Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

definitions again (Developers)

posted by bretjohn Homepage E-mail, Rio Rancho, NM, 11.04.2024, 16:34

> Not to be overly cynical, but "standards" are usually ignored or only
> half-implemented. Too expensive, too inefficient, too complex, too weak,
> too awkward, too old ("irrelevant!"), too new / untested, obscure / not
> widespread, unneeded, waste of developer time, or just "not invented here"
> or "we don't care".
I would also add to this list "extensible" standards. The best example of this I think is USB. USB has tons of "sub-standards", and nearly all of them have "vendor-specific" sub-categories that lets a vendor do whatever they want but still be considered "standards-compliant".

The most blatant case of this I've come across in USB are the Ethernet devices. There is a USB "standard" (actually, multiple incompatible USB "standards") for Ethernet over USB, but I've only come across one manufacturer (RealTek) whose devices comply with any of the non-vendor-specific portions of standards. None of the other vendors (at least none that I have seen) comply at all, and even the RealTek devices let you switch them into a vendor-specific mode of operation.

Although USB is very ubiquitous, it is far from "universal" or standard.

And I can come up with more examples of this that are not (at least directly) related to computers.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 162 users online (0 registered, 162 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum