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 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


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).

                ~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz      | Vista: as the reputation of "Longhorn" was mucked
http://Schestowitz.com  |  Open Prospects   |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 149 total,   1 running, 148 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
      http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

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