Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Perens Pushes "Sincere Choice" for Software 298

Posted by michael from the choose-wisely dept.
jalefkowit writes "Looks like Bruce Perens has found something to keep him occupied, now that he's parted ways with HP: the Register is covering his launch of a new political platform, "Sincere Choice", which he wrote to clarify the distinctions between the values of the open-source community and the Microsoft-funded Institute for Software Choice. Sincere Choice addresses several issues in critical to open software, including interoperability, competition by merit, open standards, and copyright."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Perens Pushes "Sincere Choice" for Software More

Perens Pushes "Sincere Choice" for Software

Comments Filter:

  • Here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Isn't it funny how the call for "open standards" always translates into "our version doesn't have half the features, so let's compete on what we have in common"?
    • The real translation would be.. "our version doesn't have a talking paper clip that wastes your time, so let's compete on real functions that real people use"

    • Mr. Economist doesn't buy it (Score:4, Informative)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @06:00PM (#4269362) Journal
      What you said would probably not make an economist agree.

      If you have open standards and interoperability, you lower the barrier to changing products. That tends to *help* superior products come out on top.
    • Isn't it funny how the call for "open standards" always translates into "our version doesn't have half the features, so let's compete on what we have in common"?

      If the standard is a communications standard the lowest common denominator usually determines the features that are useful.

      Document formats only became a communications issue when we started to use email attachments.

      The original idea of HTML was that it could have become a common interchange format. However the lack of interest in developing page layout markup at Netscape kinda ended that.

      The problem with 'open standards' is that the standards organizations favored by open source folk tend to be the ones which move at the most glacial speed. Take IETF for example, it is quite usual for groups to take five to ten years. Simple changes can take three years to get implemented even when they are absolutely essential if deployment is to be possible at all.

      Where are IPv6? DNSSEC? - exact same place they were four years ago.

  • Cost down and quality up... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bytesmythe ( 58644 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ehtymsetyb>> on Monday September 16, 2002 @02:05PM (#4267762)
    Economics will drive down the cost of software and drive improvements in quality.

    You can forget Microsoft ever taking part in THIS initiative...

  • This is good (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Lysol ( 11150 )
    One thing I really like is the whole file format issue. Already OpenOffice is great with m$ office files. If the govt and other institutions were able to settle on open file formats then that basically knocks one leg out from m$. m$ will probably try their hardest not to have this happen , obviously.
    I'm not so big on forcing the govt (even tho i am helping to foot the bill) use this or that. As long as there is no file format lock in, then Linux and other non-m$ os's have a better than good chance getting business. Spread the wealth again. If adopted somehow or thise gains wide attention, then there will be more of the pie for others. Good approach.

    • File Formats (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GrouchoMarx ( 153170 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @03:05PM (#4268201) Homepage
      It boggles the mind why OSS/FS word processors keep developing new formats. Who cares if the format is "open" if no one uses it? MS Word .Doc files are insufficent as a standard because they're undocumented, which is why converters are still flakey in many cases.

      RTF, on the other hand, does almost everything you need. It's missing OLE (99.999% of don't people need that), and it's missing VB Macros (100% of people don't need that), but it covers everything that most people are going to do. It's fully and completely documented. It's Word-compatible. It's WordPerfect-compatible. It's compatible with most OSS word processors. Heck, with the right software it's Palm OS compatible!

      Yet some OSS word processors (read: KWord) still don't support it. And they all invent their own formats. How does that encourage progression away from Ubiquitous MS Word?

      • Re:File Formats (Score:2, Informative)

        by Tim Colgate ( 519024 )
        You're out-of-date. kword does support RTF in KOffice 1.2 [koffice.org]
      • Bzzzt. The reason DOC is so successful and the reason that the battle cries of the "open standards" folks will never succeed to bring down DOC as the #1 document file format is the embedding. You can't embed pictures into RTF, can't embed them into HTML, can't embed them into XML. You need a special binary format. If you want to write your own, be my guest, but DOC works pretty well for now! :)

        • Re:File Formats (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ArcadeNut ( 85398 )
          , can't embed them into XML

          Bzzt. You can, all you need to do is encode them just like your email program does when it sends attachments.

          • Hmmm I thought of that, like UUEncode or base64, but I wonder how it would handle vector graphics. Plus, not to mention all the other goodies you can embed into a DOC.

      • RTF *not* compatible! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by aquarian ( 134728 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @06:00PM (#4269364)
        In my experience, RTF is no more compatible than cross platform DOC filters. It works most of the time, but it's still unreliable. An RTF created by one program may not work with another, even on the same platform. Your chances are a lot better if you stick to mainstream fonts, etc., but few people know which ones those are. If you can get everyone to agree which programs, versions, and fonts to use, RTF is workable, but it's still a big pain.

  • This /. story on sincere choice by Bruce Perens (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jukal ( 523582 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @02:15PM (#4267846) Journal
    here [slashdot.org] - maybe we could concentrate on discussing what has changed in these 2.5 weeks instead of action replaying the whole thread :)

    "Bruce Perens writes: "At the San Francisco Chronicle's SF Gate, Hal Plotkin points to Sincere Choice as the right compromise for an IT renaissance in Government [sfgate.com] including both Open Source and proprietary software. The article is extremely flattering to yours truly, but a good push in the right direction from a well-respected commentator." "

  • Microsoft-founded Institute for Software Choice? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by porky_pig_jr ( 129948 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @02:21PM (#4267889)
    Hmmm ... reminds me of Tobacco Research Institute founded by guess whom? For years they've been claiming that the smoke is good for you. Expect the same level of integrity from Institute for Software Choice.

  • Something I'd love to see... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by liquidsin ( 398151 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @02:26PM (#4267935) Homepage
    ...but never will. I'm no Microsoft fan, but there are a few things they've done right (!) - Office and DirectX come to mind. I like Office. Sure, it's bloated, but it works pretty damn well for most people. I like DirectX because I like games, and they all seem to be coded around it. So while I may never use a Microsoft OS, I'd love to see some real software choice. I'd love to be able to run a native install of Office on Mandrake. I'd love to be able to play linux versions of more games. If MS would realize that they can sell software without selling you the whole OS I'm sure they could sell some apps for other OS's and still sell Windows. That's all I want.

    • Jut to point out how what you're saying relates to Perens' article, not to agree or disagree... Office was written with unnecessarily proprietary binary file formats. They could have gone the OpenOffice.org route and published file formats which could be shared by others. (Some would argue they did by allowing some others to license the binary format, but I don't call that being open.) DirectX was a direct response to OpenGL, which literally is an open standard. Instead of going with what was (maybe) the only all-inclusive open API, they created their own. These are the things Perens is arguing against.

      • Re:Something I'd love to see... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16, 2002 @03:14PM (#4268274)

        DirectX was a direct response to OpenGL, which literally is an open standard. Instead of going with what was (maybe) the only all-inclusive open API, they created their own.


        It's worse than that. MS didn't even create DirectX -- they purchased Rendermorphics in 1997 to acquire the technology that developed into DirectX. The entire motivating reason behind the purchase was because they were running out of time for the release of Windows 95, and they were determined to kill off OpenGL on the Windows platform by using Windows 95 as a leveraging tool.

        You should recall that Windows 95 did not originally contain OpenGL support, even though Windows NT did. They only added support later because application vendors started complaining that there was no reason for it not to be supported.

        So, they bought Rendermorphics and released its 3D API as Direct3D, rather than cooperate with the OpenGL consortium (as that would have meant playing on a level field with the rest of the industry).

        Read all about the early 3D API wars here, and why Microsoft really is the anti-competitive player in this situation, regardless of how some try to spin it:

        http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html [vcnet.com]
      • One of the things that creating their own platform (eg DX vs OpenGL) is that this allows Microsoft to "certify" drivers. While this could also be viewed as a bad (read monopolisic) thing, the cert process forces vendors to properly implement an api. There is no corresponding cert body for OpenGL, and, in theory, companies could ship incomplete or buggy implementations. Also, having tight control of a standard allows them to add new features at will. I could be mistaken, but I think that new features are added to the DX api faster than to the OpenGL api.

    • You've never (Score:5, Informative)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot AT monkelectric DOT com> on Monday September 16, 2002 @02:59PM (#4268164)
      You've obviously never written a large proposal (200+ pages) or a videogame :)

      Word is a nightmare for any complex document. As your document gets larger it degrades -- strange lockups, images jumping around, strange inconsistencies (the document looks different on win98 then it does on win2k, oh shit, what is our publisher using?), and things that just don't work right because you cant edit the codes by hand.

      Similarly, the DirectX API is a mess, which to MS's credit they are working on fixing (lots of positive changes in DX8), but it's still a mess. You also have to remember anytime you use DirectX or Word, MS has you exactly where they want you - using their products on their OS ... so they didn't really do the world a favor. Overall DirectX did some good though as modern games just wouldn't be possible without it (imagine the development costs/times for writing drivers for every 3d accelerator).

      • DirectX did some good though as modern games just wouldn't be possible without it (imagine the development costs/times for writing drivers for every 3d accelerator).

        What about OpenGL? OpenGL is at least as powerful as DirectX, and very widely supported under Linux, Windows and (I think) Macintosh. It is an open standard, and is widely used for games.

        If you write a game using OpenGL, you will be able to write for Windows, and have it port quickly and easily to Linux, or vice versa

      • You send proofs to the printer in .doc format? What kind of half-rate operation is that? That's like trying to reshingle your roof with plastic fisher price toys.

    • I like Office. Sure, it's bloated, but it works pretty damn well for most people.
      It works "pretty damn well for most people" in your country with its laws and its average income.

      If you take a country where copyright laws are enforced, but the income is low (think e.g. Eastern Europe), the whole picture is very different.

    • Try Crossover Office [codeweavers.com]. From the Codeweavers website:
      CrossOver Office is capable of running a range of Windows software, but CodeWeavers will support the following applications:

      * Microsoft Office 97 and 2000
      o Microsoft Word
      o Microsoft Excel
      o Microsoft Powerpoint
      o Microsoft Outlook
      o Microsoft Internet Explorer
      * Microsoft Visio
      * Lotus Notes
      * Quicken
      I haven't used it, but I have used their Crossover Plugin [codeweavers.com] for running Quicktime and Windows Media Player on my Redhat box, and it's sweet. The Codeweavers guys even came to a local Linux users group last month. They're worth supporting.

      OTOH... OpenOffice 1.0.1 [openoffice.org] is pretty damn impressive, too. There's really nothing you can do in Microsoft Office you can't do in OpenOffice, and OpenOffice is free. It's your call.

  • hilarity ensues (Score:5, Funny)

    by MORTAR_COMBAT! ( 589963 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @02:31PM (#4267974)
    From the "Institute for Software Choice" news page [softwarechoice.org], they provide a link entitled "ISC response to SF Gate, Perens Article" (/. discussion of that article [sfgate.com] here [slashdot.org]).

    Their link? A Microsoft Word document [softwarechoice.org].

    ISC: If you are an organisation claiming to promote open standards, why in the world are you releasing data in the very, very closed DOC format?

    • format request for information (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MORTAR_COMBAT! ( 589963 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @02:41PM (#4268044)
      My own letter to the ISC, sent through their contact page. I replaced my company name with XXX to protect the innocent.


      I was attempting to read some of your links on your "News" page, however, the one which looked most interesting, "ISC response to SF Gate, Perens Article", is apparently only available in Micrsoft Word format (DOC).

      I would have thought that an organisation ostensibly formed to promote software choice would provide its information in a format which can be viewed by more than one vendor's software. By providing this information in a closed format (DOC), you prevent a substantial portion of your technical audience from having access to it. Solaris administrators. AIX administrators (of which I am one). We are the people making choices every day as to what software will be installed in the enterprise, and thus I would expect to be included in the audience you are trying to reach.

      If you could please provide the information in an open format, such as RTF, XML, PDF, HTML, or even "plain old text", I would be very glad to read your response to the aforementioned SF Gate article.

      Sincerely,
      Samuel Montgomery-Blinn
      Software Engineer, XXX

      (note: my thoughts do not necessarily reflect those of my employer)


      They claimed that they would respond to my request shortly, and I'll be sure to post an update if one should arrive.
      • I tagged along and did something similar to them. I wonder how many Slashdotter's we can get to inundate them with requests for something besides a .doc file?

      • How very silly (but...that's a beautiful high horse you got there).

        I know it's hard, but it's okay to be a "normal" person and say "is readable without installing Microsoft Word?". Run for office or apply for a grant if you must, but coming off as a random grandpa may be better than demanding extra formats.
      • Names and emails changed to protect the innocent:


        From: xxx@comptia.org
        To: xxx@xxx.com
        Subject: Software Choice

        Thanks for the suggestion,

        x.,


        Pretty fast turnaround on response, but I would have appreciated, oh, a "yes" or "no" or "we'll think about it"!
        • Dear sir.

          Either don't worry about people knowing where you work, don't participate in newsgroups, or don't have an eminently searchable name.

          Cheers,

          John Doe

    • Written in conjunction with Junk Bond King (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dr. Zowie ( 109983 ) <slashdot.deforest@org> on Monday September 16, 2002 @03:22PM (#4268362)
      Interestingly enough, the M$ word rebuttal [softwarechoice.org] on the ISC site contains some strings that the author probably didn't intend to publish. In particular, the name of Peter Passell, archconservative economist, and the name "Milken Institute [milkeninstitute.org]" -- home of the Junk Bond King [everything2.com] himself -- who did time in federal prison for his own shady business practices [prospect.org] in the 1980s.

      If only he were using an open-source format for his letters....

    • ...if the DOC file got infected with a macro virus.

    • I need a bit of help. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Monday September 16, 2002 @08:37PM (#4270264) Homepage Journal
      Please download that microsoft word file and hold on to it folks. I need you as witnesses that the hidden text in the file really was on the site. Do this before they remove or fix the file.

      Run "strings" on the file. It's at the end. A few people's names.

      Bruce

  • Has he been hit with trademark infringement yet?

  • Open standards (Score:5, Informative)

    by bytesmythe ( 58644 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ehtymsetyb>> on Monday September 16, 2002 @02:35PM (#4268006)
    The issue of open standards is one that keeps coming to the forefront of any discussion regarding making both commercial AND open source software viable choices in the software arena. I see a lot of people saying "It will never happen." If all you do is keep saying that, you're right. It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If anyone has any ideas about what we can do to promote "Sincere Choice", please let me know. Complaining in Slashdot is not much of a start, especially if this is as far as it goes. So, to help get started, here are a few ideas for everyone to try:

    • Try out different open source packages for various applications. Run through them and find bugs. Check the project's website and report those bugs.
    • If you're proficient at programming, contribute code to an open source project.
    • Encourage people to run other OSes. For the non-techies, try Lycoris [lycoris.com] or Elx [elxlinux.com].
    • Find out which congresspersons are sympathetic to this issue and write to them. Find out which one's aren't and write to them, too. Find out which one's are on the fence and write to them as well.
    • Contribute money, time, or both to some organization like the EFF [eff.org], CDT [cdt.org], GNU/FSF [gnu.org], or by purchasing or donating to your favorite open source application and/or linux distro.
    • If you are in a tech position at a company or government agency, point out the benefits of going to an open source platform for your organization.
    • Put plugs on your personal websites.
    • Actively boycott companies who violate these principals. (Note: This does NOT mean companies who sell software. This means companies who try to monopolize the market [Microsoft] or support the DMCA [Adobe].)
    • Don't let the bastards wear you down.

    Any other ideas?

  • One objection ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @02:46PM (#4268081) Homepage Journal
    > ... and government should all be free to set their own policies regarding what sorts of software they will acquire and use.

    I'd object to this. Governments should be required to use only software that is amenable to public examination. Otherwise the citizens will have no control over or access to their government's data.

    We can see this clearly in the new voting equipment that's being installed in parts of Florida. They've bought equipment that contains closed, proprietary software. Citizens can't validate the outcome of elections using this software. Attempting to do so may even be illegal, under the DMCA. So anyone who can bribe the software vendors can control the election.

    In general, people should be free but governments shouldn't. Governments should be accountable to their citizens. Proprietary software would be a major barrier to such accountability.

    • not only that, the hardware itself isn't auditable

      imagine if the founders had said "we want everyone to vote, but it must remain a secret how votes get counted", does anyone think we have a chance in hell of still teaching our kids we are a pretend democracy like we do today?

    • Re:One objection ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @03:06PM (#4268206) Homepage
      Governments should be required to use only software that is amenable to public examination.

      Wow am I tired of reading this red herring.

      By the same twisted logic, all vehicles purchased by governments should have their blueprints, down to the VLSI layout of the controller, available freely. Because there's no other way to do "public examination".

      Public examination does not mean you get to micro-manage every decision made by the government. It means that the government process should be open and accessible, and that decisions should be reviewable and accountable. California buying more licenses of Oracle than there are constituents in the state is a wonderful example of the process gone wrong. And several people got their asses fired for it, and the contract is being reviewed last I heard. That is public examination.

      Otherwise the citizens will have no control over or access to their government's data

      So mandate open standards in document storage format. That's all that's needed. What software creates the document is irrelevant - as long as the format is standard and available then the public can view it in a variety of methods - whether it's the same program used to create the document or not.

      We can see this clearly in the new voting equipment that's being installed in parts of Florida

      If by clearly you mean "there's absolutely no proof that the software was at fault or that OSS would do better" then I'll agree with you. Otherwise you're twisting reality again.

      So anyone who can bribe the software vendors can control the election

      Ah, so OSS will stop bribes? Are you sure I couldn't bribe someone to install stealth code on the actual field systems that would go undetected? Sure, you have the source code in front of you. That's nice. It's not what's running on the box, and the right bribes in the right places can ensure that modifications will never be noticed.

      Open document formats? Hell yes. Forced Open Source? No. That's no better than being forced to use proprietary software. You're implementing artificial restrictions that will help ensure the best product doesn't get used.
      • How about requiring government-purchased software to use only open protocols and formats? That would reduce vendor lock-in, and would make it possible for Microsoft to make a bid (they'd just have to open .doc).
    • We can see this clearly in the new voting equipment that's being installed in parts of Florida. They've bought equipment that contains closed, proprietary software.

      Of all the problems plaguing the recent Florida primaries, approximately ZERO percent can be attributed to the fact that the voting software chosen was closed-source rather than open.

      Citizens can't validate the outcome of elections using this software.

      As opposed to previous systems, where a simple FOIA request will get crate after crate of punchcards shipped to you for inspection?

      Attempting to do so may even be illegal, under
      the DMCA.

      You're not doing anyone a service by invoking the name of the DMCA with no intent other than to scare people.

      So anyone who can bribe the software vendors can control the election.

      Why bother, when it's easier to bribe the human beings running the election?

      An individual is easy to corrupt. An entire company, not quite as much. Too many people within a electronic voting-system company would have to know what's going on in order to rig the election results.

      The chances of getting it done without someone on the inside ratting them out, or leaving an evidence trail that could be used to indict them, decrease as the size of the company increases. And I would hope our elected representatives would not be so foolish as to award the contract to a podunk 2-man garage operation.

      Another question of accountability -- if the government sets up an open-source voting system and the system is later found to be flawed, who takes the blame for it?

    • Re:One objection ... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
      We can see this clearly in the new voting equipment that's being installed in parts of Florida. They've bought equipment that contains closed, proprietary software. Citizens can't validate the outcome of elections using this software.

      No, that was not the problem.

      The problem was that the poll workers did not know how to setup the equipment. Interestingly the parts of the state that had the most democratic voters were the places where all the 'accidents' took place. Kinda like the 'coincidence' that led to police roadblocks stopping voters in black districts from driving to the polls that were for some strange reason 2 miles away.

      What do you expect from a govenor who is still trying to increase penalties for drug offenders while doing his best to keep his own daughter out of jail for the same offenses? It is kinda like the modern equivalent of campaigning for the war in Vietnam while making sure your own kids don't get sent there.

  • Let's see how their websites validate (Score:4, Interesting)

    by goingware ( 85213 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @02:55PM (#4268141) Homepage
    Because the W3C HTML Validator [w3.org] uses the GET method for its form submission, I can post hyperlinks that will run the validator on each of their webpages.

    Well, I think it's clear who stands for open standards and interoperability.

    If you'd like to know more about how to use validators to make your websites interoperable, read my article Use Validators and Load Generators to Test Your Web Applications [sunsite.dk].

    Thank you for your attention.

  • Bruce seems to be the kind of guy who is prepared to stand up for his principles, and the principles embodied in his work on the Open Source movement.

    I'm sure many of us would not be prepared to quit our day-jobs because our employers were infringing on our ability to advocate our beliefs.

    Many thanks Bruce, for not compromising your position and selling out to HP, and I hope Sincere Choice is well-recieved the world over.

  • Choice Through Interoperability? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ThreeToe ( 411692 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @03:08PM (#4268222)
    One of Sincere Choice's principals is Choice Through Interoperability. At first, the idea that "competing products should interoperate with each other through open standards" may appear completely sensible. Interoperability can be (and has been) used as a strike against Microsoft, king of embrace-and-extend.

    But buried deep in this particular notion of interoperability is the following thought: a single format should be sufficient for all applications written for a specific domain. This thought suffers in two important ways:

    1. To differentiate their product, corporations must add new features; new features very often impose new requirements on persistence format and hence break interoperability.
    2. Standards bodies move far slower than the companies implementing said standards, often making true interoperability difficult.
    I'm not really sure how to avoid these problems. For example, it is not sufficient to add (as has been suggested) a "generic app-specific XML container" to a given standard format. To properly reproduce a document, knowledge of the content in said container might be required.

    And as for problems with standards bodies: is it any wonder that Microsoft embraces and extends? Look, for example, at the current disaster of XML Schema, a standard wrought at the hands of academics. Anyone who has used XML Schema in a sophisticated manner can report that the standard lacks a coherent notion of cardinality. Should a company wait until this is repaired by committee, or should it simply embrace what has been done and extend it to meet current needs?

    • The first objection would be false. A company can readily add things to the persistence format, as long as they document them so other software can interoperate with them. Whether that other software then chooses to recognize the new items is up to it.

      Note that standards can be designed to be open-ended. For example, the standard could explicitly include a way of adding vendor-specific tags to an XML-based format. Any vendor could adhere to the standard by making their vendor-specific tags conform to the standard's rules, and qualify as "Sincere Choice" by documenting their vendor-specific stuff so others can read what they write and write things they can read.

      And yes, this can be done. I do it every day in my job. You'd be suprised how much you can get away with ignoring, too. I can ignore, for example, 99% of the stuff in an MSWord document, apply a simple line-wrapping rule, and get readable results. Not pretty, but readable. In some cases more readable than the original, in fact.

    • ...new features very often impose new requirements on persistence format and hence break interoperability.

      This does not necessarily follow - new features are usually additional features, implying that their persistent form will be an extension or compatible subtype of the existing format. Adding elements to well-formed (but not DTD-valid) XML file is a straightforward example.

      Standards bodies move far slower than the companies implementing said standards, often making true interoperability difficult

      This is a good realist position - interoperability is one thing, exact semantic equivalence allowing round-trip transfer of documents between MS Word, StarOffice, KDE Word etc. is quite another.

      I suspect most people would put up with a lowest-common-denominator format such as RTF, as long as the bar wasn't set too low.
    • ...a single format should be sufficient for all applications written for a specific domain.

      reducto ad absurdam.

      And as for problems with standards bodies: is it any wonder that Microsoft embraces and extends? Look, for example, at the current disaster of XML Schema, a standard wrought at the hands of academics. Anyone who has used XML Schema in a sophisticated manner can report that the standard lacks a coherent notion of cardinality.

      Of the 7 editors of the XSD Primer, Structures and Datatypes Recommendations I find one academic: Henry Thompson. I notice Microsoft, IBM and Oracle have all placed representatives among the editors. For all the W3Cs faults, domination by the Academy is not one. It is also important to remind us that XML's original definitional construct lacked any notion of cardinality and that the Schema WG sought to minimize violence to its progenitors.

      Interop is hard, standards are hard; hard doesn't make money like fast and loose. That is why there are are governance organizations and standards. ISO, for example, originated to minimize vendor lock-in of railroads playing fast and loose with guages. Standards enforcement is a key ingredient to the success of the American brand of managed capitalism.
  • If you have somebody handy who knows absolutely nothing about programming and computers, sit them down in front of the "Sincere Choice" site and ask them if they get what the site is about. Before they shoot for mass appeal, they have to shoot for mass comprehensibility. It can be hard for experts to know where to begin with neophytes, as generations of professors can attest. The welcome page for a political lobby group should be able to inspire support in someone with a malnourished sense of social justice and a room temperature IQ.
  • I really recommend, if you're going to change jobs, a half page ad in The New York Times business section with a big picture.
    Yeah, you think?
  • The software industry is one where you _can_ compete by attempting to lock each others products out of the market.

    It's a business model. It's how people make money in this game. If you don't like the rules, don't play.

    If McDonalds could find a way of making everyone that ever ate a Big Mac suddenly allergic to Whoppers, they would.
  • in the first place? I was pretty sure he started up the "Sincere Choice" campaign months ago. I figured that was the "Microsoft Baiting" HP referred to when they fired him.

    It just seems odd to me that the poster said that he's doing this campaign because he's got free time.

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close