We Need Open Standards With Free Software Implementations, Not "Interoperability" Alone
The March 2024 Web Server Survey that we've just mentioned said: "On March 5th, Amazon announced that outbound data transfer is now free for AWS customers who migrate to another provider. Microsoft made a similar announcement for Azure customers on March 13th. Both of these follow Google Cloud’s similar announcement and the European Data Act entering into force on January 11th. Despite only being required within the EU, the free outbound transfer for migrating providers applies globally in all three cases." But all of them are proprietary and the "choice" is between proprietary surveillance platforms controlled from another continent.
IN THE last part we focused on how the case of the US government against Microsoft compares to Apple's.
The US DOJ v Apple trial is raising a lot of points about interoperability, an associate notes, and open standards too. Microsoft's abuses were covered here over the weekend [1, 2]. We talked about how regulators were losing sight of Microsoft's abuses. Those include the issues of open standards and interoperability and we ought to revisit that because, as the associate puts it, "the awareness of the necessity of it is now reaching the Apple fanbois. More of them have been blogging about wanting to or needing to escape from the walled garden."
Our coverage strives to highlight "the increased need for interoperability [as it] is a new topic. It's not for apple fans to read. There is also a younger generation which knows nothing about standards and sees only 5 or 6 "web apps" as "The Internet", not the protocols and standards which create the Internet and the Web."
But "interoperability" (a buzzwords of Microsoft and Novell in 2006-2008) is not the main goal as it helps the Linux Foundation et al promote connectivity between proprietary systems (often abstracted away as "clown computing"), in effect getting away with 'interoperability' rather than freedom, privacy, etc. (as they did with Open Source, nowadays a synonym or an echo of openwashing).
The associate insists that "the new context means that it is a new topic. Open standards are the main goal, and the side effect of those is interoperability. So it is important that no one, neither FOSS people nor Apple fanbois, fall for any misdirection where interoperability is temporarily available via proprietary specs. Apple will try to invert the priorities if forced to make changes. For them, hanging onto the proprietary specs is top priority. For us, open standards (which inevitably lead to interoperability) are top."
We're going to write a lot more about this issue. Sadly we're confronting misguided managers and a bunch of clowns trying to herd us all - sometimes without consent - into "clown computing". █
