On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Fred James<[email protected]> wrote: > In this, how is Google different from Microsoft, or IBM for that matter > (other than by degree)? > With all of that in mind > How does this "new" OS fit into the/your world to make it better? > > This was all prompted by "Will "they" in fact, own the desktop at such a > point?"
Good questions to consider. One need be concerned with what rises from the ashes of the previous monopoly. One dimension of Google OS that bears watching are the data exchange APIs, data formats, and communications protocols. "Open source" and "open standards" are not synonyms. One phenomenon I've studied intensively is the shift from trade secret binary formats for word processors to so-called "open standard" XML formats in the form of ODF and OOXML. Both are vendor lock-in specifications that are standards in name only, far too grossly under-specified to implement in an interoperable fashion working from the specification only. The sad truth is that they are only partial specifications of the formats used respectively by OpenOffice.org/clones and Microsoft Office. The syntax is there but the semantics are woefully under-specified and there is no specification of the APIs necessary for interoperable document exchange. In other words, under-specification of "standards" has become the plain-text XML substitute for the interoperability barrier posed by secret binary formats, notwithstanding that OpenOffice.org is open source. Couple that with Sun: [i] holding the only key to the lock on the commit rights to the OOo code base; and [ii] through the code contributors' agreements being the only vendor with the right to license the code on terms other than a license approved by the Open Source Institute, and one can see an OOo cartel emerging from the Sun-IBM deal that allows IBM to recycle the OOo 3.x code base in its proprietary apps without giving back to the community its code modifications. All of which runs contrasts with Sun's promise in 2000 that it would transfer ownership and governance of the code base to a non-profit corporation in which it would hold only a minority interest. Google could play such games with its APIs, data formats, and communications protocols and in some ways already has, if one accepts as true the predictions that Chrome OS will be firmly hitched to the Google Cloud. I put the likelihood of Google releasing the source code for its cloud apps somewhat south of zero. And Google has been noticeably selective about publishing their API specs for its cloud apps. Still, I'd love to see someone hold Microsoft's feet to the fire in the netbook market and having at least a good hunk of the source code open is way better than none. Microsoft's already out of the running in the mobile device market, which is quickly becoming web-capable. Whittling off the emerging netbook market could further curtail Microsoft's ability to pull off its attempt to embrace, extend, and extinguish the Open Web. All according to me, of course. :-) Best regards, Paul -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org> _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
