"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1757583.gE1MgrpqkT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> __/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Wednesday 24 January 2007 23:02 \__
>
>>
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:12735779.dfLTnYBoYX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> __/ [ yttrx ] on Wednesday 24 January 2007 20:46 \__
>>>
>>>> Ramon F Herrera <ramon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/24/microsoft.wikipedia.ap/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> -Ramon F Herrera
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just posted that myself.
>>>>
>>>> Well funkybreath? How are you gonna spin this one?
>>>
>>> Still waiting for the formal rebuttal to arrive by E-mail. He is a
>>> mouthpiece, don't you already know?
>>
>> The timestamp of your message is 5:22 PM, so maybe you missed (or
>> overlooked?) this reply when you posted it:
>>
>> http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0e796cfe2edd392e
>> <quote>
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>> yttrx wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/24/microsoft.wikipe
>>>> dia.ap/index.html
>>
>>> Good find, yttrx. I found this statement interesting:
>>
>>>> Jelliffe, who is chief technical officer of a computing
>>>> company based in Australia, did not return an e-mail
>>>> seeking comment.
>>
>>>> In a blog posting Monday, he described himself as a
>>>> technical standards aficionado and not a Microsoft
>>>> partisan. He said he was surprised to be approached by
>>>> Microsoft but figured he'd accept the offer to review the
>>>> Wikipedia articles because he considered it important to
>>>> make sure technical standards processes were accurately
>>>> described.
>>
>> This statement is far more interesting:
>>
>> "... they had agreed that the company [MS] would not be allowed to review
>> his writing before submission."
>>
>> I know you saw it, but anything that doesn't cast MS in a negative light
>> is
>> glossed over by cola bozos.
>> </quote>
>
> Persuation with /money/ is an indication of a prod. I can assure you it
> ain't
> the first. It would simply be naive to think otherwise.
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/an_interesting_offer.html
<quote>
My first computer was a Mac Plus. Loved it. My second computer was an AT&T
Unix PC running System V. Loved it long time. My third computer was a Sparc
running Solaris or SunOS. Loved it. At work I run Linux, Open Office,
Firefox, Eclipse, etc. No drama. For the last six years I have been running
a little company making Java programs. Love Java. I do a little open source
development, in particular with the Schematron program (quite like it!), but
I have also contributed some code to the Flamingo/Substance project over at
JavaDesktop, which provides novel looks and feels and more modern GUI
components.
The only time I use Microsoft products is on my laptop at home (a present
from my dear old Dad), but I need it to run the SynthEdit program for making
virtual synthesizers. Oh, I occasionally also use a ten year old Microsoft
C++ compiler, to make some DSP filter code: I have released about 80 filters
open source this way. I'm not a Microsoft hater at all, its just that I've
swum in a different stream. Readers of this blog will know that I have
differing views on standards to some Microsoft people at least.
[...]
FUD enrages me and MS certainly are not hiring me to add any pro-MS FUD,
just to correct any errors I see. If anyone sees any examples of incorrect
statements on Wikipedia or other similar forums in the next few weeks,
please let me know: whether anti-OOXML or anti-ODF. In fact, I already had
added some material to Wikipedia several months ago, so it is not something
new, so I'll spend a couple of days mythbusting and adding more information.
Just scanning quickly the Wikipedia entry for OOXML, I see one example
straight away: The OOXML specification requires conforming implementations
to accept and understand various legacy office applications . But the
conformance section to the ISO standard (which is only about page four)
specifies conformance in terms of being able to accept the grammar, use the
standard semantics for the bits you implement, and document where you do
something different. The bits you don't implement are no-one's business. So
that entry is simply wrong. The same myth comes up in the form "You have to
implement all 6000 pages or Microsoft will sue you."
</quote>
Sounds to me that this is a person who loves Linux and FOSS, but loves
truth and honesty more. He gives examples of the type of corrections he
intends to make.
- Oliver
|
|
