Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJkgY29tZXMgdW5kZXIgZmlyZQ==?= - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJkgY29tZXMgdW5kZXIgZmlyZQ==?= - Linux ; http://www.bbj.hu/main/news_29721_microsoft+%25E2%2580% 2598monopoly%25E2%2580%2599+comes+under+fire.html or http://tinyurl.com/2j94cj 07 Aug 2007 bbj.hu Chinese academics and software developers gathered in Beijing yesterday to voice their opposition to Microsoft’s latest standard document format Office Open XML (OOXML). Major software developers, academics and industry associations spoke out ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJkgY29tZXMgdW5kZXIgZmlyZQ==?=

  1. Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJkgY29tZXMgdW5kZXIgZmlyZQ==?=

    http://www.bbj.hu/main/news_29721_microsoft+%25E2%2580%
    2598monopoly%25E2%2580%2599+comes+under+fire.html

    or http://tinyurl.com/2j94cj

    07 Aug 2007
    bbj.hu

    Chinese academics and software developers gathered in Beijing
    yesterday to voice their opposition to Microsoft’s latest
    standard document format Office Open XML (OOXML).

    Major software developers, academics and industry associations
    spoke out against Microsoft’s ‘monopoly’ on the format of digital
    documents. Document format refers to how a digital file is coded.
    Microsoft’s document formats - such as .doc, .xls and .ppt - have
    been widely used all over the world since the company first began
    its dominance in the 1990s.

    Its document format has helped it to unprecedented success,
    setting a formidable barrier for other software companies, who
    must make Microsoft-compatible products and cannot access the
    core code of the format. „Microsoft’s move to make its OOXML
    format the international standard is an extension of its goal to
    maintain its monopoly in the world’s software market,” said Ni
    Guangnan, an academic from the Chinese Academy of Engineering.

    "We are calling on the government to veto the OOXML format at the
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO)." The OOXML
    format is a file specification released by Microsoft in December
    last year for its Microsoft Office 2007 suite. It is currently in
    a fast track standardization process with the ISO and will be
    subject to voting next month. Unlike the current ISO digital
    document standard ODF (Open Document Format) and China’s national
    standard UDF (Unified Office Document Format), Microsoft’s OOXML
    format can only be run on a Windows platform.

    It is also criticized for containing many proprietary
    technologies that can only be fully supported by Microsoft’s
    Office products. Over the past few months, Microsoft has been
    campaigning to get the new format approved as an ISO standard. It
    claims there are thousands of software companies in China that
    can support the format.

    Ni wrote a public letter to Chinese media on July 17 opposing the
    new format. Microsoft did not respond to Ni’s letter until July
    31, when Tim Chen, senior vice-president of Microsoft and
    chairman and CEO of its China operation, said the accusation was
    “unfair”. “We are promoting the new format in response to our
    users’ needs,” he said. (english.people.com.cn)

  2. =?utf-8?Q?Re:_Microsoft_=E2=80=98monopoly=E2=80=99_comes _u?==?utf-8?Q?nder_fire?=


    "HighPlainsThumper" wrote in message
    news:feflhf$867$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > its dominance in the 1990s.
    > quote
    > Its document format has helped it to unprecedented success, setting a
    > formidable barrier for other software companies, who must make
    > Microsoft-compatible products and cannot access the core code of the
    > format. „Microsoft’s move to make its OOXML format the international
    > standard is an extension of its goal to maintain its monopoly in the world’s
    > software market,” said Ni Guangnan, an academic from the Chinese Academy
    > of Engineering.
    > quote/


    With such an infantile analysis of how things work, it is no wonder that
    Microsoft's opponents are always running on empty and dead last to boot.
    The MS office formats didn't lead to success, customer adoption of the MS
    Office programs led to success. The format is only the manifestation of the
    need for compatibility. People are locked into the feature/function/benefit
    of MS Office, not to the format. If Open Office had the same following,
    they would be locked into using it and MS would have to cater to that.

    OOXML is simply a disclosure of what MS Office does so that a competitor is
    not locked out. Get it right.


  3. Re: Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJkgY29tZXMgdW5kZXIgZmly?==?UT F-8?B?ZQ==?=

    amicus_curious wrote:

    > With ..


    From: Bill Gates
    Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 4:36 PM
    To: Bob Muglia (exchange)
    Subject: FW: JPP response to your source code question etc....

    "Why would the Office group be giving out the Office 2000 formats to
    competitors? To me this seems crazy"

  4. Re: Microsoft monopoly comes under fire

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >(snip claptrap)


    LOL The M$ spin on the situation, that you've so "thoughtfully"
    provided, is about as twisted and evil as one would expect, coming
    from your masters.


  5. Re: Microsoft 'monopoly' comes under fire

    OOXML should be adopted or rejected based upon it's technical merits.

    I haven't looked at Excel Spreadsheets saved in OOXML, but I know the
    ones saved in XML format are practically unreadable by a human.

    With XML format you can't save a Workbook that has VBA Modules - and
    have it retain the VBA modules.

    So the standard should allow for languages such as VBA.

    It would be nice if Office 2008 provided for embedded Applescript -
    but I gather so far that Applescript, IF IT IS SUPPORTED, will have to
    be saved separate from Workbooks and executed in ScriptEditor.

    If OOXML is human readable, and provides for languages such as VBA and
    AppleScript, or Python, then it should be adopted.




  6. =?utf-8?Q?Re:_Microsoft_=E2=80=98monopoly=E2=80=99_comes _u?==?utf-8?Q?nder_fire?=


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:feg4kk$r2e$1@news.datemas.de...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> With ..

    >
    > From: Bill Gates
    > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 4:36 PM
    > To: Bob Muglia (exchange)
    > Subject: FW: JPP response to your source code question etc....
    >
    > "Why would the Office group be giving out the Office 2000 formats to
    > competitors? To me this seems crazy"


    Does it make sense to you? Of course you are not Bill Gates.

    Regardless of that, MS agreed to disclose tons of stuff as part of the DOJ
    settlement, or didn't you read that part? Disclosing the specs for the 2007
    office product file formats is part of their policy now. Get yourself up to
    date.


  7. Re: Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJkgY29tZXMgdW5kZXIgZmly?==?UT F-8?B?ZQ==?=

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >> "Why would the Office group be giving out the Office 2000 formats to competitors? To me this seems crazy"


    > Does it make sense to you? Of course you are not Bill Gates.


    What the **** are you smoking now, toad juce ..

    All me to translate it for you: The chief software architect of the
    universe wants the formats kept secret so as to maintain the Microsoft
    Monopoly ..

  8. Re: Microsoft 'monopoly' comes under fire

    gimme_this_gimme_that@yahoo.com wrote:

    >OOXML should


    *plonk*


  9. =?utf-8?Q?Re:_Microsoft_=E2=80=98monopoly=E2=80=99_comes _u?==?utf-8?Q?nder_fire?=


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:feg7b5$54k$2@news.datemas.de...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>> "Why would the Office group be giving out the Office 2000 formats to
    >>> competitors? To me this seems crazy"

    >
    >> Does it make sense to you? Of course you are not Bill Gates.

    >
    > What the **** are you smoking now, toad juce ..
    >
    > All me to translate it for you: The chief software architect of the
    > universe wants the formats kept secret so as to maintain the Microsoft
    > Monopoly ..


    Allow me to elucidate. What Bill Gates thought in 1999 is not necessarily
    what Bill Gates thinks in 2007. Have you never had a change of mind? Have
    you ever had a mind? Bill Gates has shown a strong ability to adapt, you
    should know, and that is why he is far richer than you could ever be.

    And I repeat, you are not Bill Gates and so your between the lines notion
    that his statement is about a monopoly maintenance is completely specious.



  10. =?iso-8859-7?q?Re=3A_Microsoft_=A1monopoly=A2?= comes under fire

    On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:09:23 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    > What Bill Gates thought in 1999 is not necessarily
    > what Bill Gates thinks in 2007.


    Is Bill Gates a flip-flopper? Perish the thought ...

  11. Re: Microsoft monopoly comes under fire

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >"Doug Mentohl" wrote:
    >>
    >> All me to translate it for you: The chief software architect of the
    >> universe wants the formats kept secret so as to maintain the Microsoft
    >> Monopoly ..

    >
    >Allow me to elucidate.


    Not possible, since the words of a pathlogical liar like you cannot be
    trusted.

    >What Bill Gates thought in 1999 is not necessarily
    >what Bill Gates thinks in 2007.


    There's zero evidence that he's any less a monopolizer today than he
    was back then.

    >Have you never had a change of mind?


    Irrelevant. Bill Gates has never had a "change of mind", when it
    comes to the issue of protecting and extending his monopoly, in any
    way he can.

    >Have you ever had a mind?


    Have you ever not been a piece of ****?

    >Bill Gates has shown a strong ability to adapt, you
    >should know,


    You mean when the courts force him to cease illegal/immoral behavior?

    >and that is why he is far richer than you could ever be.


    Nope. That's only one of several reasons. You are lying again.


  12. Re: Microsoft 'monopoly' comes under fire

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

    wrote
    on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:16:19 -0500
    :
    > gimme_this_gimme_that@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    >>OOXML should

    >
    > *plonk*
    >


    Would be nice, though I don't think Microsoft will give
    up *that* easily. :-) However, it appears ODF has already
    been standardized -- ISO/IEC 26300 -- and therefore
    Microsoft is "innovating" from behind again. The ODF is
    706 pages long, though the appendices start at page 693.
    Presumably, this is a complete spec; I'm not going to read
    the entire thing right now.

    http://www.oasis-open.org/committees...nt-v1.0-os.pdf

    Interestingly, ECMA has approved OOXML (Ecma 376). It
    is split into 5 parts at

    http://www.ecma-international.org/pu...s/Ecma-376.htm

    and I'm certainly *not* going to read all of them. :-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
    bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  13. Re: Microsoft 'monopoly' comes under fire

    On 2007-10-09, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > Microsoft is "innovating" from behind again. The ODF is
    > 706 pages long, though the appendices start at page 693.
    > Presumably, this is a complete spec; I'm not going to read
    > the entire thing right now.


    No, it's not anywhere near a complete spec. For example, only the
    basics of spreadsheets are covered. Formulas were left out. They will
    be covered in 1.2, which will incorporate the OpenFormula work.

    You can try this experiment to see just how much is missing here. Make
    a spreadsheet in OpenOffice, using assorted formulas from its rich set
    of available formulas (e.g., the trig functions, the financial
    functions, the statistical functions, etc). Save it, and examine the
    saved file.

    It will be easy to find your functions in the file, and you'll see that
    they are in a special OpenOffice namespace. Everything you see in that
    namespace is not covered by the ODF spec. It's an OpenOffice-specific
    extension.

  14. =?utf-8?Q?Re:_Microsoft_=CA=BDmonopoly=CA=BC_comes_u?==? utf-8?Q?nder_fire?=


    "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    news:QOOOi.960$ah6.560@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
    > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:09:23 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> What Bill Gates thought in 1999 is not necessarily
    >> what Bill Gates thinks in 2007.

    >
    > Is Bill Gates a flip-flopper? Perish the thought ...


    The term is "adapatble" or prehaps "versatile", maybe even "pragmatic".


  15. Re: Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJkgY29tZXMgdW5kZXIgZmly?==?UT F-8?B?ZQ==?=

    amicus_curious wrote:
    > "HighPlainsThumper" wrote...
    >
    >> Chinese academics and software developers gathered in
    >> Beijing yesterday to voice their opposition to Microsoft’s
    >> latest standard document format Office Open XML (OOXML).
    >>
    >> Major software developers, academics and industry
    >> associations spoke out against Microsoft’s ‘monopoly’ on the
    >> format of digital documents. Document format refers to how a
    >> digital file is coded. Microsoft’s document formats - such
    >> as .doc, .xls and .ppt - have been widely used all over the
    >> world since the company first began its dominance in the
    >> 1990s. quote Its document format has helped it to
    >> unprecedented success, setting a formidable barrier for
    >> other software companies, who must make Microsoft-compatible
    >> products and cannot access the core code of the format.
    >> „Microsoft’s move to make its OOXML format the international
    >> standard is an extension of its goal to maintain its
    >> monopoly in the world’s software market,” said Ni Guangnan,
    >> an academic from the Chinese Academy of Engineering. quote/

    >
    > With such an infantile analysis of how things work, it is no
    > wonder that Microsoft's opponents are always running on empty
    > and dead last to boot. The MS office formats didn't lead to
    > success, customer adoption of the MS Office programs led to
    > success. The format is only the manifestation of the need for
    > compatibility. People are locked into the
    > feature/function/benefit of MS Office, not to the format. If
    > Open Office had the same following, they would be locked into
    > using it and MS would have to cater to that.
    >
    > OOXML is simply a disclosure of what MS Office does so that a
    > competitor is not locked out. Get it right.


    Oh, really, you have to be kidding, China is infantile and didn't
    get it right .... hmmmm .... Then I guess Brazil didn't get it
    right, either:

    http://avi.alkalay.net/2007/08/ooxml...l-says-no.html

    After a very difficult and inconclusive meeting in ABNT
    (Brazilian Technical Standards Organization) office last tuesday,
    the standards process director had to analyze the audio recording
    of all the meeting, review some facts, review again all 63+2
    comments produced by the technical group about the ECMA
    specification, and conclude that a NO for OOXML is the correct
    position for Brazil in ISO Fast Track process.

    Brazil will fill the ISO form with a NO and will attach the 63+2
    technical comments to it.

    I was a member of the technical group that have studied OOXML
    specification extensively. I learned that it is unbelievable how
    ECMA (same guys that put together the JavaScript standard!) can
    think that a wannabe spec like OOXML is ready for submission. It
    is incomplete (does not provide mappings with legacy standards,
    since compatibility is OOXML goal), too long (6000+ pages), fully
    tied to a single product, uses deprecated substandards, promotes
    bad practices (embedded binary objects), has clear proprietary
    hooks (like “formatAsWord95″ XML tags), reinvents the wheel all
    around (date and color formats etc), and most of all does not
    have a standards-grade look and feel required for a universal and
    (virtually) eternal document format (doesn’t have to be perfect,
    but can’t be that imperfect).
    According to your argument, neither then did India get it right:

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Infotech/Software/
    India_throws_Microsoft_open_format_out_of_the_wind ow/
    articleshow/2305780.cms

    or http://tinyurl.com/2ot7z6

    India throws MS open format out of the window
    24 Aug, 2007, 0217 hrs IST, TNN

    NEW DELHI: India on Thursday gave Microsoft a thumbs-down in the
    war of standards for office documents.

    In a tense meeting at Delhi’s Manak Bhawan, the 21-member
    technical committee decided that India will vote a ‘no’ against
    Microsoft’s Open Office Extensible Mark Up Language (OOXML)
    standard at the International Standards Organisation (ISO) in
    Geneva on September 2.

    “We unanimously agree on the disapproval of OOXML with comments.
    The same will be submitted to ISO,” National Informatics Centre
    head and BIS technical committee chairperson Nita Verma said
    after a marathon meeting that lasted over six hours.
    --
    HPT

  16. Re: Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?4oCYbW9ub3BvbHnigJk=?= comes under fire

    Robin T Cox wrote:

    > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:09:23 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > > What Bill Gates thought in 1999 is not necessarily
    > > what Bill Gates thinks in 2007.

    >
    > Is Bill Gates a flip-flopper? Perish the thought ...


    Actually, bill gates is nothing but an opportunistic thief who would
    lie to his mother even if the truth sounded better. Microsoft itself
    was founded on a vendetta and built on a foundation of stolen
    technology. The fact that his story changes from day to day is just a
    naturally occurring side effect of a severely limited mind.


  17. Re: Microsoft ?monopoly? comes under fire

    On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 15:13:19 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:



    >"Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >news:QOOOi.960$ah6.560@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
    >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:09:23 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>> What Bill Gates thought in 1999 is not necessarily
    >>> what Bill Gates thinks in 2007.

    >>
    >> Is Bill Gates a flip-flopper? Perish the thought ...


    >The term is "adapatble" or prehaps "versatile", maybe even "pragmatic".


    moraly flexible

  18. Re: Microsoft ?monopoly? comes under fire

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    >>> Is Bill Gates a flip-flopper? Perish the thought ...

    >
    >>The term is "adapatble" or prehaps "versatile", maybe even "pragmatic".

    >
    >moraly flexible


    8)


  19. Re: Microsoft ?monopoly? comes under fire


    "AZ Nomad" wrote in message
    news:slrnfgnp90.7ch.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
    > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 15:13:19 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>"Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    >>news:QOOOi.960$ah6.560@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
    >>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:09:23 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> What Bill Gates thought in 1999 is not necessarily
    >>>> what Bill Gates thinks in 2007.
    >>>
    >>> Is Bill Gates a flip-flopper? Perish the thought ...

    >
    >>The term is "adapatble" or prehaps "versatile", maybe even "pragmatic".

    >
    > moraly flexible


    Disclosing or not disclosing software source is hardly a moral issue. You
    have been listening to the COLA choir for far too long.


  20. Re: Microsoft =?UTF-8?B?yr1tb25vcG9secq8?= comes under fire

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "Robin T Cox" wrote in message
    > news:QOOOi.960$ah6.560@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
    > > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:09:23 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    > >
    > >> What Bill Gates thought in 1999 is not necessarily
    > >> what Bill Gates thinks in 2007.

    > >
    > > Is Bill Gates a flip-flopper? Perish the thought ...

    >
    > The term is "adapatble" or prehaps "versatile", maybe even
    > "pragmatic".


    That's like calling a nymphomaniac crackwhore an "open minded",
    "willing", "companion".

    Truth is either one will tongue the rectum of whoever is holding the
    fattest bankroll first, and work downwards from there.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast