Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ 7 ] on Sunday 07 May 2006 12:29 \__
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> ,----[ Jason Matusow, Microsoft's Director of Standards Affair: ]
>>> | "Yet we will support interoperability with ODF documents as they start
>>> | to appear and will not oppose its standardization or use by any
>>> | organization. The richness of competitive choices in the market is
>>> | good for our customers and for the industry as a whole."
>>> Frankly, I am surprised there is a role whose title is Director of
>>> Standards Affair at Microsoft. Has he been in Maui for the past two
>> No - he had been tied to a chair ready to be thrown out
>> at earliest possible opportune moment by blammer.
>> Mind you, they have already snuck into the standards room
>> to add inappropriate features like embedded p2p networking
>> supervised by 'catchy' clippy phrases like 'It wasn't me, it
>> was that clippy over there that did it!!' and patented features so that
>> the standards body becomes a rubber stamping body for micoshaft's
>> superior 'open document format' because some money parted hands
>> and micoshaftees gain board room positions within the standards
>> group by expanding and bankrupting the organsation so that
>> micoshaft can come in as bigger financial contributors for more votes.
>> Fsck that!
>> If I were a betting man, I would want more than one or two
>> open document standard and standards bodies; at least one
>> of which must completely exlude big commercial interests; and
>> at least one separate body watching over all groups and their
>> patenting activities because there is an aweful lot of billions
>> to be made by handcuffing unsuspecting users and ripping them
>> off at some future date.
>> Get ready with alternative mark 2 ODF standards in case this
>> one falls through some well laid traps paid for by subversives
>> operating out of micoshaft.
>> Also make sure that features written into software can be changed
>> or pulled simply by simply adding or deleting a few #defines.
>> That way anyone who has such temptations will know in advance
>> their crooked ways will have very little milage within the open
>> source community.
> So you're suggesting that Microsoft /may/ , _in due time_, extend
> save_ODF() and open_ODF() to incorporate all these elements which are
> already supported and incorporated into DOC files? Macros perhaps? As in
> opting for 'embrace&extend'-type strategies?
They will move to package up every little open source published
macro and change its functions a little and move to patent it
and market it as a licensable feature to try to kill innovation
as well as milk money out of unsuspecting subscribers to openness
in open document format.
> Would you argue that it was their motive in joining the consortium which
> conducts the directions of Open Document? As to take the lead and propose
> features that have already been implemented 'closed-sourcely' (behind
> closed doors) and expect other vendors to catch up with the next revision
> of the ODF ISO standard, e.g. ODF 2.0? Poisoning the format so to
Micoshaft is not about to change its spots.
They are going to join and form alliance with as many enemies as possible to
to end the openness in open document to milk unsuspecting open document
users attracted to it by the openness of open documents.
Its only fair that alternatives exist and continue to exist while this
threat exists. It would be even better if some micoshaft employees
would regularly squeel to the press and to open source committees
and regulators just exactly what subversive activities have been
planned to end their mad quests in the bud before users are harmed.
> Best wishes,