OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!! - Linux

This is a discussion on OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!! - Linux ; On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:06:47 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: > I don't support everything Microsoft does. If there's anything non-trivial they've done in the last ten years that you haven't supported, I've yet to see it. -- -| Bob ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

  1. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:06:47 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch
    wrote:

    > I don't support everything Microsoft does.


    If there's anything non-trivial they've done in the last ten years that
    you haven't supported, I've yet to see it.


    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  2. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    Linonut wrote:
    > * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> In reality


    [snip FUDenbusch's "reality" shift]

    > http://www.groklaw.com/
    >
    > Expect a 2nd Official Complaint -- Against UK's OOXML Vote , 01:50 PM
    >
    > The France Shift From No to Abstain -- HP helped Microsoft France do
    > it, 09:46 PM
    >
    > Formal Protest Filed Asking that Norway's Vote Be Annulled & KEI
    > Statement, Monday 02:47 PM
    >
    > New Zealand Votes No; Malaysia Tech Recommends No but It Abstains
    > Anyway: Australia Abstains; India Suggests, Monday 04:50 AM
    >
    > OOXML Vote: Irregularities in Germany & Croatia and a Call for an
    > Investigation of Norway, Saturday 02:03 PM
    >
    > What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on
    > Results, Friday 09:30 AM


    There's also this:

    Portugal: all claimed that CONDITIONAL APPROVAL is APPROVE WITH
    COMMENTS, contrary to the rules ... huge number of participants which
    reflect Microsoft's interest (Microsoft, an agency pretending to
    represent local public administration of Alentejo, several certified
    gold partners)

    ....

    Brazil: committee stuffing (Microsoft is funding the assistance
    (including all expenses) of most of their partners in the country)

    Colombia: committee stuffing

    Croatia: noooxml article

    Denmark: committee stuffing

    Egypt: committee stuffing

    Finland: chairman fired

    Hungary: rule bending (deadlines and majority rules were bent in favor
    of Microsoft; after a complaint, the government annulled the vote)

    India: astroturfing
    http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-44038...port-for-ooxml

    Italy: committee stuffing (The number of members of the committee in
    charge of to decide the vote of Italy suddenly grew from 5 to 83 after
    Microsoft introduced a lot of its local partners paying 2.000 EUR per
    each one to be in it and get voting rights.)

    Kenya: committee stuffing

    Libya: Unfortunately it seems that ISO is the first one not following
    its own standards: Libya tried to submit its comments in ISO
    19500-1:2005 (PDF/A) and ISO 26300 (OpenDocument), but they were not
    accepted by ISO itself.

    Malaysia: (the two responsible technical committees reached the
    conclusion "no with comments"; this was then overridden by government,
    bowing to pressure from Microsoft)

    Mexico: committee stuffing and manipulation (NB voters were sent a
    'pre-approved' form e-mail for their vote

    Netherlands: denial-of-service (Microsoft alone vetoed the committee
    decision ("no with comments") without providing any technical arguments,
    thus preventing NL from submitting comments)

    Nigeria: committee stuffing. "Out of the estimated 19 participants, only
    four supposedly represented civil society group, while the rest were
    made up of government officials and Microsoft partners."

    Norway: committee stuffing, flooding jtc1sc34 a mixed blessing,
    Microsoft denial of paying the letters writing of its 37 partners

    Pakistan presents: "About presents well Microsoft did sent out offer
    for a fully paid trip to Dubai to promote the awareness about
    Microsofts's contribution in Open Source and quite a few members did
    took the trip."

    Poland: after the responsible technical committee reached an unwelcome
    result ("no with comments") the subject was taken out of its hands and
    given to another committee which quickly rubber-stamped Microsoft's
    proposal, ''discrimination'' (several OOXML critical participants were
    not admitted to the technical committee)

    Russia: voting irregularity (It is uncertain whether the "technical
    committee number 22" which was working on this had any impact on the
    vote, as the approval appears to trace back to a single individual
    dictating Russia's official vote of "yes" without any comments. No
    official protocols or documents have been presented to justify that vote.)

    Serbia: article

    Spain: spreading misinformation (Microsoft announced that, among others,
    the autonomous region of Andalusia has urged acceptance of OOXML, while
    in fact it was strongly opposed)

    Sweden: vote buying (Microsoft urged its partners to join the technical
    committee and vote there in favor of OOXML, promising to make up the
    incurring costs by "market subsidies", this was admitted (and regretted)
    by Microsoft [nyteknik.se] (Swedish)) [vuorio blog]and
    [computerworld.com] (eventually, the vote was declared invalid

    Switzerland: committee stuffing (number of committee members increased
    from 20 to 50 just before the OOXML vote), conflict of interest
    (improper dismissal of technical comments by chairperson); the result
    has been appealed

    Ukraine: discrimination (competitors not allowed in the technical committee)

    USA: committee stuffing, change of vote of government agencies through
    Bill Gates intervention

    Venezuela: discrimination (competitors not allowed in the technical
    committee)

    Germany voting irregularity wirtschaftswoche, strong complaints of Rolf
    Schuster (foreign office) at OFE conference

    Jordan: support letter to other standard bodies

    Malta: government officials as part of the Voices for Innovation
    astroturf http://www.voicesforinnovation.org/P...20Members.aspx

    Germany: Lower Saxony Ministry of Justice

    Turkey: submitted fan fiction as a comment
    http://www.noooxml.org/irregularities

    > You're dazed, Erik.


    The corruption in this process is stunningly obvious. Anyone who can
    still support OOXML, and Microsoft's methods in forcing this to become a
    "standard", must therefore be equally corrupt.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    14:38:46 up 103 days, 11:14, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.02

  3. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    Bob Hauck wrote:

    >On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:06:47 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I don't support everything Microsoft does.

    >
    >If there's anything non-trivial they've done in the last ten years that
    >you haven't supported, I've yet to see it.


    Not to mention stuff like this:

    "the only reason i find tabbed browsing marginally useful is the way
    MS implemented it. " - Erik Funkenbusch


  4. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    * [H]omer peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> In reality

    >
    > [snip FUDenbusch's "reality" shift]


    Is that a new version of the Funky Shuffle?

    > Portugal: all claimed that CONDITIONAL APPROVAL is APPROVE WITH
    > Brazil: committee stuffing (Microsoft is funding the assistance
    > Colombia: committee stuffing
    > Croatia: noooxml article
    > Denmark: committee stuffing
    > Egypt: committee stuffing
    > Finland: chairman fired
    > Hungary: rule bending (deadlines and majority rules were bent in favor
    > India: astroturfing
    > Italy: committee stuffing (The number of members of the committee in
    > Kenya: committee stuffing
    > Libya: Unfortunately it seems that ISO is the first one not following
    > Malaysia: (the two responsible technical committees reached the
    > Mexico: committee stuffing and manipulation (NB voters were sent a
    > Netherlands: denial-of-service (Microsoft alone vetoed the committee
    > Nigeria: committee stuffing. "Out of the estimated 19 participants, only
    > Norway: committee stuffing, flooding jtc1sc34 a mixed blessing,
    > Pakistan presents: "About presents well Microsoft did sent out offer
    > Poland: after the responsible technical committee reached an unwelcome
    > Russia: voting irregularity (It is uncertain whether the "technical
    > Serbia: article
    > Spain: spreading misinformation (Microsoft announced that, among others,
    > Sweden: vote buying (Microsoft urged its partners to join the technical
    > Switzerland: committee stuffing (number of committee members increased
    > Ukraine: discrimination (competitors not allowed in the technical committee)
    > USA: committee stuffing, change of vote of government agencies through
    > Venezuela: discrimination (competitors not allowed in the technical
    > Germany voting irregularity wirtschaftswoche, strong complaints of Rolf
    > Jordan: support letter to other standard bodies
    > Malta: government officials as part of the Voices for Innovation
    > Germany: Lower Saxony Ministry of Justice
    > Turkey: submitted fan fiction as a comment


    What you talkin' Homey? That's only 33 out of 200 countries!

    > http://www.noooxml.org/irregularities
    >
    > The corruption in this process is stunningly obvious. Anyone who can
    > still support OOXML, and Microsoft's methods in forcing this to become a
    > "standard", must therefore be equally corrupt.



    --
    If something's expensive to develop, and somebody's not going to get paid,
    it won't get developed. So you decide: Do you want software to be
    written, or not?
    -- Bill Gates

  5. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:47:48 -0500, chrisv wrote:

    > Bob Hauck wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:06:47 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I don't support everything Microsoft does.

    >>
    >>If there's anything non-trivial they've done in the last ten years that
    >>you haven't supported, I've yet to see it.

    >
    > Not to mention stuff like this:
    >
    > "the only reason i find tabbed browsing marginally useful is the way
    > MS implemented it. " - Erik Funkenbusch


    Marginally.

    Likewise, I cahnged my opinion on Virtual Desktops because of the way
    Compiz implements it. I don't find normal virtual desktops useful, but
    something about the compiz method makes it easier for me to visualize where
    my work is.

    But, I suppose that fact must mean that i unconditionally approve of Linux
    then.

  6. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > But, I suppose that fact must mean that i unconditionally approve of Linux
    > then.


    You can claim to "suppose" anything you want, FUDmeister, but don't try to
    imply that it's the advocates who think anything like your illogical
    nonsense above. Jerk.


  7. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 07:52:03 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:12:23 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nice graphic. I truly wonder what caused Erik to go down what seems to
    >>> be a lifelong path of unconditional support for just about everything
    >>> Microsoft does.

    >>
    >> I don't support everything Microsoft does. But there are times when people
    >> just can't seem to see when they're being manipulated, and I hate to say
    >> it, but you're fallen hook, line and sinker.

    >
    > Bull****.
    >
    > Show me the articles.


    There's plenty of evidence, just open your eyes and use your own brain
    instead of accepting what's being fed to you.

    How do you reconcile the fact that Pro-ODF proponents criticize OOXML for
    the very failings that ODF has (and admitted they have)?

    How do you reconcile the fact that the Pro-ODF proponents criticize OOXML
    for not defining in detail things which are explicitly stated as depricated
    and not to be used? There is a valid argument as to whether or not such
    elements should be included in the standard, but there is no valid argument
    as to whether the fields need to be defined, since they're not to be used
    in the first place.

    How do you reconcile the fact that Sun's and IBM's licensing terms are
    nearly identical to those of Microsoft's, yet ODF proponents ignore their
    terms and criticize Microsoft's?

    How do you reconcile the fact that people, even supposedly credible people,
    are continuously misrepresenting the processes of the ISO, and pretending
    that votes for various things mean something other than what they were
    meant for?

    >> Certainly Microsoft has been aggressive on this, but IBM and Sun have been
    >> far more aggresstive and done a lot more to "corrupt" things than Microsoft
    >> could have.

    >
    > Bull****.
    >
    > Show me the articles.


    Hundreds of extensive articles written by IBM and Sun employees. Those
    same employees visiting all the blogs, and seeding others with the same
    bits of misinformation and spin.

    All you have to do is read just about anything here:

    http://www.robweir.com/blog/
    http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/
    http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/
    http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/

    All 4 of those are blogs by people paid to have an opinion contrary to
    OOXML. Rob Weir grudgingly mentions he's an IBM employee in his About.
    Bob Sutor is, of course, an IBM VP. Open Malaysia is run by a guy named
    Hasannudin Saidin (who goes by Hasan) and is an IBM Malaysia spokesperson
    (but neglects to mention that anywhere on the blog). And of coruse
    consortiuminfo is run by Andy Updegrove, the lawyer for OASIS.

    This is where 95%+ of the "opinions" about OOXML originate. 95%+ of the
    "facts" that people claim to dislike about OOXML come from these sources.

    >>> Anyway, after reading about how many technical groups were basically
    >>> overruled, I think that Microsoft's outrageous shenanigans are only part
    >>> of the reason for the quixotic process and quixotic vote changes.

    >>
    >> No, what you're reading about is where the process is being misrepresented.
    >> People are upset because, by the rules of the various NB's, they aren't
    >> getting their way.

    >
    > I guess they don't have government of, by, and for the People like we do
    > here, then.
    >
    > But I'm sure you can find justification for ramming a large, apparently
    > very flawed, vendor-specific, standards document through a fast-track
    > process whereby (like Massachusetts) government personnel deliberately
    > go against the recommendations of their technical committees.


    You should read Standards Norge's response to the FUD about their process.

    http://www.standard.no/imaker.exe?id=18645

    That's in Norgwegian, but there's a translation here (yes, it's a Microsoft
    blog)

    http://notes2self.net/archive/2008/0...legations.aspx

    Basically, what he's saying is that they followed ISO and Standards Norge
    procedures, and that the majority of people voting "no" did so in bad
    faith, with no clear intention of helping to improve the process. Since
    the rules require anyone voting no to provide comments and in good faith
    help to improve the standard, these bad faith votes couldn't be counted
    since no consensus could be reached.

    In other words, a majority of voters had no intention of doing anything but
    voting no, and had no interest in improving the standard.

    Those that voted no with comments largely had their comments addressed.
    Those that simply voted no gave no opportunity to have their comments
    addressed, therefore they were ignored.

    Further, Standards Norge is under no requirement to vote as their
    committees vote, and they have voted contrary to them on several occasions
    where it was believed to be in the best interst of Norway. In this
    particular case, they believed that Standards Norge was in a good position
    to help mature the standard over time, just as they have with ODF.

    It's pretty clear that there was no "corruption' here. Standards Norge
    voted in their best interst, which is what all NB's do at one level or
    another. They have a sound, reasoned argument as to why they voted the way
    they did. Just because people disagree with it, doesn't mean they can
    scream "corruption" in a crowded BRM meeting.

    Oh, you might also want to read the latest from Patrick Durasau.

    http://www.durusau.net/publications/...dsbehavior.pdf

    "Non-Standard Guide to Standards Behavior
    The following is a short guide to behavior in standards committees and
    standards making in general.
    1. Disparage the honesty (intellectual or moral) of others.
    2. Disagreement with you is always the result of evil plans and designs.
    3. Compromise is just another word for cowardice.
    4. Rules should be followed, but only when to your advantage.
    5. Chairs, conveners, editors, should be serve only so long as their views
    agree with yours.
    6. People change positions but only by selling out.
    7. People who agree with your opponents are clones/whores/lackies.
    8. People who agree with you are besieged servants of truth, justice and
    human rights.
    9. Never forget past transgressions, both real and imagined.
    10. Remember to always point out the failures of others."

    It's clear that the open source community is used to getting their way, and
    they're willing to do and say anything, no matter how unethical, to get
    their way.

    They're a bunch of Hillary Clintons.

  8. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:48:51 -0500, chrisv wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> But, I suppose that fact must mean that i unconditionally approve of Linux
    >> then.

    >
    > You can claim to "suppose" anything you want, FUDmeister, but don't try to
    > imply that it's the advocates who think anything like your illogical
    > nonsense above. Jerk.


    There you go with your dishonest snipping of context again.

    It's called logical deduction. If my changing my opinion about one thing
    based on a MS implementation means i'm unconditionally approving of
    Microsoft, then what must the same behavior of a Linux feature that I
    changed my mind about mean?

    Come on? What does it mean?

    Answer.

  9. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:48:51 -0500, chrisv wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> But, I suppose that fact must mean that i unconditionally approve of Linux
    >>> then.

    >>
    >> You can claim to "suppose" anything you want, FUDmeister, but don't try to
    >> imply that it's the advocates who think anything like your illogical
    >> nonsense above. Jerk.

    >
    > There you go with your dishonest snipping of context again.


    Nothing "dishonest" about it, you lying cretin. How ironic.

    > It's called logical deduction.


    It's called dishonest illogic.

    > If my changing my opinion about one thing
    > based on a MS implementation means i'm unconditionally approving of
    > Microsoft, then what must the same behavior of a Linux feature that I
    > changed my mind about mean?


    False premise. I've never claimed or implied that you "unconditionally"
    approve of Microsoft, only that you defend them and apologize for them
    regularly and often dishonestly.

    > Come on? What does it mean?


    Does it mean that you really made an ass of yourself on the
    tabbed-browsing issue? I think it does...

    > Answer.


    See above, FUD'ster.


  10. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 07:52:03 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> Show me the articles.

    >
    > There's plenty of evidence, just open your eyes and use your own brain
    > instead of accepting what's being fed to you.


    Dude, how do you think I found this information about OOXML in the first
    place?

    Nobody fed me anything.

    > How do you reconcile the fact that Pro-ODF proponents criticize OOXML for
    > the very failings that ODF has (and admitted they have)?


    I don't feel any need to reconcile it. The fact is that ODF went
    through with much less fuss and fanfare, and certainly not the
    aggressive tactics of Microsoft.

    > How do you reconcile the fact that the Pro-ODF proponents criticize OOXML
    > for not defining in detail things which are explicitly stated as depricated
    > and not to be used? There is a valid argument as to whether or not such
    > elements should be included in the standard, but there is no valid argument
    > as to whether the fields need to be defined, since they're not to be used
    > in the first place.


    That's fine, but is a very small point in the big picture.

    > How do you reconcile the fact that Sun's and IBM's licensing terms are
    > nearly identical to those of Microsoft's, yet ODF proponents ignore their
    > terms and criticize Microsoft's?


    I've already answered that, Erik. Microsoft's record speaks for itself.

    Unless you have a signed agreement with Microsoft, drafted with the help
    of a team of lawyers and a lot of brainstorming and sleepless nights,
    you'd be stupid to trust Microsoft.

    > How do you reconcile the fact that people, even supposedly credible people,
    > are continuously misrepresenting the processes of the ISO, and pretending
    > that votes for various things mean something other than what they were
    > meant for?


    It's the blog-o-sphere. Get real.

    >>> Certainly Microsoft has been aggressive on this, but IBM and Sun have been
    >>> far more aggresstive and done a lot more to "corrupt" things than Microsoft
    >>> could have.

    >>
    >> Bull****.
    >>
    >> Show me the articles.

    >
    > Hundreds of extensive articles written by IBM and Sun employees. Those
    > same employees visiting all the blogs, and seeding others with the same
    > bits of misinformation and spin.
    >
    > All you have to do is read just about anything here:
    >
    > http://www.robweir.com/blog/
    > http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/
    > http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/
    > http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/
    >
    > All 4 of those are blogs by people paid to have an opinion contrary to
    > OOXML. Rob Weir grudgingly mentions he's an IBM employee in his About.
    > Bob Sutor is, of course, an IBM VP. Open Malaysia is run by a guy named
    > Hasannudin Saidin (who goes by Hasan) and is an IBM Malaysia spokesperson
    > (but neglects to mention that anywhere on the blog). And of coruse
    > consortiuminfo is run by Andy Updegrove, the lawyer for OASIS.
    >
    > This is where 95%+ of the "opinions" about OOXML originate. 95%+ of the
    > "facts" that people claim to dislike about OOXML come from these sources.


    You're paranoid, man. I've found quite a few other sources that have
    nothing to do with IBM or Sun.

    As I said, I've done some research on my own.

    > You should read Standards Norge's response to the FUD about their process.
    >
    > http://www.standard.no/imaker.exe?id=18645
    >
    > That's in Norgwegian, but there's a translation here (yes, it's a Microsoft
    > blog)
    >
    > http://notes2self.net/archive/2008/0...legations.aspx


    One down, thirty to go, Erik.

    > Basically, what he's saying is that they followed ISO and Standards Norge
    > procedures, and that the majority of people voting "no" did so in bad
    > faith, with no clear intention of helping to improve the process. Since
    > the rules require anyone voting no to provide comments and in good faith
    > help to improve the standard, these bad faith votes couldn't be counted
    > since no consensus could be reached.
    >
    > In other words, a majority of voters had no intention of doing anything but
    > voting no, and had no interest in improving the standard.


    FUD. The articles does not indicate that.

    > http://www.durusau.net/publications/...dsbehavior.pdf
    >
    > "Non-Standard Guide to Standards Behavior
    > The following is a short guide to behavior in standards committees and
    > standards making in general.
    > 1. Disparage the honesty (intellectual or moral) of others.
    > 2. Disagreement with you is always the result of evil plans and designs.
    > 3. Compromise is just another word for cowardice.
    > 4. Rules should be followed, but only when to your advantage.
    > 5. Chairs, conveners, editors, should be serve only so long as their views
    > agree with yours.
    > 6. People change positions but only by selling out.
    > 7. People who agree with your opponents are clones/whores/lackies.
    > 8. People who agree with you are besieged servants of truth, justice and
    > human rights.
    > 9. Never forget past transgressions, both real and imagined.
    > 10. Remember to always point out the failures of others."
    >
    > It's clear that the open source community is used to getting their way, and
    > they're willing to do and say anything, no matter how unethical, to get
    > their way.
    >
    > They're a bunch of Hillary Clintons.


    And with that final flourish of logic, I think we can understand that
    the basis for your extended rant above is simply... hatred.

    --
    Sometimes we do get taken by surprise. For example, when the Internet came
    along, we had it as a fifth or sixth priority. It wasn't like somebody told
    me about it and I said, "I don't know how to spell that." I said, "Yeah,
    I've got that on my list, so I'm okay." But there came a point when we
    realized it was happening faster and was a much deeper phenomenon than
    had been recognized in our strategy.
    -- Bill Gates, Speech at the University of Washington, as reported in
    "Gates, Buffett a bit bearish" CNET News (2 July 1998) [1]

  11. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    In article ,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I also
    > know they won't actually do anything about it (and i've said so in here
    > numerous times). Which is also why I don't buy the argument against OOXML
    > regarding patents. To date, Microsoft has still never used patents


    A better reason not to buy the anti-OOXML patent FUD is that Microsoft
    has made a legally binding promise not to enforce patents against OOXML
    implementations.



    --
    --Tim Smith

  12. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:41:16 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 07:52:03 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> Show me the articles.

    >>
    >> There's plenty of evidence, just open your eyes and use your own brain
    >> instead of accepting what's being fed to you.

    >
    > Dude, how do you think I found this information about OOXML in the first
    > place?
    >
    > Nobody fed me anything.


    I beg to differ.

    >> How do you reconcile the fact that Pro-ODF proponents criticize OOXML for
    >> the very failings that ODF has (and admitted they have)?

    >
    > I don't feel any need to reconcile it. The fact is that ODF went
    > through with much less fuss and fanfare, and certainly not the
    > aggressive tactics of Microsoft.


    Because there wasn't a coordinated attack campaign designed to influence
    people otherwise.

    >> How do you reconcile the fact that Sun's and IBM's licensing terms are
    >> nearly identical to those of Microsoft's, yet ODF proponents ignore their
    >> terms and criticize Microsoft's?

    >
    > I've already answered that, Erik. Microsoft's record speaks for itself.


    License terms are license terms, regardless of who they're from. They're
    interpreted by a court of law.

    > Unless you have a signed agreement with Microsoft, drafted with the help
    > of a team of lawyers and a lot of brainstorming and sleepless nights,
    > you'd be stupid to trust Microsoft.


    Funny that it's typically companies like Sun that do all the suing.

    >>>> Certainly Microsoft has been aggressive on this, but IBM and Sun have been
    >>>> far more aggresstive and done a lot more to "corrupt" things than Microsoft
    >>>> could have.
    >>>
    >>> Bull****.
    >>>
    >>> Show me the articles.

    >>
    >> Hundreds of extensive articles written by IBM and Sun employees. Those
    >> same employees visiting all the blogs, and seeding others with the same
    >> bits of misinformation and spin.
    >>
    >> All you have to do is read just about anything here:
    >>
    >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/
    >> http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/
    >> http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/
    >> http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/
    >>
    >> All 4 of those are blogs by people paid to have an opinion contrary to
    >> OOXML. Rob Weir grudgingly mentions he's an IBM employee in his About.
    >> Bob Sutor is, of course, an IBM VP. Open Malaysia is run by a guy named
    >> Hasannudin Saidin (who goes by Hasan) and is an IBM Malaysia spokesperson
    >> (but neglects to mention that anywhere on the blog). And of coruse
    >> consortiuminfo is run by Andy Updegrove, the lawyer for OASIS.
    >>
    >> This is where 95%+ of the "opinions" about OOXML originate. 95%+ of the
    >> "facts" that people claim to dislike about OOXML come from these sources.

    >
    > You're paranoid, man. I've found quite a few other sources that have
    > nothing to do with IBM or Sun.


    Those sources are simply parroting what they were told by those sources.

    > As I said, I've done some research on my own.


    Such as?

    >> You should read Standards Norge's response to the FUD about their process.
    >>
    >> http://www.standard.no/imaker.exe?id=18645
    >>
    >> That's in Norgwegian, but there's a translation here (yes, it's a Microsoft
    >> blog)
    >>
    >> http://notes2self.net/archive/2008/0...legations.aspx

    >
    > One down, thirty to go, Erik.


    Then you should read the DIN's response as well.

    http://www.din.de/cmd?level=tpl-arti...&languageid=en

    >> Basically, what he's saying is that they followed ISO and Standards Norge
    >> procedures, and that the majority of people voting "no" did so in bad
    >> faith, with no clear intention of helping to improve the process. Since
    >> the rules require anyone voting no to provide comments and in good faith
    >> help to improve the standard, these bad faith votes couldn't be counted
    >> since no consensus could be reached.
    >>
    >> In other words, a majority of voters had no intention of doing anything but
    >> voting no, and had no interest in improving the standard.

    >
    > FUD. The articles does not indicate that.


    Yes, it does.

    For example:

    "The main issue in the Norwegian committee meeting on March 28 was to
    clarify whether if our comments were given due consideration to the degree
    that we could change Norway¡¦s vote from No to Yes¡K. Prior to the meeting 21
    committee members had signe an open letter to Standard Norge which argued
    why Standard Norge should vot no to OOXML. Thus they had taken a position
    before the committee had discussed how our comments had been considered. In
    addition the letter also contained other and previously known arguments
    against the standardization proposal."

    Here they are saying that 21 members of the committee had their mind made
    up to reject OOXML before even hearing of the changes to the standard that
    occured at the BRM. It was clear to Standards Norge that these people were
    not intending to help promote the standard, only rail against it.

    "During the meeting it became clear that it was not possible to reach and
    agreement in the committee about how good or bad our comments had been
    treated in ISO."

    Again, there were too many people who were against it, so that they
    couldn't even discuss the events of the BRM. They couldn't come up with a
    consensus either for or against because of the prejudicial opinions.

    "Following consideration in the committee, at a meeting between delegates
    from the BRM-meeting and representatives from Standard Norge, there was a
    further effort made to create a degree of agreement which did not succeed."

    Again, nothing either for or against.

    " During the commentary rounds in the committee meetings there were many
    that made absolute demands to fulfillment of comments which confirmed that
    the rigid positions were well established. Standard Norge thus considered
    any further discussion as futile with regards to achieving agreement in the
    committee."

    They threw up their hands, because people were not there to argue in good
    faith, but rather strictly to vote "no".

    No, you're going to still say that's bull****?

    >> http://www.durusau.net/publications/...dsbehavior.pdf
    >>
    >> "Non-Standard Guide to Standards Behavior
    >> The following is a short guide to behavior in standards committees and
    >> standards making in general.
    >> 1. Disparage the honesty (intellectual or moral) of others.
    >> 2. Disagreement with you is always the result of evil plans and designs.
    >> 3. Compromise is just another word for cowardice.
    >> 4. Rules should be followed, but only when to your advantage.
    >> 5. Chairs, conveners, editors, should be serve only so long as their views
    >> agree with yours.
    >> 6. People change positions but only by selling out.
    >> 7. People who agree with your opponents are clones/whores/lackies.
    >> 8. People who agree with you are besieged servants of truth, justice and
    >> human rights.
    >> 9. Never forget past transgressions, both real and imagined.
    >> 10. Remember to always point out the failures of others."
    >>
    >> It's clear that the open source community is used to getting their way, and
    >> they're willing to do and say anything, no matter how unethical, to get
    >> their way.
    >>
    >> They're a bunch of Hillary Clintons.

    >
    > And with that final flourish of logic, I think we can understand that
    > the basis for your extended rant above is simply... hatred.


    No, it's frustration, given the vast number of people who seem to be unable
    to think for themselves.

  13. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:32:55 +0200, OK wrote:

    >On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:19:27 +0200, Hadron
    > wrote:
    >
    >>George Orwell writes:
    >>
    >>> ISO SUCK DICK!!!!
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>Hello, hello, have I missed something? Did OOXML get ratified as a standard?

    >
    >Not yet. But it's not going to take long.


    See?

  14. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:06:46 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch
    wrote:

    > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 08:36:50 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:06:47 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I don't support everything Microsoft does.

    >>
    >> If there's anything non-trivial they've done in the last ten years that
    >> you haven't supported, I've yet to see it.

    >
    > Then you haven't looked. Just off the top of my head:
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....9988c67e3fa24d
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....297990315f5ded


    Whoa! You are willing to admit that some minor products in Microsoft's
    portfolio aren't as good as the competition!


    > Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I
    > also know they won't actually do anything about it (and i've said so
    > in here numerous times).


    Which is not actually the same as going against the company line. In
    fact, it is kind of defending it. If that's the best you can come up
    with, then I think you need to re-examine your claims of independence.


    > As for OOXML, Other than the sweden case, I don't see where Microsoft
    > has done anything other than lobby it's case, something which nobody
    > seems to criticize IBM and Sun for agressively doing (even lying,
    > misrepresenting, and bing hypocritical about things that are just as
    > applicable to ODF).


    You want to look at each case individually and only on technical merit,
    narrowly defined. You absolutely do not want to consider their overall
    behavior over the years or how their current strategy continues and
    extends that behavior.

    Anything else is dismissed as "just politics" and not worthy of
    consideration. That's fine I guess, if that's how you want to do
    things, but most of us aren't like that. We tend to shy away from doing
    business with somebody who has a bad reputation.

    I haven't followed OOXML/ODF that closely, but I suspect that you and
    Tim are probably right that much of the animus against OOXML isn't
    technical but "political" by the above definition. But defining a
    standard is inherently a political process. So there you are.

    Believe it or not, plenty of people have reason to feel screwed by
    Microsoft. Probably a lot more than feel that way about Sun or IBM.

    Basically, Microsoft has put themselves in a position where nobody
    trusts them anymore. They don't get the benefit of the doubt like other
    companies do. You can whine about that all you want, but it is their
    own doing so I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.


    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  15. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:39:06 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >>> How do you reconcile the fact that Pro-ODF proponents criticize OOXML for
    >>> the very failings that ODF has (and admitted they have)?

    >>
    >> I don't feel any need to reconcile it. The fact is that ODF went
    >> through with much less fuss and fanfare, and certainly not the
    >> aggressive tactics of Microsoft.

    >
    > You are a very trusting person. When I read on someone's site a bunch
    > of criticism of OOXML, and then check the spec itself, and the ODF spec,
    > and find that the person repeatedly lies in what they say, and then I
    > read on their site serious allegations backed by anonymous sources, or
    > third party sources that contradict first party reports, I assume they
    > are probably lying again.
    >
    > You seem to assume that they are probably telling the truth. That seems
    > odd to me.
    >
    >>> How do you reconcile the fact that Sun's and IBM's licensing terms are
    >>> nearly identical to those of Microsoft's, yet ODF proponents ignore their
    >>> terms and criticize Microsoft's?

    >>
    >> I've already answered that, Erik. Microsoft's record speaks for itself.
    >>
    >> Unless you have a signed agreement with Microsoft, drafted with the help
    >> of a team of lawyers and a lot of brainstorming and sleepless nights,
    >> you'd be stupid to trust Microsoft.

    >
    > Well, if you want to consider the record, note that IBM makes heavy use,
    > in major areas of their business, technology covered by Microsoft
    > patents and licensed by Microsoft under the same terms as OOXML. So
    > does Sun. Apparently, both Sun and Microsoft have decided that
    > Microsoft's promise *is* fine, since they rely on it for large parts of
    > their income.
    >
    > Your position on this approaches being mystical.


    It's obvious that Linonut is not actually reading the stuff he is parroting
    for Roy Schestowitz.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  16. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I also
    >> know they won't actually do anything about it (and i've said so in here
    >> numerous times). Which is also why I don't buy the argument against
    >> OOXML
    >> regarding patents. To date, Microsoft has still never used patents

    >
    > A better reason not to buy the anti-OOXML patent FUD is that Microsoft
    > has made a legally binding promise not to enforce patents against OOXML
    > implementations.


    Microsoft bound to the law? Ask the EU about that.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  17. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I also
    >> know they won't actually do anything about it (and i've said so in here
    >> numerous times). Which is also why I don't buy the argument against OOXML
    >> regarding patents. To date, Microsoft has still never used patents

    >
    > A better reason not to buy the anti-OOXML patent FUD is that Microsoft
    > has made a legally binding promise not to enforce patents against OOXML
    > implementations.


    Where is this "legally-binding promise"? I mean the one without all the
    provisos and disclaimers.

    --
    Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.
    -- Bill Gates

  18. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> > How do you reconcile the fact that Pro-ODF proponents criticize OOXML for
    >> > the very failings that ODF has (and admitted they have)?

    >>
    >> I don't feel any need to reconcile it. The fact is that ODF went
    >> through with much less fuss and fanfare, and certainly not the
    >> aggressive tactics of Microsoft.

    >
    > You are a very trusting person. When I read on someone's site a bunch
    > of criticism of OOXML, and then check the spec itself, and the ODF spec,
    > and find that the person repeatedly lies in what they say, and then I
    > read on their site serious allegations backed by anonymous sources, or
    > third party sources that contradict first party reports, I assume they
    > are probably lying again.
    >
    > You seem to assume that they are probably telling the truth. That seems
    > odd to me.


    Of it does. You set up a fictitious odd situation purporting to cover
    what I do, and then knock it down.

    That is what is known as a "straw man".

    >> > How do you reconcile the fact that Sun's and IBM's licensing terms are
    >> > nearly identical to those of Microsoft's, yet ODF proponents ignore their
    >> > terms and criticize Microsoft's?

    >>
    >> I've already answered that, Erik. Microsoft's record speaks for itself.
    >>
    >> Unless you have a signed agreement with Microsoft, drafted with the help
    >> of a team of lawyers and a lot of brainstorming and sleepless nights,
    >> you'd be stupid to trust Microsoft.

    >
    > Well, if you want to consider the record, note that IBM makes heavy use,
    > in major areas of their business, technology covered by Microsoft
    > patents and licensed by Microsoft under the same terms as OOXML. So
    > does Sun. Apparently, both Sun and Microsoft have decided that
    > Microsoft's promise *is* fine, since they rely on it for large parts of
    > their income.


    Tim, Tim, Tim. Think man. It should be obvious that IBM and Sun
    do have signed legal agreements with Microsoft. Sun, in particular who
    got a billion dollars from Microsoft over some legal tussle.

    And IBM? Even if there is no agreement in force over a particular
    technology, IBM has its own patent war-chest in hand.

    Hence, it is obvious that both Sun and IBM have legal teams that have
    spent a lot of time thinking about the "elephant in the room".

    And, given the high stakes involved, you can bet that many parties have
    spent some sleepless nights worrying about it.

    Yet you want us to believe that any and all parties can safely use
    Microsoft technology based on a "promise". That they can eventually
    come into direct competition with Microsoft, using Microsoft technology,
    safely.

    > Your position on this approaches being mystical.


    No. Your characterization of my position (as well as my research and
    public statements) is what is mystical.

    Your total glossing over of the realities of a situation so that you can
    make fun of someone's argument is what is mystical.

    In fact, it makes it very clear that Tim Logic only applies to Tim
    statements. The logic of others is twisted, spun, and spit out in an
    unrecognizable form, so that Tim Logic can then (and only then) knock it
    down.

    I dub thee Tim, The Wizard.

    --
    Does the e-mail say it's about 'enlargement' -- that might be spam.
    -- Bill Gates, BBC News (24 January 2004)

  19. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >It's called logical deduction. If my changing my opinion about one thing
    >based on a MS implementation means i'm unconditionally approving of
    >Microsoft, then what must the same behavior of a Linux feature that I
    >changed my mind about mean?


    I noticed yet another error in your "case", Fuddie. EVEN IF anyone
    accused you "unconditionally" approving of Micro$oft (which noone has,
    to my knowledge), it not be because you "changed your opinion about
    one thing". Such an accusation would have to be based on a much
    larger body of evidence, like many years of you posting in here!

    Idiot!

    >Come on? What does it mean?
    >
    >Answer.


    It means you're a logically-handicapped idiot and/or a dishonest
    asshole.

    I think "and".


  20. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    In article <6l5Jj.26118$dT.38@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
    Linonut wrote:
    > > Well, if you want to consider the record, note that IBM makes heavy use,
    > > in major areas of their business, technology covered by Microsoft
    > > patents and licensed by Microsoft under the same terms as OOXML. So
    > > does Sun. Apparently, both Sun and Microsoft have decided that
    > > Microsoft's promise *is* fine, since they rely on it for large parts of
    > > their income.

    >
    > Tim, Tim, Tim. Think man. It should be obvious that IBM and Sun
    > do have signed legal agreements with Microsoft. Sun, in particular who
    > got a billion dollars from Microsoft over some legal tussle.
    >
    > And IBM? Even if there is no agreement in force over a particular
    > technology, IBM has its own patent war-chest in hand.
    >
    > Hence, it is obvious that both Sun and IBM have legal teams that have
    > spent a lot of time thinking about the "elephant in the room".
    >
    > And, given the high stakes involved, you can bet that many parties have
    > spent some sleepless nights worrying about it.
    >
    > Yet you want us to believe that any and all parties can safely use
    > Microsoft technology based on a "promise". That they can eventually
    > come into direct competition with Microsoft, using Microsoft technology,
    > safely.


    Well, if I choose to implement OOXML, or much of SOAP, I'm not going to
    worry, because it is not just a "promise". It is a legally binding
    promise. I don't have any patents myself covering OOXML or SOAP, so I
    know I will never be in the position of suing Microsoft over those
    technologies, and so don't fall under the exception in the OSP that lets
    them sue people who sue them over those technologies.

    And if they decide they want to start using their patents offensively in
    lawsuits, I'm sure they'll pick other patents to use. I doubt they
    could even get past rule 11 of the FRCP if they tried to sue an open
    source project over use of these patents in implementing one of the
    covered spec. And if they did somehow get past rule 11, I doubt they'd
    get past summary judgement motions.

    What you are overlooking is that there really isn't a difference between
    a signed legal agreement, and the OSP (or IBM's patent pledge, or Sun's
    patent pledge). (Well, actually there is...the OSP provides MS with
    less wriggle room. I can confidently assume that it means what it says,
    without worrying that something that came up during contract negotiation
    can be used to show that the parties agreed on some other meaning, since
    there was no negotiation).


    --
    --Tim Smith

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast