Benoît Jacob ([info]bjacob) wrote,
@ 2008-04-02 07:56:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:standards ooxml iso

The extinction of standardization dinosaurs on the software planet
According to this, the ISO are now calling a "standard" the Microsoft Office format (which is cynically called "Office Open XML"). I won't elaborate on the reasons why this thing is the opposite of what a standard should be, as this is clear to anybody not influenced by Microsoft.

What is interesting is that TeX, LaTeX, OGG/Vorbis, OGG/Theora, Perl, Python, PHP, Ruby, OCaml, are not standardized by any organization. Yet everybody knows that they are "self-standardized" by the free availability of extensive documentation and/or a by free-as-in-freedom unobfuscated reference implementation.

This shows that standardization organizations are no longer relevant in the software field. What really matters is free full documentation, free full implementation source code, and of course the absence of any patent risk. In other words, coming back to the fundamentals of what a standards is, what matters is evidence that any independent third-party can create and distribute a fully-conforming implementation. When this is the case, nobody needs an organization to certify that it is a standard.

That the ISO just proved itself open to the influence of special interests, is the consequence, not the cause, of its present irrelevance (again, in the software field). Since it is not needed anymore, nobody knows exactly what its mission is, what role it should play. Which allowed Microsoft to redefine that to its own advantage.

I think that the best move the ISO could now make is to acknowledge the limits of its own domain of application, which is the traditional industry, and to acknowledge that the software area is no longer such a traditional industry. In other words, ISO (and other standards organizations) should leave the whole software area, where they are not needed anymore.

Thinking further about this, here is perhaps the deep reason why in the end, software is beyond the field of application of standards organizations. This reason is that software is actually "just" mathematics. That was not obvious in the first decades of the computer industry, but it is becoming a concrete reality. Publishing the source code of a program is the equivalent of publishing the proof of a theorem. This is why the free software movement is changing the rules regarding standardization of software. In mathematics, once the proof of a theorem is published, there is no need for any authority to certify that the theorem is true. Everybody can independently look at the proof and realize that it is. And everybody can use the theorem without consulting its author. Likewise, once a free format specification is published with a free software implementation, there is no need for any authority (i.e. any standards organization) to certify that it can be used independently by any third-party (i.e. that it can be considered a standard). Thus, in the 21st century, a "standard" is just anything that has a full, free software implementation.



(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2008-04-02 08:54 am UTC (link)
This is fine for us mere mortals, and in fact we've been following this advice for ages (when did *you* last choose a product depending on wether it was ISO-certified or not ?).

But some entities won't let go off the ISO label : governments, banks, big companies, etc. Not sure why they cling to it. Maybe related to the fact that anything not signed in triplicate is non-existent.

ISO will continue as long as it's got these "clients". And since it's the business world, decisions will continue to be non-technical, non-practical, and influenced by lobbyists. How do we rid ISO of these "clients" ? I wish I knew.

(Reply to this)

I wish you where right
(Anonymous)
2008-04-02 09:22 am UTC (link)
In fact, you might well be: for this very narrow group of experts ("non-microsoft-influenced" is as we now see a very narrow band, especially as anyone who might become handy and don't have a clue can be "aquired" by them) that is those who already DO use ODF, OGG/*, TeX, LaTeX, Python, Perl and all the other things. But it is just so not true for Joe AverageUser (who, in fact usually don't even get to know that this vote ever existed, or whether things are an ISO standard or not).
If public administration, bound to use their standards, would have to support ODF (and, even more important, provide OTHER parties with ODF, noone can hinder them from additionally support MS-Office, fair play!), people would get in contact; in combination with some public relations campaign explaining why things have to be that way, maybe even these "oh, you studied this, of course you know, but i don't understand" arguments could vanish. Could, of course, as we wouldn't see what other immoral actions Microsoft would take to prevent this.
People don't understand why it would be important to have a reasonable and implementable standard, as long as there isn't a good cause for them to listen. Now the last circumstance for this cause fell.

For one thing you are absolutely true: ISO has now lost it's entire credibility and validity. I now can only see them as a bunch of clowns, or rather puppets on a string.

Franz Keferböck

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: I wish you where right
[info]bjacob
2008-04-02 03:26 pm UTC (link)
Hi Franz! Good to see you again.
Well, I tend to focus on my own environment as a hacker.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I wish you where right
(Anonymous)
2008-04-02 05:07 pm UTC (link)
Always been around, yet i figured i leave the hacking up to the experts (like you) and help carrying KDE and free technology out to the people, to reinstall a fair market in the software world :-) well, think in that case this hits me worse :-(
btw, still reading the eigen lists, where i think eigen 2 is going a superb way!!!! thank you

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I wish you where right
[info]bjacob
2008-04-02 05:14 pm UTC (link)
Great to hear. I hope you'll like the owls and concede that Eigen's the math library with the best 'marketing' :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Totally agree
(Anonymous)
2008-04-02 09:31 am UTC (link)
I Totally agree with you. That is the reason for HTML to be so widespread and why TCP/IP is universal. Because their specification is free and gratis and have free software implementations.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Totally agree
(Anonymous)
2008-04-02 06:18 pm UTC (link)
But they are standardized.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Totally agree
[info]jib.myopenid.com
2008-04-02 09:06 pm UTC (link)
Not by traditional standards organisations, as far as I know.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Recognizing "Civil ICT Rights" And Civil ICT Standards
(Anonymous)
2008-04-02 11:21 am UTC (link)
Have you read http://consortiuminfo.org/bulletins/pdf/feb08/feb08.pdf and http://consortiuminfo.org/bulletins/
Recognizing "Civil ICT Rights" And Civil ICT Standards
BogdanB

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Recognizing "Civil ICT Rights" And Civil ICT Standards
[info]bjacob
2008-04-02 05:04 pm UTC (link)
Very interesting, thank you for the link.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cgwalters
2008-04-02 02:32 pm UTC (link)
Very good post, completely agree.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: FullAck
[info]bjacob
2008-04-02 03:29 pm UTC (link)
Hi Colin, glad you agree and even linked to me :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Fishy
(Anonymous)
2008-04-02 02:56 pm UTC (link)
I agree with your article.
Is this really true? It seems fishy that the date is 1st April on the linked page.
Sad news if it's not a joke. :(

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Fishy
[info]bjacob
2008-04-02 03:29 pm UTC (link)
Unfortunately it's true, http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1123

(Reply to this)(Parent)

FullAck
[info]cniehaus
2008-04-02 03:09 pm UTC (link)
nt

(Reply to this)

Some ISO standards are useful
[info]joe_buck
2008-04-02 04:07 pm UTC (link)
I think that the case where ISO software standards work is where there
are multiple implementations of the language that is standardized and
there are no patent encumberances. What doesn't work is when some
proprietary software company convinces the ISO to bless its crap (as Microsoft did).

However, the ISO C and C++ standards efforts are highly useful, and many free software developers have participated in those efforts (particularly for C++).

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Some ISO standards are useful
[info]bjacob
2008-04-02 04:40 pm UTC (link)
I agree with what you say, and yes C and C++ are rather successful standards. In fact that made me think a lot while writing this post :) I guess whatever one writes there are always counterexample, although one could discuss forever whether the ISO process is going that well for C and C++ (as these languages evolve much slower than non-standardized languages).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Some ISO standards are useful
(Anonymous)
2008-04-02 05:14 pm UTC (link)
In fact, the idea behind ISO is great, 99% of things they do a very usefull, and i wish they'd have more weight in IT related issues, and more public attention. however, after what happened here, the ISO ridiculed itself, and invalidated any claim to be an independent international standard corpus. they did behave like puppets on a string (not just ISO itself, but also national standards organisations), ignoring hard (very hard) facts and thus entirely lost credibility. question is, what's the next step? or is none more necessary, as MS has now craft its monopoly in stone for another 20 years ?

Franz Keferböck

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Yes and No
(Anonymous)
2008-04-02 04:11 pm UTC (link)
Hi! I agree there are lot of "standards" with hidden "specifications". The battle for software clients tremendous, and the better about this is the growing force open source has.

There is a great truth around all this, "closed-source software is fantastic for great companies because of its ease of installation and use". This will ever be true while universities and technical learning centers teach their students these software programs and systems. I mean, suppose a company want to have an offimatic siute and they have hear about MSOffice, so the co. contract techinical support for installation and a course for the employeers. Then the company will be upgrading that suite because it just works. If you try, suppose "openoffice.org", then ask you as if you were a company: "how many technical support would have with this software?" and "where will I find a course for my employeers?". I know there is another question: "$$$ how much?", and this aplies for small companies, but for big ones or the goverment, it is nothing. What only matters is how practical is the solution, and that's all.

I love open-source. I develop systems using linux, bash, gcc, python, php, html, dojotoolkit. I am also an user (openoffice.org, kde, mozilla-firefox, ...). The problem is not on develoment, and not on most user applications. I think the problem is on "finalizing" configuration programs and office-suites. Why?

Configuration programs:
- Sometimes fields are not clear for non-technical knowledge users.
- These programs are not integrated into one window because they belong to separated applications, and that is great for us. But non-technical knowledge users just want a Control Panel plenty of icons about the configuration types. OK, "there are some" like the Mandriva Control Center.

Office-suites:
- Common user just want to start typing, click, click, and save. But, sometimes when printing, there are little issues about header, about margins, etc. Then the common user just says: "This is wrong, it doesn't function".
- Sometimes the options are not as clear as a common user expects.

All of you can tell me these histories about a common user that tried a linux distribution and got excited how it is more secure, how you can surf the internet to read mails, write documents, etc. I know some of these users. But there are many of them that use MS-Windows, MS-Office, etc. and they are really happy that way.

I mean, this battle has two faces:
* Common user systems, drives, suites, applications, configuration programs, even web-sites!!
* And, how Benoît Jacob said: '"self-standardized" by the free availability of extensive documentation and/or a by free-as-in-freedom unobfuscated reference implementation' systems, libraries and formats.

I work for goverment and believe me, I develop only using LAMP, and python and gcc for MS-Windows. How can I manage it? They don't know, they just use the systems.

(Reply to this)


[info]http://www.slovomania.ru/dnevnik/
2008-04-04 11:04 am UTC (link)
Of a software mammoth cynically called "Microsoft"...

(Reply to this)

Linux etc
[info]harrymj
2008-04-06 03:36 am UTC (link)
If everyone is using a free OS and everyone is using free software, and of course everyone is finally content, who will write the software? I think that free software only exists to spite the writers of "not free" software, and as long as they want to give their (probably) only talent away for nothing, then good for them. Just for the record, I've been a computer programmer for 23 years and tonight I tried to install linux on my home PC. It did't work, even though I followed the instructions and I am not a novice. So god help the beginner.

(Reply to this)

"Conforming" vs "Compatible"
[info]jesserud
2008-04-06 07:00 am UTC (link)

"what matters is evidence that any independent third-party can create and distribute a fully-conforming implementation"

I think you mean "a fully-compatible implementation". The term "conformance" usually relates to standards, which you are arguing are irrelevant. Conforming to documentation is good too, I guess, but interoperation is the true test.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…