From:	Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: "Free" Software (was: Euro question)
Date:	Fri, 1 May 1998 14:59:06 -0500

>
> On 1 May 98 at 13:17, Lehlan Decker wrote:
>
> > I don't see this ever happening precisely like this. That many folks
> > working together. Nope. It would be whoever can get the best product
> > out first, to make the most cash, before somebody else does.
>
> There are committees working together now. EIA/TIA, ANSI, DVD
> Consortium, etc. And that is just to set standards for operatability.
> The Crash brought the technological, but more importantly, the
> economic world to a halt. Such a catastrophic event would certainly
> be a reason to open up the lines of communication. A jointly
> developed OS would be the quickest and safest way to get back up and
> running. Quick because so many varied resources could be poured into
> it. Safe, because everyone shares the same code base (no backdoors,
> because the others would catch it, or if there are, everyone knows
> about them).
>
> I don't think a company would go it alone. Too risky. A company may
> certainly have developed and used their own OS, but who else would
> adopt it? Nobody knew who created the virus. Fear and uncertainty
> would keep corps from putting an outside product on their systems.
> Security concerns would be high. No IT manager is going to put his
> system back onto a global network, unless he can be damn sure who he
> is connecting too, and what they are using. The development
> partnership would solve that problem. The IT manager would know the
> OS, and the players involved. Hell, some of them were his people.
>
> The questions has to be asked; why would a corporation spend
> resources to develop a none revenue generating product? It flies in
> the face of capitalism. The answer is simple: without the global
> reach they once had, most corps are in serious trouble. Their
> sources of income have become severely limited. Do they spend
> resources on a venture that guarantees they can get their computers
> up and connected to the world again, or do they take a risk and try
> and develop there own system, and hope it is adopted and accepted by
> their customers and partners? No brainer. Most CEO's are going to
> take the sure thing every time.
>
Perhaps your right. However I see a whole bunch of consortiums, not
just one. The governments are going to have their own ideas of what
a new "secure" network should be. (Think about VCHIP, DES encryptions vs
others).
Megas will have their own ideas. Cooperation may occur, but human nature
being what it is, I just don't see it being that easy and bloodless.
What's a great quote "I love standards, there are so many to choose from"


> > I'm
> > still convinced FASA used the Crash, simply to regulate the level of
> > technology, and to make it so people like us, wouldn't argue (much)
> > about the "matrix" its protocols, OS, etc. :) --
>
> Your probably right, but you can still speculate a reasonable
> explanation.

But of course. If we couldn't speculate, the list would be a much quieter
and boring place. :)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe doesn't have laws, it has habits. And habits can be broken.