doesn't it imply that there's some sort of "address list selling" by the registrars going on?
Standards ARE important... here's why.
on
Usenet Encoding: yEnc
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In one sentence, standards ARE important because they allow for the most people to get the most benefit.
I work in an industry that relies heavily on standards, and my job deals specifically with standards. Making sure that WE follow standards, and making sure that other vendors follow standards.
Sure, they're slow to develop. But they're the best for interoperability, and that's crucial. In my line of work (for a major Mobile Phone System NSS provider), I have to deal with other providers that have to follow the same standars we do. That allows both of our products to communicate. This gives the end consumer (i.e., Cingular, Sprint, etc.,) the option to buy from different vendors. This forces us to make better products. This forces us to be more efficient. This forces our competitors to do the same thing. In the end, everybody wins.
The other alternative is what I see as the Micro$oft approach: Standards be dammed, I'm going to do it this way, and f*ck everybody else. It's the same approach that gives you security holes in your browser, because, well, who needs the standards?
I can't believe I'm reading comments like "well, it's here and it works so what's the problem?" The problem is the future. The problem is the inability to send an SMS from a CDMA service like Sprint to a GSM one like Voicestream. That's what happens when you blow off standards. The problem is the inability to read an M$ Word doc that was sent to a Linux user. Ignoring standards and going off on your own (especially, going off BADLY on your own) just divides us. Good standards help us all. They give us better products. The lower costs. CD-Rs. FireWire. PCI. countless others.
Besides, as the article begins by asking: Just what problem were they trying to solve?
Slashdot Mirror
doesn't it imply that there's some sort of "address list selling" by the registrars going on?
In one sentence, standards ARE important because they allow for the most people to get the most benefit.
I work in an industry that relies heavily on standards, and my job deals specifically with standards. Making sure that WE follow standards, and making sure that other vendors follow standards.
Sure, they're slow to develop. But they're the best for interoperability, and that's crucial. In my line of work (for a major Mobile Phone System NSS provider), I have to deal with other providers that have to follow the same standars we do. That allows both of our products to communicate. This gives the end consumer (i.e., Cingular, Sprint, etc.,) the option to buy from different vendors. This forces us to make better products. This forces us to be more efficient. This forces our competitors to do the same thing. In the end, everybody wins.
The other alternative is what I see as the Micro$oft approach: Standards be dammed, I'm going to do it this way, and f*ck everybody else. It's the same approach that gives you security holes in your browser, because, well, who needs the standards?
I can't believe I'm reading comments like "well, it's here and it works so what's the problem?"
The problem is the future.
The problem is the inability to send an SMS from a CDMA service like Sprint to a GSM one like Voicestream. That's what happens when you blow off standards.
The problem is the inability to read an M$ Word doc that was sent to a Linux user.
Ignoring standards and going off on your own (especially, going off BADLY on your own) just divides us.
Good standards help us all. They give us better products. The lower costs.
CD-Rs. FireWire. PCI. countless others.
Besides, as the article begins by asking: Just what problem were they trying to solve?
This is not news. this is just a verbatim copy of the HP press release.