Silly Argument (was POSIX standards via FTP)

Thread View: comp.std.unix

3 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

3 total messages Started by Don_Lewine Mon, 27 Aug 1990 13:20

#464

Author: Don_Lewine
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 13:20

13 lines
1010 bytes

From:  Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com

The argument about altered standards is just plain silly.  Given a 
monetary incentive, I can have the whole standard rekeyed.  Given 
the OCR equipment I have in my office, I can scan the whole document 
at fairly low cost.
 
What I want I timely access to the latest draft standards.  It would 
be nice if this was cheaper than NALPS, but my main motivation is 
*timely*.  If I suddenly need a draft of POSIX.7, or an old draft of 
POSIX.2, it would be nice to get it at FTP speeds.

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 62

Re: Silly Argument (was POSIX standards via FTP)

#472

Author: Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Lan...
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 19:46

22 lines
1429 bytes

From:  khb@Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages)

In article <464@usenix.ORG> Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com writes:

.,   The argument about altered standards is just plain silly.  Given a 
   monetary incentive, I can have the whole standard rekeyed.  Given 
   the OCR equipment I have in my office, I can scan the whole document 
   at fairly low cost.

And if you do those things, and it is an X3 document they have
reserved the right to sue you. Such a threat already stopped one such
effort. 

I agree that having standards online would be desireable; the logjam
is not technical, it is economic/political/legal.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith H. Bierman    kbierman@Eng.Sun.COM | khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM
SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33			 | (415 336 2648)   
    Mountain View, CA 94043

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 69

Re: Silly Argument (was POSIX standards via FTP)

#473

Author: ralph
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 1990 05:10

37 lines
2290 bytes

[This was sent to std-unix-request for some reason, instead of std-unix,
but it looks like a posting to me.  -mod]

From:  ralph@svnet.uucp

In article <464@usenix.ORG>, Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com writes:
> From:  Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com
> 
> What I want I timely access to the latest draft standards ...
> ... be nice if this was cheaper than NALPS ...

Subscribing to a group's mailings gets them to my desk with 0 keystrokes
and no network traffic, many times before I even know a new draft
has been finished.  That seems quick and painless (except for the $$).  

Granted, subscribing to the full mailings of ALL groups amounts to a
substantial amount of paper and costs about $1,000 per year.  
Subscribing ONLY to drafts, instead of the full mailings, is quite
a bit less, particularly if only one or two groups are of interest.  
Considering the nature of the material being copied, I, for one, am 
convinced that the charges are "cost recovery" only.  (Of course, if 
I see an IPO for NAPS I might be convinced otherwise :-) )

In my opinion, however, compared to the cost of attending the meetings 
and participating in the process, the mailing subscription is a bargain.  
Many companies who contribute staff to the standards development process 
assume an annual cost of at least $15,000 per year per person for 
meeting time and travel.  If the person actually does WORK in addition 
to attending the meetings, the real cost is probably 3 to 4 time that 
amount, even discounting lost opportunity costs and other things important
to managers and accountants.  

Although I can personally see both sides of the argument, examining the
costs of participating in one or more working groups adds a perspective
that is otherwise lost.  

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 71

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads