Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Business
Why open standards matter
By Tina Gasperson
on
April 09, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
I think open source software is a good thing, but I've never bought into the religious fundamentalist fervor of a lot of the circles I move in as an IT reporter. Condemning people for not using Linux instead of Windows, and the strong-arm tactics of some proprietary software makers that try to lock people into a certain product, are just two sides of the same coin. But open standards that make real choices possible? Now, that's something I can get behind.
This week I spent six and a half hours at Government Day, a sub-conference at LinuxWorld Boston led by Leon Shiman, the founder of X.org. Shiman put together the daylong session to raise awareness in the public sector about the need for open standards in IT infrastructure. He brought in people from city governments in Massachusetts to talk about their challenges with IT, and key people from the free software community to talk about the projects they're working on, as well as representatives of each of the corporate sponsors.
Of all the speakers I heard, two really made me sit up and pay attention: David Wheeler of the Institute for Defense Analyses, and Luis Villa, a Harvard Law School geek and self-professed "free software bigot."
Wheeler spoke in parables to illustrate just what open standards are and why they are important for IT infrastructure security. First he talked about "magic food," a hypothetical substance that would nourish those who ate it for an entire year, providing all nutrients necessary and costing only one dollar -- the first year -- and making all other food poisonous and inedible forever. "How many of you think that the cost of magic food is going to go up next year?" Wheeler asked. "You probably think I'm picking on Microsoft or Red Hat -- I'm not. We need suppliers. The problem is dependence." He went on to show the audience, through another word picture describing a 1904 fire in Baltimore, how open standards can prevent unhealthy dependence on one vendor. "Firefighters were called in from all the surrounding states," Wheeler said. "But all they could do was stand and watch the building burn, because their firehoses would not fit on the fire hydrants." A standard fire hose coupler could have prevented much of the destruction.
Open standards are by their nature platform-independent, collaboratively developed, vendor-neutral, and do not depend on any commercial intellectual property. Through this talk I began to see how base standards in hardware and software could allow vendor innovation while preventing vendor lockin. Using the fire hose coupler example, without open standards, a fire hydrant maker with a lot of money could force out smaller vendors, patent their fire hose coupler, and start making the only fire hoses that work with their fire hydrant, creating a monopoly. If the pattern for the fire hose coupler was freely available to anyone, it would allow competing companies to create fire hoses that would work with the hydrants, ensuring a free market. The idea is not to put the monopolist out of business, but to open the game to other players.
Later in the day, Villa, who is on the GNOME Board, shared some of his thoughts about open standards and open source software. "It hurts me to even say 'open source,'" Villa said. "I am a free software bigot." For ethical reasons, he believes in the principles behind the movement that Richard Stallman began. But when it comes to government software procurement, he feels differently. "Legislating the use of open source is a mistake," Villa said, "because it takes away the ability to make a choice."
Speaking to the audience of government workers, Villa said, "Maybe 2006 is not the year that Linux ends up on your desktops." But, he encouraged them, if they begin using software that supports open standards now, such as Firefox and OpenOffice.org, then when Linux is ready it will be that much easier to make a switch. "And maybe you'll decide not to make that switch," Villa said. "But at least the choice will be yours."
I wholeheartedly agree. This industry needs open standards implemented and enforced -- now.
Tina Gasperson writes about business and technology from an open source perspective.
Comments
on Why open standards matterNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
I agree with the author. It is the way that some press the argument is where they become zealots. Here's an example: 2 guys are in a room, Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman. In my opinion, Richard is the zealot and here's why. Both believe in freedom and choice, but what happens if you use a closed sourced program to create your program. If you are Linus, you use the right tool for the job regardless if it's open or closed. If your Richard you would flame the person for not using free/open software. So in my opinion your choice with richard is free/open or nothing that is just as insideous as anything microsoft can do.
I suppose the Americans and the Indians (and many others<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) should just have stuck with the British and accepted the state of affairs instead of becoming philosophical/religious zealots in the name of such ethereal concepts as "Independence" or "freedom".
After all, the right thing would've been to stick on to the Empire and "grow" "together" inspite of the hardships and slavery and what not. Considering the Americans, I doubt there was *any* slavery at all, so it should've been a pretty easy choice to stay under the British. Those damn fools, the Founding fathers, they just didn't use the right tools for the job. They became zealots for the new and obviously idiotic catch-phrases/fad of the time.
After all, the right thing would've been to stick on to the Empire and "grow" "together" inspite of the hardships and slavery and what not. Considering the Americans, I doubt there was *any* slavery at all, so it should've been a pretty easy choice to stay under the British. Those damn fools, the Founding fathers, they just didn't use the right tools for the job. They became zealots for the new and obviously idiotic catch-phrases/fad of the time.
you have not quite grasped the understanding of freedom. The founding forefathers were right in fighting for their freedom i don't consider them zealots. But if they had tried to force all who did not agree with them to adopt their way of thinking i would have considered them zealots. And as for the indians lets leave them out they got screwed by both and did not even get a dinner out of it.
"But if they had tried to force all who did not agree with them to adopt their way of thinking i would have considered them zealots"
I remember studying about the American Civil War. So, fighting a War, to support some "Independence"/"freedom" zealotry is in your view, not "force" ?
At least, the Indians (I'm talking about Indians from India, the country in Asia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... heard about it ?) used Non-violence, and has greater claim to any kind of freedom than you Americans push on to the rest of the world. Of course, I doubt that you read about *that* in your 9th grade history class (so much for American "global" education).
I remember studying about the American Civil War. So, fighting a War, to support some "Independence"/"freedom" zealotry is in your view, not "force" ?
At least, the Indians (I'm talking about Indians from India, the country in Asia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... heard about it ?) used Non-violence, and has greater claim to any kind of freedom than you Americans push on to the rest of the world. Of course, I doubt that you read about *that* in your 9th grade history class (so much for American "global" education).
I was not talking about the english. I was talking about the other settlers who chose for what ever reason not to fight. If they had said fight for us because we are in the right they would have been zealots yes. And as for my ninth grade history book well that has not been used in well over a decade. and as for the indians well when you put them in the same sentance i thought you meant indians as in cowboys and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
But if they had tried to force all who did not agree with them to adopt their way of thinking i would have considered them zealots.
You're talking about the current USA administration, right?
You're talking about the current USA administration, right?
> You may be missing a subtle point here.
No, she's got it right and _you_ are missing on _which_ coin it is; since we can't make choices for others. Microsoft tries, and if you fight them this very same "weapon", you end up being the same beast.
And alas, there are enough
PS: Tina, second in a row, congrats<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
--
Michael Shigorin
No, she's got it right and _you_ are missing on _which_ coin it is; since we can't make choices for others. Microsoft tries, and if you fight them this very same "weapon", you end up being the same beast.
And alas, there are enough
PS: Tina, second in a row, congrats<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
--
Michael Shigorin
"since we can't make choices for others"
You mean like people electing a government which then chooses how much of my money I must give them in taxes?
Seems to me that people make choices for others all the time.
That said, I kind of agree with you, but don't see pushing Free Software as making choices for others. (They can choose any Free Software they want or make some new stuff, it is no skin off my teeth.)
Do you live in a country where it is illegal to sell yourself into slavery? If so, why would people have deemed it necessary to take that choice/freedom from you?
That said, if the people who wrote the non-Free software that so many wanted to use were not doing so much to take away my choices, I would not mind the choices as much.
Please also note, we are not talking Free Markets here. We are talking markets in goods that have been given Government granted monopolies.
all the best,
drew
---
<a href="http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924" title="ourmedia.org">http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924</a ourmedia.org>
Bahamian Nonsense
You mean like people electing a government which then chooses how much of my money I must give them in taxes?
Seems to me that people make choices for others all the time.
That said, I kind of agree with you, but don't see pushing Free Software as making choices for others. (They can choose any Free Software they want or make some new stuff, it is no skin off my teeth.)
Do you live in a country where it is illegal to sell yourself into slavery? If so, why would people have deemed it necessary to take that choice/freedom from you?
That said, if the people who wrote the non-Free software that so many wanted to use were not doing so much to take away my choices, I would not mind the choices as much.
Please also note, we are not talking Free Markets here. We are talking markets in goods that have been given Government granted monopolies.
all the best,
drew
---
<a href="http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924" title="ourmedia.org">http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924</a ourmedia.org>
Bahamian Nonsense
That's why they made so many of them.
I think there's broad agreement that closed standards only benefit the market leaders. However, building an industry consensus around a standard is tough. We remember the many, many efforts to standardize Unix in the '80s and '90s, including<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/group, OSF, Unix International, and POSIX. Software interfaces are often very complex, and often contain undocumented dependencies on the system environment and/or platform. The interests of the parties involved are often dissimilar as well as competitive. And the marketplace, and innovation within the various companies involved, forces extensions to and overhauling of standard interfaces. Committees representing all the relevant interests can't act fast enough to standardize the necessary modifications. A standard with lots of important proprietary extensions is a weak standard. And fads and other innovations come along which threaten to make existing standards obsolete (Java and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net plus web services superseding CORBA and DCOM, for instance).
"I think open source software is a good thing, but I've never bought into the religious fundamentalist fervor of a lot of the circles I move in as an IT reporter."
All in my opinion:
Philosophy differs from religion. Try reading the GNU philosophy, if more people did perhaps they wouldn't confuse Linux zealots with religious zealots. Instead, they may see these people are people who are proud and in love with a good and strong philosophy.
Religious zealots struggle under an invisible and unprovable god.
Freedom loving open source users reject a very real bloated and vicious entity which forces others to use their product with unsavory tactics.
There IS a difference, but the lazy who fail to understand logic and philosophy will continue to paint others under the religious zealot brush in ignorance.
All in my opinion:
Philosophy differs from religion. Try reading the GNU philosophy, if more people did perhaps they wouldn't confuse Linux zealots with religious zealots. Instead, they may see these people are people who are proud and in love with a good and strong philosophy.
Religious zealots struggle under an invisible and unprovable god.
Freedom loving open source users reject a very real bloated and vicious entity which forces others to use their product with unsavory tactics.
There IS a difference, but the lazy who fail to understand logic and philosophy will continue to paint others under the religious zealot brush in ignorance.
No RMS uses the same mechanisms as religious zealotry... For example when talking about DRM he WON'T engage with anyone who uses the term "Digital Rights Management" (his words by the way) because he does not ACCEPT that a term can be used or that such a concept COULD exist...
In other words he cannot discuss the concept in philosophical terms because he doesn't accept the "investigation" part of philosophy... He is a zealot (and would probably agree that he is)...
Similar views are held by many in the OSS community, whether they are in regard to Windows being the forked-tailed one or Linux being the saviour of mankind... The point is is that this isn't a black-n-white argument... Paid-for-software has it's place and OSS has it's place, to argue that either is BAD/WRONG because of it's existence is zealotry...
In other words he cannot discuss the concept in philosophical terms because he doesn't accept the "investigation" part of philosophy... He is a zealot (and would probably agree that he is)...
Similar views are held by many in the OSS community, whether they are in regard to Windows being the forked-tailed one or Linux being the saviour of mankind... The point is is that this isn't a black-n-white argument... Paid-for-software has it's place and OSS has it's place, to argue that either is BAD/WRONG because of it's existence is zealotry...
"Paid-for-software has it's place and OSS has it's place,"
Oops, these two are not mutually exclusive and so the statement does not mean what I guess you intend it to. Please try again, if that is the case.
all the best,
drew
---
<a href="http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924" title="ourmedia.org">http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924</a ourmedia.org>
Bahamian Nonsense
Oops, these two are not mutually exclusive and so the statement does not mean what I guess you intend it to. Please try again, if that is the case.
all the best,
drew
---
<a href="http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924" title="ourmedia.org">http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924</a ourmedia.org>
Bahamian Nonsense
+++++++
"For example when talking about DRM he WON'T engage with anyone who uses the term "Digital Rights Management" (his words by the way) because he does not ACCEPT that a term can be used or that such a concept COULD exist..."
+++++++
The example given shows an inability not zealotry. Many experts in a field cannot hold a conversation or arguement with someone that uses technical terms (that have precise meanings and implications in that field) in a techically improper manner. This is normal. This makes sense. A lay person may not understand the reasons, but that doesn't make the other a zealot.
Perhaps RMS has the particular inability to argue effectively using words "Digital Rights Management" because the terms themselves have certain implications and assumptions (and connotations) behind them that would affect the argument conclusions and so refuses to fake an argument. The refusal may possibly be described as zealotry, but certainly there are reasons for the refusal even if you don't see them.
In fact, I am sure he would have been thought to be much more of a nutcase by a lot more people back 10 years ago than he is potentially so thought today.
[by "expert" really I just mean anyone that has done a whole lot of thinking on a particular topic]
Anyway, among lay people he may in fact be a zealot. Among professionals he is probably less thought to be one because they probably understand some of the complications a little better.
[I don't mean to exalt some and debase others. I am not implying an "expert" is correct or a "lay person" incorrect. But an expert as I define it has done a lot more thinking on a topic, even if the topic is quite narrow and even if the topic was based on wrong assumptions or didn't gel with reality.]
+++++++
"Paid-for-software has it's place and OSS has it's place, to argue that either is BAD/WRONG because of it's existence is zealotry... "
+++++++
Maybe it is zealotry to call anyone a zealot simply because, as you say, s/he argues that software "is BAD/WRONG because of" its licensing and disclosure.
Seriously, I hate to use software that I can't analyze. Software is too powerful and too much of a home for backdoors into what is personal for me to feel comfortable using it (especially if I have a non-closed alternative). We all take risks of one type or another. In my case I really respect what any software could potentially do and the willingness of many to exploit such a vehicle. I do wish people making a living building closed-source software would recognize that and look for alternative ways to generate income so that they don't have to spend energy convincing others to trust them and then have that trust be betrayed by someone with the power at some point in the future. Then again, there is an awful lot of trust that is asked for in many business interactions (and unfortunately a lot of trust betrayal too). Still, software (especially the operating system and lower layers) is so powerful. In less than the blink of an eye the software can help generate a lot of future grief for the user.
Without forcing anyone to use open-source software or insist to developers that software be licensed GPL compatible, I can still hope the market realizes some of the pitfalls and favors it out of extinction [there may even be cases where it is important enough to codify it into law, but I'll let others fight those battles -- I like to convince rather than decree].
An interesting case I just thought of. How intent would I be that the code helping run an airplane be available to me. Surely, software is simply part of the product and I haven't been that insistent on knowing how every product around me that might adversely affect me works.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. then again, I don't fly all that often. At least there though my physical safety seems to be at a fairly low level of risk. With the airplane this is measurable (maybe not all potential detrimental effects can be measured but at least whether I crash and burn or arrive in one piece can). Thankfully the numbers look good for flying in a plane without crashing. With software, however, it is too easy to create lots of damage and leave the scene of the accident without leaving much of a trace that such an accident even occured.
Another case: the operating system of a personal PC vs the operating system of an ATM machine. With the ATM I am providing a very limited amount of data (my contact with it is very limited in duration even if the camara generates a hugh amount of data during the brief period). Though the data is important, it is data that is necessary to the bank in one way or the other, and in the end I get my cash as a result of that transaction and this is very desirable. Without ATM interaction, the biggest risk was using the bank to begin with, but like the plane example above, this seems relatively safe in practice (bank takes much of the risk away by accepting certain loses (at least with credit cards) and, anyway, the world would fall apart without the banking system).
Contrast that with the personal PC. I don't intend to make the stuff there public. I don't use my personal PC seldomly and with my defenses up. I therefore have much higher standards with my computer. Sure, I take chances, but the standards are much higher.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. this comes full circle to the first quote above about DRM. Yuck, you must not be serious, right? Have me use MS-controlled DRM when I have alternatives like Linux? In fact, now that we can put so much into the hardware as it ships out of the factory (since gigabytes take so little space in hardware nowadays), we really need open-source hardware specs. In this regards, two big thumbs up to the various projects working on this as well as Sun's latest play with GPL-ing the full processor creation specs (this means we can know the interface, the whole interface, and (guarantee) nothing but the whole interface of the processor). Although the following scenario is still sci-fi, I think, I can certainly imagine the day when the CPU will have a complex OS inside and threads running (undetectable ordinarily and unadvertised) that continually scan memory and past CPU instructions in an effort to detect what the outside system is doing, thereby making sense of the relevant bytes representing the user's personal information and interactions.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. like I said: sci-fi.
"For example when talking about DRM he WON'T engage with anyone who uses the term "Digital Rights Management" (his words by the way) because he does not ACCEPT that a term can be used or that such a concept COULD exist..."
+++++++
The example given shows an inability not zealotry. Many experts in a field cannot hold a conversation or arguement with someone that uses technical terms (that have precise meanings and implications in that field) in a techically improper manner. This is normal. This makes sense. A lay person may not understand the reasons, but that doesn't make the other a zealot.
Perhaps RMS has the particular inability to argue effectively using words "Digital Rights Management" because the terms themselves have certain implications and assumptions (and connotations) behind them that would affect the argument conclusions and so refuses to fake an argument. The refusal may possibly be described as zealotry, but certainly there are reasons for the refusal even if you don't see them.
In fact, I am sure he would have been thought to be much more of a nutcase by a lot more people back 10 years ago than he is potentially so thought today.
[by "expert" really I just mean anyone that has done a whole lot of thinking on a particular topic]
Anyway, among lay people he may in fact be a zealot. Among professionals he is probably less thought to be one because they probably understand some of the complications a little better.
[I don't mean to exalt some and debase others. I am not implying an "expert" is correct or a "lay person" incorrect. But an expert as I define it has done a lot more thinking on a topic, even if the topic is quite narrow and even if the topic was based on wrong assumptions or didn't gel with reality.]
+++++++
"Paid-for-software has it's place and OSS has it's place, to argue that either is BAD/WRONG because of it's existence is zealotry... "
+++++++
Maybe it is zealotry to call anyone a zealot simply because, as you say, s/he argues that software "is BAD/WRONG because of" its licensing and disclosure.
Seriously, I hate to use software that I can't analyze. Software is too powerful and too much of a home for backdoors into what is personal for me to feel comfortable using it (especially if I have a non-closed alternative). We all take risks of one type or another. In my case I really respect what any software could potentially do and the willingness of many to exploit such a vehicle. I do wish people making a living building closed-source software would recognize that and look for alternative ways to generate income so that they don't have to spend energy convincing others to trust them and then have that trust be betrayed by someone with the power at some point in the future. Then again, there is an awful lot of trust that is asked for in many business interactions (and unfortunately a lot of trust betrayal too). Still, software (especially the operating system and lower layers) is so powerful. In less than the blink of an eye the software can help generate a lot of future grief for the user.
Without forcing anyone to use open-source software or insist to developers that software be licensed GPL compatible, I can still hope the market realizes some of the pitfalls and favors it out of extinction [there may even be cases where it is important enough to codify it into law, but I'll let others fight those battles -- I like to convince rather than decree].
An interesting case I just thought of. How intent would I be that the code helping run an airplane be available to me. Surely, software is simply part of the product and I haven't been that insistent on knowing how every product around me that might adversely affect me works.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. then again, I don't fly all that often. At least there though my physical safety seems to be at a fairly low level of risk. With the airplane this is measurable (maybe not all potential detrimental effects can be measured but at least whether I crash and burn or arrive in one piece can). Thankfully the numbers look good for flying in a plane without crashing. With software, however, it is too easy to create lots of damage and leave the scene of the accident without leaving much of a trace that such an accident even occured.
Another case: the operating system of a personal PC vs the operating system of an ATM machine. With the ATM I am providing a very limited amount of data (my contact with it is very limited in duration even if the camara generates a hugh amount of data during the brief period). Though the data is important, it is data that is necessary to the bank in one way or the other, and in the end I get my cash as a result of that transaction and this is very desirable. Without ATM interaction, the biggest risk was using the bank to begin with, but like the plane example above, this seems relatively safe in practice (bank takes much of the risk away by accepting certain loses (at least with credit cards) and, anyway, the world would fall apart without the banking system).
Contrast that with the personal PC. I don't intend to make the stuff there public. I don't use my personal PC seldomly and with my defenses up. I therefore have much higher standards with my computer. Sure, I take chances, but the standards are much higher.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. this comes full circle to the first quote above about DRM. Yuck, you must not be serious, right? Have me use MS-controlled DRM when I have alternatives like Linux? In fact, now that we can put so much into the hardware as it ships out of the factory (since gigabytes take so little space in hardware nowadays), we really need open-source hardware specs. In this regards, two big thumbs up to the various projects working on this as well as Sun's latest play with GPL-ing the full processor creation specs (this means we can know the interface, the whole interface, and (guarantee) nothing but the whole interface of the processor). Although the following scenario is still sci-fi, I think, I can certainly imagine the day when the CPU will have a complex OS inside and threads running (undetectable ordinarily and unadvertised) that continually scan memory and past CPU instructions in an effort to detect what the outside system is doing, thereby making sense of the relevant bytes representing the user's personal information and interactions.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. like I said: sci-fi.
man i must be some rube for allowing microsoft to force me into using their newest bestest product. I suppose now that some Suse user will be saying the same thing about users of Debian or Fedora. I am no fan of microsoft but it pisses me off to no end when people talk about any business that forces people to use their product.The only entity that can claim that honor is the Government and the IRS. oh by the way I am typing this on a pc running win98 so much for microsoft forcing me to use their newest stuff.
"I am no fan of microsoft but it pisses me off to no end when people talk about any business that forces people to use their product."
I somewhat agree with the point of your post but not in degree. This is to say, I agree that both Microsoft does force you to use their products and they don't.
If you fear starvation, divorce, and a crummy upbringing (and guilt) for your kids if you lose your job at a particular point in time (eg, because in part you anticipate not being able to get back on your feet in a short enough time or except through severe anguish).. you may feel "forced" to do what you boss asks if there is hint or explicit mentions you'd lose your job otherwise.
If that action you "must" do involves using Microsoft's newest and latest (boss won't take no for an answer and keep you around), then you effectively are being forced. And if your boss and higher ups effectively felt similar loss and hopelessness in not upgrading to Microsoft's newest (eg, major clients (perhaps government) demand it), then they are effectively being forced.
If the client wants Microsoft because that is all they learned and it is what they want at that point in time (perhaps through ignorance of the few alternatives), then they may feel forced to require that of the vendor (especially if this client too has other clients pushing MS newest along). Also, they may have felt forced to learn a tool and MS was the only tool they knew about or were introduced to or could find (or interoperated properly with Windows) when they looked.
If MS's (newest) tool was driven to a (near) monopoly because of similar fears and forcing (as described earlier) by OEMs and VARs that these felt from Microsoft, in particular because of Microsoft illegal monopoly supporting practices, then we can make a decent argument that the simple worker described at the top was forced to use MS's newest by MS and, in particular, by MS's illegal actions.
Force is in the mind of the beholder and one must consider the context of the particular person and situation. I hope this makes some sense because the network effect is very real. The fears are very real. The force too is very real many times. The MS illegal tactics are very real (at least according to many US court decisions). The intent to carry this through by MS is in all likelihood very real.
Sure, in the end it is each human's human weakness that leads to this forcing chain, but we can't help being human. Gates may be human and not have been able to resist certain temptations at certain times. Maybe we too can now be imperfect humans (as Gates was) and punish Gates (for things we might too have done if in a similar position as Gates).
Gosh, such imperfections and hypocracy. The world is doomed surely.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but surely, too, MS forced many of us to use it's newest and latest.
I somewhat agree with the point of your post but not in degree. This is to say, I agree that both Microsoft does force you to use their products and they don't.
If you fear starvation, divorce, and a crummy upbringing (and guilt) for your kids if you lose your job at a particular point in time (eg, because in part you anticipate not being able to get back on your feet in a short enough time or except through severe anguish).. you may feel "forced" to do what you boss asks if there is hint or explicit mentions you'd lose your job otherwise.
If that action you "must" do involves using Microsoft's newest and latest (boss won't take no for an answer and keep you around), then you effectively are being forced. And if your boss and higher ups effectively felt similar loss and hopelessness in not upgrading to Microsoft's newest (eg, major clients (perhaps government) demand it), then they are effectively being forced.
If the client wants Microsoft because that is all they learned and it is what they want at that point in time (perhaps through ignorance of the few alternatives), then they may feel forced to require that of the vendor (especially if this client too has other clients pushing MS newest along). Also, they may have felt forced to learn a tool and MS was the only tool they knew about or were introduced to or could find (or interoperated properly with Windows) when they looked.
If MS's (newest) tool was driven to a (near) monopoly because of similar fears and forcing (as described earlier) by OEMs and VARs that these felt from Microsoft, in particular because of Microsoft illegal monopoly supporting practices, then we can make a decent argument that the simple worker described at the top was forced to use MS's newest by MS and, in particular, by MS's illegal actions.
Force is in the mind of the beholder and one must consider the context of the particular person and situation. I hope this makes some sense because the network effect is very real. The fears are very real. The force too is very real many times. The MS illegal tactics are very real (at least according to many US court decisions). The intent to carry this through by MS is in all likelihood very real.
Sure, in the end it is each human's human weakness that leads to this forcing chain, but we can't help being human. Gates may be human and not have been able to resist certain temptations at certain times. Maybe we too can now be imperfect humans (as Gates was) and punish Gates (for things we might too have done if in a similar position as Gates).
Gosh, such imperfections and hypocracy. The world is doomed surely.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but surely, too, MS forced many of us to use it's newest and latest.
I've never bought into the religious fundamentalist fervor of open standards because, time and again it has proven that without coupling an open standard with a very good and popular open source implementation of that standard, it just doesn't work.
There are other groups working for the same goals of open standards within the government: <a href="http://dcphpconference.com/" title="dcphpconference.com">http://dcphpconference.com/</a dcphpconference.com>
> Condemning people for not using Linux instead of Windows, and the strong-arm tactics of some proprietary software makers that try to lock people into a certain product, are just two sides of the same coin.
What nonsense! That's like saying that the police are the same as the mob, because they both pressure you to take their side (i.e. legality vs corruption).
Microsoft's tactics for locking in users have consisted of fraud, sabotage, extortion, perjury, political payoffs, and so on.
The Open Source advocates' "strong-arm" tactics have consisted of... words... words spoken in honesty.
And those are the things that you consider equivalent?
When RMS, for example, is speaking, he is speaking from principle. He may not always be right, but I know where he stands, and why.
Bill Gates and Microsoft, on the other hand, have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no principles.
The opposite of standing on principle is compromise. And, ignorance aside, dealing with Microsoft is a compromise of principles.
But look where such compromises have gotten us in the past.
IBM compromised with Microsoft over OS/2, and Microsoft stabbed IBM in the back.
Bristol compromised with Microsoft to create the Wind/U Windows APIs on Unix, and Microsoft stabbed Bristol in the back.
Sun compromised with Microsoft over Java, and Microsoft stabbed Sun in the back, and tried to destroy Java.
Apple accepted the presence of MS Office, and Microsoft threatened to stab Apple in the back (cancel MS Office for the Mac) unless Apple stopped supporting Netscape.
And so on.
As long as our industry is dominated by an organization as corrupt as Microsoft, any compromise of principles is a risk.
I prefer to stick with the Open Source advocates. They may come on a little strong at times, but the principles they espouse are necessary to protect our future freedom as computer users.
What nonsense! That's like saying that the police are the same as the mob, because they both pressure you to take their side (i.e. legality vs corruption).
Microsoft's tactics for locking in users have consisted of fraud, sabotage, extortion, perjury, political payoffs, and so on.
The Open Source advocates' "strong-arm" tactics have consisted of... words... words spoken in honesty.
And those are the things that you consider equivalent?
When RMS, for example, is speaking, he is speaking from principle. He may not always be right, but I know where he stands, and why.
Bill Gates and Microsoft, on the other hand, have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no principles.
The opposite of standing on principle is compromise. And, ignorance aside, dealing with Microsoft is a compromise of principles.
But look where such compromises have gotten us in the past.
IBM compromised with Microsoft over OS/2, and Microsoft stabbed IBM in the back.
Bristol compromised with Microsoft to create the Wind/U Windows APIs on Unix, and Microsoft stabbed Bristol in the back.
Sun compromised with Microsoft over Java, and Microsoft stabbed Sun in the back, and tried to destroy Java.
Apple accepted the presence of MS Office, and Microsoft threatened to stab Apple in the back (cancel MS Office for the Mac) unless Apple stopped supporting Netscape.
And so on.
As long as our industry is dominated by an organization as corrupt as Microsoft, any compromise of principles is a risk.
I prefer to stick with the Open Source advocates. They may come on a little strong at times, but the principles they espouse are necessary to protect our future freedom as computer users.
David Wheeler makes some great points about the intrinsic relationship between open standards and security. For what it may be worth, my thinking as a security consultant for the past few years has independently led me toward very similar conclusions.
To summarize the most important points, open standards have two very strong effects on security. The one which Tina mentions is "security of supply" where if your business needs widgets it cannot be held hostage to one supplier by reason of compatibility.
Implied by security of supply is an even broader security issue related to modularity. Modularity is the essence of principled engineering. If you can choose between suppliers of a component, then you can choose among functionally equivalent alternatives, based on whichever you judge has been designed and implemented most securely. And if you judge wrong, you can replace just that one component without sacrificing your entire assembly. It follows that any complex system which is monolithic is doomed to be less secure than an equivalent modular system.
There is also, in fact, a critical and healthy relationship between open source and the software standardization process. Before anything can be ratified as a standard, it has to exist as a specification, and to validate that specification, it has to exist in a working form whose properties can be tested. The IETF used to talk about "rough consensus and running code" and that's just what open source delivers.
Open source is not a good substitute for a standards specification, but it does indisputably deliver a set of reference prototypes which can be openly examined, debated, and improved. That's how open standards begin. If you don't have open source, it's very hard to develop effective software standards, and as we've seen, it's then very hard to make effective security choices.
To summarize the most important points, open standards have two very strong effects on security. The one which Tina mentions is "security of supply" where if your business needs widgets it cannot be held hostage to one supplier by reason of compatibility.
Implied by security of supply is an even broader security issue related to modularity. Modularity is the essence of principled engineering. If you can choose between suppliers of a component, then you can choose among functionally equivalent alternatives, based on whichever you judge has been designed and implemented most securely. And if you judge wrong, you can replace just that one component without sacrificing your entire assembly. It follows that any complex system which is monolithic is doomed to be less secure than an equivalent modular system.
There is also, in fact, a critical and healthy relationship between open source and the software standardization process. Before anything can be ratified as a standard, it has to exist as a specification, and to validate that specification, it has to exist in a working form whose properties can be tested. The IETF used to talk about "rough consensus and running code" and that's just what open source delivers.
Open source is not a good substitute for a standards specification, but it does indisputably deliver a set of reference prototypes which can be openly examined, debated, and improved. That's how open standards begin. If you don't have open source, it's very hard to develop effective software standards, and as we've seen, it's then very hard to make effective security choices.
<a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/open-standards-security.pdf" title="dwheeler.com">
David A. Wheeler's presentation "Open Standards and Security"</a dwheeler.com> is now online, as well as a follow-up essay named
<a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/open-standards-open-source.html" title="dwheeler.com">
"Open Standards, Open Source"</a dwheeler.com>.
A <a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/04/12/#open-standards-open-source" title="dwheeler.com">
blog entry on Wheeler's site</a dwheeler.com> gives more information.
David A. Wheeler's presentation "Open Standards and Security"</a dwheeler.com> is now online, as well as a follow-up essay named
<a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/open-standards-open-source.html" title="dwheeler.com">
"Open Standards, Open Source"</a dwheeler.com>.
A <a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/04/12/#open-standards-open-source" title="dwheeler.com">
blog entry on Wheeler's site</a dwheeler.com> gives more information.
I'll say it again and again and again.
Newsforge, do you have level A writers that get carte blance on the website to write about whatever they want to, even if it is a rant/opinion article? I don't really care too much what Zonker thinks or even Roblimo (although he is entertaining). But this Tina Gasperson, she is even more boring than Zonker!
Newsforge, do you have level A writers that get carte blance on the website to write about whatever they want to, even if it is a rant/opinion article? I don't really care too much what Zonker thinks or even Roblimo (although he is entertaining). But this Tina Gasperson, she is even more boring than Zonker!
'minor' disagreement
Posted by: muon on April 09, 2006 11:34 PMYou may be missing a subtle point here. There are very good reasons for pushing as hard as possible to overcome the Microsoft monopoly, which is expensive,abusive, and stifling, and should be ended as soon as possible. That some people see the danger more than others, and press the argument. does not make their position less valid.
There really is no 'good side' to vendor lock in, so do not equate the two. The only valid reason for pretending that the free-software people are 'zealots' is to give the impression of impartiality in an attempt to avoid offending your advertizers.
Please remember that your readers are your real customers, and if your advertizers interfere with your objectivity, readers will just migrate elsewhere.
#