Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore
jerry at seibercom.net
Mon Jul 18 19:48:50 UTC 2011
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:58:08 +0200
> Here the circle closes: Without STANDARDS, you wouldn't
> be able to view the digital pictures you took with a
> camera 10 years ago because the manufacturer decided
> to use a proprietary image format without any documentation,
> as you should only use the software supplied by the
> manufacturer. Dropping program version X and advertising
> version Y with the new models of the digital camera,
> and everything you'll have is a bunch of files nobody
> can read anymore. You can also see this in computer
> media, although with a lower half-life period.
> If you want to get into the future, rely on established,
> open and free standards.
> In my opinion, there is no alternative. Everything else
> would just increase costs (e. g. migration costs). But
> there are fields of use where costs simply doesn't matter
> (as it seems).
I apologize for cherry picking this; however, your analysis is so
faulty that I was force to. You camera analogy is simply absurd.
You were aware that Kodak dropped the C22 development process decades
ago which effectively make all films designed for that process useless.
It also spelled then end of GAF, but that is another story. KODACHROME
Film was discontinues after a 74 year run. Actually, it was created due
to Kodak's inability to properly stabilize the layers in the color film
it was trying to create; but that is another story. I still have
several collector's grade cameras that used films such as the 116 and
616 designations. These films were discontinued in 1984. Should I sue
Kodak, or any other manufacturer for their failure to continue support
for these devices? When wan the last time you purchased a new Polaroid?
News Flash: It was discontinued. Now, can you guess why? Perhaps you
have noticed people using cameras that don't apparently use any film.
You might want to investigate that further. You will find that newer
technology supersedes and eventually obsoletes older technology.
The point is, time moves on and technology advances. To continue to
keep an industry shackled to an out dated protocol simple because some
user, somewhere, sometime, may actually use it would only serve to
enervate the software and hardware industry. Further more, this would
serve to invigorate a cottage industry based on creating applications
that could be used to "convert" such files to a newer format. Actually,
several such programs exist now.
I really hate the way "standard" is used by so many FOSS users. They
use it as a shied against innovation. Rather than embrace newer
technologies, they throw up the "standard" shield and claim that
product "A" (product being anything your want it to designate) is bad
because it doesn't follow some arbitrary standard. A product will
stand or fall on its own merits. To insist that any product follow any
strict guide lines effectively removes the developer's ability to
improve upon or create new or better products.
In my own country, we had the basis for HD TV back in the early 80's. I
know individuals who were working with RCA at the time. Yet, it took
30 years for the industry to finally dump the existing framework and
basically start over, You see Poly, sometimes you do have to change,
unless you want to go the way of the dinosaur. Now, if this had been a
FOSS project, we would still be watching B&W TV on a big 19" screen.
jerry+fbsd at seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
More information about the freebsd-questions