On 5/12/07, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
> As long as there is a way for users to get a fully standards-compliant
> environment when they need / want it, I'm happy. Solaris' strict
> standards compliance is one of the things I liked about it most. I
> started using GNU/Linux in 1996, and didn't start using Solaris until
> 2005. Standards compliance and documentation were the two areas the
> stood out the most when I started using it.
I agree with everything you've said, but I do wonder what happens when volume
overcomes standards. For example, in GNOME/KDE/... we don't really have any real
formal standards body behind a lot of our freedesktop.org based work. We use the
term 'defacto standard' to pretty much mean that the technology has been
discussed, a document written describing it, and adopted by enough projects that
have influence over a volume of users.
Are we getting to the stage where volume is trumping an official formal
standard? - it's an open question, I don't have any answers.
That question may perhaps be a wolf in sheep's clothing. It *may* be
restated as "Does might make right?" This is the key fallacy behind
democratic politics. Do the voices of the masses really determine what
is best or merely what is popular for that moment?
It may be one of the oldest questions around.
I stand by the ideal that the best solution often is self evident when
it presents itself. The battle to fight is to get other people to see
what you feel is "best" as opposed to what many people may be yelling
at that time. Simply attend a peace rally outside a military base and
see how your "best" is perceived. Perhaps politics is the issue here
and not standards. If we can get past our political and people
problems then we may be able to actually achieve something "best" and
it will be self evident to the masses.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
