5 ms·

This sort of process does more damage to technological innovation than almost anything else I can think of (besides the music and film industry). Look at the st

by SeanDav 14y ago

This sort of process does more damage to technological innovation than almost anything else I can think of (besides the music and film industry). Look at the state of Unix for example. A free, powerful operating system should be a no brainer for anyone. Until you ask yourself a few basic questions, like which flavour, and religious wars break out. If Unix or Linux could have limited itself to a far smaller subset, it would likely have taken over the world by now. This is why the world needs people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Linus et al. I shudder when I think of the type of damage this sort of thing can do to HTML and web technology.

icebraining 14y ago
If Unix or Linux could have limited itself to a far smaller subset, it would likely have taken over the world by now. Uhm, Unix and Linux do own the world. Desktop PCs are an anomaly in the computing world: phones, servers, TVs, tablets, networking gear, supercomputers, multimedia players, many GPS devices, are all predominantly running Unix or Unix-like. I shudder when I think of the type of damage this sort of thing can do to HTML and web technology. Breaks to the standard web technologies have brought us, among others: - JPEG support (Netscape) - File uploads (Netscape) - Javascript (Netscape) - AJAX/XMLHttpRequest (IE) - Canvas (Apple's Webkit) - nofollow links (Google) They can be problematic if they're proprietary (i.e. ActiveX), but they're not necessarily bad.
- billswift 14y ago
  A few years ago, when Eric Raymond was complaining about proprietary GPS related "standards", http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=888 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=888 , I drew what I think is a useful distinction in a comment: An “unreleased standard” is not a standard, it’s a specification. Conversely, a standard is a shared specification. And the same could be said for proprietary "standards". But in the case of HTML5, they are both open standards, just with different "forms of presentation", I guess would be the most useful term. One is a moving, transient standard, the other (W3C) is a series of snapshots.
- SeanDav 14y ago
  - Which Unix or Linux would that be? - Interesting that you think desktop computing is an anomaly. I must have imagined the whole PC revolution thing then... - Also interesting that you think that the current split in HTML5 standards is going to lead to good things. Care to explain how?
  - Produce 14y ago
    >Interesting that you think desktop computing is an anomaly. I must have imagined the whole PC revolution thing then... I think he was referring to desktop computing being an anomaly in that the predominant OS is not nix based.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Which Unix or Linux would that be? It's not which. It's Unix and Linux as a whole. Interesting that you think desktop computing is an anomaly. I must have imagined the whole PC revolution thing then... Apparently you don't know what anomaly means. Also interesting that you think that the current split in HTML5 standards is going to lead to good things. Care to explain how? That's not what I said, you're putting words in my mouth. I said it's not necessarily bad. But personally, I trust Mozilla and Opera; if they felt the creation of the WHATWG was important for the development of web technologies, then it's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
    - SeanDav 14y ago
      Ok at the risk of being further down voted, I am going to have 1 more crack at this. It's not which. It's Unix and Linux as a whole. This is exactly my point, I don't believe there is a Unix or Linux as a whole. Sure, there are Unix-like and Linux-like OS's out there and if you know 1 then you can easily adapt to using another. That is the point, you have to adapt. That is why unified standards are a good thing, you ideally only have to develop once. Uhm, Unix and Linux do own the world. Desktop PCs are an anomaly in the computing world I know exactly what anomaly means. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I would argue that before the Desktop PC revolution, computing was niche and elitist. Desktop PC's opened the world of computing to everyone and hugely accelerated the take-up and rate of innovation in all things computing. Additionally this Desktop PC revolution was driven by IBM, Intel and Microsoft, not Unix/Linux. But personally, I trust Mozilla and Opera; if they felt the creation of the WHATWG was important for the development of web technologies, then it's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I am not going to argue this one as I am not going to be seen as bad mouthing Mozilla or Opera, especially as I am a huge fan of Firefox and have great respect for both companies. Perhaps I am just old and scared of change but I fail to see how forking or branching HTML5 standards can possibly be a good thing. Browsing and HTLML5 in particular is an important foundation in future development and I just hate to see standards possibly diverging in this.
__david__ 14y ago
> If Unix or Linux could have limited itself to a far smaller subset, it would likely have taken over the world by now. You mean, like POSIX?

by SeanDav 14y ago

icebraining 14y ago

If Unix or Linux could have limited itself to a far smaller subset, it would likely have taken over the world by now. Uhm, Unix and Linux do own the world. Desktop PCs are an anomaly in the computing world: phones, servers, TVs, tablets, networking gear, supercomputers, multimedia players, many GPS devices, are all predominantly running Unix or Unix-like. I shudder when I think of the type of damage this sort of thing can do to HTML and web technology. Breaks to the standard web technologies have brought us, among others: - JPEG support (Netscape) - File uploads (Netscape) - Javascript (Netscape) - AJAX/XMLHttpRequest (IE) - Canvas (Apple's Webkit) - nofollow links (Google) They can be problematic if they're proprietary (i.e. ActiveX), but they're not necessarily bad.

billswift 14y ago
A few years ago, when Eric Raymond was complaining about proprietary GPS related "standards", http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=888 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=888 , I drew what I think is a useful distinction in a comment: An “unreleased standard” is not a standard, it’s a specification. Conversely, a standard is a shared specification. And the same could be said for proprietary "standards". But in the case of HTML5, they are both open standards, just with different "forms of presentation", I guess would be the most useful term. One is a moving, transient standard, the other (W3C) is a series of snapshots.
SeanDav 14y ago
- Which Unix or Linux would that be? - Interesting that you think desktop computing is an anomaly. I must have imagined the whole PC revolution thing then... - Also interesting that you think that the current split in HTML5 standards is going to lead to good things. Care to explain how?
- Produce 14y ago
  >Interesting that you think desktop computing is an anomaly. I must have imagined the whole PC revolution thing then... I think he was referring to desktop computing being an anomaly in that the predominant OS is not nix based.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Which Unix or Linux would that be? It's not which. It's Unix and Linux as a whole. Interesting that you think desktop computing is an anomaly. I must have imagined the whole PC revolution thing then... Apparently you don't know what anomaly means. Also interesting that you think that the current split in HTML5 standards is going to lead to good things. Care to explain how? That's not what I said, you're putting words in my mouth. I said it's not necessarily bad. But personally, I trust Mozilla and Opera; if they felt the creation of the WHATWG was important for the development of web technologies, then it's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
  - SeanDav 14y ago
    Ok at the risk of being further down voted, I am going to have 1 more crack at this. It's not which. It's Unix and Linux as a whole. This is exactly my point, I don't believe there is a Unix or Linux as a whole. Sure, there are Unix-like and Linux-like OS's out there and if you know 1 then you can easily adapt to using another. That is the point, you have to adapt. That is why unified standards are a good thing, you ideally only have to develop once. Uhm, Unix and Linux do own the world. Desktop PCs are an anomaly in the computing world I know exactly what anomaly means. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I would argue that before the Desktop PC revolution, computing was niche and elitist. Desktop PC's opened the world of computing to everyone and hugely accelerated the take-up and rate of innovation in all things computing. Additionally this Desktop PC revolution was driven by IBM, Intel and Microsoft, not Unix/Linux. But personally, I trust Mozilla and Opera; if they felt the creation of the WHATWG was important for the development of web technologies, then it's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I am not going to argue this one as I am not going to be seen as bad mouthing Mozilla or Opera, especially as I am a huge fan of Firefox and have great respect for both companies. Perhaps I am just old and scared of change but I fail to see how forking or branching HTML5 standards can possibly be a good thing. Browsing and HTLML5 in particular is an important foundation in future development and I just hate to see standards possibly diverging in this.

__david__ 14y ago

> If Unix or Linux could have limited itself to a far smaller subset, it would likely have taken over the world by now. You mean, like POSIX?