[techtalk] RE: [issues] Standards?? PHOOEY!!!

[Lothan]

> From: issues-admin at linuxchix.org [mailto:issues-admin at linuxchix.org]On
> Behalf Of Fan, Laurel
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 8:16 AM
> To: issues at linuxchix.org; 'techtalk at linuxchix.org'
> Subject: RE: [issues] Standards?? PHOOEY!!!
>
> There are no standards in the computing world.  They're all agreements.
> There is no authority saying "you can't do this.  you must do this".
> They're all agreements of the form "all devices/programs wishing to
> interoperate can't do this, must do this".  If your device/program does
> not wish to interoperate, go right ahead, you just can't talk to anyone.

The American National Starndards Insititute (ANSI) and the International
Standards Organization (ISO) have several standards (and authority) on
computer devices and languages (QIC tape hardware and protocols, and the C
and C++ languages are examples of ANSI standards). The Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) also has authority to set standards for Internet protocols
(IPv4). Like it or not, Microsoft is the standards authority for Windows
protocols (OLE, ActiveX controls).

> The lack of agreements results in gratuitous incompatibility, creeping
> featurism, and data loss.  Standards arise when the participants in the
> creation of the standard feel the need.

Unfortunately there is no guarantee that standards won't prevent
incompatibility, creeping featurism or data loss. Neither do standards
guarantee acceptance by the community it intends to serve.

> Take, for example, instant messaging.  I have friends on both ICQ and
> AIM.  Both employ a different, closed, non-standard, protocol.
> Therefore, to communicate with these people, I must either install and
> maintain two different proprietary clients (not an option, since these
> proprietary clients only run on a proprietary, non standard, operating
> system), or use an open source client that has to keep up with two
> obfuscated, moving-target protocols.  If there was a standard (agreement?)
> for instant messaging, I wouldn't have to do this.  I'd write a client,
> conforming to the open, standard, protocol, and it would communicate
> perfectly with other standards-conforming clients and servers.  I think
> that makes my life a whole lot easier.

AOL owns both instant messengers... Unfortunately I can't think of anything
nice to say about AOHell so I'll keep quiet.

> Standards make my life a whole lot easier.  It's because of
> _Standard_ C++,
> and the _standard_ library, that I'm able to write code that compiles on
> VMS, Digital Unix, and Linux.

Unfortunately it can also make your life more miserable sometimes. I still
have and use an old version of Borland C++ because (at least at the time of
its release) it followed the ANSI C++ standard (for both the compiler and
the library). Of course, at that time Microsoft C++ blatantly thumbed its
nose at the ANSI standard. Needless to say, to this day that ancient copy of
Borland C++ is by far more compatible with UNIX source code.