[Openstandaarden] translation of the background explanations in NL

[David GLAUDE]

Reinier Bakels wrote:

>>>* Interconnection: yes, it is a good idea that W3C does not accept "closed
>>>standards". But the emergence of "standards" is largely an informal process.

There are de-facto standard and de-jure standard.
IETF is the de-facto world, ISO/OSI + GSM + ... is the de-jure world.

IETF is more OPEN than the "OPEN" for OSI.
Implementing IETF standard is accessible to all since they are freely 
accessible. Contributing to IETF standard is also something possible for 
all with the technical knowledge.

ISO standard cost a lot, to participate you must come for and from a big 
telco or industrial operator, ...

Emergence of ISO standard is rarely an informal process.
ISO standard are not always a success story, but GSM was a success. X.25 
was a failure.

>>>In the early 90's when I still was in IT my customers asked for Posix
>>>compliant open (unix) systems all the time. However, dreadful Windows and
> 
>>>Word became de-facto standards. Of course, competition law is not the
>>>solution.
>>
>>Just a comment on open standards.
>>
>>Many "oldtimers" like you (with similar experiences) have been working
>>together with the younger generation in Denmark to define the concept
>>"open standards".
>>
>>    http://www.aaben-standard.dk/
>>
>>It is a contribution to the Danish governments it-policy project,
>>especially for public procurement solutions.
>>
> 
> I learn ever more Danish ...
> Normally it is not so nice to be considered an "old timer" but occasionally
> it is useful to have some "historic perspective". Ever heard of X.400? It
> was supposed to replace all propriertary e-mail systems. Internet was
> vendor-neutral as well, but not considered a serious alternative, too much
> laboratory/hobbyists software. The bottom line of my comment was:
> surprisingly, people turned away from open standards and adopted Microsoft
> products massively, which is eventually not in their interest.

At the time, X.400 was much more feature-full and reliable than any SMTP 
stuff. Acknoledgment, various delivery time, integrated directory 
service (X.500), standardised "attachement", Electronic Data Interchange 
extention, ...

So the obvious choice for anybody (especially administration) willing to 
do real email was X.400. However the price was so high that it is 
killing your budget. So once you have the MTA (mail transport agent), 
your budget is so low that you are ready to accept Outlook as a "free" 
MUA (Mail user agent) or at least a free user interface. And yes that 
was the best possible integration of Windows with X400.

Now Microsoft Exchange did try very hard to look like X.400 and provide 
X.400 connector, but I was able to discard Exchange offer because 
obviously it was not an X.400 MTA.

The problem is that once you have Outlook on your desk, and you want to 
multiply by 10 the number of mailboxes you manadge... you might well 
change your mind and go for Exchange, because X.400 cost too much.

For your information, "Route 400" is not used anymode in European 
Commision and they migrated to Exchange+Outlook. In European Parliament, 
GroupWise (historicaly the email client from Wordperfect) is to be 
replace by Exchange+Outlook. Also Commité des Région is using Outlook...

> Worst case
> W3C policy  could cause people to move away from W3C technology, seducted by
> effective marketing for "closed standard" solutions (as Bill G. did). The
> good news however is that such marketing attempts often fail. Ever heard of
> the IBM Personal System/2? The open PC turned into closed box technology
> again (1987) - of course with a "superior customer value" claim? It was
> abandoned when IBM noticed such a strategy to "distinguish" themselves was
> counter-productive. Now the brand name PS/2 is owned by SONY, for an
> entirely different product.

If you have a PS/2 and kids, give a try to EYE TOY it is good value and 
might if they can not get a patent on that idea and that kind of user 
interface, then many "clone" will be able to appear... Else we will have 
to wait 20 year, but then it will not be for my children but the 
children of my children.

David GLAUDE

-- 
Don't let computer expert control election...
Endorse: http://www.free-project.org/resolution/
For Belgium: http://www.poureva.be/