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

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

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

> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 26 November 2007 08:47 : \____
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> ____/ [H]omer on Thursday 22 November 2007 20:07 : \____
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann 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?story=20070127202224445
>>> 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/gnome-foundation-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

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