On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 05:43:15 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > What I haven't seen discussed much yet is 'standards' vs. 'open > standards' vs. 'closed standards'. > > Windows - closed standard - They apparently know what they are doing > with their architecture. Applications can be written by other > companies that don't have access to the source. Apps work within the > accepted norms of the Windows standard. (Hey - I Didn't say they had > 'high' standards...) ;-) > > Linux kernel - semi-open standard - The kernel is documented. The code > is open and available to most* people that want to look at it. Changes > are discussed in an open environment but final decisions are made by a > select few. > > Java - semi open standard - Much like the Linux kernel many changes > are discussed in the open, but final decisions are made by Sun. (Has > this changed yet?) > > IEEE standards (1394, 802.11) - open standard - Discussed in open. > Decisions made by vote of working group members through voting. > Committee rules prohibit 'loading' by individual companies. (At the > discretion of the committee chairman.) Working group participation > open to pretty much anyone willing to attend the meetings. Thats true, but you could view Linux in the same light, all it takes is to participate in kernel developement, admittedly it can take some time to be accepted, but its still open by one view. As a couterpoint, the joining and travel costs for W3C membership (I'm not familiar with the IEEE's workings) essentailly put it out of the reach of small companies or individuals, though it is theoretically open. - Steve
