Microsoft Receives Open Source VIP Blessing

* * Beatles-Beatles writes to let us know that Larry Rosen has given his blessing to the new terms that Microsoft is Making their Office XML Reference Schema available under. Rosen, "the attorney that wrote the book on open source licensing and the man who was the Open Source Initiative's first general counsel and secretary," described this move as the "most significant olive branch to date" to come from the Redmond software giant.

Comments

WTF editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok on the front page 2 submissions from beatles beatles and 2 from prostoalex.
Are there no other worthy people submitting articles?

Standard - oh my.

[ratatask]

Do we really want this mess to become our standards ?

*shrug*, call me a flaimbaiter - but whatever happened to clear and simple ?

--
Petition for iPod to support .ogg

Re:Standard - oh my.

[KiloByte]

Do we really want this mess to become our standards ?

No, we don't.

As the time flies, I'm getting more and more convinced that OSI is actually harming our cause. While RMS sometimes has bad ideas as well (GFDL, GPLv3), Free Software is the way to do. Not the collestion of look-but-not-touch-and-we-reserve-all-rights-to-su e-you licenses endored by OSI and friends.

Re:Standard - oh my.

[Nurseman]

Anyone else notice that the first document linked on the OASIS site is an MS Word doc ? They do have it in PDF form also, but the first one is Word. Kinda Ironic given what is going on in Mass.

Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm recycling a comment from another AC in another Scuttlemonkey/**Beatles-Beatles post. This guy's getting worse than Roland Picklepail:

Am I the only person who has noticed the numerous stories that get posted by *--Beatles-Beatles? Am I also the only person who has noticed that the link used in is name is a constantly changing URL (depending on the story) with pointers to various scammy sites? Is it not obvious what he's doing? He's using the awesome PageRank of slashdot do promote his sites based on searches that have the word Beatles in them.

It's a small price to pay for free advertising. Find a story, summarize it in 5 minutes, post to slashdot, and get a pagerank boost that advertisers would pay hundreds (or maybe thousands) for. (Text links on high-ranking sites is big business - just ask oreilly).

Slashdot should at least put a ref=nofollow in the links to submitters (or better yet, only link the submitter's name to his/her user page).

In closing, a quick bit of WHOIS shows that all the sites linked by **B-B are registered to Carl Fogle. Carl, cut this crap out.

You know its coming

[Anonymous Coward]

[insert arbitrary anti-microsoft slashdot comment here] Even though this is a good thing.

Re:You know its coming

[TangoCharlie]

Even though this is a good thing.

Is it? What happens if Microsoft gets off the hook because it's an "open standard", but then uses IP or Patent to block others from producing competing products. Call me a "arbitrary-anti-microsoft slashdot comment" sort of guy, but that's just how I see it. Time will tell I suppose.

Re:You know its coming

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not a good fucking thing. These schemas are patented, opening the standard is a desperate and cynical gesture that enables Microsoft to discredit opendoc and keep some government contracts. The only way this could ever be deemed a good thing is if you regard it as an indication that the monopoly is over.

Re:You know its coming

[trewornan]

"I fear the Greeks, even when they come bearing gifts."

Microsoft cannot be trusted and this opening up of the format is in nobody's interest but theirs - if it was any other way they wouldn't be doing it.

I don't know if it's trickery with patents, or a bait and switch, or some other kind of knavery, but I guarantee you they're going to try something.

Isn't XML readable anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I don't know XML but until now I thought it is human readable anyways. I wouldn't require me to reverse engineer anything. Just open the file and look with my eyes.

But maybe someone has the right busswords to proove me wrong?

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[oneandoneis2]

Take a look at Groklaw's comparison of XML formats and tell me if you think MS's XML is human-readable! :o)

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[Alphix]

XML is just a language, you can make the documents as incomprehensible as you want....

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<legalnote>
        <warning>This document scheme is patented, copyright protected and trademarked</warning>
        <uspto>US1234567</uspto>
</legalnote>

<blob type="binary" encryption="proprietary 40-bit">
        <key type="public" enc="hex">
                e5e9fa1ba31ecd1ae84f75caaa474f3a663f05f4
                bd30361aa855686bde0eacd7162fef6a25fe97bf
        </key>
        <data enc="hex">
                2bb80d537b1da3e38bd30361aa855686bde0eacd
                7162fef6a25fe97bf527a25bb1da3e38bd30361a
        </data>
</blob>

<blob type="image" codec="proprietary">
        <data enc="hex">
                30361aa855686bde0eacd7162fef6a25fe97bf527a25b
                2bb80d537b1da3e38bd30361aa855686bde0eacd30361
        </data>
</blob>

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[omeg]

You forgot to add a root element!

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[Vegard]

The pitfalls could be summarized into these three points, as I see it:

1) Patents/licenses.

Do Microsoft have any patents to any methods/techniques in the XML schemas? Patents seem to be granted on pretty much anything, nowadays (that's another discussion), but even if it's non-valid, open source-developers can rarely afford to either contest or license use of a patent.

If Microsoft makes a blanket license to use any patented method they might have claim on relating to the format, no questions asked, and with a right to sublicense, kudos to them. If not, it's not an open format.

There was also some technicalities regarding "a conforming implementation". Does this mean that you're not allowed to implement support for any extensions that are non-conforming to the specification? Are Microsoft the only ones allowed to do that? (Microsoft doesn't actually have a good track-record for following specifications - not even their own ones).

That leads us into point 2:

2) Is Microsoft itself going to conform to the specification, or are they going to embrace and extend their own formats? If they are, this means that the situation won't be much better than today, as we're forever stuck with reverse-engineering "the newest Microsoft Office formats". Making an XML specification itself changes nothing. The value in this XML specification coming from Microsoft, is that it promises interoperability with and long-term-archivability of documents written in Microsoft office, something that's been problematic up to now.

If this is just a "snapshot", however, something that some version of Microsoft office once used, but you can't be sure that *any* Microsoft Office-document can be opened with just implementing the specification, we gain nothing. Nothing at all. Then, it's just a fake bone, a PR-stunt, to keep off ODF competition.

ODF of course have the same problems, but at least that format comes from the open source world, which means that at least the open source implementations (that are likely to become the "reference implementations") can be studied to see what the hell they have changed and why they're not conforming.

- Vegard

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[Decaff]

XML is just a language, you can make the documents as incomprehensible as you want....

True, but you gave a bad example, as you were illustrating how embedded binary information can look incomprehensible, which is irrelevant.

XML can be made difficult to read through the use of meaningless tag names or attributes.

The point of XML is that it can be made easily human readable (and good XML should be) - in fact this was one of the original design considerations.

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[Kjella]

Take a look at Groklaw's comparison of XML formats and tell me if you think MS's XML is human-readable! :o)

Seriously, and I'm not joking here, it looks a whole lot more human-readable than perl or regexps. And as long as it can be converted easily (I assume excellent ODFdocx converters to be available soon if not now), will the implementation details matter? The only thing that really matters is if Microsoft starts doing "embrace and extend" with undocumented and purposefully obfuscated elements or attributes. While the format looks very convoluted, it wouldn't be a big job to "reverse engineer" docx as it is today without documentation.

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Redmond, Microsoft roots you!

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[Alphix]

> The point of XML is that it can be made easily human readable

True, but neither embedded binary information nor obfuscated tags are irrelevant since we are discussing whether opening up the XML formats will actually result in an open standard which can be implemented by competitors.

The point I tried to make is that there is a large number of tricks (binary data, links to external data in proprietary formats, patents, obfuscation, writing non-compliant documents, "extending" the standard, etc) which can be utilized to create non-interoperable file formats even if they are based on XML...creating a good and genuinely open XML format requires the will to do so...and somehow I have the feeling that the will of some parties is not that strong.

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[diegocgteleline.es]

That's exactly one of the reasons why some people didn't like the msoffice format - the openoffice one doesn't allow you do that FAIK

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[Decaff]

True, but neither embedded binary information nor obfuscated tags are irrelevant since we are discussing whether opening up the XML formats will actually result in an open standard which can be implemented by competitors.

Embedded binary information is irrelevant because it isn't XML. XML is merely being used as a container for the information.

creating a good and genuinely open XML format requires the will to do so...and somehow I have the feeling that the will of some parties is not that strong.

This could well be the case.

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[seweso]

You're forgetting something. Their format is not 100% open, the format allows for binary data to be used. Have you heard of Active-x? I guess it is still posible to include that into office documents, so it's not really an open xml standard.

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[g2devi]

Actually it's not so bad:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200511251 44611543

I'll let you judge for yourself how good or bad it is:

MS XML
<w:r> <w:rPr> <w:b /> </w:rPr> <w:t>this is bold</w:t> </w:r>

OpenDocument
<text:span text:style-name="Strong_20_Emphasis"> this is bold </text:span>

XHTML
<b>this is bold</b>

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[marsu_k]

>>The pitfalls could be summarized into these three points, as I see it:
>>1) Patents/licenses
>>2) Is Microsoft itself going to conform to the specification

>You're forgetting something

Point 3?

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[TubeSteak]

XHTML
[b]this is bold[/b]

That looks a lot like html markup to me...

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[InsideTheAsylum]

What do you think the HTML part of XHTML means?

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[batkiwi]

Technically you shouldn't (SHOULDN'T, not CAN'T) be embedding bold/etc tags in your xhtml and should instead be using css...

Oh good.

[Necro Spork]

Now maybe AbiWord will actually work on my computer. It always did werid things when inserting text.

Back in Mass.

[DrEldarion]

This move has put Microsoft back in the race in Massachusetts. They were previously threatening to disqualify MS due to not supporting any standards.

Re:Back in Mass.

[didit]

As far as I understand, MS just made a promise and to date, there is still no released word processor supporting what could someday be an open standard. I fail to understand how this can put MS back in the race.

Re:Back in Mass.

[LiquidCoooled]

This only puts the new xml schema in the running, I still haven't seen a viable solution to their legacy files.

All existing documents are still locked away in binary hell.
Are they assuming that every single document is to remain locked in forever, or that every single one needs to be uplifted to xml (nitemare to manage?)

Where are the specs for those older files?

Re:Back in Mass.

[rmstar]

By promising to open their standard they have made a fairly dramatic political move. They are doing quite a bit of stuff lately that makes me think that they are very desperate.

Re:Back in Mass.

[vidarh]

They were threatening no such thing. They standardised on ODF and made it clear they'd be happy to work with anyone who - by the time the policy goes into force in 2007 - supports ODF in the appropriate way in their software.

That MS chose to present that as if they were being excluded is more about MS' fear of competition and the free market than about reality.

Re:Back in Mass.

[Tony Hoyle]

If by 'desparate' you mean 'responding to the market' then yes, they are.

Re:Back in Mass.

[Kjella]

That MS chose to present that as if they were being excluded is more about MS' fear of competition and the free market than about reality.

You can use any format you like - as long as it is a format you currently don't support and that is the format of your main competitor. Come on, I know most businesses would freak out over that one. If the MPAA came out and said they were looking for solutions to deliver video online, and they requested bids for open competition and at the same time required using the VC-1 codec, slashdot would call it a joke. Those who got this pushed through in Mass. knew that it almost certainly means going with OpenOffice. The rest is either to a) make MS jump through hoops and offer a really good deal or b) an excuse for not choosing Microsoft.

Re:Back in Mass.

[indifferent children]

If by 'desparate' you mean 'responding to the market' then yes, they are.

Microsoft's track record is one of abusing their monopoly, to abuse their customers. If they're 'responding to the market' they must think that their corporate doomsday clock is at 11:59pm.

So there! (sorry for that last bit, but I just wanted to use *all three* forms of they're/their/there correctly in one post (another sign of the apocalypse)).

Re:Back in Mass.

[indifferent children]

Or maybe the government IT folks in Massachusets think that a format designed to be open and interoperable will be a better format than one that was designed to serve the interests of one corporation. Those crazy kids.

Re:Back in Mass.

[QuietLagoon]

If by 'desparate' you mean 'responding to the market' then yes, they are.

Microsoft doesn't "respond to the market". Microsoft "protects its monopoly".

In this instance, Microsoft saw a significant threat to its MS Office monopoly when Massachusetts decided to support an open document format that others and Microsoft could support. That removed a key advantage that Microsoft holds, i.e., the ability to completely control the document format(s) of office productivity products.

Once Microsoft has lost the advantage of file format control, where is Microsoft's advantage?

Microsoft's biggest fear is having to compete in an open, fair marketspace, without having the ability to leverage its desktop monopoly, or proprietary file formats and protocols, to lock up new markets.

Re:Back in Mass.

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

think that a format designed to be open and interoperable will be a better format

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how do you "design" a file format to be open or interoperable?

"Open" - while it seems a pretty vauge word today meaning about anything depending on who is using it, in this context "Open" is basically function of a formats use of licenses/patenets/standards. FTFA it seems its just fine in this reguard, however thats a bit irrelevant to this point. How do you design a file format to be "open"? Being "open" or not seems to have nothing to do with the actual file format's design.

"Interoperable" - OK, this one really confuses me when it comes to a file format. Obviously if talking about applications or complex systems, you really need to think ahead during design about what level and type of interoperability you want/need. Depending on your needs you may need to take time to design nice consistantly named namespaces and APIs to make working with the product from other products easy. Perhaps, you'll want to expose web-services to increase interoperability with other systems. Maybe a goal is to be DB indepent in which case you better not design the system to have lots of logic in stored procedures (or for true independance even use stored procs). There are tons of design decisions like this when designing a complex application or system, but a file format????

Re:Back in Mass.

[GreyWolf3000]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how do you "design" a file format to be open or interoperable?

That's what usually happens when you design any file format. Any "design" on Microsoft's part has gone to make the file format less open and interoperable.

Re:Back in Mass.

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

OK, but how??? I realize "open and interoperable" is a cool new catch phrase, but how is it relevant here? We are talking about an XML file format right? Which of the below is more "open and interoperable"? And below isn't even a fair comparison as they are implementations of a "standard" (quite a standard to. Maybe I should make my own ;-)

<Doc>
<Title val="This is the title" font="Arial" size="14"/>
<Body val "This is the body" font="Arial" size="10"/>
</Doc>

<Doc>
<Title>
<Value="This is the title"/>
<Font="Arial"/>
<Size="14"/>
</Title>
<Body>
<Value="This is the body"/>
<Font="Arial"/>
<Size="10"/>
</Body>
</Doc>

Now the design of the license would effect a standard format's "openness and interoperability", but I still don't see how the design of the format itself is relevant.

Re:Back in Mass.

[TheRaven64]

Some file formats are very closely tied to a particular implementation's internal representation of the document. Early Word formats were an example of this - they were little more than memory dumps of the internal data structures. Formats like this are very difficult to support in other applications, since you need to jump through three hoops:

1. Parse the format.
2. Turn it into a more abstract representation of the document.
3. Turn it into your internal format.

Formats that are designed to be application neutral present the data in a more abstract form, and allow you to skip step two. I would imagine that MS XML is little more than an XML version of the old binary formats, replete with a number of assumptions about the internal workings of the editor. In contrast, the OASIS formats were developed with input from multiple projects, and so are far less likely to include such assumptions.

Re:Back in Mass.

[trewornan]

I believe that by 'desparate' he means 'desperate'.

Re:Back in Mass.

[MemeRot]

I think it would have to do with how developer friendly it is. Both of the above are fine.

Who knows how Office stores info about layout inside of it though? Did you ever export a word doc as html? Did you see the kind of code that created? Yes it worked, and it was 'valid' but it looked like it was written by a drunk alien - it did not look like html anyone would write, and you really could not modify it. I think that's what developers are afraid they'll see again in the new file format.

Re:Back in Mass.

[IdolizingStewie]

Word exported html is frequently invalid, I've found. I belong to a couple of Yahoo Groups used mostly to upload files. Policy is to do it in HTML so you don't have to open another program, but the majority of the people on there wouldn't know HTML if it walked up and bit them on the ass, so they write in Word and export it. I end up staring at source code about 10-15% of the time if I'm in Firefox. IE will interpret it, but it doesn't run so well on Ubuntu.

Re:Back in Mass.

[Trepalium]

Open an interoperable means documented and freely usable. The fact that XML is usually human readable means very little. Unless you understand how the data is structured, and how those structures interact with each other, the fact it's XML is really meaningless. Take this bogus example:

<d>
<d:p>
<d:fm>
<d:rPf f="Arial" s=14 />
</d:fm>
<d:t>
VGhpcyBpcyB0aGUgdGl0bGU=
</d: t>
</d:p>
<d:p>
<d:fm>
<d:rPf f="Arial" s=10 />
</d:fm>
<d:t>
VGhpcyBpcyB0aGUgYm9keQ==
</d: t>
</d:p>
</d>

Same document as what you posted, but encoded in yet another way. I base64 encoded all the text, and put all formatting in a special tag, used extremely short tag names everywhere and removed the structure of having a title separate from the document. While I exaggerated this a little (Base64 encoding isn't used, and the tags are sometimes a little longer than what I used), this is the type of format that Microsoft uses for their Word XML format. The Microsoft XML format resembles a stream of commands, whereas the ODF format is more like the HTMLish structure that you posted.

Re:Back in Mass.

[legirons]

Once Microsoft has lost the advantage of file format control, where is Microsoft's advantage?

Their advantage rests in the (fucking idiots | enterprise level solutions architects) who would buy anything so long as it came in a box with Microsoft written on the label, and work just as hard to prevent anything "open source" from being used regardless of how much it costs not to use it.

Re:Back in Mass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Would pointing out the fact that MSOffice still kicks the everloving shit out of OpenOffice be a no-no here?

Yes, I guess I must be new here.

Re:Back in Mass.

[QuietLagoon]

If you call it an opinion instead of a fact, it wouldn't be a no-no.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Anonymous Coward]

come on... top ten post.............

Is this really open source ?

[axonis]

Isn't this really just a standards specification for the office file format in XML and thus has nothing to do with open source since Microsoft is not providing any code ?

Re:Is this really open source ?

[PhilHibbs]

It's about open formats that can be implemented in Open Source. No, they aren't providing any code, no-one said they are.

Re:Is this really open source ?

[MBoffin]

Isn't this really just a standards specification for the office file format in XML and thus has nothing to do with open source since Microsoft is not providing any code ?

And wouldn't open source advocates raise a lot of hell if they didn't release this specification? So pedantic nitpicking over whether this is technically "open source" per se seems kind of irrelevant. They're opening to us the source specification from which they are creating Office documents in XML.

And I'm not trying to be an arse here. It's a step forward at the very least.

Re:Is this really open source ?

[zootm]

Did anyone say that this was open source? It's an open specification, not open source — it now allows open source solutions to implement this open specification, too.

Re:Is this really open source ?

[CastrTroy]

My big question is, is why does MS feel the need to make it's own open format? If they are going to go through the trouble of making their own format, and making it open, then there must be a reason for doing this, over using ODF. Why would they go through all the trouble to think up and XML based document format, and release a spec, when they could just go ahead and implement the ODF spec? If the format is going to be truly open, then why wouldn't they just implement something that already exists. Obviously Microsoft thinks they are gaining something by creating their own spec, what it is, I have no idea.

Re:Is this really open source ?

[MemeRot]

I've heard tons of anecdotal reports that a file that takes 3 seconds to open in Word can take 5 minutes to open in OpenOffice. Maybe they just think the ODF spec will always have performance problems?

Good on Microsoft...

[MosesJones]

Come on guys, cut down the flames and lets think... its only a SMALL start but it is a very significant start. While this might be a one-off tactical move its from one of the most important divisions in Microsoft, its an important move. This is Microsoft ACTIVELY accepting and PROMOTING an Open Source licensing model.

Dinosaurs take a long time to turn (remember IBM?)... has the first synapse fired?

Applaud them when they do good things, it gives more weight to your later critisism.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[WindBourne]

Or could it be that MS is simply doing a tactical move to hold off OO (and others) from making inroads?

Personaly, I will wait and see how real this is. So far, every single time that MS has done something to support a standard or OSS, it turns out to be a trap. Think in terms of their recent attempt at stopping spam via DNS.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[KiloByte]

This is Microsoft ACTIVELY accepting and PROMOTING an Open Source licensing model.

No, this is Microsoft making a sacrifice to stop the OpenDocument, which would have a good chance of ruining all of Microsoft's revenue from office products, and even worse (for them), break an important pillar of their TC campaign.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[trollable]

Show me the code ;) Sorry but to license specs is a step backward. Specs should be public and free for anyone to implement. Ring me back when they will put their code under an open-source license. Licensing specs is even against the spirit of FOSS.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[ch-chuck]

Dinosaurs take a long time to turn (remember IBM?)

IBM was forced to change their business model (From mainframes to services). Msft is in no need to do so - they have tons of cash and are the default software bundled with every new intel pc sold. I'd beware a well armed gang with the police in their pockets who claims to have turned honest. It's usually little more than window dressing, public postering, meaningless advertising.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[indifferent children]

Yes, this is Microsoft pulling an 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' on the act of Open-Sourcing a proprietary product. Not only do they get to look good for a while, and throw a wrench into Mass' plans, but they can lessen the impact of other companies that release their products as OpenSource. When companies release their products or technologies as OpenSource in the future, users and pundits will ask, 'Is this a real boon for users, or another Microsoft-ish pseudo-benefit?'

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or could it be that MS is simply doing a tactical move to hold off OO (and others) from making inroads?

Hmmm, and why do you think the other big players leading open source projects do what they do? It is all about tactical moves to hold off competitors, or to prevent competitors from hurting them.

In the long run, the community benefits from it. But that is not the goal. It's good PR though...

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[StormReaver]

"So far, every single time that MS has done something to support a standard or OSS, it turns out to be a trap."

You are absolutely correct. Even if all of our speculation on the details is incorrect, one thing is immutable: Microsoft cannot be trusted. Ever.

We can be certain that the receiving end of Microsoft's olive branch is poisoned.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[WindBourne]

Not quite the same, as they are very different aims.

MS (and some other companies) has always laid a trap with any OSS. Adopt it, and MS will be able to sue you or at least own what you do.

IBM, SGI, HP, etc are looking for one or more of several things; lower costs, more help, ease of marketing, etc.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[WindBourne]

Microsoft cannot be trusted. Ever.

Careful there. I got into professional coding in '86. After doing that for a few years, I realized that IBM was the great evil and not to be trusted. So at that time, I figured that IBM would be the great evil of all time and spent the next few years working on MS and pushing it everywhere. Things changed, showing that I was wrong.

Down the road, we may find that MS will adopt OSS to keep from following SGI, Word Perfect, and Intuit (all these companies will most likely fall for competing head on against MS).

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was not referring to companies adopting open source solutions, as it is the case with IBM and Linux. What I was talking about (which in retrospect now looks off-topic) was that when companies decide to open source their existing proprietary offerings the intent is to cause damage to the competition (see IBM/Eclipse x Borland/JBuilder) and gain market share, and prevent others from taking that step first. It is not because they want to go open source, it is because they don't have any better options. It is a last resort, before the open source trend they would be more than happy to keep things just the same.

I just wanted to emphasize that with companies, it is all about tactics, never about good will. I understand that this is hardly noteworthy.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[WindBourne]

Sorry; My misunderstanding;

Actually, I agree with you.Other than companies arising from OSS, it seems that most companies that move to "supporting" it, are doing to prevent the slide that they are in. Problem is, that the time to support it, is when you are doing great, not bad.

I look at Borland, Corel, and somewhat Novell. Borland came to Linux, but now has to compete against kdevelop, Eclipse, gcc/g++, etc. Since these tools are comparable and are totally free, it is very hard for Borland to compete.

Likewise, Corel pulled WP out of Linux, so Sun stepped in with OSS. At this time, Corel coming back would be next to impossible. They would have to compete head on against GIMP, OO, Koffice, Abi Office, etc. Starting at the bottom here will be very expensive.

Yeah, I totally agree with you on this.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[OneSeventeen]

If Microsoft is opening the document format, then they are doing the exact same thing Open Document Format has done. Neither offer source code, neither provide official applications required to use the format, but both allow you to use the format in whatever application on whatever operating system you choose.

Unless, as the article's author wrote, Microsoft finds ways to sue based on partial implementation, I don't think we will have any reason to critisize Microsoft. In fact, this will be the very reason I am able to completely switch my office to OpenOffice.org, because I highly doubt they will miss out on the opportunity to take hold of this XML Schema and write even better converters to ODF, or at least fully support the Microsoft Office file format. This removes any reason to use MS Office other than interface, and have you seen the new office interface? OOo here I come!

Microsoft is taking a giant first step in the right direction, I say we encourage it. ODF is still my own business' choice, but that may change depending on what the schema really does look like, and what software will be required to create and open the new Microsoft XML office format.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[Spy der Mann]

Dinosaurs take a long time to turn (remember IBM?)

As I said before, Microsoft is currently in Stage 3: Bargaining. The bargain is their proprietary XML format. "OK ok don't leave me out of the business... I'll open my XML format!".

I really don't think they're doing a good thing. Their XML format is an awful mess, why couldn't they just adopt ODF? Well, let's hope for the best.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[ifwm]

"You, OTH, did you grow up (or live) in Switzerland, England, NY, or Florida?"

See you're lying again. You'll find no such links, as the only mentions of where I lived are Switzerland and Florida. I never lived in NY or England and never claimed to.

Yet another example of you making stuff up, which apparently is the criteria for your posts. Make up a position, then stick to it despite being shown to be a liar.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or could it be that MS is simply doing a tactical move to hold off OO (and others) from making inroads?

I thought MS was holding the license terms to the "open" standard and would only let people who signed an agreement use it. Odd, but that doesn't sound very open to me.

If true, what kind of clauses do you think MS could slip into such a legally binding agreement with OSS developers?

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[lasindi]

Come on guys, cut down the flames and lets think... its only a SMALL start but it is a very significant start. While this might be a one-off tactical move its from one of the most important divisions in Microsoft, its an important move. This is Microsoft ACTIVELY accepting and PROMOTING an Open Source licensing model.

I agree: good job this time, Microsoft! That said, Microsoft isn't accepting or promoting an "Open Source licensing model;" they're opening one of their previously proprietary formats. Open formats and open source are two different things. An example is PDF and Adobe Acrobat Reader: PDF is an open format that any programmer out there can write a program to support, but Acrobat Reader is closed source. Microsoft isn't really promoting open source with this move; they are supporting open formats, which levels the playing field for open source programmers.

But again, I agree with the general gist of your post. This is definitely a good thing, no matter how you look at it. It means the OpenOffice.org will be able to support MS Office files *perfectly*, and I know that the glitches in opening and saving Office documents is one of the big criticisms of OO.o; now, that will no longer be a problem.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Anonymous Coward]

Also note that the stories by the ScuttleMonkey/BB team are never the actual submissions. They always say "writes to tell us that ", not "writes ".

There are two possible explanations:

1. There are no submissions. SM = BB
2. BB is using some kind of automated RSS to email facility to submit stories, and SM is either clueless or in cahoots with BB

Jake.

Since when...

[magicRob]

has Microsoft had a capital S in it?

Back on track. Either way, MS will support both file formats in their Office Suite. This just means that OOo gets to add Office XML support without having to work it out themselves.

Re:Since when...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since when... has Microsoft had a capital S in it?"
And more importantly, why isn't the S double-striked vertically?

Re:Since when...

[Anonymous Coward]

has Microsoft had a capital S in it?

$ is it not ?

Re:Since when...

[Anonymous Coward]

They had one when they first started but dropped it in the late '70s as I recall.

Re:Since when...

[blane.bramble]

The original company name is MicroSoft, hence the abbreviation to MS. Go look at some old MS products, and you will see the original logo.

Re:Since when...

[TangoCharlie]

Wasn't is also hyphenated, as in Micro-Soft? I'm not old enough to
know for sure!

Re:Since when...

[spitzak]

Since about 1980.

MicroSoft was the original name.

The official logo was then changed to all-caps, with the first 'o' striped horizontally, somewhat like the AT&T death star logo. This tended to preserve the appearance of two words.

The modern logo is lowercased, but with a small notch in the first 'o' that is the remains of those horizontal stripes, which is the remains of the former capitalized S.

Re:Since when...

[don.g]

MICROSOFT - The High Performance Software

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[TrappedByMyself]

Who cares?
Slashdot needs content and the guy is providing it. If he's profitting from it, well good for him. He's smarter than the rest of us.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[zaguar]

Another post recycling

If you care so much why don't you give Carl a call @ (718) 996-7672. Or if you are in New York feel free to visit him at 4120 Manhattan Ave, Brooklyn, NY, 11224.

and

If you have a GSM phone, dial #31# before the number and it'll show up as "private" or "protected" on the recipient's caller ID.

"Hello, please leave a message after the tone"
BEEP

Googling for his phone number brings up a lot of information. Apparently he's in the search engine optimization business and has been spamming for a long time. And is a jerk about it too.

His website: hxxp://search-engines-web.com
Another website: hxxp://5url.com/
Google Phonebook: C Aab
stwnewspress.com: Contact Name = A. Seo
5url.subportal.com: Contact Name = A. Aab
Feel free to send him e-mail url55@hotmail.com

Wait & See

[sucker_muts]

I just take a wait and see approach, who knows what MS will do when they release Vista in about a year, and what they'll do with office 12.
I followed MS's moves for a long time now, and am afraid it'll be more of the same over and over again.

And in 5 years, the world might be a completely different place for software, who knows?

Re:Wait & See

[FudRucker]

i have to agree, considering microsoft's track record of dirty underhanded shenanigans i can not take them at their word...

microsoft can not be trusted...

Here is a dumb thought

[WindBourne]

Don't click on his|her link.

Don't get me wrong. I get tired of the trollers here (ifwm comes to mind). But if they are not impacting you or the site (and if they are actually helping it), then who cares?

Re:Here is a dumb thought

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Here is a dumb thought...
Don't click on his|her link.

Except it doesn't matter whether anyone here clicks on the link, google's pagerank system is the one "clicking on the link" - the end result being an increase in the guy's ranking in google so that people who don't even know what slashdot is will see the guy's site come up in searches for "beatles" and they will click on the link through google instead.

Re:Here is a dumb thought

[ifwm]

"Don't get me wrong. I get tired of the trollers here (ifwm comes to mind)"

The only reason you don't like me is because I caught you lying and called you on it. You still haven't owned up to it by the way, why is that?

Also, do you know how incredibly sad it is that you have to follow me around using your mod points on everything I post?

Re:Here is a dumb thought

[Anonymous Coward]

people who don't even know what slashdot is

Blessed are the ignorant..

Re:Here is a dumb thought

[WindBourne]

because I caught you lying and called you on it.

Uh no. I simply got sick of your stuff. I have worked the jobs that I have said (age and mutiple degrees does that). You, OTH, did you grow up (or live) in Switzerland, England, NY, or Florida? From some of the links associated with you, apparently, you can not decide. Nor could some of the others.

But, I just followed some of the links connected to you. New name, eh (and I thought that you simply crawled back to the swamp)? Love the superman post and all the rest. Apparently you rate as a troll all the way around. You seem to have pissed off a number of people (at least 3).

As I told you long ago, clean up your act. Some of your posts showed a bit of intelligence, but your following it up with a condisciending attitude took away from it. (And this was not even as nasty as most of your stuff). If nothing else, simply grow up.

Re:Here is a dumb thought

[Zenmonkeycat]

Actually, from what I recall, it was a different person you "caught lying." (Though I read the whole thread, and it appears your definition of "lying" seems to be much less rigorous than mine.)

Re:Here is a dumb thought

[WindBourne]

Thanx for the info. I did not think about that.

Re:Here is a dumb thought

[ifwm]

"Actually, from what I recall, it was a different person you "caught lying." (Though I read the whole thread, and it appears your definition of "lying" seems to be much less rigorous than mine.)"

My criteria is "something that is demonstrably false" such as the idiot Windbourne's claims about PCR.

As for your definiton, I couldn't care less.

Re:Here is a dumb thought

[Slime-dogg]

What?

Three people in the /. sense of the term "people" is next to nothing.

I also find it rather amusing that you talk about him having a condescending attitude, when just before that, you take the position of holier than thou. "Clean up your act" is something that I'd expect a parent to say to a child, not from some random poster with very little authority on the matter.

Phew, this has wandered too far off-topic. GG, burned karma.

Re:Here is a dumb thought

[Hosiah]

So, uh, what the hell's so lucrative about a Beatles site? Now, if the guy's screen nick was "viagra-viagra" I'd see it.

FYI I just Google-searched "Beatles" and got 15,700,000 hits, of which the first was the www.beatles.com official page. Don't worry, he's not highjacking the Beatles. "Let it be!"

Re:Here is a dumb thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I also find it rather amusing that you talk about him having a condescending attitude, when just before that, you take the position of holier than thou. "Clean up your act" is something that I'd expect a parent to say to a child, not from some random poster with very little authority on the matter.

And that is the way that it was meant.

Let's wait for the licence of patents

[eleknader]

Yes, the format will be open.

What Microsoft is likely to do is:
- add own extentions and not release them
- forbid relicencing of patents so that no implementation can be released under LGPL / GPL

IMHO this is just a trick. MS wants everybody to wait for 18 months before this is really released, and prevent Open Source competition with patent licence restrictions.

We'll see this after two years, I hope I'm wrong but if this happends, I'll come back and say:

See, I told you so! :)

Eleknader

Re:Let's wait for the licence of patents

[m00nun1t]

...and if it doesn't you won't say "well, I was wrong on that one".

The number of bad things microsoft get accused of on /. FAR outweighs the number of the bad things they do. Remember when they bought Virtual PC and everyone said they'd drop the Mac version? Guess what, they didn't. Didn't see any "oh I was wrong comments" to that one, or the thousands of other accusations.

Re:Let's wait for the licence of patents

[Cyno]

It would be nice if half the F/OSS community, you know which half, would think for a moment before blindly following and believing Microsoft has changed its ways. They've done this sort of thing in the past, it is an excellent diversionary tactic. If it works and slows the adoption of the Open Document format I'm going to kick that half of the community in the teeth for being stupid.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[BarryNorton]

1. There are no submissions. SM = BB

2. [...] SM is either clueless or in cahoots with BB

You might want to read what ScuttleMonkey has actually written about editing: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160477&pid=134 88134

Beatles old

[jdavidb]

Okay, the Beatles-Beatles guy is getting old. Step on him.

Also, the subject line of the article is misleading.

I hate Beatles, anyway, of both the musical and the insectoid varieties.

Re:Beatles old

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the car?

Re:Beatles old

[BarryNorton]

Both the cars and the insects are beetles!

Re:Beatles old

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't make them any better.

Re:Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you *ever* seen MS refer to themselves as MicroSoft? No!

Well, in fact, yes I have. That's how it was originally.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look!

It's Carl's friend!

He blessed MicroSoft!

[Giant Robot]

Our friend Mr. Rosen has given his blessing MicroSoft, a taiwanese motherboard manufacturing company

Re:He blessed MicroSoft!

[Anonymous Coward]

And incidentally, "micro soft" describes every Asian man's penis, and that's in an aroused state. So your Taiwan theory is likely correct.

I'm minded to recall a Zap Brannigan quote

[Rogerborg]

"We come swinging the olive branch of peace."

Re:I'm minded to recall a Zap Brannigan quote

[BarryNorton]

I hear they're also making the concession of changing colours in the logo - flying the 'white flag of war'!

best of both worlds

[Anonymous Coward]

If MS supports an open format, it will mean that governments can't reject it.

But if the new format is not the default format for "save as", then no one will use it and they will still have their vendor lock-in.

Re:best of both worlds

[WindBourne]

Which is why, the mass gov. wants a standard file format.

You can still have employees do nothing but a spefic format. If they have to switch it enough, then the users will switch office packages. And that issue, is why OO has the ability to choose what is the default format.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[snero3]

You definitely have a point there. Might be something taco should look into? But just remember your point always has more impact when you sign your post with your name and not just AC.

If you believe in it stand up for it don't just hide in the back ground.

No rotation for me...

[gatzke]

Going to his ling, I got a normal looking george harrison / beatles site when I clicked in.

Just to check to see if they were rotating site I opened 50 or so tabs and they were all the same. I did not see any obvious advertising on the site even.

Now, if everyone at /. hit his site for 50-100 page loads, he might learn not to mess around.

Ed

Re:No rotation for me...

[Anonymous Coward]

You didnt have javascript enabled.

Clicking on that link brings up a large picture of george harrison, and then comes a javascript alert that takes you to a site called winfix, wether you click 'ok' or 'cancel' which then pops up another javascript prompt that asks you if you want winfix to scan your machine.

Re:No rotation for me...

[Weh]

the site he linked looks more like one of those spice girls pages my brother set up just because he wanted to get some hits on the first website het built. Also when you examine the html source you'll see that it is no ordinary "beatle lovers" page.

Re:No rotation for me...

[MemeRot]

See the list of articles above. The point was that he changes the link that's on his name, submits a new spammy site, gets pagerank from google. Rinse, wash, repeat. Pretty standard to do that with blogs that accept anonymous posts, much more unusual (but also more effective) to do it with a site like Slashdot.

I can't figure out how he'd be making money though, I didn't see any ads on his site (though they might just be in my filter already), though he certainly had enough tracking javascripts at the bottom. Maybe he's building up pageviews, and will then add the advertisments? That might make sense.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[21st Century Peon]

come on... top ten post.............
Daddy needs a free iPod...

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[BarryNorton]

He's smarter than the rest of us.

Well, he's got his site onto the first page of http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=george+harrison with only screen-scraped content... must make him a lot of advertising revenue!

yawn

[Tom]

Its called the bait and switch, and I'm surprised someone so experienced falls for it.

In short: Sure they'll release specs. And just as certainly that which is actually implemented in the next office version will be something different. Probably minor, but crucial differences. Minor enough to be able to say "*shrug*, we just made a few updates and extensions" and crucial enough to prevent interoperability.

Re:yawn

[wizkid]

Yes, I suspect that $M is looking for the oportunity to bait-n-switch, but Rosen has to look at what they've put on the table so far. When the terms change, I would expect him to comment on it publicly and let us know. He's not one that $M is gonna buy off (I Hope).
    W.Kid

Re:yawn

[Tom]

You should read the link I included. It specifically talks about "sunk costs" and that's exactly what's at stake here.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Kuukai]

This content is of inferior quality and capitalizes the S in the middle of Microsoft, not to mention random verbs, but sadly, I must concede it's better than PS3 vs. 360 projections and "ohnoes vap0rware!". Though I guess more of us should get our shit together and submit better stuff, rather than just bitching about it...

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Tom]

Who cares?

I do, and apparently many others. The problem isn't one guy posting stuff with links to his various websites. That's ok.

The problem is a potential collaboration between this guy and a /. editor. Maybe he's providing content, but maybe 20 other people provide the same content and are rejected in favour of this guy. Maybe Scuttlemonkey even gets a small kickback for favouring him.

And that's where it crosses the line. It certainly is interesting to see that all of his postings were approved by Scuttlemonkey. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Once all the hard work is done by MA in deciding on a format, many other states and federal agencies will have a standard to follow. :p

~Gildas

And then on the other hand....

[mustafap]

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/8566

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[BarryNorton]

It certainly is interesting to see that all of his postings were approved by Scuttlemonkey. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

Given that there's only one story on the front page that wasn't approved by ScuttleMonkey...

Hopefully he's reading (he does), and will now play closer attention to this submitter.

MS XML Format sucks

[Rick and Roll]

This doesn't fix the fact that the MS format sucks. It's a lot more confusing for programmers than the OpenDocument format.

Also, it still isn't as open as OpenDocument. Partly for the reason that Microsoft isn't open to contributions to the format, and that they dictate what the format will be like.

Note: Rosen talks about 2003 XML, not Office 12

[PSaltyDS]

Quote of Rosen from the article: "The first reaction people will have is, "where's the catch?" I don't see anything we can't live with. We can participate in crafting the standard in ECMA, we can read and write Office 2003 files in open source applications, and we don't have to pay royalties to Microsoft to do so. It's a good start." (Emphasis mine.)

As I understand it (imperfectly, for sure) there are legaly significant differences between the XML schema for Office 2003 and the upcoming Office 12.

Isn't this a Microsoft Bait-and-Switch? They make enough changes in terms on the legacy Office 2003 schema to continue their lock-in in Mass., but when the state has to update to Office 12 new patented and licensed "extensions" will lock out any competitive options.

Make no mistake, locking out others and maintaining position as The Monopoly is the business plan here.

Pssshhht!

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE-3.5 is released

But don't tell anybody!

How about a...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Firefox plugin that reads ODFs? I know this is offtopic, but this would really be an easy way to spread ODF and show the world that ODF can really be usefull in interoperability....

Sorry again for the offtopic...

Re:How about a...

[darnok]

I don't have any mod points, but that strikes me as a really good suggestion...

That's good for all of us!

[Slayer]

But don't forget what it took them to get back in the race! They must now provide a office productivity suite with an open format for document interchange. Isn't this exactly what all of us OpenOffice/KOffice/Whatever-users have been hoping for in our wildest dreams ?

Sure, many offices in MA will use MS Word after that policy change, but you as average citizen communicating with on of these offices will be able to use any word processor.

Also, don't forget, that now, after MA was able to get such a directive through without seriously hurting their own IT infrastructure (changing all departments from MS Word to some other suite is not easy), other states or countries may follow suit ....

Re:That's good for all of us!

[lantenon]

Also, don't forget, that now, after MA was able to get such a directive through without seriously hurting their own IT infrastructure (changing all departments from MS Word to some other suite is not easy), other states or countries may follow suit ....

Curious, as I haven't really been following this story: can you elaborate on why you believe that they made (or will make) the change easily (as your statement, "(changing all departments from MS Word to some other suite is not easy)", implies)? Is this not a case of legislators saying, "We're going to do such-and-such," with the standard lack of involvement from anyone with a technical background?

Re:That's good for all of us!

[Slayer]

I think you misunderstood me here. What I tried to say was:

1. Changing a department from an MS only infrastructure to something else is not easy.

2. With the move Microsoft just made, there is no need to transition away from MS Office, since MS Office now apparently fulfills the rules created in MA

3. Yet, and that's the big advantage for people outside the administration, people who want to exchange documents with the MA administration do not have to use MS Office but can turn to other office suites as they like (e.g. OpenOffice, KOffice, ...)

4. Because MA can still use MS Office if they choose to, the directive does not force a complete platform change in MA (for some folks, especially in an administration, changing office suite is just about a complete platform change, since their office suite is all they ever use). This makes it much more likely that other states/countries also mandate open document interchange formats.

5. Hence, we are more likely to see open document formats to become a common criterion for future software acquisitions, which is good for everyone affected. The legislators, who created this directive apparently knew, that MS can not afford to lose sales in MA (just look how they bent over unsuccessfully after losing Munich to linux), and set the MS document format free. Cheers to them!!

Re:That's good for all of us!

[Mr. Slippery]

Isn't this exactly what all of us OpenOffice/KOffice/Whatever-users have been hoping for in our wildest dreams?

Well, what I've been hoping for in my wildest dreams is more along the lines of the companionship of a certain redheaded woman, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Re:That's good for all of us!

[lantenon]

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

Re:Who?

[RandoX]

I've seen Microsoft referred to in a lot of ways they wouldn't use themselves.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo falcon is that you?

Let's get technical!

[dsmog]

Still what we now have is one promice and one questionably enforceable quasilegal statement. And you know what worth are MS promises. OK guys, however it's high time somebody did a sensible comparison: - what can be done and what can't with respective formats - what is the quality of documentation (you know, there are subtle details about layout and formatting rules, tu just explain what tags mean is not enough). I guest reasonable docs about format should be of size of a dozen W3 specs. - are there any inherent performance / scalability issues wrt to every format information architecture - which one is friendlier as a general information container taking bigger picture (besides office) into acount. (Free hint: whoever first publishes a compheresive guide to those formats will be a king of the hill for some time)

I would like to know ...

[hummassa]

What the freck is insightful about this?

And BTW MicroSoft initially was written with a capital S. They lowercased it in the late 80's IIRC.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[BarryNorton]

OK, I take it back - here's the one I could find that wasn't approved by ScuttleMonkey:

FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs

Here are the ones (currently indexed by Google) that were:

Wifi Camera Uploads without Computer

Microsoft Adopts Virtual Licenses

Cisco Updates Network Security Technology

Google and Oregon Launch Open Source Initiative

Open-Source Insurance

Archaeological [sic] Uncovers a New Name

New Server Chip Niagara

Sprint Launchings Music to Mobile Downloads

MIT Wireless Campus Tracking Users

Consumer Friendly Downloads?

Paris Accelerates Move to Open Source

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Anonymous Coward]

But just remember your point always has more impact when you sign your post with your name and not just AC.

So what's your name?

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Trestop]

Given that all of the "beatles-beatles" links are to that George Harrison web site, except for one which is for an SEO site - I think that this guy is just a George Harrison fan trying to promote his web site using his slashdot posting.

Given the fact that I couldn't locate his site in the first 10 pages of a google search for "beatles", I'd say he does a botch-up job of that and we can safely ignore him.

This is a storm in a teapot (or how ever you say that).

their move

[suezz]

stinks as far as I am concerned. why do we need two standards - so one can wipe out the other. microsoft is just doing this as a power play so they get to set the standards and not their customers or competition.

according to their history it says do not trust them - look at java, the halloween document, and the recent escapade that was the mp3 manufacturer order that said don't ship with any other codec but theirs.

they will eventually do something that makes the other standard absolete or non-existant and then they will get sued and pay off the plantiff and just go about their business. Meanwhile the other companies will go out of business.

DO NOT TRUST MICROSOFT!!

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[DarkClown]

AHA! BarryNorton must be in on it too - he just boosted the page rank food chain even further by reposting the links to the beatles-beatles submissions!
O, insidious intrigue!!

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Anonymous Coward]

or to aa1a@yahoo.com
Link spamming should only be allowed for good causes (e.g. 'failure', 'french military victories' on google...)

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Thing 1]

Yeah, if you want your mod points taken away forever like mine were from some incident in the past that I was not made aware of so I have no idea what caused it, and likewise have no idea what to do to fix it.

Perhaps, purchase a subscription? Not when I'm treated that way...

Still Does Not Meet MA's Definition Of Open

[codepunk]

This still does not meet MA's Defininition of a Open Format. Anyone listening to the hearings knows that MA's definition of a Open Format includes the ability of mulitple vendors to have equal input to the format specification. MS soley controls the MS XML format therefore it does not meet the MA qualification as a Open Format.

Now of course I fully expect crooked politics and money to fix that little loop hole.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[BarryNorton]

See elsewhere on this thread - he's on top page of http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=george+harrison, that site is devoid of original content and full of adverts, and he runs a spamming company (and writes articles on spamming search engines)...

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Eivind Eklund]

I'm guessing the submissions are sorted on user name, and * * Beatles Beatles come very high up (and thus get more submissions approved.)

Eivind.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[BarryNorton]

AHA! BarryNorton must be in on it too

Doh, should probably have crippled those links, huh?

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Omega697]

While I agree that it is very fishy what this guy is doing, if you google "Beatles" his page doesn't show up until the 12th page of results, which is fairly useless, I think.

Freedom of speech anyone ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let them post their nonsense so we can see it and lay waste
to it....

My 2 cents:
I won't be satisfied until M$ is SEGFAULT: $DEADBEEF.

Accept NO OLIVE branches from a company proven in a court of
law to be breaking the law.

I urge ALL US voters to lobby for the RICO act being applied
to M$. NOW.

Write to your Congressman & Senator NOW.

The time is ripe to plunge the knife DEEP into the heart of
Microsoft. Bush is becoming a spent force and Capitol Hill is slowly waking up (as well as the voters). And Bush is will be
removed from office sooner than later....... and Microsoft
will surely start to feel a fuller weight of US laws that it
has broken.

Government of the people, for the people, by the people.

And Bliar is on his way out - in a wholly distinctly British
Way. He lost a vote in the house. The mob in the commons will
start braying for his removal (if the impeachment process
fails). It will take time but it will happen none the less....

Just look at Bliar's face change over the years.
He is a deeply troubled person. DEEPLY.
His history book entry will reveal a flawed character trait
akin to Mussolini, Hitler et al.

Don't believe the hype.

Is there is anybody here approves/d of the Iraq war, you
should go and read about Article VI of the Nuremberg Charter.
Pls READ some history books. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE.

Gates ONLY cares about HIS VISION that he wants to impose on
EVERYBODY.
Hitler ONLY cared about HIS VISION that he wanted to impose on
EVERYBODY.

Join up the dots.... I urge ALL Americans who believe that
the restoration of the reputation of the USA is needed to
start doing something NOW.

Write to your elected representatives NOW.
I will carry on writing to MY elected representatives in
the UK.

PLEASE DO THIS NOW.

PS And try to get Habeus Corpus re-established in the US!
You are ALL in danger....RIGHT NOW. It is CREEPING up on
you and before you know it, you'll be KNEE DEEP IN SHIT.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Anonymous Coward]

Does he have an email address? We should put him on all kinds of spam-lists.

* * Beatles-Beatles

[eno2001]

Goofus (AKA * * Beatles-Beatles) runs a pointless business simply to make money without providing any useful service or good other than serving his own avarice by raising his Google rating.

Gallant works as a programmer for a company that releases most of their products into the Free/Open software world and simply has a social conscience that extend beyond himself.

Goofus works very hard at finding quick and easy ways to make money with nothing productive being done.

Gallant knows the value of hard work combined with the end goal of making the world a better place to live and uses his work as a way of improving life for others. Anything that he benfits from is incidental and not the reason for working.

Goofus loathes REAL work and is always keeping his eyes open for scams like abuse of Google link ratings as opposed to actually making a product or providing a REAL service of any kind.

Gallant spends his free time trying to warn citizens of the internet of the various ways in which supposed "businesses" abuse internet resources to try and raise page ranking.

Re:* * Beatles-Beatles

[PitaBred]

Couldn't get enough of Goofus and Gallant the first time, eh?

Re:* * Beatles-Beatles

[eno2001]

Awww.... looks like someone forgot to shut off their serious button for the day. ;P

Re:* * Beatles-Beatles

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood how some people make it through life without a sense of humor. Everything they do or are connected with they take completely seriously at all times. It's just a shame that some people are afflicted with the inability to see that some things are just funny and not meant to be taken seriously at all. I think you must be one of those people since you plainly do not see the parent post's humor. Fortunately for the poster, the mods do see the humor. I suggest you get some counselling as you are probably a sad and imbalanced individual who is obsessed with maintaining an unrealistic level of seriousness.

Re:* * Beatles-Beatles

[PitaBred]

Actually, I just remember replying to it. Only reason it even crossed my radar. Hehe. I got the joke. I just keep forgetting to suffix my posts with a :) so people get that I get it.

I am confused ...

[dominic.laporte]

what about this

Re:Who?

[Novus]

Actually, it was "Micro-soft", not "MicroSoft", according to my memory and Wikipedia.

My opinion of OSS...

[Anonymous Coward]

*ploop*
*ploop*
"Hhhngggghhhh!!!"
*plop*
"HHHHHHHHnnnnngggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!"
*FART*
*plop*

Detour

[hkb]

This seems to be a great redirection tactic from OO.org's open format announcement that was reported a few weeks ago. Now all we hear about is Microsoft's open format. And we're caring why? Why don't we focus on a format that is truly free and open and keep it out of the hands of an organization designed to profit?

You are correct, Sir

[Tony]

As I understand it (imperfectly, for sure) there are legaly significant differences between the XML schema for Office 2003 and the upcoming Office 12.

There are major differences, both technically and legally, between MS-Office 2003 XML and MS-Office 12 XML. Microsoft is submitting the MS-Office 2003 XML schema to ECMA; so far, they have not indicated they are doing the same with the MSO 12 schema. Also, their covenant not to sue over patents is specific to the 2003 schema. Finally, the 2003 xml schema is optional; it's my understanding that the MSO 12 schema is the primary format for the upcoming version of MS-Office.

Microsoft loses nothing by offering up the 2003 schema as a sacrificial lamb; most people still use .doc as their primary format within MS-Office. Near as I can tell, Microsoft is merely trying to cloud the issue in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Tom]

I'll tell if you stop hiding

Look carefully...

[meosborne]

I also think that this is more of a tactical move to prevent adoption of ODF. Let's look at it shall we?

For Open Document Format (ODF):

1. Created and maintained through an open process anyone, even individuals, can join.

2. Multiple companies/organization (not all IT companies either) were involved in its creation.

3. ODF is an OASIS ratified standard NOW.

4. ODF is already in ISO approval process (approval
expected in ~6 months)

5. Multiple implementations are available NOW.

6. Format is completely usable by anyone NOW. No known IP issues.

For Microsoft Office 12 XML:

1. Creation was closed. No details available on how it will be maintained. Individuals cannot join ECMA and cannot participate in ECMA committees except by invitation.

2. Created by a single company to support a single product.

3. ECMA approval expected to take ~18 months

4. ISO aproval process can only be started after ECMA approval

5. No implementations available. None can expected until at least the first draft of the standard is issued by ECMA.

6. There are still IP issues which are unclear. Currently Microsoft has only issued a patent covenant for the Office 2003 XML schemas. These are not the schemas used by Office 12.

While Microsoft has *promised* to issue a covenant for Office 12 schemas, it has not done so. Such a covenant really has no meaning until the ECMA process has at least produced a draft standard.

The Office 12 *format* is not the Office 12 XML schemas. The Office 12 format follows another Microsoft tecnology called "Open Packaging Conventions (OPC)" which has it's own associated licenses. The current license for OPC has the same IP issues that the orginal schema license had. I have seen no written indication that this has changed.

Unless the OPC is also passed to ECMA, this whole thing is rather useless since the actual Office 12 formats will not be under a standard, but still controlled at the whim of Microsoft.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[afabbro]

Might be something taco should look into?

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Good one. Next you'll tell us Taco actually reads this site...

Maybe we need to grow up

[shis-ka-bob]

Standards are not fun. Try reading standards for mundane things like nuts and bolts. Besides the obvious pitch and diameter, there are all sorts of standards for the profiles of each thread, the metals that are to be used, how the strength of the screw is to be determined, and so on. Even in the 'obvious' features like diameter and pitch, don't you suppose that there needs to be an agreed upon margin of error? The standards are dry as the Sahara, but I'm really glad that I don't have to worry about having to get nuts and bolts from the same batch or even from the same manufacturer.

Why should software be different than nuts and bolts? Large detailed standards are not a bad thing. Now, if you can show that ODF is poorly designed compared with Microsoft's format, then I will listen. From the review of the two formats on Groklaw, I am actually inclined to prefer ODF to Microsoft's Office XML. ODF uses XLink, rather than reinventing that wheel, and ODF allows for mixed content (text and tags within the same parent tag) just like (X)HTML.

Beware geeks bearing gifts

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the history of M$, this means nothing. As usual, Groklaw says it well:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200511281 91449853

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Mr2cents]

Just FTR: I do.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that it is very fishy what this guy is doing, if you google "Beatles" his page doesn't show up until the 12th page of results, which is fairly useless, I think.

No. It shows up on the first page. If Slashdot allowed posting of images I'd take a screenshot and show you.

Here ya go

[MemeRot]

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=FE118952-3547-420A-A412-00A2662442D9&displa ylang=en/

Check it out (warning, windows install only). You download it. You install it. You do NOT have to agree to any EULA.

Here's the license for it http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/licenseovervie w.mspx/

I suggest you actually read it. It's not binding on you. It's binding on Microsoft, saying they won't ever exercise any of their patent rights against you when you build software that operates on their file format (unless you sue them first, when of course they'd sue back).

If this was just some open standard divorced from Microsoft there would be nothing stopping Microsoft from suing you if they felt your implementation violated the patents they hold.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[ZachPruckowski]

Well considering there are thousands of Beatles sites, he isn't doing a bad job. Maybe it is boosting the keyword with another keyword? As in, he ranks really high if there is some other word in the search entry with Beatles? If you google George Harrison (without quotes), he's 10th, but if you google George Harrison Beatles, he's second.

Horse Cart

[Nom du Keyboard]

Larry Rosen is blessing something that hasn't even happened, won't happen for awhile, may not happen as completely as people seem to think it will, can't be implemented by competitors effectively for a good while after that, and is still subject to the Microsoft E-E-E strategy if MS can figure out a way to make that happen.

Personally, if MS ever does fully release their current MSWord Document Format to to the public, my belief is that two things will happen:

1: It will become the default save format, and essentially require everyone back to the days of Word 95/97 to upgrade to the next Office suite giving MS lots of $$$ that the haven't been able to get otherwise with their bloatware releases of features almost nobody needs -- except to read documents from other people.

2: The moment XML Doc comes into use, MS will introduce Enhanced Document+ as their preferred format, complaining that they need to get new important features to the user as quickly as possible and that the standards process is too slow for this. Of course by the time that ED+ format is standardized and implmeneted by anyone besides MS (who didn't announce this to anyone until they had their fully debugged version rolling off the CD presses) MS will again be years ahead of the competition. They'll just wear down the other implementers on the basis of their larger bankroll to pay for new development, and this post will become an interesting historical curiosity under the I-Told-You-So department of Slashdot.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Trestop]

Not sure if we are seeing the same site. The site, though ugly and features incredibly poor color choice and CSS effects, contains a several screens full of George Harrison biography, and less then a couple of dozens links, almost all of which point to other pages on the site and appear to be very George Harrison related.
{It also has an funny geo-ip feature which knows my location. neat, but fails to take account the fact that most countries don't have internal states}

All in all, not my first idea of how to build a spamming web site, unless by spamming you mean "Inform the whole world on the life of one whose name was George Harrison".

Also, while the site is currently no. 10 (last on the first page) of the google search you did, his location there is probably not thanks to his "beatles-beatles" posting in slashdot (unless Google magically "knows" that George Harrison is a member of the Beatles, which I doubt).

Re:Who?

[blechx]

In fact it was: Micro-soft

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Lord_Dweomer]

Please mod parent down...he asserts that the linked website in question is devoid of original content and full of adverts when in fact IT IS NOT!

I know many of you will not want to verify to increase his traffic...but for god sakes...the guy doesn't even have any banner ads on his site. Hell, he doesn't even have any Google Ad Words!!!

Its actually quite an informative site (even though it looks like it was coded in the early 90's), with just about zero advertising (in a quick scan of the page I could not find ANY ads whatsoever). As for original content....its a biography site...what kind of original content were you looking for there exactly?

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[BarryNorton]

The site, though ugly and features incredibly poor color choice and CSS effects, contains a several screens full of George Harrison biography, and less then a couple of dozens links, almost all of which point to other pages on the site and appear to be very George Harrison related.

The first biography is stolen from the Mr Showbiz site (now defunct, but this whole thing is available on the Web in several places).

The second biography is stolen from Associated Press (both are actually attributed, but not linked, if you care to look).

The links, I propose, are trying to solicit reciprocal links (note that there's a dedicated 'Add Our Beatles Link to Your WebSite' link, and that the site has been submitted to various web rings).

As I say, I could re-create this content and similar (including ripping off discographies, and a random set of images via Google) in minutes...

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[alnjmshntr]

Why not write an email to Google about it. I'm sure they will be interested in Page Rank abuse.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[BarryNorton]

Please mod parent down...he asserts that the linked website in question is devoid of original content and full of adverts when in fact IT IS NOT!

Turn on scripting, turn off your ad-blocker and have a look through the site.

Then read this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169624&pid=141 38729

(And finally, don't make yourself look so stupid posting 'mod parent down' under your real name - grow up, check your facts, and get some mod points...)

Proprietary Subcomponents!

[mpapet]

There appears to be proprietary licensed sub-components.

It seems like they are making the documentation for the top layer of their document format available, but you will probably need a license from Microsoft to create the .MSxml document package and/or interact with the version of Office this is supposed to ship with.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200511251 44611543 It's the same link another post provided, but go to the very bottom and get the big surprise.

So, they can plausibly say, "Here's a document format for anyone to read/write." But it's not available to all and proprietary in many ways.

Very confusing, I doubt a PHB will care once they get the deal they want from Microsoft.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[BarryNorton]

Why not write an email to Google about it. I'm sure they will be interested in Page Rank abuse.

More like persuade them that Slashdot should go under the category of blog and its links all treated as potential spam... if they haven't already come to that conclusion.

Do what I do...

[Zzyzygy]

Thank you. I hadn't noticed that the URL was was constantly changing. My hat's off to whomever originally posted this observation.

Heres what I do: make this luser ID (909211) a foe and set your preferences to mod foes at -6. You'll never even see his crap on the front page let alone in the comments section. I do the same thing for Mssr. Pickebucket.

-Scott

He's #9 on a search for "george harrison"

[Anonymous Coward]

So he's probably making money through slashdot.

If I owned slashdot, I'd set up a robots.txt so google wouldn't index it. Since 99% of slashdot is available elsewhere on the web, with only the comments being original, what's the point of indexing it? The S/N ratio is even lower than that of most blogs!

Re:He's #9 on a search for "george harrison"

[dragonman97]

I use Google to search for Slashdot stories I've seen in the past - very useful. Also, it's a great way for catching dupes. *grin*

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Syberghost]

The problem is a potential collaboration between this guy and a /. editor. Maybe he's providing content, but maybe 20 other people provide the same content and are rejected in favour of this guy. Maybe Scuttlemonkey even gets a small kickback for favouring him.

So what? It's not like you get paid for accepted submissions, or pay to submit them. Even if Scuttlemonkey was getting paid for it, so what? What's wrong with commerce? Slashdot isn't a public utility provisioning limited resources; it's a web site. It is, in point of fact, a business. If you enjoy his stories, read them; if you don't, filter him. Either way, if you don't like how the product is produced, patronize a competing product, start a competitive one, or complain to the management in private. Stop bothering the rest of us who don't care.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Derek Pomery]

Ha. Same thing, only I know what I did.
Some 5 or 6 years ago I moderated up what seemed to me to be an interesting post critiquing /. policies.
Little did I know the sig link I had followed to it was a trap.
The post had been permanently modded into oblivion by the /. hierarchy, and apparently (based on the discussion below the post)
they were permanently removing all mod privileges for anyone who modded it.
Same might have happened to you.

Their site. Their rules. No matter how bizaare and arbitrary.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[Thing 1]

Their site. Their rules. No matter how bizaare and arbitrary.

Absolutely. And the corrolary: my money. My rules. None of it will flow towards Slashdot.

Well, maybe if I get an apology, because nowhere was it stated "if you moderate this you will lose all mod points forever" and anyway isn't using the fucking mod points the whole fucking point of having a fucking mod system?

Sorry, that was venting.

Re:Submitter is a link spammer-stop posting his st

[localman]

The idea of profiting from slashdot doesn't bother me. It's that he's profiting by spamming google. I appreciate google, and I don't like people messing it up. And I don't like that one of my preferred newssites keeps encouraging it.

And what is with this "so, someone is pissing in the pool... who cares" attitude being so common today? Take a minute to think if this is a good thing. It's obviously abuse, but it seems like unless you can see how it's going to harm you in the next five minutes you don't even care? No wonder the world is such a lousy place. Grow up and realize that we're responsible for our society and our environment.

Cheers.

MOD PARENT INFORMATIVE

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not off-topic unless the entire discussion is. Within the discussion it's one of the more informative parts and answers a challenge...

MOD PARENT TEH FUNNY

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, YOU ARE TEH FUNNY!!!!!!!

Seriously, dude, with spectacular humor like this you can keep dreaming about any companionship as long as you wish ... even a dog would get bored with you soon.