[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration

Thu May 15 11:10:22 PDT 2008

Tim wrote: " Getting back to the original issue, I think the real
problem (as previously noted) is the insistence in absolute terms with
using only open standards.  It sounds great until you look at the
consequences.  No de jure standard for the problem space you're working
in?  Tough.
Significant numbers of users *want* data in a proprietary de facto
format?  To bad.  Standard makes requirements you don't want or need to
address?  Suck it up."

Excellent points. If I had to point out the defects with the resolution
that touched off this discussion that's what I would have said.

Landon

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Tim Bowden
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:40 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration

On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 09:53 -0700, Landon Blake wrote:
> I thought it might be wise to point out that this discussion seems to
be
> getting a little aggressive, and possibly a little personal.
> 
> All sides have made valid points. It's obvious that Mr. Fee isn't
going
> to agree with many of us on this particular issue, and his opinion is
> worth considering.
> 
> I would remind Mr. Fee, very humbly (of course), that he is on the
OSGeo
> mailing list, so in some respects he's chosen a fight in which he is
> very outnumbered. I don't know how productive it is to aggressively
> defend something like the .doc format on a mailing list for proponents
> of open source software. :]
> 
> You'll probably have about as much success as you would touting the
odt
> format on a mailing list for the Microsoft Word fan club. :]

I'm not at all sure Mr Fee is trying to be productive.  He is shooting
fish in a barrel.  It's so bloody easy getting the freetards [1]
frothing at the mouth over these issues.  If he has any sense, he'll be
having a quiet chuckle to himself.  The ease with which one can get a
rise out of freetards points to the absurdity of taking an extremely
hard line approach wrt standards.

Getting back to the original issue, I think the real problem (as
previously noted) is the insistence in absolute terms with using only
open standards.  It sounds great until you look at the consequences.  No
de jure standard for the problem space you're working in?  Tough.
Significant numbers of users *want* data in a proprietary de facto
format?  To bad.  Standard makes requirements you don't want or need to
address?  Suck it up.

Yes, we want to be able to read & write data and have confidence in the
integrity of the data.  We want to avoid hurdles to interoperability,
and open standards help, but they're not a panacea.  They do come with
their own set of problems, and no matter how you approach the issue,
they won't be ubiquitous.  You can't *force* vendors to offer solutions
that implement open standards.  You can refuse to purchase their
solutions, but what do you do when the cost of re-implementing for the
sake of having an open standard exceeds the cost of the problem being
solved?  Ignore the closed solution and not solve the problem, or suck
it up and use the proprietary solution anyway?

Anyway, it's late here, and not even watching the IPL is going to keep
me awake any longer (Indian Premier League- cricket for those from the
wrong parts of the world).

Tim Bowden

[1]  I count myself as one of the freetards.
> 
> Landon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Fee, James
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:40 AM
> To: OSGeo Discussions
> Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
> 
> Chris Puttick wrote:
> 
> >>  I'm sorry. In what way does requiring digital information to be in
> an 
> >>  open standard force or exclude anyone? Be very sure those
companies 
> >>  desperately resisting the development and/or support of digital
> standards
> >>  would provide support for government mandated ones really, really
> fast.
> 
> I thought we were talking about forcing governments to offer up
> information in a "open standard" format.  Are you saying that if a
city
> has standardized on MS Office, it would be ok for them to continue to
> post .doc?  I got the feeling that folks are saying these cities need
to
> abandon their software and move to other platforms someone arbitrarily
> says is open. 
> 
> >>  Let's take the example of mandating OpenDocument Format. There you
> are,
> >>  either moderately well-off or using an illegal copy of Microsoft
> Office
> >>  and suddenly you would be unable to read/write documents provided
by
> 
> >>  government bodies. 
> 
> What is the difference if OpenOffice supports a standard such as the
old
> doc format?  I see nothing in the MS argument that forces folks to use
> illegal copies of MS Office (heck use Google Docs).
> 
> >>  So sure, in the interim you might be forced to download one of
> several free
> >>  (as in beer, some free as in libre) applications to access those
> documents.
> >>  Terrible imposition, my apologies. This is somehow worse than
being
> forced
> >>  to either have second rate access because you have too old a copy
of
> Microsoft
> >>  Office, use an operating system for which Microsoft Office is not
> available or
> >>  choose not to break the law by using illegal copies of software?
> 
> I fail to see the problem here.  Either you have a copy of MS Office,
or
> you use OpenOffice already to view Word documents. 
> 
> This isn't about users of the information because there are several
free
> (as in beer, some free as in libre) applications to access those
> "proprietary" documents.  This is about forcing governments to either
> buy software that produces "open" documents (that are readable by less
> software than the proprietary formats), or forcing them to pay
> consultants to install, train and debug "open" solutions. What a
> complete waste of everyone's time.  
> 
> Sharing of data happens because the system at large demands that it
> happens, not because a couple of folks sign some non-binding document
on
> the internet.
> 
> --
> James Fee, GISP
> Associate
> TEC Inc.
> voice:  480.736.3976
> data:  480.736.3677
> internet:  jmfee at tecinc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warning:
> Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against
defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please
notify the sender immediately.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Warning:
Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.