Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
This move has put Microsoft back in the race in Massachusetts. They were previously threatening to disqualify MS due to not supporting any standards.
Well, in fact, yes I have. That's how it was originally.
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.
Who cares?
/. 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.
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
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051125
I'll let you judge for yourself how good or bad it is:
MS XML />
</w:rPr>
<w:t>this is bold</w:t>
</w:r>
<w:r> <w:rPr> <w:b
OpenDocument
<text:span text:style-name="Strong_20_Emphasis"> this is bold </text:span>
XHTML
<b>this is bold</b>
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.
Think global, act loco