[News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!! - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!! - Linux ; Portugal will send Microsoft to the BRM ,----[ Quote ] | Microsoft, as president of the Portuguese Technical Committee, is already | controlling who will be at the BRM for Portugal. The Head of Delegation will | be... Microsoft! `---- ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!!

  1. [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!!

    Portugal will send Microsoft to the BRM

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft, as president of the Portuguese Technical Committee, is already
    | controlling who will be at the BRM for Portugal. The Head of Delegation will
    | be... Microsoft!
    `----

    http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-27501...oft-to-the-brm

    Please _do_ read the bits below. Absolutely amazing. Microsoft buys its vote
    to 'kill' ODF. Corruption in its full glory.


    Related:

    IBM is still locked out of the Portuguese OOXML meeting

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | In spite of various communications, we [IBM] are still locked out and will
    | not be allowed to participate. Microsoft will be there, as well as a special
    | Microsoft guest, as will various Microsoft business partners, and others.
    `----

    http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1755


    Portugal's ISO says no room for IBM & Sun in the room ! ?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | [PJ: OpenXML.info is reporting (in Portuguese, but a Groklaw member
    | translates for us) that the person who is head of the ISO technical committee
    | about to vote on Microsoft's Ecma-376 wouldn't let IBM and Sun
    | representatives in, claiming there was no room! This, if true, is ridiculous.
    | And ┬*here is a second source reporting the same thing, also in Portuguese. So
    | in the US, we hear reports of packing the TC. Now, it's weeding out those who
    | are not likely to vote a certain way desired? Is this how standards
    | get "approved"? I don't recall ODF having to play such games. Here is the
    | rough translation:] ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬*
    |
    | Portugal, and more concretely, its national organization of certification IPQ
    | is a member "O" (observator) of ISO/IEC for the voting of OOXML (ISO DIS
    | 29500). ┬*
    |
    | WARNING: the first meeting of the Technical Commission "Language for document
    | definition" was on Monday 16 of July. The vote was delayed. Representatives
    | of IBM and Sun were not allowed to attend because there "was no available
    | space in the room" ┬*
    |
    | Dear G [Sun Microsystems] due of restricted number of members of the CT
    | (Commissao Tecnica) that can attend the scheduled meeting room to host the
    | meeting, we cannot, in this stage, accept your proposal of integration of the
    | CT. ┬*
    |
    | With my best regards,
    | D [Microsoft as president of the Technical Commission]
    `----

    More here:

    http://mv.asterisco.pt/2007/Jun/cat.cgi?MS%20OOXML

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | ┬* ┬* * More details are emerging from Portugal regarding the kerfuffle there
    | ┬* ┬* over Ecma-376. If you read Portuguese, here you go -- just click on the
    | ┬* ┬* link. I asked a Groklaw member to do a rough translation, and if you see
    | ┬* ┬* ways to improve it, sing out, but it gives a bit of the history of how
    | ┬* ┬* this committee that has no room for Sun or IBM (see previous News Picks
    | ┬* ┬* item) was formed and how it happened to choose a Microsoft representative
    | ┬* ┬* to be president of the committee that decides whether to "approve"
    | ┬* ┬* Microsoft's submission as a "standard". Unless I'm missing something, it
    | ┬* ┬* appears to have been set up so Microsoft can "approve" itself. Now that's
    | ┬* ┬* handy. Here's the translation of the part about how Microsoft is
    | ┬* ┬* represented on this committeee with no room for IBM or Sun:] ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬*
    |
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* I was present on the meeting of the Technical Commission (CT) created
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* to award the ISO standards in the area of structured documents (in
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* Portugal) ┬*
    |
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* A Technical Commission (CT) did not exist when ISO 26300 (Open
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* Document) was submitted neither when there was a submission of OOXML
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* (ECMA 376, potential ISO 29500) for the the fast track, and that was
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* the reason why Portugal did not submit any opinion nor had any right to
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* vote. We expect that now, with the pressure made and the CT created
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* there would be right to vote. ┬* ┬*
    |
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* The CT was created by the Computing Institute, in which is delegated
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* the responsability for the norms of the IT sector; a delegation granted
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* by the Portuguese Institute of Quality (IPQ), the point of contact of
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* ISO in Portugal. Its creation is motivated mainly by the pressures and
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* availability of some people when the proposal for fast tracking of
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* OOXML and a neccessity to avail now the OOXML as standard ISO and as a
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* Portuguese National Standard ┬* ┬* ┬*
    |
    | ┬* ┬* ┬* In the meeting they were present:
    |
    | ┬* ┬* * 2 persons from II (Instituto de Informatica [Computing Institute])
    | ┬* ┬* * 1 person from the local government (Alentejo region)
    | ┬* ┬* * 1 person from Jurinfor [Jurinfor is a Microsoft partner]
    | ┬* ┬* * 2 persons from Microsoft
    | ┬* ┬* * 1 person from Primavera [Primavera is a Microsoft partner]
    | ┬* ┬* * 1 person from ISCTE
    | ┬* ┬* * 2 persons from Assoft [reportedly, most members of ASSOFT are Microsoft
    | ┬* ┬* partners]
    | ┬* ┬* * 1 person from the Inst. Informatica da Seg Social [Computing Institute
    | ┬* ┬* of the Social Welfare Department]
    | ┬* ┬* * 1 person from the Inst. Tecn. Informacao da Justi├ža (eu) [Technical
    | ┬* ┬* Institute Information of Justice (eu)]
    |
    | The meeting dealt basically with the bureaucracy details of the creation of
    | the CT. It didn't go into details of OOXML; that discussion will be held in
    | the next meeting, on July 16th about 14:30 in the II [Instituto de
    | Informatica, I assume] ┬*
    |
    | The CT, thus, was composed of 8 vocal elements, one representative for each
    | of the organizations present. The II [Instituto de Informatica] is arranging
    | and hosting the initiative and is a not-named representative. ┬*
    |
    | The 8 vocals will readily follow to the election of the president of the CT.
    | There was 1 candidate in the place (Miguel Sales Dias, from Microsoft). I did
    | not present my candidature but made myself available in case the rest of
    | representatives deemed it neccesary -- informed not adequate since to begin
    | with, as a member of the OpenDocument Alliance, I had a conflict of interest. ┬* ┬*
    |
    | The vote results were 7 votes in favor of Miguel Sales Dias, of Microsoft,
    | who was designated to preside over the CT, and a (1) blank vote.
    |
    | It was decided to adopt consensus as the form of adoption of any proposed
    | norm, following to majority vote in case there is no consensus in the CT and
    | if there is a strong opposition to submit any norm. ┬*
    `----


    Portugal: Votes Yes with Comments on OOXML

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Commitee presided over by Microsoft decides in it's favor 13-7:
    |
    | It's with much disgust that I see that after an initial membership controlled
    | by Microsoft of 7 to 1, it was only possible to add the participation of 12
    | more entities, 6 in favor of open standards, and 6 in favor of Microsoft. ┬*
    |
    | If from the the first meeting it was clear that there was a favorable support
    | for Microsoft of 7 to 1, the voting just an hour ago of YES WITH COMMENTS is
    | sadly revealing. ┬*
    `----

    http://www.groklaw.net/newsitems.php

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!!

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:28:07 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > Portugal will send Microsoft to the BRM
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    >| Microsoft, as president of the Portuguese Technical Committee, is already
    >| controlling who will be at the BRM for Portugal. The Head of Delegation will
    >| be... Microsoft!
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-27501...oft-to-the-brm


    Yeah, so what? You do realize that Sun or IBM were often the head of
    delegation in many countries for ODF, right?

  3. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!!

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:28:07 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> Portugal will send Microsoft to the BRM
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>| Microsoft, as president of the Portuguese Technical Committee, is
    >>| already controlling who will be at the BRM for Portugal. The Head of
    >>| Delegation will be... Microsoft!
    >> `----
    >>
    >>

    http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-27501...oft-to-the-brm
    >
    > Yeah, so what? You do realize that Sun or IBM were often the head of
    > delegation in many countries for ODF, right?


    Did they bribe too?
    --
    Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.


  4. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!!

    ____/ [H]omer on Thursday 22 November 2007 20:07 : \____

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Peter K├Âhlmann spake thusly:
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >
    >>> You do realize that Sun or IBM were often the head of delegation in
    >>> many countries for ODF, right?

    >>
    >> Did they bribe too?

    >
    > No, after all why would they? ODF is an /Open/ format, used primarily in
    > Free Software. Those promoting such a standard would have little to gain
    > financially from bribery. Even Lotus Symphony is free, and StarOffice is
    > little more than OpenOffice with a collection of templates and clip-art.
    > The sheer number of ODF adopters [1] (in application development), means
    > it would be rather difficult to accuse any /single/ company of trying to
    > create some kind of format lock-in.
    >
    > Microsoft, and their probably-MSO-dependant® Not-Really-Open® Oh-Oh-XML®
    > on the other hand ...
    >
    > Erik and other Microsoft apologists might as well face the fact, that MS
    > have been abusing document formats, and other "standards", as a means of
    > tying customers to their products for so long, that they are now totally
    > incapable of producing a truly Open standard. It's just not their nature
    > to do so. How will they lock customers in to their cash-cow without some
    > proprietary format, ensuring that MSO is a "requirement"? How indeed


    Even the horse has spoken.

    Halloween Memo I Confirmed and Microsoft's History on Standards

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | By the way, if you are by any chance trying to figure out Microsoft's policy
    | toward standards, particularly in the context of ODF-EOXML, that same
    | Microsoft page is revelatory, Microsoft's answer to what the memo meant when
    | it said that Microsoft could extend standard protocols so as to deny
    | Linux "entry into the market":
    |
    | Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way
    | to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?
    |
    | A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard
    | protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver
    | advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding
    | transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and
    | would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of standards,
    | of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would allow us to
    | solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our Web-based
    | customers that are not solved by any public standard today. Microsoft
    | recognizes that customers are not served by implementations that are
    | different without adding value; we therefore support standards as the
    | foundation on which further innovation can be based.
    `----

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...70127202224445


    ,----[ Quote ]
    | [Microsoft:] ...we should take the lead in establishing a common
    | approach to UI and to interoperability (of which OLE is only a part). Our
    | efforts to date are focussed too much on our own apps, and only incidentally
    | on the rest of the industry. We want to own these standards, so we should
    | not participate in standards groups. Rather, we should call 'to me' to the
    | industry and set a standard that works now and is for everyone's
    | benefit. We are large enough that this can work.
    `----

    http://www.os2site.com/sw/info/comes/px09509.zip

    > [1] http://opendocumentfellowship.com/applications





    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Othello for Win32/Linux: http://othellomaster.com
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Mem: 515500k total, 470052k used, 45448k free, 3868k buffers
    http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

  5. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!!

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > ____/ [H]omer on Thursday 22 November 2007 20:07 : \____
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Peter K÷hlmann spake thusly:
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >>
    >>>> You do realize that Sun or IBM were often the head of delegation in
    >>>> many countries for ODF, right?
    >>>
    >>> Did they bribe too?

    >>
    >> No, after all why would they? ODF is an /Open/ format, used primarily in
    >> Free Software. Those promoting such a standard would have little to gain
    >> financially from bribery. Even Lotus Symphony is free, and StarOffice is
    >> little more than OpenOffice with a collection of templates and clip-art.
    >> The sheer number of ODF adopters [1] (in application development), means
    >> it would be rather difficult to accuse any /single/ company of trying to
    >> create some kind of format lock-in.
    >>
    >> Microsoft, and their probably-MSO-dependant« Not-Really-Open« Oh-Oh-XML«
    >> on the other hand ...
    >>
    >> Erik and other Microsoft apologists might as well face the fact, that MS
    >> have been abusing document formats, and other "standards", as a means of
    >> tying customers to their products for so long, that they are now totally
    >> incapable of producing a truly Open standard. It's just not their nature
    >> to do so. How will they lock customers in to their cash-cow without some
    >> proprietary format, ensuring that MSO is a "requirement"? How indeed

    >
    > Even the horse has spoken.
    >
    > Halloween Memo I Confirmed and Microsoft's History on Standards
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    >| By the way, if you are by any chance trying to figure out Microsoft's policy
    >| toward standards, particularly in the context of ODF-EOXML, that same
    >| Microsoft page is revelatory, Microsoft's answer to what the memo meant when
    >| it said that Microsoft could extend standard protocols so as to deny
    >| Linux "entry into the market":
    >|
    >| Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way
    >| to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?
    >|
    >| A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard
    >| protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver
    >| advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding
    >| transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and
    >| would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of standards,
    >| of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would allow us to
    >| solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our Web-based
    >| customers that are not solved by any public standard today. Microsoft
    >| recognizes that customers are not served by implementations that are
    >| different without adding value; we therefore support standards as the
    >| foundation on which further innovation can be based.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...70127202224445
    >


    The problem I have with Microsoft leading any debate on OOXML is that,
    unlike a real standard, which is developed by multiple parties over a
    long period, OOXML is a collection of Microsoft proprietary things, over
    thousands of pages, which is unimplementable.

    There is *no way* that a Microsoft person should be chairing a debate on
    such an obvious corruption of the standards process.

    I do know about this - I was an ITU/UN rapporteur for many years.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  6. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!!

    ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 26 November 2007 08:47 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >> ____/ [H]omer on Thursday 22 November 2007 20:07 : \____
    >>
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Peter K├Âhlmann spake thusly:
    >>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> You do realize that Sun or IBM were often the head of delegation in
    >>>>> many countries for ODF, right?
    >>>>
    >>>> Did they bribe too?
    >>>
    >>> No, after all why would they? ODF is an /Open/ format, used primarily in
    >>> Free Software. Those promoting such a standard would have little to gain
    >>> financially from bribery. Even Lotus Symphony is free, and StarOffice is
    >>> little more than OpenOffice with a collection of templates and clip-art.
    >>> The sheer number of ODF adopters [1] (in application development), means
    >>> it would be rather difficult to accuse any /single/ company of trying to
    >>> create some kind of format lock-in.
    >>>
    >>> Microsoft, and their probably-MSO-dependant® Not-Really-Open® Oh-Oh-XML®
    >>> on the other hand ...
    >>>
    >>> Erik and other Microsoft apologists might as well face the fact, that MS
    >>> have been abusing document formats, and other "standards", as a means of
    >>> tying customers to their products for so long, that they are now totally
    >>> incapable of producing a truly Open standard. It's just not their nature
    >>> to do so. How will they lock customers in to their cash-cow without some
    >>> proprietary format, ensuring that MSO is a "requirement"? How indeed

    >>
    >> Even the horse has spoken.
    >>
    >> Halloween Memo I Confirmed and Microsoft's History on Standards
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>| By the way, if you are by any chance trying to figure out Microsoft's
    >>| policy toward standards, particularly in the context of ODF-EOXML, that
    >>| same Microsoft page is revelatory, Microsoft's answer to what the memo
    >>| meant when it said that Microsoft could extend standard protocols so as to
    >>| deny Linux "entry into the market":
    >>|
    >>| Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way
    >>| to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?
    >>|
    >>| A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard
    >>| protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver
    >>| advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding
    >>| transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and
    >>| would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of
    >>| standards, of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would
    >>| allow us to solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our
    >>| Web-based customers that are not solved by any public standard today.
    >>| Microsoft recognizes that customers are not served by implementations
    >>| that are different without adding value; we therefore support standards
    >>| as the foundation on which further innovation can be based.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...70127202224445
    >>

    >
    > The problem I have with Microsoft leading any debate on OOXML is that,
    > unlike a real standard, which is developed by multiple parties over a
    > long period, OOXML is a collection of Microsoft proprietary things, over
    > thousands of pages, which is unimplementable.
    >
    > There is *no way* that a Microsoft person should be chairing a debate on
    > such an obvious corruption of the standards process.
    >
    > I do know about this - I was an ITU/UN rapporteur for many years.


    It gets worse because I believe that they are even corrupting the Linux world
    (by association and proxies). They flip the Free software people in their
    favour...

    http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/25/...ndation-ooxml/

    I'm virtually bullied by these people at the moment. I've received like 10
    angry E-mails so far today (and it's only 9 AM).

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Vista: as the reputation of "Longhorn" was mucked
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 149 total, 1 running, 148 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

  7. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!!

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 26 November 2007 08:47 : \____
    >
    >> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>> ____/ [H]omer on Thursday 22 November 2007 20:07 : \____
    >>>
    >>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Peter K÷hlmann spake thusly:
    >>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> You do realize that Sun or IBM were often the head of delegation in
    >>>>>> many countries for ODF, right?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Did they bribe too?
    >>>>
    >>>> No, after all why would they? ODF is an /Open/ format, used primarily in
    >>>> Free Software. Those promoting such a standard would have little to gain
    >>>> financially from bribery. Even Lotus Symphony is free, and StarOffice is
    >>>> little more than OpenOffice with a collection of templates and clip-art.
    >>>> The sheer number of ODF adopters [1] (in application development), means
    >>>> it would be rather difficult to accuse any /single/ company of trying to
    >>>> create some kind of format lock-in.
    >>>>
    >>>> Microsoft, and their probably-MSO-dependant« Not-Really-Open« Oh-Oh-XML«
    >>>> on the other hand ...
    >>>>
    >>>> Erik and other Microsoft apologists might as well face the fact, that MS
    >>>> have been abusing document formats, and other "standards", as a means of
    >>>> tying customers to their products for so long, that they are now totally
    >>>> incapable of producing a truly Open standard. It's just not their nature
    >>>> to do so. How will they lock customers in to their cash-cow without some
    >>>> proprietary format, ensuring that MSO is a "requirement"? How indeed
    >>>
    >>> Even the horse has spoken.
    >>>
    >>> Halloween Memo I Confirmed and Microsoft's History on Standards
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>| By the way, if you are by any chance trying to figure out Microsoft's
    >>>| policy toward standards, particularly in the context of ODF-EOXML, that
    >>>| same Microsoft page is revelatory, Microsoft's answer to what the memo
    >>>| meant when it said that Microsoft could extend standard protocols so as to
    >>>| deny Linux "entry into the market":
    >>>|
    >>>| Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way
    >>>| to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?
    >>>|
    >>>| A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard
    >>>| protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver
    >>>| advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding
    >>>| transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and
    >>>| would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of
    >>>| standards, of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would
    >>>| allow us to solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our
    >>>| Web-based customers that are not solved by any public standard today.
    >>>| Microsoft recognizes that customers are not served by implementations
    >>>| that are different without adding value; we therefore support standards
    >>>| as the foundation on which further innovation can be based.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...70127202224445
    >>>

    >>
    >> The problem I have with Microsoft leading any debate on OOXML is that,
    >> unlike a real standard, which is developed by multiple parties over a
    >> long period, OOXML is a collection of Microsoft proprietary things, over
    >> thousands of pages, which is unimplementable.
    >>
    >> There is *no way* that a Microsoft person should be chairing a debate on
    >> such an obvious corruption of the standards process.
    >>
    >> I do know about this - I was an ITU/UN rapporteur for many years.

    >
    > It gets worse because I believe that they are even corrupting the Linux world
    > (by association and proxies). They flip the Free software people in their
    > favour...
    >
    > http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/25/...ndation-ooxml/
    >
    > I'm virtually bullied by these people at the moment. I've received like 10
    > angry E-mails so far today (and it's only 9 AM).
    >


    Maybe they should clean up their act, then? Silly sods. Is this more
    of the de Icaza influence here, do you suppose?

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  8. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!!

    On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:02:26 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > It gets worse because I believe that they are even corrupting the Linux world
    > (by association and proxies). They flip the Free software people in their
    > favour...
    >
    > http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/25/...ndation-ooxml/
    >
    > I'm virtually bullied by these people at the moment. I've received like 10
    > angry E-mails so far today (and it's only 9 AM).


    Wow.

    Read down the comments. It's hilarious. Roy's "If you're not against
    OOXML, you're for it" arguments are stupid.

    Then, towards the bottom, he claims that the only reason someone would deny
    an accusation is if it were true.

  9. Re: [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Corruptions Are Back!!!

    ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 26 November 2007 13:47 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 26 November 2007 08:47 : \____
    >>
    >>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>> ____/ [H]omer on Thursday 22 November 2007 20:07 : \____
    >>>>
    >>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Peter K├Âhlmann spake thusly:
    >>>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> You do realize that Sun or IBM were often the head of delegation in
    >>>>>>> many countries for ODF, right?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Did they bribe too?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, after all why would they? ODF is an /Open/ format, used primarily in
    >>>>> Free Software. Those promoting such a standard would have little to gain
    >>>>> financially from bribery. Even Lotus Symphony is free, and StarOffice is
    >>>>> little more than OpenOffice with a collection of templates and clip-art.
    >>>>> The sheer number of ODF adopters [1] (in application development), means
    >>>>> it would be rather difficult to accuse any /single/ company of trying to
    >>>>> create some kind of format lock-in.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Microsoft, and their probably-MSO-dependant® Not-Really-Open® Oh-Oh-XML®
    >>>>> on the other hand ...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Erik and other Microsoft apologists might as well face the fact, that MS
    >>>>> have been abusing document formats, and other "standards", as a means of
    >>>>> tying customers to their products for so long, that they are now totally
    >>>>> incapable of producing a truly Open standard. It's just not their nature
    >>>>> to do so. How will they lock customers in to their cash-cow without some
    >>>>> proprietary format, ensuring that MSO is a "requirement"? How indeed
    >>>>
    >>>> Even the horse has spoken.
    >>>>
    >>>> Halloween Memo I Confirmed and Microsoft's History on Standards
    >>>>
    >>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>>| By the way, if you are by any chance trying to figure out Microsoft's
    >>>>| policy toward standards, particularly in the context of ODF-EOXML, that
    >>>>| same Microsoft page is revelatory, Microsoft's answer to what the memo
    >>>>| meant when it said that Microsoft could extend standard protocols so as
    >>>>| to deny Linux "entry into the market":
    >>>>|
    >>>>| Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a
    >>>>| way to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?
    >>>>|
    >>>>| A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above
    >>>>| standard protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able
    >>>>| to deliver advanced functionality to users. An example of this is
    >>>>| adding transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a
    >>>>| value-add and would in no way break the standard or undermine the
    >>>>| concept of standards, of which Microsoft is a significant supporter.
    >>>>| Yet it would allow us to solve a class of problems in value chain
    >>>>| integration for our Web-based customers that are not solved by any
    >>>>| public standard today. Microsoft recognizes that customers are not
    >>>>| served by implementations that are different without adding value; we
    >>>>| therefore support standards as the foundation on which further
    >>>>| innovation can be based.
    >>>> `----
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...70127202224445
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> The problem I have with Microsoft leading any debate on OOXML is that,
    >>> unlike a real standard, which is developed by multiple parties over a
    >>> long period, OOXML is a collection of Microsoft proprietary things, over
    >>> thousands of pages, which is unimplementable.
    >>>
    >>> There is *no way* that a Microsoft person should be chairing a debate on
    >>> such an obvious corruption of the standards process.
    >>>
    >>> I do know about this - I was an ITU/UN rapporteur for many years.

    >>
    >> It gets worse because I believe that they are even corrupting the Linux
    >> world (by association and proxies). They flip the Free software people in
    >> their favour...
    >>
    >> http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/25/...ndation-ooxml/
    >>
    >> I'm virtually bullied by these people at the moment. I've received like 10
    >> angry E-mails so far today (and it's only 9 AM).
    >>

    >
    > Maybe they should clean up their act, then? Silly sods. Is this more
    > of the de Icaza influence here, do you suppose?


    In a separate (later) post, Jeff admitted his mistake and he's in hot waters
    now (developers and investors are watching). He's fuming (still getting
    E-mails), but only because we unveiled the truth.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Swap: 1510068k total, 233784k used, 1276284k free, 78588k cached
    http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

+ Reply to Thread