🚀 go-pugleaf

otts@tfsg.UUCP (Chuck Otts) writes:
>We here at TRW are awaiting, like most the world, some type of movement
>from one or both organizations (growth of SVR4, status of OSF/1, etc.)
>so a choice can be made (direction in the 90's).  Not sure if a
>membership list is useful but figured it couldn't hurt.

  If you are waiting, you've already done what at least one vendor
wants.  It's true that they're a member of OSF, but I suspect they
have colleagues who are part of UI.

  Be warned: the dichotomy is deliberate, and is strongly approved
of by marketers of proprietary software who are overreacting to the
spectre of someone else's operating system running on their precious
hardware (:-)).
  You can 
	1) pick and chose technology on its own merits, and know that
	   vendors will be forced to support it if really is worthwhile
	   (ie, the normal pre-war assumption)
	2) apply political/purchasing pressure on the two antagonists
	   to force them into bed together.

  This is not a discussion of standards: its a discussion about
market power.

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA, ...!yunexus!davecb or
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | {toronto area...}lethe!dave 
Willowdale, Ontario,  | "And the next 8 man-months came up like
CANADA. 416-223-8968  |   thunder across the bay" --david kipling

In article <13394@yunexus.YorkU.CA> davecb@yunexus.YorkU.CA
(David Collier-Brown) writes:

>  Be warned: the dichotomy is deliberate, and is strongly approved
>of by marketers of proprietary software who are overreacting to the
>spectre of someone else's operating system running on their precious
>hardware (:-)).
>  You can 
>	1) pick and chose technology on its own merits, and know that
>	   vendors will be forced to support it if really is worthwhile
>	   (ie, the normal pre-war assumption)

As Humpty Dumpty would say, the words "merits" and "worthwhile" mean
just what one chooses here, especially since Dave and I are in agreement
that it's a market, rather than a technical, issue.  But then the market
is exactly what elevates technical gimmickry to "technology".  I can
hear the angry mob in the background, but it is my opinion that the IBM
PC was a classic case of technology which "made it" for much more than
reasons of technical superiority over its competitors.

>	2) apply political/purchasing pressure on the two antagonists
>	   to force them into bed together.

Sort of.  Personally, I doubt any group we could assemble would be
large/loud enough to make a jot of difference.  As they say in Africa,
when the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.  What we have
to do (somehow!) is to adjust the balance of power so that the process
becomes consumer- rather than producer- driven. This means gravitating
away from market forces toward "purely technical" natural selectors for
technological evolution.

>  This is not a discussion of standards: its a discussion about
>market power.

Not so bad in itself, provided marketing boards stop masquerading as
standards bodies.  As it stands, vendors drive standards which drive
Fortune 500/govt/big spenders which drive trends which drive small
spenders.

All of which means that the original poster's question is still good:

Whom do we watch and follow?

Terry Lim (not the answer to the question!)
terry@ists.ists.ca

[...]

>Sort of.  Personally, I doubt any group we could assemble would be
>large/loud enough to make a jot of difference.  As they say in Africa,

[...]

>Whom do we watch and follow?
>
I have been particular impressed by the actions of two groups
who seem to have the courage to take a stand.  One is the
group of ISVs and User Councils attached to X/Open, who have
taken a position on the GUI question.  Another is the
European Commission, who seems to be making the tough decisions
and moving forward with their selections for standards used for
national procurements.  They haven't made a whole *lot* of
progress, mind you, but seem more than willing to do so.
-- 
HL Rogers    (hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM)
Me?  Speak for my company??  HA!
"Call 202/653-1800 for a good time!" - John Matrow, 1989

>Sort of.  Personally, I doubt any group we could assemble would be
>large/loud enough to make a jot of difference.  As they say in Africa,
>when the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.  What we have
>to do (somehow!) is to adjust the balance of power so that the process
>becomes consumer- rather than producer- driven. This means gravitating
>away from market forces toward "purely technical" natural selectors for
>technological evolution.

This assumes that "purely technical" natural selectors will
automatically choose what all the consumers want.  The trouble is that
it's not clear that all customers want the *same* thing in all cases,
and that the folks making the "purely technical" selections happen to
agree with the consumers.  I'm extremely loath to make either of those
assumptions....