Open Data Standards are more important than Open Source
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| lionel47 Jan 03, 2008 7:54 AM EDT |
I won't go into all of my logic here but, basically, open source is a benefit and preferable to closed source. However, open data standards are more important in that they allow the user the most choice in choosing which software to use. You can read more at http://www.5thwind.com/?p=72 |
| Abe Jan 03, 2008 10:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:Open Data Standards are more important than Open SourceYes to a certain extent. But without Open Source applications to compete with commercial ones, no company would open their data for nothing. Adobe opened Postscript & PDF for their applications to proliferate on printing & display devices. Microsoft wouldn't need to open their data because that is the main method they lock-in their users. I am sure others do the same. So Open Source is equally important. |
| hkwint Jan 03, 2008 10:44 AM EDT |
lionel47: I agree open standards are one of the most important things for innovation. It's what I see in my everyday-life 'working' (OK, between student and job actually) as a technical drawer (I don't work in IT). Nonetheless, I'm not sure whether they're more important than open source. For example, if all English grammar rules would be open, just like the English dictionary, the Latin Alphabet and mathematical notation but all books were 'closed source', it's easy to see innovation suffers from closed source - even if open standards are used. A lot of work need to be redone every year. Another example. There was a kind of 'race' to create the first working Free Electron Laser (FEL) a few years ago (not only the first, but also for different wavelengths and energy levels to be more precise). Back when I did applied physics, I had to do a presentation about the project of the FEL-group at my university (UT). All groups worldwide used the same open standards - being the theoretical physics depicting it would be possible to create such a device - though it hadn't been build yet - and how this device could be constructed. Nonetheless, when it came to the actual implementation, all groups worldwide were were quite secretive about it, since they didn't want to help their 'competitors'. I remember a lot of problems the group I did my presentation about had, and probably those other groups worldwide had the same problems. What if they instead cooperated - and shared their problems and solutions? Instead of group A building for wavelength X, group B for wavelength Y and C for Z, what if group A, B and C were merged and first build X, then Y and Z? Probably they would have reached the same results earlier, quicker and cheaper, instead of struggling with the same things and all needing their own "radiation-proof cellar". Now I said they were quite secretive about their efforts, but on the other hand, they did cooperate. One important part of the FEL (cathode) came from Los Alamos, NM, and two technical universities in my country cooperated, which meant the one (TUE) were it wasn't put created another important part for it. If those two other universities would have 'closed their (re)sources', it would not have been economically possible to build the FEL in first place. |
| dinotrac Jan 03, 2008 11:15 AM EDT |
>Nonetheless, I'm not sure whether they're more important than open source. Yes, although one may need to look outside of the software world for affirmation. Examples: Traffic. Electrical current. TV-Radio transmission/reception. Etc. We must be careful not to elevate open source to a position of more importance than it deserves. Open source is not a key value, freedom is. In the case of software, we value the source because it is hard -- not impossible -- to understand and to modify software without it. Nevertheless, open source remains an important instrumentality, not a core value. Ironically, this realization finally soaked through my thick skull when I was contemplating the true value of free software to business. Ironic because the phrase "Open Source" gained currency as a way to make free software more palatable to business. In reality, the freedom is far more important than the source. Even as a developer who used free software heavily on the job, I rarely broke open the source. |
| azerthoth Jan 03, 2008 1:11 PM EDT |
Dino, bad examples for standards. As none of those things HAS standards, just regulation. Traffic rules vary from state to state and country to country. There are multiple non-compatible "standards" for TV. Radio is even worse. AC when brought to life the "standard" in Europe was 255 cycle IIRC, the US went to 60 cycle because that is what Tesla sold Westinghouse on, why EU went 50 is unknown to me. Radio varies from country to country as the government agencies just block out frequency ranges for specific uses, and then licenses some of those even further. The electrical standards that do exist are solely for cabling and distribution for the most part. |
| dinotrac Jan 03, 2008 6:41 PM EDT |
>Dino, bad examples for standards. As none of those things HAS standards, just regulation. Wrong. They all have standards. You must disabuse yourself of the fiction that a single standard is needed throughout the world. In the US, for example, traffic rules are standard enough: we drive on the right side of the road, red lights mean stop and green lights mean go, etc. Television is in a funny place because of the digital changeover, but broadcasting standards are regulated by the federal government, so, yes they are standard. The fact that Europe follows a different set of standards is of no importance. |
| hkwint Jan 05, 2008 5:25 AM EDT |
Quoting:You must disabuse yourself of the fiction that a single standard is needed throughout the world. Oh no, Dino, please don't start. It needs another article to prove your wrong. I explained different standards for the same thing costs business several billions a year (probably I didn't explain this at LXer yet, normally at Dutch forums), which wouldn't be necessary if a there was a single standard throughout the world. Go tell NASA a single standard isn't needed - they lost a one billion costing project because they used two different standards. Go tell petro-industry one single standard isn't needed - they spend billions a year to fit DIN-flanges to ASME-pipes. I could go on about DIN/BS/ISO thread which don't fit every nut etc. but I will not. Fact is, for this time, you are completely wrong. |
| dinotrac Jan 05, 2008 6:03 AM EDT |
>Oh no, Dino, please don't start. It needs another article to prove your wrong. Ummm...Perhaps I should modify that with a "for everything". Trivial example -- My wife's sister lives in Ipswich , Massachusetts. A lovely area, almost enough to make up for its location in an utterly insufferable nanny state. State affiliation aside, it suffers from only one significant problem - a serious shortage of Starbucks and other coffee shops. Dunkin' Donuts is king around there, but it's not the same as it is where I live. Seems that: 1. Everybody there knows that a "regular" coffee comes with cream and sugar, and 2. At some locations, at least, they have a pre-defined assortment of donuts that can be ordered by name, the "Boston mix" or something like that. So -- a long line of people can whiz by "regular, Boston mix; 2 regulars, Boston mix; 2 regulars, dozen glazed, etc" We got in line without knowing the local standard. Needless to say, we did a bad job. On our way out, I could hear the manager telling the counter guy, "With people like that, you've got to... |
| ColonelPanik Jan 05, 2008 6:30 AM EDT |
dinotrac, Treat yourself well, learn to roast your own coffee. You will never drink the crap from
SB's again. And those donuts will turn you into a hate filled, violent fascist. I mean just look at
what it does to the police officers! email me at "colonelpanik[({@})]linuxmail.org for details Hkwint: >I explained different standards for the same thing costs business several billions a year< Just in the fastener industry (nuts, bolts and screws) alone the number is several billions of dollars. But just remember that standards thing is for "things" not people. My father always said, "It takes all kinds to make up the world, just glad I am not one of them." |
| dinotrac Jan 05, 2008 8:06 AM EDT |
>Treat yourself well, learn to roast your own coffee Sounds like fun. We actually go to Starbucks as a quick 'n easy date away from the kids (Hooray!! Finally old enough to be left alone for a little while without the moved-out big sister around). If we want to sit for a little longer -- goal-planning, etc, we go to a local coffee shop (actually an extension of a wonderful local chocolatier, Graham's) where they server LaVazza, which ain't bad. At home, we use a locally roasted coffee ( as in 3 miles away) called Papnicholas. All around, not too bad. |
| hkwint Jan 05, 2008 8:44 AM EDT |
Quoting:Just in the fastener industry (nuts, bolts and screws) alone the number is several billions of dollars. Probably. But thank god, those fasteners don't come with EULA's, DCMA and patents forbidding you to measure the thread ("reverse engineer it", I once did that, which was more work than one would think, even though the possible measures were very limited) and make something that complies with it. Who knows how much an automobile might cost otherwise? Also, preparing yourself "Open Coffee" sounds like fun indeed. I remember one of the topics of TLDP being about using Linux to prepare coffee; and I believe back when I was at university the "electrono-guys" had a coffee-sensor (quantity and temperature I believe) coupled to a webapp, so you could see if they had any cofffee left before going to their room in the basement. Open Coffee - just as much fun as like going to Aachen because that's the nearest Starbucks from where I live (no need to cross the ocean and go to Florida anymore). Or living in the US and still drinking Itialian coffee that you can buy in my country in the supermarket as well. You see, those global standards aren't bad, ey? |
| NoDough Jan 05, 2008 6:31 PM EDT |
Heh. Never been in a Starbucks. Don't drink coffee. |
| flufferbeer Jan 05, 2008 9:30 PM EDT |
@hkwint
"Also, preparing yourself "Open Coffee" sounds like fun indeed. I remember one of the topics of TLDP being about using Linux to prepare coffee; and I believe back when I was at university the "electrono-guys" had a coffee-sensor (quantity and temperature I believe) coupled to a webapp, so you could see if they had any cofffee left before going to their room in the basement." The "electrono-guys" themselves may have indeed actually originally referred to L. Masinter's ten-year old RFC 2324 Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0), http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2324.txt Just a hunch here. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!