RE: comedi as a POSIX standard

I just got David's suggestion that it would be more useful to continue
refining the Comedilib API, rather than standardize it at this time. But
then, I also just finished the following response for Mr. Jenkins, which is
probably more about keeping down the costs of specifications. I apologize
for making this point in the comedi forum, but wish to wrap up my discussion
regarding IEEE Standards with those others who are involved in that process.

Mr. Jenkins:

So sorry, I meant no offense. I just wanted to say that it would disappoint
me to pay for a spec when the software itself doesn't cost me anything. 

Thanks for the informative link to the Free Software Foundation's Web page.
I would not mind a bit if ongoing development of Comedi conforms to existing
standards, such as ISO C, POSIX, Berkeley Unix, SVID, or XPG. 

Yes, you hit the nail on the head, I "...want a really good open
specification, and I want it to be free." 

Yes, it would be terrific if "platform vendors (commercial RTOS, embedded
systems, etc.) and a/d subsystems" would "implement and support the Comedi
API". Having "a large fraction of a/d boards [come] to market with
vendor-provided comedi drivers" would be more than good, it would be
fabulous! I certainly agree, it's a good objective, well worth pursuing.

Knowing that we agree on the objective, I can't understand why you are
finding fault with a Web based collaboration as the means of achieving that
objective. Admittedly, you are more familiar with the IEEE Specification
Development process. As a University of Maryland (University College)
instructor, I am familiar with Distance Education via the Web. Just as
education has evolved from the traditional classroom to Web based learning,
I see no reason why specification development can't take the same path, if
it hasn't already. 

The large numbers of accredited colleges offering bachelor's and advanced
degrees, plus research into the effectiveness of distance education, provide
evidence of the outstanding quality obtainable via Web collaboration. Try a
Google search on 'distance education' for proof, or simply pay attention to
the fact that both the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society offer Web based
courses. These institutions are not "Some Guys With A Web Site." There's no
reason why any POSIX specification couldn't be developed online.

If commercial venders are needed "to invest in the development required to
support a formal standard from a recognized body", I see no reason why they
wouldn't invest in the development of an IEEE spec via Web technology. If it
means paying Herman to write the spec, then by all means, pay Herman to
write the spec. If it means buying the committee a nice hotel in Orlando
during the colder months, why not eliminate that cost, and make the spec
available to IEEE members for free. 

I would differ with the assertion that, "Ordinary users like us will
continue to use the free documentation and be happy with it." If there's a
spec, I'll likely want a copy of it. 

If I want to put lights and outlets in my back yard gazebo, I need more than
the instructions that come with the switches, sockets, and outlets. I need
to make the whole package acceptable to the building inspector. 

Regards,
Stu

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Jenkins [mailto:steven.jenkins_at_ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 2:27 PM
To: comedi_at_comedi.org
Subject: Re: comedi as a POSIX standard


Baldwin, Stu W (JFTI) wrote:
> An IEEE Standard for Open Source software? Hey, where is that free beer,
> anyway? 

I don't see the irony. Big chunks of open source software already comply 
with certain key IEEE (and other) standards. For example:

http://www.fsf.org/manual/glibc-2.2.5/html_node/Standards-and-Portability.ht
ml#Standards%20and%20Portability

The rest of Stu's message seems (to me) to say I want a really good open 
specification, and I want it to be free. Great, me too. No one's 
stopping you. What I'm proposing is in no way contrary to that.

The issue boils down to objectives. If all we want is good documentation 
that all of us in the open source community can use, then all we need to 
do is help Herman get it written. In fact, we should help Herman in any 
case. Good documentation is the first step. Nothing will take away our 
own good documentation, and we can use it for whatever purposes we like, 
forever. Period.

I'm suggesting something more than that. I'd like to use what we have in 
Comedi to influence the commercial world, and in particular, to entice 
platform vendors (commercial RTOS, embedded systems, etc.) and a/d 
subsystems to implement and support the Comedi API. That'd be a good 
thing, in my opinion, even for those of us who have no plans to use 
Comedi outside open source. I write software for my users, and if they 
want to use my code on Solaris, who am I to say they shouldn't? If a 
large fraction of a/d boards came to market with vendor-provided comedi 
drivers, that'd be good too.

Now, if you don't think that's a good objective, then we disagree, and I 
propose to leave it at that.

If we agree on the objective, then the next issue is how to achieve it. 
I claim, and I believe there's evidence to support the claim, that 
commercial vendors are more likely to invest in the development required 
to support a formal standard from a recognized body than from Some Guys 
With A Web Site. In particular, Unix and RTOS vendors already have a 
demonstrated commitment to at least selectively complying with the 
POSIX.1 standard, which includes real-time functionality like clocks and 
timers, pthreads, etc. (For examples, Google for "wind river posix" or 
"lynx posix".) Commercial vendors support standards because they believe 
it leads to sales. The best way to get Comedi adopted seems to me to 
place it on the path they're already following.

The audience for a POSIX standard (in this scenario) is commercial 
vendors, and they don't mind paying for it. Ordinary users like us will 
continue to use the free documentation and be happy with it.

If I put an electrical outlet in my house, I don't need a copy of the 
National Electrical Code (which costs $$$) to comply with the code. The 
outlet vendor tells me how in their instruction sheet. That doesn't mean 
the NEC isn't important.

Steve


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

Received on 2003-04-14Z19:40:07