On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Greater London Linux UUG wrote: > I believe it doesn't "need" an open source solution, it needs a common > approach, like a set of RFC's, that allows everyone, closed and open source > together, to move in the same direction, and by the very nature of the > approach, be able to safely share data without a need to centralise it.
+1 Open Standards are more important than Open Source. With Open Standards you get true competition and the best solutions will get greatest market share. However: proprietary vendors will work hard to subvert Open Standards. > Having different systems means not having common exploits. There are regular > stories in the press about hospitals getting their systems hacked and/or > data encrypted. You really don't want them all to be the same and all get > hacked at the same time. +1 > All this software could be closed source or open source, but they would all > have to talk to each other, so while the source may be closed, the market > isn't, and can't be, closed. As it should be, but the incumbents will drag feet and make it hard. Oh, also expect legal challenges. -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 https://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers. Registration Information: https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html #include <std_disclaimer.h> -- GLLUG mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
