Re: First draft of Stepping Stones -- Markamatic proposal. Please read and comment. Details are very negotiable but the concept is not!

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 11:02:56 CST

On Dec 10, 2004, at 10:25 AM, Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:

> Hello Doug:
>  
> Dang!  Any other ideas on how we can move forward?

It's still worthwhile to move forward on parts, but the focus
of the OVC should be on finding industrial partners. Linux
works because IBM, HP, SGI and others have bought in. We need
buy-in from vendors.

So, we should be looking for the weakest links in the vendor
product lines and building OVC replacements that can "drop in"
to those products, with minimal work on the vendor's parts,
and then we should make those replacements so compellingly
obvious in their desirability that the vendors conclude that
they are better off going with the OVC product than in spending
the money to repair and upgrade their weak links.

Why develop yet another C++ compiler when you can get Gnu C++?
So, get Gnu C++, and it it's not quite good enough for your
application, contribute to its improvement, join in the open
software movement.

This model lets the vendor pay for certification, and it tosses
the ball into the vendor's laps to start pushing for modified
standards that simplify certification for those who use
parts that conform to "plug and play" standards of ineroperability.

                Doug Jones
                jones@cs.uiowa.edu

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Dec 31 23:17:10 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CST