henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/08/89)
From the concluding essay ("The Value Of Science") in Richard Feynman's
last book, "What Do *You* Care What Other People Think?":
Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can,
improve the solutions, and pass them on. It is our respon-
sibility to leave the people of the future a free hand. In
the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors
that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do
if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant as
we are. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, pro-
claiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we
will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority,
confined to the limits of our present imagination...
For some reason this made me think of a number of current standardization
efforts, notably ISO networking, X.400 and sons, and the X/NeWS standards
war. I can't imagine what the connection could be... :-) :-) :-)
--
Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edurhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) (05/17/89)
In article <1989May7.232428.14416@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >For some reason this made me think of a number of current standardization >efforts, notably ISO networking, X.400 and sons, and the X/NeWS standards >war. I can't imagine what the connection could be... :-) :-) :-) Equally apropo, from _Homilies for Humble Standards_, Douglas Ross, CACM, V19, No 11, Nov 1976: 1. {\em Pro}posed standards can be very beneficial; {\em Im}posed standards will be a disaster. 2. Standards are not only meaningless, they are actually {\em dangerous}, if their proper use cannot be understood by those affected by them. 3. The most important part of a standard is its {\em applicability clause}, which exactly specifies when {\em not} to use it. 4. Standard{\em ized} methods can become standard methods only when accepted in use. 5. Standards exist only to {\em serve the needs} of a {\em non}standard world. Standards cannot create a standard world. 6. {\em Compatibility} is more achievable than {\em conformability}, and is usually all that is needed. % from later in the article, not listed as a homily Humble standards --- those which do not attempt to impose or create impossible, unacceptable, or impractical levels of standardization --- are achievable. The entire original article is well worth repeated reading. A dozen years have not improved the general state of standardization efforts at all. -- Rob Horn UUCP: ...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn ...ulowell!infinet!rhorn, ..decvax!infinet!rhorn Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA
mo@prisma.UUCP (05/19/89)
In fact, life is much worse. Vendors have discovered that standards can be used to directly manipulate market share. This is certainly NOT "standards in the service of the users."