2 posts • joined Thursday 6th May 2010 17:22 GMT
I Knew You'd Dig That Old Post Up
Thanks, as always, for reminding me that the internet never forgets, and neither do you!
After re-reading that old chestnut of a post, I still agree with many of the points I made back then.
Although I'm not close to the details, I do know that you have to join the SPC to have access to their benchmark code. Another of the provisions is that members can't publish results from other members products without permission, so -- given past history -- that's useful as well.
On a more pragmatic note, I am told that there are a handful of public agencies that now have it as a mandatory for RFP submission. And we both know there's no good that comes from arguing with government officials :)
I don't know if I agree with your premise that we'll be entering a phase of benchmark wars. Although, I'm sure that would be very entertaining to some ...
More to it than that ...
That's funny -- I didn't see the basis for your complaint in the study ...
I read it several times, and never did I see the "claiming of a crisis" which is the basis of your piece here, nor was I able to find a note of "doom and gloom" as you claim. Were you reading something else perhaps?
To be fair, they did point out that information generated would exceed ability to store said information.
And said that proportionally more information would be subject to housekeeping concerns, and that the proportion of underprotected information would increase greatly, and a bunch of similar conclusions.
All very interesting food for thought, in my opinion.
Everybody is entitled to a rant once in a while (including you), but -- in this case -- I think you might want to go back and take a closer look.