Gates Embraces Web Service Interoperability

djh101010 writes "In a CNN article which looks more like something out of The Onion, Bill Gates expresses his interest in participating in interoperability with rival technologies, through common standards. Specifically mentioned are IBM's WebSphere, and Linux. 'We're being as inclusive as we can,' Gates said of Microsoft's role in the cross-platform project. 'This is a fabric for someone to do e-commerce that's independent of the operating systems that are out there.'

Comments

XML

[Plix]

We all know how Gates "embraced" XML for Office 11...

Re:XML

[EnigmaticSource]

Gates said the Redmond, Washington-based company's work toward Web services standards would be "royalty free." That remark led to questions from the audience, which wanted to make sure Gates hadn't misstated the deviation from the company's royalty-based software sales model. "I can't believe I said that," Gates joked.

Re:XML

[molarmass192]

The namespace schemas are proprietary and redistribution is not permitted. No namespace schema, no way to make sense of what's in the XML.

Re:XML

[HiThere]

I can believe he said it. He says lots of things. Follow through, however, is frequently significantly different from the initial promise.

Or..

[adeyadey]

..When I finally own/crush Linux, I want to talk to it..

Sounds like dot-com era dreaming

[merlin_jim]

I mean this seriously made me think of 99. Obligatory /. .com business plan?

1. Create interoperable standards so users can migrate from one OS to another without rewriting code
2. ????
3. Profit!

Except I have a strong suspicion that number 2 is:

2. Erode competitions' standing in marketplace and watch customers gradually migrate to your software, because migration is no longer a hassle

Re:Sounds like dot-com era dreaming

[(void*)]

"Erode competition's standing" could be OK or not OK. That really depends on what specific action is being done.

Re:Sounds like dot-com era dreaming

[*weasel]

it's not standards to avoid code rewriting, it's interoperability standards for web services.
basically a framework to sit atop SOAP, for common application standards (security,transaction control,etc).

you'll still be OSvendor-locked when you write your web service code; but a web service consumer (website end developer) could choose a web service provider with OS-independence.

this isn't as ground-shaking as it sounds.
it's analogous to microsoft's embracing of HTML.

it will be supported (as IE supports w3c html) - and then doubtlessly extended through proprietary means (simplistic analogy to the IE-specific 'marquee' tag), to benefit those who use MS (can only see 'marque' if you use IE). while the extensions won't be necessary to participate (you dont necessarily -need- to see 'marquee'), they're hoping for a critical mass of developers to use their extensions (lots of sites using ) to encourage users to switch over, further incentivizing developers to use their extensions. (enter: feedback loop + network effect)

'marquee' being a simplistic and not very rich example for the analogy, i know - but you get the idea.

Re:Sounds like dot-com era dreaming

[proj_2501]

Guh, seeing a tag is not a benefit.

Bear Hug

[Jad LaFields]

And by "embrace", he means "bone-crushing bear hug".

Re:Bear Hug

[I am Kobayashi]

embrace
n.
1. An act of holding close with the arms, usually as an expression of affection; a hug.
2. An enclosure or encirclement: caught in the jungle's embrace.
3. Eager acceptance: your embrace of Catholicism.

Yikes

[TobySmurf]

Isn't this like a bear "playing" with a couple of salmon in a river? Somehow I doubt that Goliath (Microsoft) really wants to play fair...at this point I welcome all conspiracy theory experts to bring forward explanations :-)

To paraphrase...

[weeboo0104]

If you can't beat 'em, join em...
...then beat 'em.

Re:To paraphrase...

[jafuser]

"It is you and your abilities the Emperor wants. That is why your friends are made to suffer"

"It's a trap!"

Microsoft FUD

[segment]

Gates said the Redmond, Washington-based company's work toward Web services standards would be "royalty free." That remark led to questions from the audience, which wanted to make sure Gates hadn't misstated the deviation from the company's royalty-based software sales model.

Royalty free? Not if SCO can do something about that. What I found a bit odd, would be his comments on standards: "Standards are always a give-to-get bargain," he said. Standards are also done on behalf of everyone for everyone in order to make services work the right way. It's the only way to get products working with eatch other. So for one, he is not obligated to participate in any standards, but at the same time he is as if he doesn't, his products might not perform well under other vendors' products. So in essence whether he likes it or not, he is obligated if he wants to stay in the game and make money. As for the Netscape mention, personally I don't see Netscape as being around too long as a browser considering Netscape's parent AOL recently signed a deal with Microsoft. Just my two coppers...

Re:Microsoft FUD

[jacksonyee]

If it's anything like what Microsoft did during the browser wars, it will be standards-compliant, but with helpful proprietary extensions which only work on Microsoft platforms.

This is really nothing new since everyone else (Netscape, Sun, even gcc) does the same thing, but it might be one path he will take. Despite the usual cries of outrage against Microsoft that many Slashdotters make without a thought, they are right that Bill wouldn't be doing this without some other devious, profitable plan involved. He's done it far too often in the past.

Heh, the key phrase is...

[Ratphace]

..."Standards are always a give-to-get bargain," he said.

In other words, they are giving so they can get something which in the end they can use to further lock out other applications and companies from being compatible.

A famous quote comes to mind:

"I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts." --Virgil

Be curious to find out how they will try to spin this to their advantage while disadvantaging everyone else.

although....

[freidog]

CNN did note it was odd Gates kept snickering and chuckeling to himself while making the statements.
and was heard to utter You think they bought it? as he left the interview.

Best quote

[henriksh]

Gates said the Redmond, Washington-based company's work toward Web services standards would be "royalty free." That remark led to questions from the audience, which wanted to make sure Gates hadn't misstated the deviation from the company's royalty-based software sales model. "I can't believe I said that," Gates joked.

Big headline, no content ...

[molarmass192]

That article opens with a quip about Gates embracing Linux, Netscape and royalty-free software but the article only states that they'll help develop a royalty free "Web services standard". Wow, big deal. Where's all the "loving" the headline promises???

The usual tactic

[FunWithHeadlines]

Nothing new here. Every now and then Gates does something nice or friendly or inclusive. Maybe it's for humanitarian purposes such as through his foundation. Maybe it's motivated by a need for better PR. Maybe it's motivated by something else. Doesn't matter.

The point is just because he said lots of fuzzy words today it doesn't mean he won't try to "cut off the oxygen supply" of those same groups tomorrow. Is he suddenly buddy-buddy with Linux? Nope, his company is still fighting it tooth and nail around the world, putting out FUD, doing whatever it takes to head it off at the pass.

Good PR moments such as this do not negate the overall approach Gates will take. Do not be fooled, he's the same old monopolist.

Re:The usual tactic

[fr2asbury]

Maybe it's for humanitarian purposes such as through his foundation. Maybe it's motivated by a need for better PR. Maybe it's motivated by something else.

Maybe it was motivated by the three spirits that visited him in the night.

Re:The usual tactic

[frobber]

I was wondering about Gates' sincerity level with this recent Gates Foundation gift.

How much of that gift is earmarked to buy Microsoft products? If the money is used to buy computers, will other OSes be allowed to be installed?

I gift with these restrictions isn't a gift at all, it's a type of marketing...

Re:The usual tactic

[DrXym]

Words have to be backed up by deeds. At the risk of invoking Godwins law with this comparison, Adoplh Hitler said lots of nice conciliatory words about peace and how Germany wanted nothing but peace, secure borders and cordial relations and then proceeded to systematically break every one of his promises.

I'm sure Bill Gates can be a dab hand at making fawning concilliatory noises too, but while he and his cohorts are doing their best to stifle open standards, open source with their every deed, it all rings extremely hollow.

Well of course!

[WheelDweller]

Bill's doing this to get the skinny on the competing technologies...then he can invent something different about it, push it out the door in the next release, and it'll look, to the MS user, that MS is right, and all these other people are wrong. Remember Gates telling the ISO that he needed to change the work of 270 nations and make his codeset a little different? IE will show apostrophies....everything else shows question marks.

Same stuff, different day.

Extenditus

[ShieldW0lf]

A disease worse than aids... you can catch it just by having a carrier hug you.

Bill had the first documented case of Extenditus, and being such a touchy-feely guy, he's embraced a lot of people since, spreading it far and wide.

We recommend an immediate quarantine of Microsoft and all organizations that have engaged in "Group Hugs" with them.

Typical M$ strategy

[JustAnOtherCodeSerf]

Embrace, extend, close.
Become the standard, close out the competition.

I have 3 words...

[Lxy]

Services for Unix

Microsoft is most likely finding a gateway between their technology and everyone else's to create a migration path towards MS products. Once everyone has flocked over, the usual grab-you-by-the-balls policies apply. What I think they're missing is that the technology works the other way too. You can use this interoperability to get off the MS train. Look at Services for Unix... it created a path that goes both ways between *NIX and MS. MS probably designed it as a one-way tunnel, but in return we got a pathway to migrate off.

Conspiracy theorize all you want to, but MS may have just handed linux the keys to the desktop.

IBM has not learned ?

[watzinaneihm]

IBM should have learned from OS/2 about partnering with Microsoft. Currently they are very pro Java , for example take a look at their developer website.
Since IBM does not have a decent web/app server they probably are trying to get a foot in the door for their .NET suite.
I have so far understood their "embrace" part. But what I don't get is where does the "annihilate" part come in? By standardising the XML standards Java also benefits, right? So how does M$ plan to screw Java and IBM

Re:OK I'll bite...

[Xerithane]

This is something I'm thinking about here... I'm probably not going to respond to any comments in this thread, don't take it personally I just doubt I'll have the time.

Why do you assume Bill Gates et al. is making the same mistake that a lot of other businesses make? For example, the RIAA member companies and several others. Everybody says, "Jeez, these business people are dumb and are fighting the inevitable."

What if Microsoft realized two things:

1. Linux isn't going away.
   
2. You get free shit from them.
   

Effectively meaning that they can start to actually embrace and integrate services, and actually expand and mutate their business model based on the economy and world, rather than what everybody perceives as their business model.

I was chatting with a SCORE member, and he said that a true business plan should be a living entity that evolves with the world around it. Why is it so hard to believe that the most successful software company doesn't heed that advice?

Obvious marketing

[Shamashmuddamiq]

OF COURSE he's going to say something like that.

Because of what he says in this article, there are now pointy-haired managers out there that are saying to themselves, "Well, we were considering using Linux, but instead we'll buy Microsoft for now and we can still switch in the future if we want. Microsoft uses standards -- Bill would never lie to make a buck."

Bill Gates doesn't want to make people think that Microsoft is the devil.

Excellent!

[feed_those_kitties]

With Windows 'communicating' with so many more technologies, there can be even more ways for viruses to infect Windows systems!

I'm waiting for an XML document that exploits a buffer overflow in Windows somehow. Come on, you know it will happen someday!

Microsoft is hedging its bets.

[crazyphilman]

Bill Gates (to himself): "Hmm... Everyone hates me, and everyone is aligned against me, creating their own web services standards and ensuring that I won't completely capture the market. Let's see... This implies that they might take a significant part of the market, and if I'm not interoperable, I'll be essentially locked out. Ah, well, screw it."

(calls up Ballmer)

Bill Gates: "Hey, Steve -- do me a favor, would you? Round up some of our better R+D guys, and have them work up a system that lets us totally interoperate with all the other, competing web services systems out there, wouldja?"

Ballmer: "WTF???"

Bill Gates: "Why lock ourselves out of a big chunk of the market? We've got our section, now we can play with their section too."

Ballmer: "Ok, I'm on it..."

This is strictly hypothetical, but I bet it's pretty close.

Re:Microsoft is hedging its bets.

[William Baric]

Bill Gates (to himself): "Hmm... Everyone hates me, and everyone is aligned against me

This may be true in Slashdotland (where being anti-Microsoft makes you look cool) but in the real world about everyone just love Microsoft. For about everyone in the real world, when there's a bug with a Microsoft product it's the computer's fault or the technician's fault... But when there's a bug with a product from another company it's because it's a crappy product. In the real world, where image is everything, saying Microsoft is a good company makes you look serious and professional.

What this really means... nothing to lose?

[Rahga]

I mean, come on, think about it.... One of the big problems with every major dotcom in the last few years is the fact that none of them could escape the fact that they were one of a ton of small fish in a big pong. Just go to google and type in a search for "Operating System", Windows and Microsoft aren't even on the radar.

If this stuff (what little there is) is true, this probably is just extends what Gates has known for a while, in spite of .NET.... Internet Explorer is nothing more than a tool for the vast majority of users, something to help them get to websites that they want to go and facilitate interactions there. Passport Wallets did not become a de facto internet must-have.... Too many people don't shop on the web, spammers have trained the vast majority of internet users not to instinctively trust anyone (even Verisign, a _trust_ company, betrayed the trust of people with other domain registars with sleazy marketing tactics).... I recon Microsoft sees strength in themselves only by trying to keep their software updated and operating as people expect it to operate, along with traditional software sales, because their services from Passport to Hotmail to MSN probably don't account for anything more than a pittance.

Just my opinion.

Re:In other news

[kurosawdust]

the sun has collided into the earth and China has become a democratic nation.

in that order??

Re:OK I'll bite...

[Firehawke]

Well, it's because past history with Microsoft shows a very definite trend of Microsoft making proclaimations like this, then subtly slipping in things that completely change the nature of the situation. For instance, Microsoft Office has perverted XML and RTF under the name of "open standards".

The old saying of once bitten twice wary still applies. In general, we refuse to take Gates at face value and continue to look for the fine print, but it would be nice if the guy would actually change his ways...

Re:OK I'll bite...

[MadChicken]

I've always said the best thing MS could do (in the past, anyway) was to distribute Linux.

For example, if they grabbed something like Caldera - with no significant upgrade path, and bundle it with their server products... They could say "Hey! Do what you want, but you'll probably find Windows easier and better). If not, they still sold a Windows server license.

This would also decimate desktop aspirations for Linux too, since they got both in the box, Joe Sixpack would prefer Linux, and even technical users would try their FVWM/Kernel 2.0 distro and say "Neat, but look how much more advanced Windows is!"

Then millions more people would at least say "I've tried Linux"

It's all in the spin.

Of course, this ain't so good for we Linux evangelists...

This may actually be true

[TheRaven64]

Microsoft is pouring money into my university (in exchange for a soul or two), and so we get to hear a few things about their plans. Like the fact that they have a *NIX version of ASP.NET under development (not the crippled version they released for FreeBSD). They realise that the server market is different from the desktop market, in that you get no buisness if you don't play nice with others.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that this extends to the desktop though. They are quite happy for you to buy Visual Studio.NET, write ASP.NET web services and deploy on Linux, as long as the clients connecting to it are running Windows.

We'll see...

[BrokenHalo]

Microsoft's record for interoperability with other technologies so far has not been good. Let's face it, different versions of their own technologies are not particularly interoperable from an output-file-format point of view.

I'm not going to hold my breath; it's more likely we'll see more software designed to lock in their own users and lock out the rest of the world, regardless of current PR bleating.

If they want to convince "us" (namely the OSS community/free world/whatever you want to call it) they have to come up with actions, not blather. We've had enough of the latter.

Brave Words

[4of12]

This is a fabric for someone to do e-commerce that's independent of the operating systems that are out there.'

Of course everyone recognizes this for sales droid talk, telling people What They Want to Hear.

Nevertheless, it's significant that Bill Gates not only recognizes the sentiment of user's not liking to be locked into one product by virtue of using another, but that he is actually willing to give voice to it publicly.

Especially when so much of Microsoft's corporate culture has been built upon leveraging, using products that either ubiquitous or well-designed (yes, I must admit that) to lock users into other products that are either poorly designed and/or expensive.

Actions speak louder than words

[TennesseeJeff]

Isn't instant messaging a web service? And hasn't Microsoft already promised to cut off non-paying clients such as Gaim?

Or does this mean that MS is going to open Messenger to other clients like Gaim?

Let's see what happens October 15th.....

Exactly

[Carnage4Life]

We all know how Gates "embraced" XML for Office 11...

You mean how Microsoft shipped XML vocabularies compliant to the W3C XML 1.0 recommendation with schemas for the XML formats used by Word and Excel, stylesheets to convert WordML to HTML, and Office products like InfoPath that use over a dozen XML and Web standards in a compliant manner. Yeah, it is really cool how Microsoft embraced the XML family of technologies.

Disclaimer: I work on the XML team at Microsoft but not directly with Microsoft Office.

Re:Exactly

[cdrudge]

Disclaimer: I work on the XML team at Microsoft but not directly with Microsoft Office.

What? You are admitting that you work for Microsoft to /.? Wow. You have more balls then I would.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You have more balls then I would.


Three?

Re:Exactly

[Vaughn Anderson]

Disclaimer: I work on the XML team at Microsoft but not directly with Microsoft Office.

Because one developer says that MS is using XML standards correctly, does this mean that MS will actually keep it's formats open and backwards compatible?

Keep in mind it's the MS developement team that have created the file format mess in the past that is so horrid that entire countries are moving away from your closed formats. I can't even send an word 2000 doc to my father in-law who has OfficeXP with out it getting screwed up.

Even if what you say is 100% accurate, and MS delivers a compatible format that works with say, OpenOffice and Start Office, you have absoultely _NO_ gurantees that MS will not change the file format on the next upgrade and at that point turn the data to a completely proprietary form that is accessible only to the next upgrade of office.

Very few people in their right minds will trust MS anymore, and for good reasons.

Re:Exactly

[rutledjw]

I surpised believe you posted this.

The whole POINT of XML is interoperability. So can this XML be used by someone else? Is it limited to Office?

If the namespaces can't be reused by another applicaiton, then NO, it isn't "cool" what MS did. It's the classic MS crap. They may as well have forgone the entire process and left it in a binary format.

"Proprietary" XML is marketing blather and not something that adds value to the end user...

Re:Exactly

[cbiltcliffe]

You mean how Microsoft shipped XML vocabularies compliant to the W3C XML 1.0 recommendation....

And how the XML format is only supported with the most expensive version of Office. If someone's spending $800+ on an MS Office, you can be pretty sure they're not looking at alternatives, so you don't need to worry about losing them as a customer through support for XML. The Office Standard customers, who might want to spend $100 on StarOffice, rather than $300 on MS Office, you don't give XML formats to, because they might realize they only need one copy of MS Office, and the rest of their computers can use StarOffice or OpenOffice.

One more thing, since you claim to work for Microsoft:
Why is microsoft.com so damned hard to navigate, and why does the site search engine suck so much?

Re:Exactly

[Chokolad]

> Even if what you say is 100% accurate, and MS delivers a compatible format that works with say, OpenOffice and Start Office, you have absoultely _NO_ gurantees that MS will not change the file format on the next upgrade and at that point turn the data to a completely proprietary form that is accessible only to the next upgrade of office.

There is no XML "standard" for Office documents. If you call OpenOffice XML format - standard, then Microsoft Office XML is standard is well. It is just a different standard.

Re:Exactly

[dpbsmith]

Please name one vendor other than Microsoft that has announced that their product will be able to read and write Microsoft Word 11 documents.

Re:Exactly

[Vaughn Anderson]

There is no XML "standard" for Office documents.

I didn't mention anything about a "standard", I said "compatible".

If you call OpenOffice XML format - standard,

No, I didn't.

then Microsoft Office XML is standard is well. It is just a different standard.

Most things MS creates use different standards, that is the problem. Microsoft's own Office programs can't even open their own files without it getting messed up, what is the point in trusting any new document designs they come up with?

Re:Exactly

[Vaughn Anderson]

Either way, it's a user problem.

Let me clarify for you:

I send him the file with basic formatting and it looks fine in Word 2000. (office 2000) I send him the file and he opens it, and the words are in the wrong place, the formatting is either gone or changed.

This is even based on templates from within Word itself. He even sent me the file back to make sure it wasn't corrupted, and the file was fine on word 2000.

This is _not_ a user error, it's simple lack of proper backwards compatibility.

Re:Exactly

[DickBreath]

There is no XML "standard" for Office documents.

KDE recently announced that KOffice would embrace the document formats of OpenOffice.org.

This means that a Windows user running OpenOffice.org could save a document, send it to a KOffice user on Linux, and expect it to open.

There is an effort to make a standard XML based office document format. Two office suites, so far, embrace it.

Article in InfoWorld

OASIS charter

XML for the masses

Re:Exactly

[itchy92]

Why is microsoft.com so damned hard to navigate, and why does the site search engine suck so much?
While the question was not directed to me, I have worked for Microsoft in the past, and have actually asked this same question of my superiors.
They said that for the amount of information they host on their page, with the diversity of content, it's actually set up in one of the most efficient manners. It may take a little while to find what you're looking for, but you will ultimately find it.
And I've found this to be true.

Re:Exactly

[Vaughn Anderson]

What is the point of XML in your opinion anyways ?

Who is saying MS is/will forever use only XML in their formats? I think it's naive of us to think just because they use XML that it will be compatible and remain compatible with other office like products.

This is a trust issue. The last thing I want to find out is that after 3 upgrades to office, I can no longer open any of my archived documents, or that I have to upgrade again to maintain my documents. Also, I don't want to have to upgrade Office just because my clients have a newer version so I can't read their files.

This is what concerns me is that my data is in a format that is in constant limbo without long term gurantees of the integrity of the applications (or it's formats) that create and update my data.

Considering that within 1 upgrade cycle I have lost information, what will happen within 2 or 3? Sure you can keep older copies of office, but what if you no longer can run them because the OS they are on is obsolete you upgraded that as well? You also can't have more than one version of Office on one machine at the same time, etc...

This is a real problem, not an imaginary one that is based on opinions about XML. XML is a markup language, my opinion about how to use it is actually irrelevant.

Re:Exactly

[Vaughn Anderson]

Word queries the printer driver to determine layout within the printer's parameters.

That's interesting, does anyone think it's good software design to have a completely external and seperate entity (printer driver) determine how things should be displayed? What if neither one of us had a printer installed? What if I change my printer in the future? I will then lose my formatting? This some how sounds insane...

I personally think that MS should have enough foresite to see this as an issue and make some kind of abstraction layer between file data and printer drivers.

I've never seen a PDF, TXT, or RTF file get screwed up because of these reasons...

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

> does anyone think it's good software design

Actually, designing software that reformats documents when you change the printer is harder than not doing so.

Word is not a page layout program. It's a wYsiwYg word processor. End lUsers don't want their text running off the side of the page when they print it out.

Feel free to use FrameMaker or use PDF for interchange if you don't like this behavior.

>I've never seen a RTF file get screwed up because of these reasons

Considering that the reference implementation of RTF is Microsoft Word, I doubt it.

Re:Exactly

[Vaughn Anderson]

Bullcrap. User Error. Nobody else has these problems with backwards compatibility.

No one else has these problems?

Re:Exactly

[Vaughn Anderson]

Why do you expect "Office XML" to be held to a higher standard?

I don't particularily think that they need "a higher standard" I think they need an "open standard". If I am wrong, and their standard is fine with people who are more in the know than I am, great.

But since I don't trust Microsoft, I won't be investing any more money in Office just because my concerns over formats have been cured by their implementation of XML.

All of these changes has caused some information loss.

I suppose, but at least I know those formats won't be changed in the future with the itention of product lock-in. Also, from what I have read, some Office documents contain personally identifying information about the creator of the document, I haven't taken the time to look into it though.

Re:Exactly

[Vaughn Anderson]

Word is not a page layout program. It's a wYsiwYg word processor.

Word _acts_ like a layout program only very poorly. Sure it is a WYSIWYG but I don't see how this definition has anything to do with it's behaviour, the point of WYSIWYG is that what I see on the screen is what I print, but it also means that what I see is what other people will see as well, and if they don't see the same thing, then something is broken, as in webpages not looking right on different browsers due to not sticking with globally recognized html standards. *hint* IE.

designing software that reformats documents when you change the printer is harder than not doing so.

Then if high quality layout programs (quark for example) or low quality programs don't do this, and it's actually more work to code, and it produces more inconsistent printing, why does MS code Word this way?

Considering that the reference implementation of RTF is Microsoft Word, I doubt it.

I don't use Word for reading or editing RTF files. Outside of that, I really don't know what you are saying...

Re:Exactly

[rifter]

While the question was not directed to me, I have worked for Microsoft in the past, and have actually asked this same question of my superiors.

They said that for the amount of information they host on their page, with the diversity of content, it's actually set up in one of the most efficient manners. It may take a little while to find what you're looking for, but you will ultimately find it.

And I've found this to be true.

Actually, with respect to getting bugfixes, support and product info microsoft.com is one of the best sites in the business. And it does have a lot of information about a dizzying array of products, so it makes sense they would have trouble organizing things.

Man, I just said something good about microsoft. I can't believe I said that! Better say something bad, too...

One thing I don't like about microsoft.com is that the new search is not as easy to narrow down as the old one. You used to be able to narrow a search by product right from the beginning, but now they force you to do a search on all products first. That kind of sucks and wastes my time.

Also I do not like the tendency to making links that go nowhere and the forced obsolescence of old patches/software to the point of making it the software equivolent of an unperson. The fact Microsoft does not let anyone else keep old patches/ie versions that might be important for people running current products that just happen not to be the latest product exacerbates this but is not a criticism of microsoft.com per se.

Ah, I feel much better now :).

Re:Exactly

[Vaughn Anderson]

Don't be so paranoid.

Hard not too be, I just had a bad crash with win2k after upgrading to Service Pack 4, and the thought of having to reinstall Office yet again (ugh) has pushed me to using Open Office.

Also, I lost tons of sensitive data because I used Microsoft's default encryption for my data files and when I reinstalled win2k, I could no longer access my files because Win2k thought I was a different user. After hours of searching online for how to solve this and get my information from my own computer I have gone slightly mad. (and I still can't get my data)

So use an earlier version of Office supporting XML and save it to a different format.

The last thing I want to have todo is reinstall windows on my machine so I can install an older version of office (as you can't downgrade it or uninstall it fully) just to manage my data....

If it were only paranoia and not real world agony I would be relieved...

Re:Exactly

[4of12]

does anyone think it's good software design to have a completely external and seperate entity (printer driver) determine how things should be displayed?

No, it's obviously not good software design.

But if I had over 90% market share with my office productivity software, and further profits depended upon me keeping users from migrating to rival office productivty software that must needs be compatible with mine, then the decision to hide the presentation rules makes a hell of a lot of sense from a pure business perspective.

Re:Exactly

[finkployd]

Please name one software package other than StarOffice/OpenOffice that has announced their product will be able to read and write OOo XML.

KOffice. Did you have any further questions?

Finkployd

Re:Exactly

[wastaz]

You're a moron if you think that just because you never ran into a problem it doesn't exist. You must have gotten all viruses ever created too then, or perhaps they didn't exist either? Right. Bad thing to use as an example, but this is slashdot, I could just go "MS sucks! Stick with the program!" and get modded up to +5 Insightful.

Instead I will tell you about my experiences.

Sadly, my old school ran Office97 all the way through.

Almost none of the students did.

It was a known fact that if you would do anything at home, you'd better save it as pure txt or rtf, otherwise you would be unable to open it or have a very messed up document when you got to school the next day and tried to print it.

XP and 2000, less problems. I admit that. There's still problems though, I've ran into them myself. It's all about what templates you use. As long as you stick to basics (text, bold, underline, italics, size and that kind of stuff) and dont try any fancy stuff like really cool table structures or great templates or math formulas, heck, even footnotes can kill it sometimes, then it works.

But try to go a bit more advanced and you'll get hell just when you really really dont have time to fix the hell that the formats created for you.

Here is a sample of Word 2003 XML

[Overly Critical Guy]

How do "we" all know that, when it's not out in stores until Oct. 22? Are you an MSDN subscriber?

Having said that, for those curious, here is a sample of XML generated by Word, just now created by me. I'm posting this using "Code" as the format so it is formatted correctly.

Here is the original message (I gave it HTML tags so you can see the formatting I gave it in Word):

This is a <b>test</b> of <font face="verdana" size="24"><b>XML</b></font>.

Now , here is the resulting XML after saving that line:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<?mso-application progid="Word.Document"?>
<w:wordDocument xmlns:w="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/ 2003/wordml" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:sl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/schemaLibra ry/2003/core" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/c ore" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word /2003/auxHint" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C1488 2" w:macrosPresent="no" w:embeddedObjPresent="no" w:ocxPresent="no" xml:space="preserve"><o:DocumentProperties><o:Titl e>This is a test of XML</o:Title><o:Author>User</o:Author><o:LastAutho r>User</o:LastAuthor><o:Revision>1</o:Revision><o: TotalTime>1</o:TotalTime><o:Created>2003-09-18T15: 29:00Z</o:Created><o:LastSaved>2003-09-18T15:30:00 Z</o:LastSaved><o:Pages>1</o:Pages><o:Words>3</o:W ords><o:Characters>20</o:Characters><o:Company>Whi te Goat Studios</o:Company><o:Lines>1</o:Lines><o:Paragrap hs>1</o:Paragraphs><o:CharactersWithSpaces>22</o:C haractersWithSpaces><o:Version>11.5604</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties><w:fonts><w:defaultFonts w:ascii="Times New Roman" w:fareast="Times New Roman" w:h-ansi="Times New Roman" w:cs="Times New Roman"/><w:font w:name="Verdana"><w:panose-1 w:val="020B0604030504040204"/><w:charset w:val="00"/><w:family w:val="Swiss"/><w:pitch w:val="variable"/><w:sig w:usb-0="20000287" w:usb-1="00000000" w:usb-2="00000000" w:usb-3="00000000" w:csb-0="0000019F" w:csb-1="00000000"/></w:font></w:fonts><w:styles>< w:versionOfBuiltInStylenames w:val="4"/><w:latentStyles w:defLockedState="off" w:latentStyleCount="156"/><w:style w:type="paragraph" w:default="on" w:styleId="Normal"><w:name w:val="Normal"/><w:rPr><wx:font wx:val="Times New Roman"/><w:sz w:val="24"/><w:sz-cs w:val="24"/><w:lang w:val="EN-US" w:fareast="EN-US" w:bidi="AR-SA"/></w:rPr></w:style><w:styl e w:type="character" w:default="on" w:styleId="DefaultParagraphFont"><w:name w:val="Default Paragraph Font"/><w:semiHidden/></w:style><w:sty le w:type="table" w:default="on" w:styleId="TableNormal"><w:name w:val="Normal Table"/><wx:uiName wx:val="Table Normal"/><w:semiHidden/><w:rPr><wx:fon t wx:val="Times New Roman"/></w:rPr><w:tblPr><w:tblI nd w:w="0" w:type="dxa"/><w:tblCellMar><w:top w:w="0" w:type="dxa"/><w:left w:w="108" w:type="dxa"/><w:bottom w:w="0" w:type="dxa"/><w:right w:w="108" w:type="dxa"/></w:tblCellMar></w:tblPr></w:style>< w:style w:type="list" w:default="on" w:styleId="NoList"><w:name w:val="No List"/><w:semiHidden/></w:style></w:styles><w:docP r

Re:Here is a sample of Word 2003 XML

[Inda]

What is your point?

Is your point that this XML file is too big?
Not enough information in it?
Hard to parse?

Hey if you are just after the text then only look for <w:t> tags. I'm guessing that means Word Text.

I see no problems here.

Re:Here is a sample of Word 2003 XML

[MrScience]

Who said WYSIWYG was easy?

Re:Here is a sample of Word 2003 XML

[Jetifi]

Even assuming you're not joking, but assuming that you entered it correctly, what's <; w:versionOfBuiltInStylenames w:val="4"/> doing in there, or <; w:style w:type="list" w:default="on" w:styleId="NoList">? Is that Slashcode munging your text, or is that in the source? ";" isn't a valid name for an element.

Also, I'm curious, but what happens when you toggle the value in <w:saveInvalidXML w:val="off"/>?

Re:Here is a sample of Word 2003 XML

[SteveX]

OpenOffice actually outputs four different XML files in a zip file when you save a document.. here's what they look like for comparison (for a default document with just the word Hello in it):

content.xml:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE office:document-content PUBLIC "-//OpenOffice.org//DTD OfficeDocument 1.0//EN" "office.dtd"><office:document-content xmlns:office="http://openoffice.org/2000/office" xmlns:style="http://openoffice.org/2000/style" xmlns:text="http://openoffice.org/2000/text" xmlns:table="http://openoffice.org/2000/table" xmlns:draw="http://openoffice.org/2000/drawing" xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:number="http://openoffice.org/2000/datastyle " xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:chart="http://openoffice.org/2000/chart" xmlns:dr3d="http://openoffice.org/2000/dr3d" xmlns:math="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:form="http://openoffice.org/2000/form" xmlns:script="http://openoffice.org/2000/script" office:class="text" office:version="1.0"><office:script/><office:font- decls><style:font-decl style:name="Tahoma1" fo:font-family="Tahoma"/><style:font-decl style:name="Arial Unicode MS" fo:font-family="&apos;Arial Unicode MS&apos;" style:font-pitch="variable"/><style:font-dec l style:name="Tahoma" fo:font-family="Tahoma" style:font-pitch="variable"/><style:font-dec l style:name="Times New Roman" fo:font-family="&apos;Times New Roman&apos;" style:font-family-generic="roman" style:font-pitch="variable"/></office:font-decls>< office:automatic-styles/><office:body><text:sequen ce-decls><text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Illustration"/><text:sequence-dec l text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Table"/><text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Text"/><text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Drawing"/></text:sequence-decls><text:p text:style-name="Standard">Hello.</text:p></office :body></office:document-content>

meta.xml:

< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE office:document-meta PUBLIC "-//OpenOffice.org//DTD OfficeDocument 1.0//EN" "office.dtd"><office:document-meta xmlns:office="http://openoffice.org/2000/office" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:meta="http://openoffice.org/2000/meta" office:version="1.0"><office:meta><meta:generator> OpenOffice.org 1.1.0 (Win32)</meta:generator><!--645m18(Build:8687)-->< meta:creation-date>2003-09-18T11:55:07</meta:creat ion-date><dc:date>2003-09-18T11:56:33</dc:date><dc :language>en-US</dc:language><meta:editing-cycles> 3</meta:editing-cycles><meta:editing-duration>PT18 S</meta:editing-duration><meta:user-defin ed meta:name="Info 1"/><meta:user-defined meta:name="Info 2"/><meta:user-defined meta:name="Info 3"/><meta:user-defined meta:name="Info 4"/><meta:document-statistic meta:table-count="0" meta:image-count="0" meta:object-count="0" meta:page-count="1" meta:paragraph-count="1" meta:word-count="1" meta:character-count="6"/></office:meta></office:d ocument-meta>

settings.xml I can't include because it has a UUEncoded section that Slashdot refuses..

styles.xml:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE office:document-styles PUBLIC "-//OpenOffice.org//DTD OfficeDocument 1.0//EN" "office.dtd"><office:document-styles xmlns:office="http://openoffice.org/2000/office" xmlns:style="http://openoffi

Re:Here is a sample of Word 2003 XML

[Overly Critical Guy]

No, I'm not joking. That's the code in "test.xml" sitting on my desktop.

It must be Slashcode mangling it. I directly copied and pasted the resulting XML, and there is not single semicolon in the original. Also, Slashcode has sprinkled a few random spaces into the code.

Not that it affects legibility any.

Re:Here is a sample of Word 2003 XML

[DickBreath]

At least OOo's XML is compressed in a zip file. Everything I've seen is that good sized documents are decently small in OOo. Compare the same document content in a Word file to an OOo file.

I say this because I fear some may get the impression that OOo's document format is inefficient based on the parent post.

Re:Here is a sample of Word 2003 XML

[AstroDrabb]

P.S. Nice try on the sig. Those are for APPLICATIONS not Linux you dolt. Here is my new sig

31 Unpatched IE security holes
Server attacks stump Microsoft
Credit card theft feared in Windows flaw
Microsoft issues patch for "serious" XP hole
Windows flaw threatens PC services
Microsoft's Source Code Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Why I hate Microsoft
bsod_videowall
bsod_airport
License to plunder
Microsoft Media Player logs users' DVD picks
MS wanted to 'extend, embrace and extinguish' competition
Microsoft Palladium
Control with fine print
Microsoft WinXP Update spies on other PC software
Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design
Microsoft software "riddled with vulnerabilities", trade body claims
Microsoft Issues Five New Security Warnings
Why Open Source Software / Free Software

Re:Here is a sample of Word 2003 XML

[DickBreath]

How much effort is it to zip Word's XML output up?

If XML is your primary document format, as it is for OOo, then it is important to use Zip. There is another important motivation for OOo to use Zip. Because Zip is a container format, not just a compression format. Multiple XML files. plus bitmaps, and other objects are included within an OOo document.

Suppose you have a Word doc with lots of bitmaps. If you save this as XML, then those objects must either be (1) Omitted, or (2) converted into a textual form and put into the XML. Contrast with the efficiency of OOo's format. A bitmap or OLE object would just be added to the zip file in its native form. Plus the OOo zip file can contain multiple XML files, such as the Content.xml and a separate style sheet xml, for instance.

To get to a single item within a Word XML, I would have to parse all of the XML, skipping large blocks of textual binary data. But in OOo's zip file, I have direct lookup access to obtain, say, a bitmap object that I need right now.

Zip is not used so much for compression as it is as a container. In fact, the OOo zip file could hypothetically not use any compression, yet be fully forward and backward compatible with all implementations of OOo, or even KOffice. Saving a document uncompressed results in faster performance, but it is still a zip of numerous files, including xml files.

So a future OOo could do a "quick save" in a fully compliant way, but with no compression on some/all of the zip items.


Also, don't forget that most people if saving as XML won't want to send around a zip file in email as their primary use of such a file format. They're more likely to do something else with the XML data instead. Which means that with OO, you have to unzip it to use it.

Again, in OOo, the zipped-xml is the primary document format. The fact that standard tools can process it (zip and xml) is just a bonus. OOo doesn't need a separate format (like Word's XML format) to turn documents into a "readable" form.

OOo's native doc format is already very readable and accessible. Just take a Writer doc (.sxw) rename it to (.zip), unzip it, and you've got a folder of xml files and possibly other files.

Re:OK I'll bite...

[__aagmrb7289]

Sun's Java fiasco, or Microsoft's fiasco?

Timing Is Everything

[Gallenod]

You have to wonder if this announcement has something to do with Sun recently releasing its Java-based office stack. Also, factor in Steve Ballmer's recent comments on the state of MS's security problems, Apple (lot's of innovation MS can copy, but they're not taking market share), and open source.

Perhaps MS has decided its time to "embrace" Linux, attempt to "extend" it with proprietary MS code, and then litigate the hell out of the GPL to make the resulting product proprietary intellectual property.

It would be a huge gamble, particularly if the GPL holds up in court. But MS could drain a lot of money and resources out of the open source movement even if they lose, perhaps enough even to win the war despite losing the battle.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid and Mr. Gates and Company really have decided that they've made enough money, dominated enough markets, and foisted enough FUD on the world and it's time to contribute all their code to the public domain.

Yeah, right.

Microsoft is a poor steward...

[Lodragandraoidh]

I know this redundant. But, I have to say it:

Microsoft has said this before, and the results have always been bad for developers and consumers (for example the Java and XML debacle).

I don't mind Microsoft using existing standards; I do violently oppose them guiding the course of standards, because they have been shown to be a bad steward for any public standard they get their hands on.

I would be so bold as to argue that it is not out of hubris that they are as they are, as much as from greed.

Is it Love?

[NoSuchGuy]

Every now and then Gates does something nice or friendly or inclusive. Maybe it's for humanitarian purposes such as through his foundation. Maybe it's motivated by a need for better PR. Maybe it's motivated by something else. Doesn't matter.

Is he in love?

Here's why...

[sterno]

The assumption is based on the fact that Microsoft's business has been built on leveraging their advantages in one realm to take over another. There are a number of MS products that would never be used by anybody if it wasn't for the fact that they come bundled with other products that are good.

My sense is that Microsoft will play as though they are open to working with these third parties because they really have no choice. Under the covers they will do what they can to subvert these other systems.

For the record, I'm sure IBM or Sun would do the same thing if they had the power to do so.

Re:OK I'll bite...

[TomV]

Exactly.

Say I'm setting up a holiday booking site on the Web. I'm going to offer the whole package.

so I need to talk to, let's say, an airline booking system written in COBOL on a VAX, a variety of car hire booking systems , some in C on Solaris, some in J2EE on Linux, and so forth, a whole bunch of hotel chains' booking systems, train companies, maybe theme park tickets...

If Bill's .net webservices can talk to all these systems, then Bill's a candidate vendor for my project. If they can't, I can't use Bill's groovy dotNet buzztechnology and he makes zero dollars and zero cents.

Whatever else he may be, Bill's not a sufficiently rubbish businessman to turn down that money.

TomV

I thought it was...

[TALlama]

I fear the geeks, even when they bring GIFs.

Indeed

[blunte]

And when you're 2nd or 3rd place, it's wise to do as the leaders do.

Then if/when you gain a stronger footing, you can open your Dirty Tactics (tm) book and begin the takeover.

Then once you're #2 or #1, you start deviating from the standards, thus making it more difficult for the losers to interoperate.

Stuff a couple more billion in the bank, donate a couple million with grand fanfare, and you're really showing who's boss :)

Has anyone here read...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Breaking Windows" by David Bank?

The central premise in this book is Bill Gates' philosophy of product development. Although the author presents it as a pragmatic, thought-out business plan that evolved from Bill Gates' examination of the market, to me it always came across as a response to basic insecurities that exposed more of Bill's personality flaws than any understanding of the market.

It goes like this: it doesn't matter how good the product is; it doesn't matter how well a product works; customers are fickle and will switch software at the drop of a hat. Therefore, the only way to keep customers is to 'lock them in', to leverage Office to increase Windows share and Windows to increase Office share by continually tying them together and forcing one to require the other. I am paraphrasing and working from memory, read the book.

My points are:
1. the basic business philosophy of Microsoft is so deeply rooted in the insecurities of it's founder and the founder is still in control
2. the whole idea of "open" standards is completely contrary to the concepts of "lock-in" that has worked so well for Microsoft up to this point

that this DOES sound like something from an alternate universe as one poster here has noted and that this has about as much chance of being even partially true as a snowball's chance in hell.

"We're being as inclusive as we can.."

[LinuxParanoid]

"We're being as inclusive as we can", Gates said...

I.e. inclusive enough to give away 15% of the market to rivals and keep antitrust guys off our backs, but not inclusive enough to risk losing customers to any web services running on alternative OSes?

--LinuxParanoid, who doesn't yet believe Gates's philanthroipc altruism extends to other software companies

P.S. Note Gates's observation that "Standards are always a give-to-get bargain" and ask yourself "what does Gates think he is getting?" There are a variety of possible answers.

Microsoft just doesn't get it

[penguin7of9]

Your "stylesheets to convert WordML to HTML" aren't particularly persuasive when they are distributed in .EXE format with no license information on the web page and with requirements of "Supported Operating Systems: Windows XP".

If you want to convince people that Microsoft is becoming more open, you have a lot of work ahead of you learning how to distribute standards, sample implementations, and other documentation:

• Put license information on the web page prominently. People should know what the license is before they download.
  
• Distribute your content in a neutral, non-executable format. ZIP is OK. Gzipped tar is OK.
  
• Pick a license for things like your style sheets and schemas so that people can actually use them to build interoperable products freely.
  

Until you start distributing stuff so that people can actually download and use it without Microsoft products and without signing their life away, all that talk of embracing open standards is just meaningless fluff.

Re:Microsoft just doesn't get it

[DickBreath]

He makes some very valid points. Can you?

I'll make one that is very valid.

Because of Microsoft's past behavior, people are naturally suspicious of any apparent attempts at good behavior. Especially if you liked Microsoft in the 70's, and then watched the development of the industry over the last 20+ years. It is just plain difficult to trust Microsoft. Too many times this trust has been betrayed. In fact, I would suggest that anyone who does trust may be a fool, and this conclusion would be supported by Microsoft's past action. Every time Microsoft tries to be "open" is always in some non-open way. The only time I have seen Microsoft embrace true interoperability with anything has been whenever they first get into something and are the minority player.

While the pointers to the Microsoft XML are very informative, the response to it does make valid points.

• Why is supposedly "interoperable" stuff downloadable as an EXE?
• Why use non-open formats?
• Why not have the license clearly visible before you download (or before you purchase for that matter)?

I hate to break it to you, but these ARE valid points.

These points criticize an apparent continuing behavior of trying to seem open, while not actually being open.

Re:Microsoft just doesn't get it

[DickBreath]

That would be Gates and Allen flipping switches on an Altair?

This is just about the timeframe I am thinking of.

By 1978-79 Microsoft Basic is well known, and liked. Microsoft has other great products that I like, such as Microsoft Adventure (a micro computer clone of the famous Adventure game).


Think about how M$ achieved its market presence.

By leveraging monopolies. Exclusionary agreements that prevented any other successful OS. In the early 80's, there were some other OS choices before MS-DOS became entrenched. You could just circle ALL on the back of a reader service card in BYTE and mail it in. Soon you would be inundated with mail advertising, among other things, OSes. MS agreements with hardware makers were such that if you sold any PC's with DOS, then you had to pay for DOS for every PC shipped, even if that PC is shipped with a competing OS. This pretty much kills the market for any other OS. Plain simple anticompetitive.

That is how they achieved their success.

Being able to buy an OS-less PC does NOT somehow undo the fact that MS is a monopoly and has worked to maintain and even leverage monopoly power.

Re:OK I'll bite...

[__aagmrb7289]

Wow, got a problem with this business practice, huh? Well, can you name any major software company that has "embraced" standards, without extending them? Not Sun. Not Netscape. Not IBM. Maybe some Linux company?

I'm not defending the practice, just pointing out that it's considered legitimate by the software community at large, and used by some of the largest names in the industry. And that includes, but doesn't consist only of, Microsoft.

White Goat Studios

[geekoid]

would that be like "Red Herring studios"

Danger - MS is trying to set the standards

[bizcoach]

In the past, the standards for the internet were decided through the community-based process of the Internet Engineering Task Force. This process is based on "rough consensus" and there is no way that a few influential companies could pervert this process in order to use it to establish standards that they can afterwards use to effectively kill their competitors.

Standards from Microsoft are dangerous, even when royalty-free licensing is offered so that they can be implemented in Free Software.

Consider for example the ECMA standards 334 and 335 for the core parts of .NET - while Microsoft has promised royalty-free licensing for any and all patents that may be neccessary for implementing that standard, they are at the same time embracing and extending their own standard, and they have filed at least one patent application that seems to be designed to give them a monopoly on their extensions to the standard.

In some situations it may work to simply refuse to go along with the standards attempts from MS. Unfortunately, MS has so much leverage that this won't always work. For example, with .NET just ignoring it IMO won't work, that's why we're working on creating a competing "standard set of libraries" for the stuff which goes beyond the stuff that is safe from patent-based attacks (the safe parts are what is specified in the ECMA specs, for which MS has promised royalty-free licensing, plus everything which is thin wrappers around stuff that is simply too old to be affected by .NET patents, such as for example System.Windows.Forms). The strategy of the DotGNU project is to re-use a good number of existing Free Software libs (written in C) and compile them for .NET - again since those libs are old, they're safe from being affected by any .NET patents.

Greetings,
Norbert.

Re:OK I'll bite...

[Synn]

"I was chatting with a SCORE member, and he said that a true business plan should be a living entity that evolves with the world around it."

I think the above is a great ideal and I personally prefer to work for companies that work like that, but many don't.

For a lot of companies they got successful, or maybe they feel they got successful, partly by luck. It was a matter of having the right product at the right time and making the right guesses about the market. A LOT more businesses fail than succeed because of timing or bad guesses. Starting a business is almost like gambling.

So when you hit success it's far far easier to resist and fight new markets than to submit to them, because the existing market is one where they're already a success while the new one would almost be like starting over again.

Gates actually is really smart

[KurdtX]

(Before you mod me down, at least read half the comment)

Gates has realized that Microsoft cannot hold the crown of the software world forever. It's great at competing against companies that it can buy out or undercut, but it can't do either of those to Linux. IBM lost their crown when it failed to realize the PC, and the software running on it, were the new champs of the computing business. Ironically, I think this is the first step in Microsoft converting from a software company to a services company. It's pretty hard to make money on software if some geeks are giving it away for free.

The decade of windows is about to close, it became the best OS for the average (non-programmer) user when Win 95 was released, and before that Macintosh had their decade. Linux's decade hasn't started yet, but Windows only has a few years left, and Bill realizes that. If you look at the way the economy is turning, you can see that while the pure programming jobs may go overseas, services can't. Many companies are already using the "give the software away, charge for services" model of doing business (actually, the company I work for is selling the software, services, and a required maintainance contract - I'm feeling pretty safe), and are surviving just fine.

Not that Microsoft hasn't turned every one of these initiatives in the past into either an "embrace-and-extend" or "embrace-and-block" (by being one of the founders and then never giving final approval to the standard) strategy. Maybe they'll go through with this one this time, but expect to see Microsoft make an about-face on software in the next ten years like they did with their position on the internet back in '97. It's just a matter of time.

dotGNU - what's the point?

[alext]

The strategy of the DotGNU project is to re-use a good number of existing Free Software libs (written in C) and compile them for .NET - again since those libs are old, they're safe from being affected by any .NET patents.

Even assuming this makes sense technically (see below), surely if you no longer care about portability between Dotnet and dotGNU, you've just lost the main justification for the dotGNU project?

If I have developed a Dotnet app, but I can't compile it on dotGNU because it calls Windows Forms, or ASP.NET or ADO.NET... why on earth should I care that, if I could compile it, the generated bytecodes would be the same instruction set as found on Windows? By definition, there cannot be any value for me to have portability at the bytecode level if it is missing at the application level. And, if I do go as far as changing every non-core API call in my app, I'm hardly going to care much if the bytecode is different - I have to maintain and generate two versions anyway.

Without portability, it seems positively perverse to seek to extend the influence of Microsoft technologies on Linux when there are already very well established equivalents (Java, Python, Parrot). Java-on-Linux investments alone must total something in the order of billions of dollars per year, judging by the number of large organizations doing rollouts of this type - I'd guess that currently Java is the single biggest factor pushing Linux into commercial organizations today.

So precisely what value is dotGNU bringing to the table?

Regarding the incorporation of old C libraries into DotGNU, it seems rather optimistic to assume they can just be wrapped or turned into managed code (ask MS about the effort invested in doing that for their code). Do these libs happen to support Dotnet style internationalization, multithreading, access control...? If not, you've got a huge chunk of work to do - and all to get you roughly where Python is already!

Here's a great idea for a web service!

[DickBreath]

Here is a great idea for a web service!

Bill should just love it because it is based on 100% Microsoft technologies.

I hope some kind soul will do this.

Set up a Windows 2003 server running ASP.NET and also a copy of the new high end MS Office that writes XML documents. Write a web service (i.e. a front end to a remote function call) that...

• accepts as a parameter, a Word document
• opens it using the server's copy of new Office
• scripts the server to save the document in MS-XML format
• returns the XML as the remote function call result

Now other office suites, such as OpenOffice.org, or any software package could simply make such a function call to such a server to convert documents into MS-XML as a prelude to further processing the MS-XML into OpenOffice.org-XML.

Heck Sun could host such a service.

Standard macros could be included in OOo which convert Word documents, via. this network based service, into OOo documents.

Re:Here's a great idea for a web service!

[DickBreath]

....probability that the EULA for that new high end MS Office product expressly forbids its use in this capacity. In order to use it thusly, every client process connecting to that web service would need its own legal, licensed copy of MS Office.

I wonder if such a thing is enforcable? It might be possible for an interested party with deep pockets to get a declaratory judgement that this is a legal use of the software.

I wonder if the EULA really has any such restrictions? Any slashdotters with access to this software care to read the EULA and reply? (Or does the EULA forbid such action? e.g. forbid reading it, forbid discussing it on Slashdot?)


Ahh, it feels good to say that to someone without fear of repercusion.

:-) Just earlier today on Slashdot, in this very thread, an anonymous troll said I was an ignorant cocksucker. I had to reply that I strongly resented the use of the word ignorant.

Re:You don't know what XML is for.

[swimmar132]

They have a lot of complex information to store inside a Word XML file. Complex information leads to a complex schema. Did your version of a 'good' XML file include version numbers, authors, previous authors, styles, number of paragraphs, number of lines, default fonts, company information, etc.? Did it have support for tracking multiple changes in the document by multiple authors?

I think that you're complaining because there wasn't line breaks in the file or something, affecting human readability.

The thing about that...

[NickFortune]

If this is on the level then isn't Office's use of XML kind of pointless? I mean where's the point of loudly adopting an interoperability standard like XML if you then go and encrypt the result so no one else can read it>

I mean it's not your doing I know - but loudly trumpeting XML compliance and arranging for it to be no bloody good to anyone would be just the sort of trick your employer is famous for,

standards are fine if you aren't the market leader

[GunFodder]

Microsoft has never had a problem with open standards in markets that they don't control. Weren't they lobbying for an IM open standard a while ago? At the time AOL had the lion's share of the market. At this time no one controls the Web Services market, if there even is one.

Right now Web Services is all about standards, since there isn't much in the way of implementations yet. MSFT and IBM seem to be at odds with the other major players; seems like every major new standard is being duplicated. Can't we all just get along?

Microsoft cannot be trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

How Microsoft embraces standards in general:

> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

How Microsoft supports Office on the Mac:

> Gates wrote, "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . . ."

> In Waldman's [Microsoft executive in charge of Mac Office] words:
> "Sounds like we give them the HTML control for nothing except making IE the "standard browser for Apple?" I think they should be doing this anyway. Though the language of the agreement uses the word "encourage," I think that the spirit is that Apple should be using it everywhere and if they don't do it, then we can use Office as a club."

How Microsoft supports multimedia standards:

> Eric Engstrom, a Microsoft executive with responsibility for multimedia development, wrote to his superiors that one of Microsoft's goals was getting "Intel to stop helping Sun create Java Multimedia APIs, especially ones that run well (ie native implementations) on Windows." Engstrom proposed achieving this goal by offering Intel the following deal: Microsoft would incorporate into the Windows API set any multimedia interfaces that Intel agreed to not help Sun incorporate into the Java class libraries.

How Microsoft embraced Java:

> Microsoft's Executive Vice President, Paul Maritz, outlined Microsoft's strategy to win the browser war with Netscape and simultaneously "neutralize Java" by "tying" the "user interface" and "APIs" "back to Windows," by "get[ting] control of JAVA with JAVA support/tools", and by "get[ting] control of then leverag[ing] the programming model."

> As reported to Bill Gates in April 1997 by the manager responsible for execution of Microsoft's strategy:
"When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns...
> 1. What is our business model for Java?
> 2. How do we wrest control of Java away from Sun?
> 3. How do we turn Java into just the latest, best way to write Windows applications?"

> "at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

I could continue with quotes from the Caldera case, the Bristol Wind/U case, and so on.

Time and again, Microsoft has claimed to support a technology or standard, and it turned out that they were lying, and it was just another fraud intended to trap developers and users.

Microsoft has never been punished for their crimes of sabotage and fraud.

It's the same people running the company.

There is no reason to believe that this time will be different.

Ok, I'll bite...

[InfoVore]

It was a little more complicated than you suggested, but just as satisfying:

17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of Microsoft that sitteth upon many waters:

17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, MICROSOFT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where Microsoft sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate Microsoft, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto Microsoft, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is Windows, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Microsoft is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful user.

18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her applications, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with Windows, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of Office for Windows.

18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of Windows, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her Viruses.

18:5 For Window's sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

18:6 Reward Windows even as she rewarded you, and double unto Windows double according to her works: in the cup which Windows hath filled fill to her double.

18:7 How much Windows hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart A FATAL ERROR HAS OCCURED AT 002B:000069F8, PRESS ANY KEY TO REBOOT.

18:8 Therefore shall her Viruses come in one day, death, and mourning, and BSODs; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth Windows.

18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with Windows, shall bewail her, and lament for Office, when they shall see the smoke of Windows burning,

18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas Redmond, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over Microsoft; for no man buyeth their licenses any more:

18:15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by Windows, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing

18:16 And saying, Alas, alas Redmond, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and Themes!

18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of Microsoft burning, saying, What city is like unto Redmond!

18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas Redmond, wherein were made rich all that had Stock Options by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on Windows.

18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great Click-through License, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Redmond be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

18:22 And the voice of coders, and testers, and of tech support, and salesmen, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no software engineer, of whatsoever language he code, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of programming shall be heard no more at all in thee;

18:24 And in Windows was found the blood of entrepreneurs,

When Microsoft talks "standards"...

[phorm]

When Microsoft talks "standards" and "interoperability", it generally means...

We'll take an existing standard, make it "better" (bloat, non-standard syntax, non-compliant), market the crap out of it, and then everyone else can adopt it so that your products work happily with ours.

In other words... "make your program work with our software which was coded by pot-smoking-monkeys-on-typewriters (tm), and it will be interoperable."

Re:Damned if you do, damned if ou don't

[yerricde]

Unless everyone in the world has the same printer I can't see how both goals are not contradictory.

PDF seems to have no trouble printing identically on all black-and-white printers. If a page layout program must base its formatting decisions on the characteristics of the printer attached to the last computer that edited the file, why not save those characteristics in the document?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if ou don't

[Vaughn Anderson]

Unless everyone in the world has the same printer I can't see how both goals are not contradictory.

Because some files I never plan on printing, have nothing to do with paper and should not be forced to be related to a printer.

If I believed that every word processor in the world did this and it _had_ to do it this way, I wouldn't even bother with a comment. But since _none_ of the other formats or software I've ever used (within my knowledge) base their layout on the printer drivers, then I can only assume this is poorly designed software.

Feel free to prove otherwise, I am certainly not a blind MS basher...

Easy Reason: Apache

[Wolfier]

It is what MS always does.

It promotes interoperability when its platforms are not the dominant players in a field.

Remember how its efforts to get AIM opened? Now it's not asking it anymore since MSN is competitive enough.

Now it's apparent - how much market share does Apache have now? How about mod_php? How about IIS? ASP? Is there any wonder MS is seeking interoperability?

Re:Example Word XML document

[TomV]

I find it funny that the schema URL's for the various namespaces don't point to existing URL's.

Don't worry, that's allowed according to the relevant section of the W3C Recommendation on Namespaces in XML:

[Definition:] The attribute's value, a URI reference, is the namespace name identifying the namespace. The namespace name, to serve its intended purpose, should have the characteristics of uniqueness and persistence. It is not a goal that it be directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any exists). An example of a syntax that is designed with these goals in mind is that for Uniform Resource Names [RFC2141]. However, it should be noted that ordinary URLs can be managed in such a way as to achieve these same goals.

I think (off the top of my head) that the reason the markup is so verbose , even though 'All settings (fonts, line spacing, etc) are using defaults' could either be because my defaults might not be the same as your defaults (different locale, for example) or because in defining the schema, they may have decided to make a lot of these elements / attributes compulsory, to be on the safe side. Or both. Or neither of course ;-)

Actually, looking at it a bit more carefully (OK, repairing it and reformatting it after what /. did to the poor thing, it seems reasonable enough. Defines a bunch of namespaces to keep stuff tidy, and differentiate Office level stuff (o:), Word (w:), Extra word stuff (wx: maybe oversights early in the spec?), then a branch of <w:styles> containing a number of <w:style>s. Then there's a <w:docPr> branch containing what look like Document Properties.

After the <w:docPr> it's just
<w:body>
<wx:sect>
<w:p><w:r>
<w:t>Hello World!</w:t>
</w:r>
</w:p>
<w:sectPr>
<w:pgSz w:w="11906" w:h="16838"/>
<w:pgMar w:top="1417" w:right="1417" w:bottom="1417" w:left="1417" w:header="708" w:footer="708" w:gutter="0"/>
<w:cols w:space="708"/>
<w:docGrid w:line-pitch="360"/>
</w:sectPr>
</wx:sect>
</w :body>

and a closing </w:wordDocument>.

Which makes me think it isn't that far from an HTML file with a bunch of <style> in the <head>. Would be interesting to know if the VBA shows up as something pretty much equivalent to <script> tags. You could immediately dispose of a lot of stuff by XPath-ing down to the <w:body>> and ignoring the <wx: stuff.

There's very little there that you wouldn't have seen in a Word Perfect document using 'show codes', AFAICS.

TomV

Results of opening in Mozilla--please read

[Overly Critical Guy]

Ignore Slashcode-added semicolons:

<?mso-application progid="Word.Document"?>
<w:wordDocument w:macrosPresent="no" w:embeddedObjPresent="no" w:ocxPresent="no" xml:space="preserve">
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Title>This is a test of XML</o:Title>
<o:Author>User</o:Author>
<o:LastAuthor>User</o:LastAuthor>
<o:Revision>1</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>1</o:TotalTime>
<o:Created>2003-09-18T15:29:00Z</o:Created>
&nbsp ; <o:LastSaved>2003-09-18T15:30:00Z</o:LastSaved>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>3</o:Words>
<o:Characters>20</o:Characters>
&nbsp ; <o:Company>White Goat Studios</o:Company>
<o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>22</o:CharactersWithSpaces >
<o:Version>11.5604</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<w:fonts>
<w:defaultFonts w:ascii="Times New Roman" w:fareast="Times New Roman" w:h-ansi="Times New Roman" w:cs="Times New Roman"/>
<w:font w:name="Verdana">
<w:panose-1 w:val="020B0604030504040204"/>
<w:charset w:val="00"/>
<w:family w:val="Swiss"/>
<w:pitch w:val="variable"/>
<w:sig w:usb-0="20000287" w:usb-1="00000000" w:usb-2="00000000" w:usb-3="00000000" w:csb-0="0000019F" w:csb-1="00000000"/>
</w:font>
</w:fonts>
<w:styles>
<w:versionOfBuiltInStylenames w:val="4"/>
<w:latentStyles w:defLockedState="off" w:latentStyleCount="156"/>
<w:style w:type="paragraph" w:default="on" w:styleId="Normal">
<w:name w:val="Normal"/>
<w:rPr>
<wx:font wx:val="Times New Roman"/>
<w:sz w:val="24"/>
<w:sz-cs w:val="24"/>
<w:lang w:val="EN-US" w:fareast="EN-US" w:bidi="AR-SA"/>
</w:rPr>
</w:style>
<w:style w:type="character" w:default="on" w:styleId="DefaultParagraphFont">
<w:name w:val="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:semiHidden/>
</w:style>
</w:styles>
<w:docPr>
<w:view w:val="normal"/>
<w:zoom w:percent="100"/>
<w:doNotEmbedSystemFonts/>
<w:proofState w:spelling="clean" w:grammar="clean"/>
<w:attachedTemplate w:val=""/>
<w:defaultTabStop w:val="720"/>
<w:characterSpacingControl w:val="DontCompress"/>
<w:optimizeForBrowser/>
<w:validateAgainstSchema/>
<w:saveInvalidXML w:val="on"/>
<w:ignoreMixedContent w:val="off"/>
<w:alwaysShowPlaceholderText w:val="off"/>
<w:compat>
<w:breakWrappedTables/>
<w:snapToGridInCell/>
<w:wrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:useAsianBreakRules/>
<w:useWord2002TableStyleRules/>
</w:compat>
</w:docPr>
<w:body>
<wx:sect>
<w:p>
<w:r>
<w:t>This is a </w:t>
</w:r>
<w:r>
<w:rPr>
<w:b/>
</w:rPr>
<w:t>test</w:t>
</w:r>
<w:r>
<w:t> of </w:t>
</w:r>
<w:r>
<w:rPr>
<w:rFonts w:ascii="Verdana" w:h-ansi="Verdana"/>
<wx:font wx:val="Verdana"/>
<w:b/>
<w:i/>
<w:sz w:val="52"/>
<w:sz-cs w:val="52"/>
</w:rPr>
<w:t>XML</w:t>
</w:r>
<w:r>
<w:t>.</w:t>
</w:r>
</w:p>
<w:sectPr>
<w:pgSz w:w="12240" w:h="15840"/>
<w:pgMar w:top="1440" w:right="1800" w:bottom="1440" w:le

Anyone else check the date?

[swdunlop]

I was looking for an April 1st dateline on this one..