A World Without Open Standards and Free Software
Could you imagine what a world would be like without open standards? If simple things we use now, like HTTP, didn't exist, what would the world be like?
You'd turn on a computer to be greeted with a choice of several different operating systems, because some can do tasks that others can't. You choose one and boot up into it. You try browsing a few different websites, only to hit a roadblock when one of the sites uses a protocol that your browser doesn't support. No problem, a quick reboot later and you're in a different OS that has a browser that supports that particular protocol.
So now you want to check email. Well, you have five different accounts, which are completely incompatible. Another reboot later and you're checking your email on two of the accounts. No new mail. Another reboot, and you're checking the remainder of your email. You've got mail from a friend... he wants to chat with you on IM ASAP. You have 10 different IM services, and it just so happens that the OS you're using supports the one your friend has.
So you're chatting, and he tries to send you a picture from his digital camera. As it turns out, his camera is using an image format that your OS doesn't support. So, you reboot into the same OS that your friend is using and can finally look at it.
Now you need to get some work done. All of the office suites are split between three different OS's, and the printer is only supported on one of them. Getting work done requires reboot after reboot. You could have gotten everything done faster using pen and paper.
OK, so maybe all this is an extreme exaggeration. But still, the world still has problems like this today. How often has it happened that you want to IM a friend, and find out that he/she is using a different service? How often has it happened where you came across a media file that you can't play? In these proprietary areas, we need to push open standards like Jabber and OGG forward so the world can be more compatible. We can't live in a world under Microsoft control.
You'd turn on a computer to be greeted with a choice of several different operating systems, because some can do tasks that others can't. You choose one and boot up into it. You try browsing a few different websites, only to hit a roadblock when one of the sites uses a protocol that your browser doesn't support. No problem, a quick reboot later and you're in a different OS that has a browser that supports that particular protocol.
So now you want to check email. Well, you have five different accounts, which are completely incompatible. Another reboot later and you're checking your email on two of the accounts. No new mail. Another reboot, and you're checking the remainder of your email. You've got mail from a friend... he wants to chat with you on IM ASAP. You have 10 different IM services, and it just so happens that the OS you're using supports the one your friend has.
So you're chatting, and he tries to send you a picture from his digital camera. As it turns out, his camera is using an image format that your OS doesn't support. So, you reboot into the same OS that your friend is using and can finally look at it.
Now you need to get some work done. All of the office suites are split between three different OS's, and the printer is only supported on one of them. Getting work done requires reboot after reboot. You could have gotten everything done faster using pen and paper.
OK, so maybe all this is an extreme exaggeration. But still, the world still has problems like this today. How often has it happened that you want to IM a friend, and find out that he/she is using a different service? How often has it happened where you came across a media file that you can't play? In these proprietary areas, we need to push open standards like Jabber and OGG forward so the world can be more compatible. We can't live in a world under Microsoft control.
Written by Justin @ 10/25/2005 03:59:00 PM | Permalink
2 Comments:
At 10/26/2005 01:14:00 PM,
Justin said…
How right you are, Jon :)
At 10/26/2005 07:27:00 PM,
elf's DH said…
I'm not so convinced it would look like that. Probably it would look something more like the "security" situation on the average Windows computer, just multipled into even greater absurdity. In the security world, the original OS design is fundamentally flawed, so third-parties sell software licenses and subscriptions to keep one software program "blocking" bugs in the operating system. Where one third-party tool doesn't work, there's another one there that might, but, neither will suffice (basically how Windows folk handle malware blockers, and system repair utilities).
So, back to the world with no open standards:
There are two scenarios. In one, a single monopoly takes hold and becomes the de-facto "standard," giving them control over what every user can do.
In the second (not necessarily exclusive) scenario, wherever an incompatibility existed, some opportunistic third-party would provide a software filter to translate one company's protocols to another. Each computer could then have fifty or so protocol exchangers that operate simultaneously, collectively using huge amounts of memory and processing power in the process. The tools would be expensive because, for each filter, the closed standards had to be licensed from the makers of the incompatible software. The licensing structure perpetuates the system, because it's win-win from a $ perspective for the makers of the incompatible software and the third-party tools.
Post a Comment
<< Home