Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Kurt Buff (kurt.buffgmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 26 2010 - 19:26:01 CST
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 14:11, <Valdis.Kletnieksvt.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:03:03 -0200, Rafael Moraes said:
>> This is a subject that need to be discussed very carefully. I agree, It
>> should be "controlled", but, how far?
> In particular, one must be *very* careful to not create unintended
> consequences. For instance, in general the more regulated an industry is, the
> more risk-adverse the companies get - both because regulation implies "don't
> rock the boat" and the second-order effects of compliance paperwork and similar
> issues. Look at the mountains of paperwork needed to get the FAA to
> type-certify a new airplane as airworthy - what if Microsoft had to do that
> level of detail for Windows 8, the next release of Exchange, and the next
> release of Office?
> How do you make Microsoft "regulated" in any meaningful sense, and still allow
> them the ability to ship an out-of-cycle patch?
That's one issue. There are others.
The real issue, though, is not "how to regulate MSFT". It's how to
level the playing field.
Best way I can think of to do that is to specify document formats, and
make them available to all. ODF may not be the right format, but it's
in the right direction. If government(s) were to specify that any
software they buy needs to read and write a particular set of formats,
with the specifications of those formats publicly available for no
more than the cost of copying them, and that they would only accept
documents in those formats, then anyone could build software that
meets those specifications.
Then you'd see a more competitive environment.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/