I would like to propose a new test which you can use to see whether your favoured spout* of technical information is biased (or possibly just a re-printer of press releases, if there is a difference) or not. Here it is:
- They reported that the UK Unix Users group had take the British Standards Institute to the UK High Court, and
- They didn’t report in the same detail the outcome: that the High Court utterly rejected it.
Surprisingly, the Inquirer gets the guernsey here, in the marvelously titled UK unix beardies appeal for $cash. No sign of it so far on CNET, ComputerWorld, ConsortiumInfo, Slashdot (references welcome). (Groklaw perhaps did not have space for this, given that it has two interesting posts in its news about IBMs RoadRunner supercomputer which is “to ensure the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile.” Terrific boxes! Perhaps the High Court needs to put out its findings disguised as product press releases in order to get into independent media?)
Quoting from the Inquirer:
Mr Justice Lloyd Jones rejected the UKUUG’s application for a judicial review last Thursday, giving the group until the break of dawn this Friday to raise a legal fund for an appeal.
“This application does not disclose any arguable breach of the procedures of BSI or of rules of procedural fairness,” said Justice Jones on Thursday.
“In any event, the application is academic in light of the adoption of the new standard by ISO,” he added.
For terminology. In JTC1, the terminology is that a standard is accepted by a ballot and consequently published. This general process is called adoption. So IS29500 has been accepted as an ISO standard, but not yet published. The UKUUG’s reported comment that
OOXML had not been ratified as a standard, it had merely been put on the fast track to certification.
* I mean online papers and news sites not personal blogs.