Interfaces, APIs, and standards are WAY too important to be let exclusively in the hands of the manufacturers. Besides, there is no point in proprietariness of technology as if the vendors want to keep exclusivity for manufacturing of their designs, they already have the infrastructure of (*spit*) patents.
It is so important that people should be forced to sell things that adhere to a mandaded system? Should I be forced to write code in a spcific way? This isn't academic - I'm about to push code to CPAN. I'm going to do so because I think there's a commercial advantage it releasing the code. Are you proposing that I be forced to write to some spec (that doesn't exist)? (I must say that I'm not defending Microsoft. I think they're killing innovation everywhere they can. Typical monopoly behaviour - it isn't interesting. Transforming them into a public utility is not the way to call them to task. Making them an AT&T is.)
I am pretty militant in this issue. No compromises.
I largely agree that it is aweful that IT is so stagnent.I'm personally doing OK, if not great, selling change. I sell open source agressively. Sometimes, I sell closed source. Best tool, best job. Trade is about what works. I do have a personal preference, but that does not interfere with what I tell clients, because I fell I have a duty to tell then facts. -- Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just as long as I'm the dictator...." - GW bush, http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html