William Vambenepe's blog

IT management in a changing IT world

Cultural differences, subjective assessments, and competing buy discount generic viagra theories all affect how "mental health" is defined.Some antibiotics are still produced and isolated from living price for generic viagra, such as the aminoglycosides; in addition, many more have been created through purely synthetic means, such as the quinolones.Metchnikoff, at that time a professor at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, free viagra online the notion that the ageing process results from the activity of putrefactive (proteolytic) microbes producing toxic substances in the large bowel.In many cases these materials were used ritually as magical best price for generic viagra by priests, shamans, or medicine men.Phage therapy has been used in the past on humans in the US and viagra online sales during the 1920s and 1930s, but these treatments had mixed results.

11
Jun
2007

Standards are good for customers… right?

by William (@vambenepe on Twitter)

Standards are good for customers. They avoid vendor lock-in. They protect the customer’s investment. Demanding standards compliance is a tool customers have to defend their interests when dealing with vendors. Right?

Well, in general yes. Except when standards become tools for vendors to attempt to confuse customers.

In the recent past, I have indirectly witnessed vendors liberally using the “standard” word and making claims of compliance with (and touting the need to conform to) specifications…

  • that have barely been submitted for standardization (SML),
  • that haven’t even been published in any form (CMDBF), or
  • that don’t even exist as a draft (CML – no link available, and for a reason).

Doesn’t something sound fishy when the logic goes through such self-negating statements as: “standards are good for you because they give you a choice of vendor. And we are the only vendor who supports standard X so you need to buy from us.” Especially when if it was true that the vendor in question implemented standard X, then it would not be their software that I would want to buy from them but their time machine.

All this doesn’t negate the fundamental usefulness of standards. And I don’t mean to attack the three specifications listed above either. They all have a very good potential to turn out to be useful. HP is fully engaged in the creation of all three (I am personally involved in authoring them, which is generally why wind of these exaggerated vendor claims eventually get back to me).

Vendors who are used to creating proprietary environments haven’t all changed their mind. They’ve sometimes just changed their rhetoric and updated their practices to play the standards game (changing the game itself in the process, and often not for the better). Over-eagerness should always arouse suspicion.

Related posts:

  1. The Tragedy of the Commons in Cloud standards
  2. Moving towards utility/cloud computing standards?
  3. Can Cloud standards be saved?
  4. Standards Disconnect at Cloud Connect
  5. Sorry, CMDBf doesn’t make coffee either
  6. Comparing the “openness” of standards bodies
AddThis Social Bookmark Button Follow @vambenepe on Twitter.

Leave a Reply