyone think we can actually get ENOUGH people to stop using Office that *.doc files will cease to be the standard? I honestly think we're better off trying to find a way to get Microsoft to give developers the information they need to develop software based on the Microsoft standard. Oh yes, I know, that's blasphemy and my karma is now lower than Lucifer's, but if you stop and think for a moment you'll realize that it's the logical and realistic choice.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
If standard-compliant documents become a requirement for large purchases, it doesn't matter if the company wants to play nice or not...the only question is: do they want the sale? Customers can force the companies to play nice by making standards-compliant document formats a requirement.
is thinking that MS is deployed because of its' excellence.
It is because of network effects, where a pile of crap, if everyone has it, is still of more utility than perfection only a few people have.
Just another opportunity combine automated patching with embrace, extend, and extinguish. Microsoft will start supporting these open formats to keep their foot firmly in the door. Then they will start to poison them. People will soon be once again sending documents as (say) .doc files, because they need to get their work done. The 'open' format will seem too much of a nuisance, as it will be 'accidently' half-broken or otherwise made inferior. Similar programs won't be able to open the 'open-format' documents anyway because the standard will have been 'extended'. Microsoft will spin it as the fault of the format and competitors programs (and most managers and bureaucrats will no-doubt buy the spin .. they always do), but as long as Microsoft claims they support the open-format, then sales to government mandating openness will have the green-light.
You can't force a company with an anti-competitive corporate culture to play nice. It just won't do it.
The standards can evolve. If Microsoft wishes to add a new "feature" to an existing standard, it must a) not prevent the file from being used by programs designed to meet the current standard, and b) the new "feature" must be open for others to adopt, or not, as they wish.
Microsoft has a history of twisting standards until only their software can open the files.
That said, open standards means open source will eventually win. As word processing formats (a la what's happen in MA) become standard, then the software will become commoditized. It's the end of MS Office's reign. OpenOffice can and will quickly implement the standard, and no one would have a reason to use MS Office anymore.
Open standards are the death knell for MS's monopoly, and they know it. Expect MS to fight tooth and nail every step of the way.
Once we have open standards and everyone is coding to that standard, the consume will win. The consumer will have choice and competition will make the software smaller, faster, more secure, and more plentiful.
"It also points out that open technology standards - the digital equivalent of a common gauge for railroad tracks - are "
Lets hope the digital equivalent is a bit *more* standardised than railway track gauge or we'll end up with the virtual version of 2ft gauge, 2ft 6 , 3ft, meter gauge, standard gauge, irish gauge, soviet gauge etc etc etc
Open Standards are what it takes to reroute energy from an Alien Ship to the Engine Room or reconfigure Energy Coils and adapt special Capacitors.
OK, I'm no Trekkie, but you get the point. You'll need Open Standards (and adherence to them) to make things "Just Work (tm)."
Serge
The accent here is on open not on standards. What I mean by that is that with the technological pace it's going to be hard to use only technology that was standardized by I don't know what international agency, however if you chose to use a technology maybe it's better to use the one that has open specifications.
So maybe the word we are looking for is specifications not standards. I mean of course it's better to use a standard but in case you have to chose between open specifications and closed specifications -- the wise choise is the first one.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Standards do not have to mean that everyone has to use Open Document or something. This is only a tool MA has used to begin to escape vendor lock-in. The whole point is that if you store data, you should be making public the way that you have formatted the data in order to allow it to be translated into another format if necessary. The reason people gravitate to XML is because it is a text-based file format that can be examined, rather than a proprietary binary format with the drawbridge firmly raised and the archers searching for targets.
The USA can't even accept the metric system, so I don't understand how everyone keeps expecting it to embrace all this newfangled 'open source' stuff. Open source needs to get in line.
I regularly report MSN spam to the Hotmail admins.