5 ms·

No, the EU is entirely sold to big corp. US big corps are doing fine, thank you, but small EU companies can go to hell. I'm developing software in a French 10 p

by wazoox 3y ago

No, the EU is entirely sold to big corp. US big corps are doing fine, thank you, but small EU companies can go to hell. I'm developing software in a French 10 people shop, do you think we have any resources to spend on standards, and a legal department to check that we're properly conforming to them ? Of course not. That means that we can't hope to sell our products to any public service, government or EU agency, or any big company. These very big, very lucrative markets are strictly restricted to big corps. Microsoft, Google and Amazon are doing fine in this environment.

pas 3y ago
can you elaborate on this with some examples? some standards are important, right? the phone charger standardization seems useful, no? it would be ideal to have just a single wall socket/plug, no? similarly for EV supercharger connector. and so on. these are the things that get standardized at the EU level, as far as I know, so I'm very interested in counter-examples. thanks!
- CactusOnFire 3y ago
  I'm neither European nor do I have to deal with their standards, but this seems like a false equivocation. Physical Engineering standards serve a different purpose than software standards. Engineering standards are a social contract we all buy into because of the incredibly cost and complexity of designing physical infrastructure. Software is not constrained by the same standards. It's alright if the firmware of a coffee machine and a cell phone run on a different standard, but it's going to cause problems if each of my sockets has a different grounding.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    I mean...there is an analogy there.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  If standardizing something is a public good, then why are the standard documentation kept locked? Nobody on this thread said a word against standardization. It's really important. You are replying for some comment that isn't there.
- wazoox 3y ago
  I can elaborate with a very precise example. Of course standards are fine and important. But the amount of red tape they require is mind-boggling. I know of a small company who invested about 1 million € to build their software; they then took 18 months and another million € to make it stamped with some standard, to be able to sell their software to some government administration. The second million was spent entirely on legal fees, documentations, etc. They didn't change a line in their software. Nobody checked that the software actually does what it's supposed to do; only that it facially complies with a bunch of bureaucratically defined requirements, that may or may not be of any use or significance for the people using the software in the end.
  - kranke155 3y ago
    Lord almighty
  - pas 3y ago
    can you please name the standard in question? also, it's completely okay if no code had to be changed also there are quality assurance and process related standards, that are about documentation... and let's not forget that a government can usually require that the vendor sign paperwork, which makes sure the officers of the vendor are criminally liable ... I'm not in favor of them, nor in favor of spending millions on legal and documentation fees, but without knowing more it's yet another "public procurement bad" story (which is completely believable! I mean 1M EUR compliance cost nowadays is not that unusual)
    - wazoox 3y ago
      It was in 2016 so I mercifully forgot the details, it's a set of standards for data archival and document classification. There are some compliances rules for security in the mix (people should require proper authorisations to access documents, etc). At some point some lawmakers (under the influence of some company such as Cap Gemini or Atos) passed a law to force notaries to use only software with that particular stamp. The problem is that it's typically the sort of standard that should be applied to a particular organisation and workflow, through an auditing process, instead of a global, upfront stamp that is really a way to do gatekeeping, not actually enforcing data safety and security.
ochoseis 3y ago
Making standards accessible to small businesses smells like a startup idea…
- atoav 3y ago
  No. Standards for the development of which my taxes paid for should be accessible for free. Just make it the law.

by wazoox 3y ago

pas 3y ago

can you elaborate on this with some examples? some standards are important, right? the phone charger standardization seems useful, no? it would be ideal to have just a single wall socket/plug, no? similarly for EV supercharger connector. and so on. these are the things that get standardized at the EU level, as far as I know, so I'm very interested in counter-examples. thanks!

CactusOnFire 3y ago
I'm neither European nor do I have to deal with their standards, but this seems like a false equivocation. Physical Engineering standards serve a different purpose than software standards. Engineering standards are a social contract we all buy into because of the incredibly cost and complexity of designing physical infrastructure. Software is not constrained by the same standards. It's alright if the firmware of a coffee machine and a cell phone run on a different standard, but it's going to cause problems if each of my sockets has a different grounding.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  I mean...there is an analogy there.
marcosdumay 3y ago
If standardizing something is a public good, then why are the standard documentation kept locked? Nobody on this thread said a word against standardization. It's really important. You are replying for some comment that isn't there.
wazoox 3y ago
I can elaborate with a very precise example. Of course standards are fine and important. But the amount of red tape they require is mind-boggling. I know of a small company who invested about 1 million € to build their software; they then took 18 months and another million € to make it stamped with some standard, to be able to sell their software to some government administration. The second million was spent entirely on legal fees, documentations, etc. They didn't change a line in their software. Nobody checked that the software actually does what it's supposed to do; only that it facially complies with a bunch of bureaucratically defined requirements, that may or may not be of any use or significance for the people using the software in the end.
- kranke155 3y ago
  Lord almighty
- pas 3y ago
  can you please name the standard in question? also, it's completely okay if no code had to be changed also there are quality assurance and process related standards, that are about documentation... and let's not forget that a government can usually require that the vendor sign paperwork, which makes sure the officers of the vendor are criminally liable ... I'm not in favor of them, nor in favor of spending millions on legal and documentation fees, but without knowing more it's yet another "public procurement bad" story (which is completely believable! I mean 1M EUR compliance cost nowadays is not that unusual)
  - wazoox 3y ago
    It was in 2016 so I mercifully forgot the details, it's a set of standards for data archival and document classification. There are some compliances rules for security in the mix (people should require proper authorisations to access documents, etc). At some point some lawmakers (under the influence of some company such as Cap Gemini or Atos) passed a law to force notaries to use only software with that particular stamp. The problem is that it's typically the sort of standard that should be applied to a particular organisation and workflow, through an auditing process, instead of a global, upfront stamp that is really a way to do gatekeeping, not actually enforcing data safety and security.

ochoseis 3y ago

Making standards accessible to small businesses smells like a startup idea…

atoav 3y ago
No. Standards for the development of which my taxes paid for should be accessible for free. Just make it the law.