Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Microsoft: ODF Leads to Standards Conflict

__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Wednesday 08 March 2006 18:20 \__

> Coal calling the Kettle black.
> The big problem here is that Microsoft has full access to the full
> specifications for every object in ODF.  If they wanted to implement
> ODF tomorrow, they could.
> Instead, Microsoft is offering a proposed "standard" which is
> essentially an "envelope" for sending Windows metafiles, standard
> MS-Office documents, and any other kind of document type - including of
> course, viruses, worms, trojans, spyware and other malware.
> You would think that by now, Microsoft would have learned their lesson.
>  Security through obsurity is worse than no security at all.
> Of course, Microsoft listed the top names in the industry, but seems to
> have forgotten that there are numerous other vendors and players in
> this market, all offering to support ODF.
> It's a bit like SCO looking at Linux, seeing 1 billion lines of code,
> thinking it might have found 20 lines that were stolen - and assuming
> that it was the guy with the deepest pockets (IBM) that stole it.  OF
> course, they don't want to tell anyone else which code this is, because
> we might remove the stolen code. - that is if any of the code was
> actually stolen at all.

1 billion LOC's? I guess it was a figure of speech because the last time I
heard, Linux kernel contained about 5 million LOC's. Because it's elegant
(must be 'legible'), and despite the fact it's coded in C, it is probably
much more compact than a 'certain other kernel' (or mish-mash of components
rather, due to lack of modularity). *smile*

> IBM is asking for the records related to the role Microsoft may have
> had in the SCO lawsuit, and suddenly Microsoft is trying to accuse
> everyone else of conspiracy against Microsoft.

I really wanted to link that story (IBM subpoena) to the original post, but
thought it would carry the subject adrift.

> If there was a conspiracy, it doesn't seem to be all that effective
> does it?  Microsoft still enjoys 10%/year revenue growth, 85% profits,
> and sells almost twice as many licenses as the OEMs sell PCs.
> On the other hand, there is an organised and very public effort to
> generate, support, and distribute alternatives to Microsoft's most
> strategic products, including FireFox, OpenOffice, Linux, and
> Thunderbird.  There are even some very good project managers now
> available for Linux.  But this is all very public, very open, very
> obvious, and not exactly a deep dark secret.
> The irony is that Microsoft can join the party any time they want.
> They just have to stop adding proprietary "enhancements" which not only
> lock-in customers, but also open the PC to numerous different security
> breaches and hacker attacks as well as making these attacks untracable.
> I've heard it said that there are something like 150,000 viruses now
> out for Windows?
> (that could just be hype from antivirus vendors :D).

Probably. Think of the number of crackers and their daily capacity for
'production'. Maybe the figure should have said something like "there are
estimated to be 150,000 critical flaws in Windows, which /could/ get
exploited by hackers".

> Linux hasn't had a successful "full scale attack" where any significant
> number of servers or worktations (say over 50%) suddenly went berzerk -
> in almost 15 years.

I guess this argument takes Linux into its age of dawn. Clean sheet.

> The documents written on UNIX systems 20 years ago can be read by Linux
> systems today.  Documents created for Windows from even 7 years ago may
> not be readable today.
> And Microsoft has done such a good job of establishing and maintaining
> standards like
> MFC oops, I mean COM, no it's DCOM, or COM+ or .NET or -- what do they
> call it in Vista?

Maybe as in Longhorn, the change of names and labels will make it seem as
though a radical change has been applied. I still believe that the change of
GUI colours, as well as look-and-feel, was a last minute attempt to visually
distinguish Vista from what it truly is: Windows XP with SP3 on top. Aero is
that bear they put on top so as to say "our O/S is as pretty as OS X, GNOME
and KDE" (sorry to have left some desktop environments out).

> Have you tried running a Windows 3.1 program on XP?  Or a Windows 95
> program?  Or an NT 3.x program?
> Flavor of the week from Microsoft - or self imposed published public
> standard in sufficient detail that even college undergrads can
> implement it -  Choose!

*LOL* Good point.

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    Y |-(1^2)|^(1/2)+1 K
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  6:15am  up  22:52,  8 users,  load average: 0.80, 0.70, 0.68
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index