- Test Center Tracker: Packeteer sizzles at CIFS; RIA development heats up
- Managing Switches for Policy-Based Networking
- Preview: Globalpex's content certification uniquely verifies physical content in the envelope
- Standards? What Standards?
- Test Center Tracker: Bridging technology and finance
- Preview: Parallels Server beta looks promising
- Test Center Tracker: Greener docs and a six-month itch
- A NAC for policy enforcement: Lockdown Networks, RIP
- Train Signal knows training.
- Test Center Tracker: Sticky sweet Sun storage, plus a hardy Ubuntu beta
March 27, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Standards? What Standards?
In a comment to my recent blog entry regarding Lockdown Networks' departure from the marketplace, "Brian" takes issue with my comments about standards always win in the end.
While it's clear that you need to take the time to consider which standards to support (whether de facto or de jure), it is equally clear that over any reasonable stretch of time, communications systems will consolidate around standards. Using Brian's example, even though ISDN never caught on in residential lines in the US, it became ubiquitous in many countries around the world, and still delivers last mile PRIs in many locales in the US.
The comments I made about standards in the context of policy-based network security are vitally important for organizations recognizing their needs for that security. To adopt proprietary, closed systems at the current level of maturity of the emerging standards is unwise.
Where the standards exist, engage technology that uses them. Where they don't, focus on those solutions from companies committed to the emerging standards or accept the probability that your approach will be relatively short-lived.
After all, standards benefit customers primarily, by providing greater choice. Companies who create products in competition with standards are broadcasting their disinterest in competing on a level playing field and their preference for using installed-base as their primary benefit.
I've been around long enough to remember when, "No one [got] fired for buying IBM." The company name has changed a few times over the years, but that unfortunate idea is still around.
Isn't it better to solve the long-term problem with effective, standards-based solutions than to play it safe with a closed, proprietary system that relies on the herd mentality?
Posted by Stephen Hultquist on March 27, 2008 09:07 PM
RATE THIS ARTICLE:
-

- COMMENTS
TOP STORIES
Top 10 stories of the weekA new place to hide rootkits
Sun exec on OpenSolaris, Linux
AT&T: No free iPhone Wi-Fi info
MS to appeal E.U. fine
XP SP3 causes endless reboots
Vista as insecure as Win 2000
Google grilled on human rights
Java ubiquity an edge in RIA battle
The InfoWorld news quiz
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

- Virtualization: A Step by Step Approach to Success
- Dialing up Agility with Business Transformation
- 5 Things You Need to Know About Storage Virtualization

- Virtual Test Lab Automation: Manage development infrastructure
- Improve Resource Utilization and Lower Operating Costs
- Protect Your Data with SSL





