Open Source, Open Standards Under Attack In Europe 164
Glyn Moody writes "A battle for the soul of European IT is taking place behind closed doors in Brussels. At stake is the key Digital Agenda for Europe, due to be unveiled in a month's time. David Hammerstein, ex-Member of European Parliament for the Greens, tweeted last week: 'SOS to everyone as sources confirm that Kroes is about to eliminate "open standards" policy from EU digital agenda; Kroes has been under intense lobbying pressure from Microsoft to get rid of interoperability and open source goals of EU.' This is confirmed by the French magazine PC Inpact (Google translation), which also managed to obtain a copy of the draft Digital Agenda (DOC). It's currently supportive of both open source and open standards — but for how much longer?"
War (Score:3, Funny)
This is terribly exciting and I'm not even sure why...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You heard the man, time for WAR! Blood for the blood-god. Tear out their eyes and rip their throats as open as the GNU
It has begun.
Re:War (Score:5, Insightful)
It is terribly exciting and worrisome at the same time. Microsoft has dominated the world with Windows and by leveraging the OS, they are dominating is many other areas as well. They are unquestionably an abusive monopoly. With software patents and other intellectual property types creating road blocks and toll roads to innovation and less expensive solutions.
Open standards is one way to make sure things are fair to ensure that competition is alive and well. Microsoft cannot compete with others using open standards and expect to win every time. (I would have no problem if they conformed to open standards and actually offered a better product.) But instead of competing on the basis of quality, they lobby for laws and policies to change in their favor.
Microsoft is a corrupt company catering to corrupt politicians. I hope many EU leaders start to take offence to Microsoft's tactics and push back hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Those leaders will just demand bigger bribes to look the other way.
Re:War (Score:5, Informative)
Well the EU antitrust office did declare Microsoft to be an abusive monopoly in 2004.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&dat=20040323&id=BAAgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8BUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1269,2934192 [google.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You need to lookup the definition of Monopoly. Stop using words you don't actually know the meaning of. MS was never at any point a monopoly at anything other than selling its own products.
Abusive, certainly. Monopoly, never.
This isn't about Open Standards. The OSS world and slashdot in particular don't know the meaning of the word. In this context Open Standard pretty much translates to Our Standard. If it doesn't fit your perfect little world you throw it out as open or standard, while completely ig
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the US and the EU courts must ALSO look up their definitions of monopoly and reconsider their case history against Microsoft. Your defense of Microsoft is weak. Open standard means a standard that is defined clearly and independent of any particular plaform or implementation. Established/defacto standards? Yes, we know that DOC and XLS are defacto standards for use in business, but are they even fully defined in a way that can be implemented effectively by others? Defacto just means that we're
Re: (Score:2)
Get out of your economics class taught by the underpaid professor who has no real-world data on why his beliefs are right, and look at the facts. Making a better product got dozens (if not more) companies bought out by Microsoft's huge pockets, whose products then disappeared. Making that better product did not actually end up replacing Microsoft's products at all. Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop and is able to distribute its inferior products to users directly without any marketing energy. That
Re: (Score:2)
"Corrupt" is a rather redundant adjective when it comes to politicians. Given that this appears to be the most common kind of politician you find in many places, especially where "career politicians" are vastly overrepresented.
Re: (Score:2)
> it doesn't even make sense arguing _against_ document standardization,
> nor it makes sense to even immagine a proposal of not having document
> not using an open standard
When your company uses 95% *.doc(x), 4.9% *.pdf and 0.1% oddball formats, then arguing for open standards and OpenDocument in particular, elicits as much as a lookin-at-you-weird-smile.. Then they'll go right back to work, consisting of debating how to best implement Windows 7. As much as it sucks and I personally hate it: DOC *IS
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> it doesn't even make sense arguing _against_ document standardization,
> nor it makes sense to even immagine a proposal of not having document
> not using an open standard
When your company uses 95% *.doc(x), 4.9% *.pdf and 0.1% oddball formats, then arguing for open standards and OpenDocument in particular, elicits as much as a lookin-at-you-weird-smile.. Then they'll go right back to work, consisting of debating how to best implement Windows 7. As much as it sucks and I personally hate it: DOC *IS* the standard.!
Strange as it may seem, although the company I work for use word and *.doc, whenever I received a .docx file from an external source, it was opened perfectly well by my install of OpenOffice. So well, in fact, I assumed for a while that docx was the Open Office format!
Later I was told there was a plug in for our version of word for .docx files, so I installed it. Ironically, that now sometimes fails!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not "war". It's about non-violent totalitarianism, plain and simple. That's what the EU has always been about, and what it will always be about. It's about Germany and France controlling the rest of Europe, without having to resort to destructive wars like in the past. And for the most part, they've succeeded. Germany and France now dictate economic policy for countries like Greece, they dictate social policy, and now they dictate technological policies.
Sounds like a war to me.
Re:War (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Alabama feels the same way? They're having dictated social, educational, health, economic etc politics from DC.
While it is rather difficult to leave the EU, it's not impossible, whereas secession is apparently against the constitution of the US.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Secession might be, but interposition is what Jefferson came up with as a solution. There are several examples in US history of it getting the job done too. Tom Woods has a pretty good historical speech on the topic if you care to youtube for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have read that before the Civil war, even Lincoln expressed the opinion that states had the right to secede. He just believed that it would destroy the Union, and so could not allow it. (There is a long history of Presidents doing things they believed were not constitutional, including Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase.)
There are those who believe that this and other Lincoln policies really began the inexorable slurping of power from the states to the federal government. Prior to the Civil War the governm
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think dropping the bit about murdering all the Jews and gypsies and enslaving almost everyone else is a fairly significant difference, even if some bits of economic policy are similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Depending on what you consider "the end of the war", it would be just as fair (if not more) to say that
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Soviets did indeed do their part. However, we must never forget the agreement Stalin had with Germany prior to Germany invading Russian having been blocked in invading Britain. Stalin feared Germany way back at the beginning of the 1930's and started increasing military production. Hitler had gone on record later in that decade stating that the Soviet Union was a danger to world peace. Stalin thought that by signing the non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939, he could direct Germany's aggressive
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The U.S. population was self-involved and non-interventionist until Pearl Harbor. FDR had wanted to go to war in Europe for some time, but he couldn't get popular support. Much like George W. Bush's Iraq move, FDR used anger Pearl Harbor to leverage support for going to war with Germany (made easier by the Tripartite Pact).
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the GDP differences between Germany and any other EU nation that is not surprising.
Desperation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
They seem to be 'harmonising' their opposition Chinese Govt style
http://www.katonda.com/blog/922/microsoft-bing-trying-kill-open-office [katonda.com]
Re:Desperation? (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, Microsoft HAS gotten more involved in politics, and that may be what you are observing. They've gotten involved more and more ever since the anti-trust case. I read an article a decade ago discussing how Microsoft realized that to stay out of problems with the government, it helps to 'donate'. They are very equal opportunity givers, giving both to Republican and Democrat, [opensecrets.org] depending on who they think is more likely to win.
Re: (Score:2)
please do explain to me how byte code gives them more control than machine code ? especially with mono around ? and how the ARM in phones is the same as x86 ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, the clo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
.NET had nothing to do with moving everything to the MS cloud. They hadn't even dreamt up Azure yet, I don't think anyone had even considered the cloud computing retardedness going on now. It was purely the marketing term for the public to know it as. It was riding the height of the .COM boom. But good for you for pretending to know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
.net got started, partially, as a single sign on system for online services. Never got much traction beyond msn.com and related services. Funny enough, facebook and twitter seems to be heading much the same way, with more "positive" (eye of the beholder) results.
Re:Desperation? (Score:4, Informative)
Not too long ago I was modded troll for saying: while you buy their products, they buy your political leaders.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571214&cid=31359062 [slashdot.org]
It is still true!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not really incomprehensible, the topic was about politicization of the software, I merely said that we (the OSS/FS) were dragged into that by the corps.
Besides, it's my writing style to be concise, direct and to the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're so witty and insightful.
You've realized MS is just like every other company on the planet.
Congratulations, you've discovered something everyone knew about before MS was even founded.
I'm really not sure why you seem to think this is unique to MS? Read Google News for a few days you'll quickly realize its how the world works. Let me go ahead and political it up some more by pointing out a great example elsewhere: The health care bill. Now I don't care if your for it or against it as it stands, I'm
Re: (Score:2)
wow you got some issues now don't ya?
I know exactly how corps work, besides the solution is is my answer, don't buy their stuff if you don't want their political influence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah? So why do they want to pressure governments into rejecting open standards as the base line for building IT infrastructure?
Re: (Score:3)
Because they want to make money just like the corporations who will sell the software based on those open standards?
Re:Desperation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they want to make money just like the corporations who will sell the software based on those open standards?
Apparently by competing with said corporations in the halls of the bureaucrats, rather than in the open market.
Shame on you, Microsoft. You used to say 'I'm sorry that we have to have a Washington presence. We thrived during our first 16 years without any of this.' [brainyquote.com] Now you're buying governments just like Larry Ellison does.
Re: (Score:2)
To the absolute detriment of everyone else...
MS would compete using open standards if they were forced to, but keeping everyone locked in benefits them at the expense of everyone else. The EU does not exist to ensure MS makes profits, they should be working for the benefit of the majority of people (you know, how democracy is supposed to work) rather than harming the majority to help a select few.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because if there's another format, then they'll have to support it. If they can get everyone to agree on DOCX or MSPF*, then they don't have to do any more programming...
(and now to get modded up)
*MS proprietary format
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No bro, I do not concur. You see, if they can get anyone to actively reject other formats, then they can make their docx shit a defacto standard, and from that position, secure their monopolistic power in the IT office space.
If they let governments choose standards they would HAVE to comply with, they only need to use them (it would cost them close to nil, it would be payed the first three days of any government contract), but the competition could then actually compete with them.
And THATS what they are af
Well they don't. (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't understand the mind of a MS apologist. Bill Gates does not need a reality distortion field like Steve Jobs has. Each MS apologists comes with one pre-installed. No reality can enter their world.
The guy you are responding hasn't read the article because he can't. He sees nothing. It is not even a void. A void is an absence, to him there is not even nothing to not exist.
They pretend Bing is going to kick googles ass, then just a few months later when MS itself says they lost, they ignore it. They
Re: (Score:2)
In AD 2010 (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
TAKE OFF EVERY ZIG!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What happen?
objection (Score:4, Informative)
IT, whether European or otherwise, has no soul
Re: (Score:1)
Defendant: Overruled!
From the movie "The Ten", here's the clip [youtube.com]
Re:objection (Score:4, Funny)
IT has lots of soul. You have been in IT too long. Now it has your soul, too.
Re: (Score:1)
It FLOPS fast as hell if you've got the dough.
Re: (Score:2)
> IT bought Microsoft's soul a long time ago.
No...quite the opposite!
Importance (Score:1)
Re:Importance (Score:4, Informative)
BSA tries to ensure that EU bureaucracy would use the software of the companies it represents, in the case mainly Microsoft and namely M$Office. Wanna send a paper to a ministry electronically? Gotta buy the WinWord.
One has to carefully weigh all the factors: bribes one can get off M$ right now + bribes one can get off M$ later vs. ... On second thought, forget about the open thing we have discussed before.
P.S. FSFE take on the case [fsfe.org].
Re:Importance (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares if they are?
This is not some commie no money ideology. This about me not having to pay rent to MS to interact with my government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I can use free as in beer software or write my own. I can even use an OS not from microsoft with such software!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
While IBM may have some influence over open standards like ODF, they do not control it and are not the only company with influence...
MS formats are created by a single company for the sole benefit of that company... Like a dictatorship, where it's easy for changes to be made which are detrimental to everyone else.
ODF is created by many companies and non profit organizations with competing goals, so the end result is a compromise between all the different goals... Having something in here which benefits one
Re:Importance (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know WTF you're on about. Open. Do you understand what that means? Big companies (or individuals) are free to make pay, gratis, or open source software that works with the standard, and we can use whatever we'd like. It's a win for consumers all around.
The alternative is a proprietary standard is implemented, the owner definitely profits. If you want to implement a alternative program, it's a pain in the ass to reverse engineer compatibility, and generally lags the proprietary version. Less choice for the consumer, not something I'd want enacted in law.
Re: (Score:2)
Open standards like the ones used for wiring your house to keep electrician errors down. Like the ones used for insulation, or bridge construction. Open standards like those traffic lights that aren't random colours in different cities.
Open standards have a purpose, and enlightened people, whether financially driven or not can see what they are.
Meanwhile, you can go sell your municipality on buying blue stop lights for the city because they're better somehow, and then have a sole license on replacing the
Re: (Score:2)
True, they can't force it.
But imagine all the pains everybody would have to go though - for *not* using software/file formats compatible to state's one.
There were already examples from European countries where you either send a paper in the WinWord format and it is handled by state quickly or you send it on paper and it would be handled as usually in a few months time...
The initial goal of the initiative was precisely to avoid that while harmonizing file formats across the EU. Now it seems all but
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Governments make up for MOST of the IT market if you meassure it in dollars. A government unfriendly, by mandate, to open source solutions, and obvlivious as to why precisely in that market is Open Source so important, is a danger to the comercial viability of open source software.
Re:Importance (Score:5, Informative)
I dont[sic] know much about this and am curious why it is so important. Wont[sic] open source continue to be open source independent of what the EU decides?
First this is more about open standards than open source software. Some organizations certainly will use them regardless, but lacking a clear directive, the status quo rules, and that tends to be proprietary formats and protocols now dominating the industry and harming interoperability and reducing competition.
Or is this saying that the EU gov'ts will only use open source programs, and that is defined by this document?
Originally this document established a preference for more open formats that are more likely to be usable to later generations and which provide more choice of both IT vendors and clients going forward. This was a recognition of the importance of open and documented protocols and formats. Note, nothing in this was pro or con of any given vendor. Rather it was in favor of open standardization where all vendors could compete instead of just one vendor (read Microsoft). The idea was that it is important for say word processing in EU governments to standardize on a format where any company could create an interoperable solution so governments could take competitive bids on a level playing field.
Re:Importance (Score:5, Informative)
The leaked "Digital Agenda" doesn't appear to be so bad.. it mainly aims to promote cross-border interoperable electronic ID, health systems, and open standards in general. This will make it easier for European citizens to trade and physically relocate across borders (the existing systems are different in every country, and moving between countries is a PITA). The reason this kind of stuff is important is that the aims and details will be hammered out at a European level, then implemented as policy by the various counties of Europe. Once a few of the more powerful countries (Germany, France, UK) establish a common framework for digital ID or whatever, it will be required to interact with government online services in those countries, a software ecosystem will develop around these protocols, and the other countries will follow within a few years. The EU will provide funding for development of software platforms that implement these open standards. The potential risk here is that Microsoft and other companies will twist the definition of "open" to include proprietary patented protocols (which are "open" because you are free to license them at some cost), and then they can lobby countries and companies taking part in public sector procurements to choose closed standard solutions, which would obviously be a bad thing for cross-border interoperability. The relevant parts of the document are:
The Digital Agenda outlines a set of crucial policy actions, including legal measures and programmes that must be launched or upgraded to get the Union on track. The actions are clustered in six areas:
(1)Very fast internet access;
(2)A digital single market;
(3)A sustainable digital society;
(4)Trust and security;
(5)Research and innovation;
(6)Open standards and interoperability.
Use CIP support seamless cross-border public services, based on open and internationally recognised standards, and a European eID management infrastructure;
An "EU eHealth Passport" could give citizens secure online access to their personal health data. On such a platform, improved medical services can be developed raising efficiency and patient empowerment. The Commission will work with the competent authorities to equip 15% of Europeans with such passports by 2015. The eHealth Lead Market Initiative1 will promote standardisation and interoperability testing and certification.
Electronic identity (eID) technologies and services are key to trust in electronic transactions and in e-payment systems, including mobile payments. A European framework for eID and authentication, and internationally agreed standards and practices can help the cross-border recognition of eID and increase citizens' trust and confidence. A European eID and authentication framework by [.] is the headline target for this action area.
Promoting more open standards
The headline target for this action area is to reform the EU standardisation regime by 2015 to reflect the rise and growing importance of ICT standards developed by various fora and consortia, in particular as regards the internet.
Another challenge is to ensure that public authorities – including the EU institutions – can make the best use of the full range of existing open standards when procuring hardware, software and IT services, for example to adhere to technology neutrality and to avoid technological lock-in to legacy ICT.
Transparent disclosure rules for intellectual property rights (IPR) and licensing conditions in the context of standard-setting can contribute to lower royalty demands for the use of standards and thus to lower market entry costs for SMEs. This can be achieved without a negative impact on the owners of IPRs. Therefore rules for ex-ante disclosure of essential IPR and licensing terms and conditions will be promoted.
Key actions
Reform the governance system for ICT standards in Europe to recognise ICT fora and consortia standards;
Issue a Recommendation to streamline the use of open standards in p
Spin doctor much? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's clearly very positive about open standards and open source. And then, back in November of last year, a draft version of the revised EIF was leaked [.pdf]. It revealed a staggering re-definition of what openness meant by suggesting that “closed” was part of the “openness continuum”:
Except that your claimed new definition doesn't claim that proprietary software is considered "open" and actually spins proprietary software in a very bad light:
and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.
This definition is funny because one can come up with a number of examples of poor or non-existant documentation, NIH syndrome, a resistance to code reuse within OSS.
Re:Spin doctor much? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that proprietary solutions will be considered is not a threat to OSS, nor a guarantee that Microsoft will be chosen. Finally, proprietary solutions often use OSS projects if it is beneficial (not GPL, but that's not the issue here).
What does any of this have to do with open standards, which represent the topic of this discussion?
Open standards allow us to ignore these kinds of argument completely, because they essentially guarantee that, no matter what kind of software you choose, I can continue using the software of my choice, provided that the two of us can agree on the standard to be implemented.
I choose my favourite software for my own reasons; you choose yours. Everyone's happy.
Now, if someone were to refuse to follow open standards and instead chose to say, "My way or the highway!" when it came to technical implementation of certain document formats and communications protocols... well, I might be a little miffed. I might even say that this is not fair and that it's ultimately dangerous because it causes public data to be locked into proprietary formats.
Re: (Score:2)
What does any of this have to do with open standards, which represent the topic of this discussion?
Open standards allow us to ignore these kinds of argument completely, because they essentially guarantee that, no matter what kind of software you choose, I can continue using the software of my choice, provided that the two of us can agree on the standard to be implemented.
I choose my favourite software for my own reasons; you choose yours. Everyone's happy.
The term "open standard" often includes standards wh
Engineering new jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
With the global slump politicians are under pressure to spend money on software, not use open source.
Of course, the layman doesn't always understand that open source software is sold commercially as well.
Under freedom of information laws surely we're entitled to see information in a format anyone can read?
Re:Engineering new jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
If open source simply established a trust that sold compiled versions of open source software and used the money to <strike>bribe</strike> pay sales tax and place ads, they could possibly supplant Megalosoft..
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Ahem. Tilting over to proprietary software won't create more jobs. It will simply just allow vendors to A) sell more copies, and B) increase the amount of money that *leaves* the economy, since most of it would go to out of EU businesses, as opposed to if local companies handled the open source job opportunities. So common sense would dictate that if what you're suggesting, the proprietary vendors should be given the finger. Unfortunately they can pay for better dinners, and more wine.
Well for... (Score:1)
... fuck sakes, somebody stop them!
Even europeans can be bought this easily?
Acta related? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if the ACTA plays into this?
Seems to me open standards would hinder a closed-sourced DRM scheme designed to limit communication.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Seems to me open standards would hinder a closed-sourced DRM scheme designed to limit communication.
Why? There's nothing stopping someone from taking any open standard format and slapping on a DRM scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
And then it would no longer fit the open standard. Hmm, almost seems like you should have thought of that.
So are you a troll or a shill?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So are you a troll or a shill?
He comes here to stir things up and try to get over his anger that they won't let him into Mensa.
Cry Havoc And Let Slip The Dogs Of War (Score:2)
Supportive? (Score:5, Insightful)
"...which also managed to obtain a copy of the draft Digital Agenda (DOC). It's currently supportive of both open source and open standards — but for how much longer?"
Why am I even surprised that the agenda is in MS-Word's old binary file format? Maybe they're just supportive of open standards for other people, or for hypothetical people in a hypothetical world, perhaps.
Complaints, anyone? (Score:1)
I told y'all, I'm right again, dang it! (Score:2)
EU is more like US than y'all think.
The EU Corporate-Welfare government is against you.
The US Corporate-Welfare government is against us.
Government politicians and appointees are well paid (in trade or money) to provide substantial and legal Corporate-Welfare too FuckUS and FuckEU.
It ain't people democracy or merit capitalism in the US, EU, RURU, China.... Yep, life is hard, but you can always eat-shit die before or after the next global-recession (that ain't their darn fault).
Great! (Score:1)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
Not just any woman.
Rember that Microsoft got fined hundreds of millions ?
Heard about the windows7 browser selection tool ?
That was all her work, actually.Until last year she was the European Competition Commissioner.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
$2.7 billion even. She is very pro open standards and open source. She seems to know her stuff.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Great! (Score:4, Funny)
Europe is in corporate hands (Score:2)
In my experience, Europe, sadly, is more strongly in corporate hands than the US. The EU effectively hands out many billions in subsidies to corporations. (That's in addition to all the agricultural subsidies, which are an evil that is as prevalent in the EU as it is in the US.)
Re: (Score:1)
yes it is a very sad world when companies have more power than the government. I mean, we set up these governments to choose what is best for the people and that is the one thing they do not do. They do what they want and what rich corporations want, and the people get shafted every time. Its not surprising really...but anyone who thinks there is fairness and rightness(?) in the world needs to take a look at this sort of thing.
Is there any government in the world that is not at least partially corrupt?
Confirmation?! (Score:4, Informative)
The French magazine cited for confirmation doesn't say anything about Microsoft.
So all that leaves is with is that some guy twittered that the bogeyman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMicrosoft is coming, and when we look at the latest draft of the Digital Agenda document--its still fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Your first quote does not confirm the story. In fact, your first quote has nothing whatsoever to do with the story. You might want to look at dates next time. When a regulatory body is in the middle of a large anti-trust case against a company, it is perfectly normal for their to be email between the head regulator and the chief counsel of the company.
You second quote is from the article that the Slashdot story cites. You can't cite something to confirm it itself.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed, I suppose, to Silverlight(TM)?
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Correct.
HTML = Widely used around the globe
Silverlight = Used at Microsoft HQ and a small number of prefailed web projects
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The less "open standards" clusterfucks designed by committees of self-righteous idiots the better.
And how "open" is a standard really when the only people allowed in the committees are the representatives of multinational corporations? And let's not even get into the fact that if you want to get a copy of this "open" standard you usually have to pay hundreds of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. How an open standard is defined is not the point (unless it's seriously lacking in functionality - but then it would never be used anyway).
If a standard is open it means that
a:) Somewhere there is publicly available definition of how to implement that standard. Like a list of all HTML tags, what they mean and guidelines on hwo to render them.
b:) No patents or licencing restrictions. A particular library or implementation may be protected (Opera's paid for web browser, for example), but I and
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
And look, the Redmond Whores come out to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, STANDARDS should be decided by the FREE market...
Microsoft however, have subverted the free market by wielding an extremely detrimental level of influence over it, so that instead of a free market you have corporate bullies instead of government bullies...
What the government should should do, is ensure that the market remains free so that we can all receive the benefits that free market competition brings... One way to do this, is to ensure that open standards are used and that no single entity can per