[ILUG] Windows to go opensource

[Caolan McNamara]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 09.05.00, 14:00:54, "John P. Looney" <jplooney-ilug at online.ie> wrote 
regarding Re: [ILUG] Windows to go opensource:

>  You don't think that they would just release a new version, citing
> "performance reasons" for not keeping backward compatibility ?

When I say interoperability I really have little interest in backward 
compatibility issues, more that when they bring out a new version they 
must simultaneously bring out the new spec (which must be correct of 
course) so that everyone else can upgrade their source trees to take the 
new interface into account. Why force any company to retain backwards 
compatibility, from a anticompetitive stance I don't know if this 
matters, from a consumer rights angle you could make a case that MS is 
forcibly devalueing your software, but car manufacturers do pretty much 
that anyway.

To the person talking about the header files being released, well yes 
there really are two closely related issues I suppose.
1) the api into windows itself, thats often well specified, though you'll 
find that even the well known wmf format is not fully documented. 
(http://www.csn.ul.ie/~caolan/docs/libwmf.html), and there are many many 
undocumented/badly documented functions, a raw header file is not a full 
description of use and doesn't cut it for me.

2) But to be fair I couldn't give a rats ass what happens under windows, 
its what happens when windows technologies inpact on the rest of the 
world, ms networking protocols and document and data formats. Of more 
importance is the necessity of true and binding specifications of various 
technologies, rtf is a complete nightmare (Im told) with many little 
varients thought up of at the drop of a hat inside ms, easy to write rtf, 
hard to have a robust reader. So I suppose I should be more precise and 
demand that full and complete documentation for Microsoft's API's, 
networking protocols and data formats must be released in parallel as the 
products themselves and must be verifiably correct.

You could make a case that that such a "big three release" should be 
enforcable on all companies regardless. Its your data that being moved 
and saved so you should have the capacity to convert it whatever way you 
want. Though there are enough issues with that approach which leads me to 
just recommend rather than enforce that data be kept and stored in such 
formats.

C.