RE: comedi as a POSIX standard

An IEEE Standard for Open Source software? Hey, where is that free beer,
anyway? 

First, let me explain that I'm also a card carrying member of the IEEE. 

Working for an on-site support contractor at Pax River, I value Open Source
software and Free software. I know that "free" is supposed to be interpreted
as "source provided, freely modifiable...", but I really like being able to
download a copy for nothin', compile it, and use it. Hooray for Linux, RTAI,
Comedi, CVS, ViewCVS, ACE, and TAO CORBA, just to name a few. It's terrific
to have access to clever software, without having to beg a government
employee to pay for it. 

While I fully support the efforts of the IEEE, as a dues paying member, I
resent having to cough up an additional $100 or more for a downloadable PDF
copy of 'dis specification or 'dat one. 

If there really needs to be a formal specification for Comedi, I'm guessing
that it could be developed inexpensively, in a distributed fashion, making
use of the World Wide Web. I haven't been a part of an IEEE specification
process, but I see no reason why an IEEE specification couldn't be developed
in this manner. Perhaps the IEEE would donate Web storage for the working
group bulletin board. 

As for the finished specification, it would be just grand if IEEE members
could download it for free. Maybe a small fee would be appropriate for
non-members. It would be a nice incentive to join IEEE! 

Would the IEEE be interested in backing a standard that would be offered to
members at no charge? 

--Stu Baldwin

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Jenkins [mailto:steven.jenkins_at_ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 6:40 PM
Cc: comedi_at_comedi.org
Subject: Re: comedi as a POSIX standard


Herman Bruyninckx wrote:

> Yes, but why choose POSIX then? Why not the Open Management Group, or
> some other standards body?

I'm not arguing against any other body, I just happen to be more 
familiar with both the process and the product of IEEE. The point is not 
to get some organization's imprimatur, it's to get a really good 
standard. I think the IEEE's process leads to a pretty consistenly good 
product.

But to address OMG specifically, OMG is not a standards body. It's a 
consortium, largely-vendor driven, that publishes specifications. I'm 
not well-versed in their more recent specs, but the early CORBA specs 
were mostly marketing fluff. Being CORBA-compliant didn't mean your 
application your interoperate with multiple vendors' ORBs, nor that the 
ORBs would interoperate with each other. In fact, they didn't. Things 
may have improved since then, but I'm skeptical.

You don't have to be an IEEE member to participate in (or even lead) a 
POSIX working group. (I think. But even if you do, it's around $100 per 
year.) It appears to me from OMB's web site that you can't get voting 
privileges in an Task Force for less than $2200 per year. OMG doesn't 
have individual memberships, as far as I can tell. IEEE has nothing 
*but* individual memberships.

The Open Group would be a better option. I think their track record for 
publishing real open specifications that mean something is better. They 
have a Real-Time & Embedded Systems Forum that might be interested, and 
they do have some precedent for publishing their specs on the web.

Steve

P.S. I guess my email address suggests a disclaimer. I have no 
connection with the IEEE other than being a member.


_______________________________________________
comedi mailing list
comedi_at_comedi.org
https://cvs.comedi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/comedi

Received on 2003-04-14Z13:49:28