Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Joins OpenDocument Alliance
Jim writes "Microsoft has joined a committee that has a key role in the ratification of OpenDocument as an international standard, leading to accusations that it intends to sabotage the process. Microsoft has denied this accusation, claiming that the only reason why Microsoft employee Jim Thatcher has joined the group was to get involved in the ISO standardisation of its own file format." From the article: "'There sits Microsoft, waiting, like a spider,' wrote Jones, in a posting on her site. 'I am imagining ODF plodding along, with Microsoft asking questions, fine-combing through the comments, did you mean this or that?, getting bogged down in minutia until, lo and behold, either Microsoft's XML makes it as an ISO standard first, or they arrive neck and neck.'" More information here on a subject we touched on in a recent Slashback.
update a few readers have asked for the clarification
that MSFT has not joined ODF, but rather the "INCITS/V1
Technical Committee"
I don't know if Microsoft's motivation is sabotage by joining ODF, but from the article, an eerily familiar description:
(BTW, isn't there a Donovan song about Pamela Jones?)Ahem, back to the topic... I worked on a group from our company and Microsoft on an e-commerce soon-to-be-standard (related to xml), and Microsoft's attitude, performance, and etiquette was embarrassing, annoying, and unprofessional. Aside from the unsurprising Microsoft employees' strong-arming the agenda, it was clear they had no affinity or appetite for any of our ideas. It was also equally clear that their intent was the final result would be their way or the highway.
Also, having worked briefly at Microsoft, the description resonates with the "triage" meetings at Microsoft -- at the time, the hot topic was IBM's MCA bus architecture, and ideas to make sure it would not be important in the emerging PC technology.
Superficially, it may be a good thing having Microsoft join ODF, but I wouldn't let them bring in or take out any pencils, paper, or recording devices of any kind of the meetings. Just my hunch, I don't trust them.
Why did I hear the Imperial March when I read this story? Now MSFT will try to strong-arm the alliance into recognizing that MSWord is the only way.
--sig fault--
Could you PLEASE fix the headline?! Microsoft most definitely DID NOT JOIN the OpenDocument Alliance. ODA is the group who is trying to push for ODF adoption. Microsoft can join if they want, but they don't want.
They joined the INCITS/V1 Technical Committee. They're not even remotely the same thing and don't even look remotely similar (ODA vs INCITS). Way to go on the asinine headline Zonk.
I can't imagine why anyone would think that Microsoft would sabotage this project. After all, their past statements clearly show that they fully support it.
This guy's the limit!
I really can't see Microsoft ever sharing the 'office' market, using universal formats, with any other company but MS.
.doc, in my business experience, for sharing documents intercompany. .xls for the forseeable future with spreadsheets though.
PDF is more standard than
We're stuck with
I'm not sure if it matters if the MS format becomes an ISO first or at the same time. The lines are already drawn. Every software group that produces word processing documents seems to either be using or at least supporting ODF. Who supports Microsoft's format aside from Microsoft? No one right now, and those who do support it will follow microsoft no matter what the outcome of all of this is anyway.
If anything I'd say they put him there to observe the progression more than anything else.
Or maybe I forgot my tinfoil hat today.
I'm sure that will work out fine.
This was pending from Microsoft's side for a long time now... proprietary document formats that MS follows is never known to be business friendly, and they change lots of things in the format in every new release of office just for the heck of it!
- Yes, but does it run Lunix?
I wonder if they'll sit on this board or committee for a while until it's no longer to their benefit and when they pull out we'll read articles about how Microsoft's pullout could cripple the whole thing. It just seems like they join them to get their ideas and then leave when there is nothing more to be offered.
FTA: ""In order for Jim to participate in the future Open XML File Format work he needs to have standing in JTC1 SC 34 [a committee that mirrors INCITS/V1] which mandates participation over time. His presence in this group will have no impact upon the voting process for the ODF standard. Just as we have a seat on the board of OASIS and have not participated in the ODF process there, we will not participate in the JTC1 process," said Jason Matusow, Microsoft's director of standards affairs, in a statement." (emphasis mine)
Anyone have any info on whether MS has truly laid off with OASIS and the ODF process there? Not to say that non-interference there means non-interference with Open XML, but it's a start.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Microsoft managed to stall OpenGL 2.0 and other improvements for the longest time by claiming potential patent infringements with its vertex and pixel shader technologies. As a result OpenGL stalled for some time. Microsoft has since left the OpenGL ARB (Architecture Review Board) after doing the damage it needed to do. Deja vu.
ISO certification or not, true open standards are the wave of the future. Too many companies and people have gotten burned by vendor lock too many times, to the point where the movement toward open standards and open source here in Taxachusetts has attracted mainstream press, not just technical journalists. Perhaps ODF won't gain steam quite as quickly if it became an ISO-certified standard immediately, but with states' and commonwealths' accepting ODF as the document exchange and archival solution, it will quickly filter down to education, state vendors (who want to keep their contracts) and law offices, and from there trickle down to everyone else. Small companies will quickly learn "Oh, I DON'T have to plunk down $450 for Microsoft Office any more? Where do I get this OpenOffice?"
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Embrace and Extend?
My humor is probably your flamebait
If MS doesn't join the alliance, they're seen as factious and self-serving.
If MS joins the alliance, they're seen as sneaky, underhanded, factious and self-serving.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
You can see the list of OASIS members here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/about/
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
They intentionally pervert the standards. See Kerberos as an example. They have to know what the standards are to screw things up so royally.
Infuriate left and right
He who has the gold makes the rules!
This is just a badass joke, isn't it?
Guys: I am a member of the group that Microsoft joined, JTC1 SC34. This is a very broad group that encompasses SGML, XML, HyTime, topic maps, Font Interchange and ODF. As per Microsoft's claim, it would probably include Microsoft's formats when they show up at ISO.
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/#scope
The Slashdot heading is VERY incorrect and biased against Microsoft.
niceshot, you gotta laugh outta me
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
We damn Microsoft if they do, and damn them if they don't.
If Microsoft really wanted to support ODF, they could stop screwing around and start doing their job: programming! I want MS Word to natively support the ODF.
Does this technical committee require full patent disclosure by all members? If so, might this help ODF by forcing Microsoft to state now if they have any patent claims on anything that makes it into the final standard?
I'd hate to see Microsoft secretly steer the committee towards something that, five years later, they would shut down as a patent violation. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened *cough*Rambus*cough*.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
To badly paraphase Forest Gump, "Damnable is as damnable does". If Microsoft is either quiet or makes positive contributions to the ODF standard, more power to them and maybe they will become a good corporate citizen.
But if history is any guide, they will do everything in their power to beat the standard into the ground and anyone who supports it. They will do everything from dirty tricks (remember DRDOS?) to patent litigation (OpenGL), just ignore your patent (Stacker), to "growing the polluted environment" (Java) to "cutting off the air supply" (Netscape) to making incompatible versions (Kerberos, CHAP, DNS, TCP) to "put the competition on a treadmill" (everyone) to FUD (Linux and GPL are a cancer).
Atleast I don't think so. I mean, you cant get more original than Microsoft Joins OpenDocument Alliance, can you?
but seriously, what is the issue in whose format is the standard, as long as it is standard? The standard needs to be something easily defined, can be adhered to without loss in functionality and is extensible. If MS's XML satisfies that, good enough..just make sure balmer guy does not sabotage that once it becomes the standard
Can't join CSV eh? $ ruby -e 'p [1,2,3,4].join(",")' :-P
Although I am instantly suspicious of anything and everything a child molester does, in this instance I will refrain from making a judgement one way or the other until I see how it progresses. However, that being said, I don't think it would do a lot of harm to their current image to be seem to be involved in a project like this, especially considering the problems they have had in prison recently.
So at what point *do* you become concerned? How many times does a company have to screw the public before you *don't* give them the benefit of the doubt?
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
We damn Microsoft if they do, and damn them if they don't.
Actually, we damn Microsoft for their general attitude about standards bodies. The company has a deserved reputation for ignoring standards when it helps them, and subverting standards when they can't ignore them. Microsoft has engendered ill will through past behavior, and it takes more than an announcement that they are acting in good faith to get me to believe them.
Actions speak louder than words.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The government should either have forced MS to publish its DOS API in full back in 1983 so others could write competing operating systems to that API, or converted to a net present asset valuation tax base but failing all that the move by MS to open standards is the first real indication that they actually believe their material about having all this power due to having the best software -- as opposed to having a natural monopoly. Good for them.
Seastead this.
A Cancer, eating away at open standards from the inside!!! A Cancer I tell ya!! They're like communists, No, Facists, No! MONKEY DANCERS!!!!!!!
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and foam at the mouth and throw some furniture.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
...that equating Microsoft with the Imperial March is being unduly suspicious and paranoid about empires?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
1.In Government you can be required to not-participate in some decision-making group which relates to your self-interest.
2.Is this true nowhere else? SHOULD it be true of Standards Committees?
3.If it is not currently true, can a proposal before the Committee make it true?
4.After all, existing rules don't require unanimous approval of a rules change, right?
5.Thus, Microsoft can be outvoted with regard to a rule excluding the biased-to-a-different-Standard.
6.And then Microsoft can be evicted.
7.Standard gets implemented quickly.
8.Profit!
They joined the ISO committee which is working on making the ODF an ISO standard.
You must be new here.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Most of whom wouldn't know a truly open standard from an industry con-job if they sat on one. We used to have this problem with poor business processes, and now we have ISO 9000 and Tick-It, which don't actually say much useful, but tick some pretty boxes on contract proposals. Yay for the illusion of progress!
In any case, your pleasant dream misses the slightly important point that no software using ODF is currently even close to catching the MS equivalent in either functionality or installed base. It's going to take a lot more than making ODF an open standard to get people to use it in large numbers: it's going to take an Office-killer, and nobody's got one yet.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
There was some reluctance from members of that JAVA organization back then too, and their worst fears proved correct.
Other examples of the same M$ infiltration method are out there and they earned a reputation that they cannot be trusted on a standards organization.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
I dont' neccesarrily think that Microsoft is out to destroy this committee.
.pdf, .xml, etc...)
Maybe Open Source is making a big enough dent in the market for them to realize that their proprietary crap isn't going to fly anymore. That their document formats aren't going to be the standard anymore, and that they better get on board or at least make an attempt at compatibility by integrating those formats in their suites, (ala
The Flex projects at Adobe/Macromedia are starting to take hold, to the point that nobody is even taking a second look at Sparkle. Since the release of the Flex SDK, I've been all over it like white on rice.
Is MS Waking up? Maybe, but not probable...you are right...there's a fox in the hen house with feathers on it's head...trying to see what the hen's are planning...
That is a completely unfair comparision, I don't agree with M$ being involved with this whatsoever, however, all I am saying is I will reserve judgement until their reasoning becomes more apparent. If I were given the choice on if they should be allowed to join I would instantly reject it, in a similar way that I would reject your childish comparision to a child molester working in day care, however, I reserve judgement on their reasons not on if it is right or wrong.
Additionally comparing me to someone that looks the otherway where child molestors are concerned is a really dick move dude, if you don't have anything constructive to say say nothing at all.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
People, look at HTML, CSS, and various other web standards, MS has their name all over these standards and look at how IE implements them. MS does this with all standards, so why should this be any different.
Mod this down if you wish, flame it, etc, but I'm right and you know it!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
How many times have we seen Microsoft attempt to compete with new standards by either 1) Embrace and extend, or 2) block by whatever means necessary? How many companies has Microsoft killed, many times through illegal means? Stac, Netscape and Digital Research come to mind instantly. In all three cases a court of law found them guilty of wrongdoing. So how many more times must Microsoft be found before you decide *not* to give them the benefit of the doubt?
Becausge giving them the benefit of the doubt is *exactly* what you're doing. You're "reserving judgement until their reasoning becomes more apparent." It even sounds so enlightened! You can't be known as a judgemental person: that would be so repressive. But how many times will people have to get screwed before you personally decide enough is enough and that they do not deserve to be given the opportunity to show that their reasoning is corrupt?
Is there even such a point?
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
Microsoft claim shakes graphics world
3D graphics world shaken by patent claims
Standards stalled over royalty disputes
Microsoft clarifies OpenGL position ... sort of
OpenGL 1.4 unveiled
Trolling? ;-P
My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
Oh man.. they posted this article 4 days early !!!
You didn't read my post correctly, I do not agree that they should be involved, they have their own agenda this much is obvious all I am saying is I will reserve judgement on their reasoning until I know what it is.
If they are joining to make themselves look like they are giving back to the community in the eyes of the EU cool, doesn't make them being their right but at least they are giving something, I still don't want them there but perhaps since they are there they can give something back.
If their reasoning is to throw spanners in the works at every turn then I still don't agree with them being there but at least I know they are just trying to fuck with things.
If their reasoning is to try and move M$ Office into the open standards a little more, well guess what I still don't want them there, but at least they are trying to move towards an open standard, for whatever agenda they have.
Regardless I don't agree with them being a part of this, but I can't critise their reason until I know what their reasons are. Unless you are one of those judgemental people that automatically makes assumptions about people and things without getting any real background.
Yes MS has a shitty background, can thay change? I doubt it but I will evaluate their reasons as they become clear to me.
Before you jump in and accuse me of being an MS lover, I don't use Microsoft products I am a Unix Sys Admin I only run linux and BSD in my home, they only time I ever use MS products is on my office desktop where I have no choice, and even there I have been trying to pursuade the powers that be to let me use linux.
So let me see I dont like MS I don't agree with them being a part of this organisation I don't use MS where I have a choice I actively advocate their competitors, I just can't critise their reasons until I know them. That kind of mindset is what holds back progress. You can make a judgement on something until you understand the reasons!
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
Best Anonymous Coward smackdown I have read in a while...
There another Jim Thatcher( http://www.jimthatcher.com/ ) but he does not appear to be the same as the MSFT Jim Thatcher. But, I could see the 'hook' in this being that Mr Thatcher could probably attempt to hold up ODF progress with accessability issues. After all, who will cry foul on EXTENSIVE discussions about Accessability for the Visually Challenged? It's been brought up before and it was/is a valid concern...
Are there any photographs of the MSFT Jim Thatcher?
What do others think is the justification/qualifications for putting MS Jim Thatcher on this project?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Right in this very discussion even!
Microsoft managed to stall OpenGL 2.0 and other improvements for the longest time by claiming potential patent infringements with its vertex and pixel shader technologies. As a result OpenGL stalled for some time. Microsoft has since left the OpenGL ARB (Architecture Review Board) after doing the damage it needed to do. Deja vu.
Quickly accused to be BS by an Anonymous Coward.
but then another AC to the rescue with the smackdown.
Honestly, do you really think Microsoft is interested in collaborating with a standard that threatens to deprecate the MS Office format? Is that what you seriously believe?
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
has had the same thought I just did. Isn't it a little disconcerting that the commitee would allow someone from a corporation to sit on group that votes what becomes a standard???? Can you say biased opinion?
*tinfoilhat*
Board Voter: So, do you really think that screwy MS Office format should be ISO?
MS Employee: Of course! It's the best thing I've ever seen, lets not even bother with the others and get this done. I have to get back to my job.
Board Voter: I'm not sure thats a good idea....
MS Employee: I'm sure after we play a few games of golf with that new membership I just gave ya you'll feel better about the whole thing.
"I am imagining ODF plodding along, with Microsoft asking questions, fine-combing through the comments, 'did you mean this or that?', getting bogged down in minutia ..."
What's wrong with someone getting into minutia? If it's a spec shouldn't it be perfectly clear, no ambiguity, so that different impementors with compliant code will naturally interoperate?
up-n-arms
I assume you mean "up in arms".
but I've yet to see her do anything important
Err, Groklaw? (BTW, that is the correct name of the site I think you are talking about: if you mean another site called "Growlaw" that is also run by PJ, then accept my apologies...)
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
I can't imagine why anyone would think that Microsoft would sabotage this project. After all, their past statements clearly show that they fully embrace and extend it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Corporations have a lot to gain / lose when sitting a committee like this. A lot of standards start life as a corporate standard first. Even ODF started life as a corporate standard (at Sun, I believe).
Generally, the folks sitting the committee wish to come to a real consensus. We can hope that Microsoft is merely hedging its bets by testing the ODF standards waters. It could be that Microsoft ends up adopting ODF in an MS-Office generation or two.
I believe Microsoft is finding it harder and harder to buck the standards trends. Imagine how much money they spent trying to push their own web 'standards.' In some research I did recently, it turns out that most of the time, standards beat out proprietary formats every time, usually to the point that people forget there was ever a standards battle. Imagine ASCII vs. all the proprietary character encoding schemes, or IP vs. IPX vs. NETBUEI vs. any number of other networking protocols.
In the end, even Microsoft ends up bowing to the pressure of true, open standards. The only exceptions are when Microsoft products are only concerned about interoperating with other Microsoft products, such as an MS-Windows-based network. The document format world is getting too fragmented for that now. Even within the world of MS-Office, there's document format fragmentation.
Anyway, corporations have a major vested interest in these standards, so it is only appropriate that they sit in committee with the other interested groups. In general, obstructionism is identified and dealt with by the other committee members.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I'm not condoning violence.
But if a series of incredibly improbable, non-related events of M$ infiltrators getting smacked with a trout - or squashed by a piano - took place, it would make them think twice whether to fsck up other people's sincere efforts for money.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
If you've looked at ODF and MSXML, you'll see why it matters which one's the standard. If you look at a comparison of ODF and MSXML, you'll see the differences. You'll notice that the XHTML and ODF examples read like document mark-up: you have the recognizable text of the document and things like paragraph and italic marks occur at the obvious places. This makes it really easy to manipulate ODF via XSLT to turn it into other formats. MSXML, by contrast, reads like an XML encoding of the internal object representation within Word. Instead of text being a paragraph you have a paragraph object with several attributes, one of which is the text of the paragraph. Notice how complex the nesting gets when you've got words in italics and boldface within a paragraph. This structure is going to be a real bitch to manipulate using XSLT. In fact Microsoft themselves admit this, saying that MSXML isn't meant to be manipulated by standard tools like XSLT but by programs using Microsoft's own APIs. What's the use of XML if you can't manipulate the document using standard tools for manipulating XML?
I'm tired tonight, hence the gripe.
Well, ESR is fond of shooting in general.
I am a Unix Sys Admin I only run linux and BSD in my home, they only time I ever use MS products is on my office desktop where I have no choice, and even there I have been trying to pursuade the powers that be to let me use linux.
Dude, if you're in a company that uses Unix, you're the admin, and they don't let you use linux (or whatever else you deem appropriate) on your desktop you need to get out of that place like last week.
Because Msft knows where to submit its standard drafts. The ecma comittee won't ask questions, they just nod at ms' stuff and its done.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
She seems to have Eric Raymond syndrome. She thinks she's much more important to open source than she actually is.
One is a father of the Open Source movement, the other is instrumental in disseminating anti-FUD regarding legal threats to OSS. I'm sort of wondering what it'd take to impress you.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Yes, lets slam pamela. She is worthless scum. She should be run out of town I tellya.
Let's put porkThreeWays in there instead. He is so much wiser.
evil is as evil does
I am afraid it isn't as easy as that, we use AIX, HP-UX and Sun which are all (which the exception recently of Sun) propriatory systems, large companies like this take time to allow transition, additionally the company mail is based on Domino, which means Lotus notes and windows. As soon as IBM releases lotus notes for windows and I manage to find a reason to put linux on a P595 partition I should be able to finally convince them to allow linux on the desktop.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
is it something in news which i, or any other on /. sould be aware of... or is it just meaningless racist troll...
everyone downmodding this post will be prosecuted for reading my post without first buying a license!!!
Don't you ODF advocates constantly proclaim that Microsoft was asked to join the original OASIS ODF committee, so any problems Microsoft might have in storing MS Office files with ODF could've been addressed? And therefore MS has no basis on which to claim that ODF's lack of support for MS Office features is reason to not support ODF in Office?
But now that Microsoft joins a more widely recognized standards committee for that format (as opposed to the rubber-stamp, anti-MS OASIS committee), you guys get pissed? LOL
With MS on this committee, maybe they'll be more likely to support the format. They'll be more confident that the format is app-neutral. As of now, it's based on OO.o's former format and lends itself towards OO.o's previously existing code (adding ODF support to OO.o to support ODF was childs play compared to what other programs would have to do, since ODF is based around OO.o's codebase).
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
could be considered racist (as I make it pretty clear I don't believe in racism). However, is it something /.ians should be aware? To a degree. I believe /.ians should be better aware of DNA research into population migrations, as it is a fascinating piece of research on a truly gigantic (planetary!) scale. There's no other research that has ever been conducted on this kind of scale.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
yep, any long time OpenGL developer can tell you, Microsoft attempted to stall opengl with IP nonsense designed to get a slow government response. Open(*) should kick out microsoft or any company without a clear plan for industry wide collaboration since there is a percieved (blatant) conflict of interest.
I am afraid it isn't as easy as that, we use AIX, HP-UX and Sun which are all (which the exception recently of Sun) propriatory systems, large companies like this take time to allow transition, additionally the company mail is based on Domino, which means Lotus notes and windows. As soon as IBM releases lotus notes for windows and I manage to find a reason to put linux on a P595 partition I should be able to finally convince them to allow linux on the desktop.
;-)
OK, you got me there. It's been a while since I worked at a big company like that.
Of course, sneaking it in is a great way to test your security/network people. If they suck you get to use what you want. If they don't.......well.....you're fired.
Maybe you have the right idea
WILL YOU FIX THE HEADLINE PLEASE ?????????
TOTALLY WRONG, DIFFERENT STANDARDS BODY
YOU NEED TO TRIPLE CHECK BEFORE YOU THROW THIS CRAP TO THE HOMEPAGE
ODA vs INCITS, It doesn't look like an unintentional mistake, pure, absolute slashdot rubbish.
It's not even up to the minimum common journalistic or blogging standard.
(oh, wait, slashdot was in dire need for more hits today)
Microsoft most definitely DID NOT JOIN the OpenDocument Alliance. ODA is the group who is trying to push for ODF adoption. Microsoft can join if they want, but they don't want.
They joined the INCITS/V1 Technical Committee. They're not even remotely the same thing and don't even look remotely similar (ODA vs INCITS).
OK, so people on ./ criticize Microsoft for not complying to standards, for locking people into Office with their proprietary document formats.
Now, when Microsoft does an about face, and wants to support one of these open formats.. do you embrace them for doing what you said they should do? No.. it must be some ulterior motive to sabatoge the standard! Of course!
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Isn't that rather like Satan joining the Peace Corps?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If you actually read what she wrote, she said that MS has positioned itself, despite the legit alibi, in such a way that it can easily interfere with the ISO standardization of ODF, and that she fears what might happen if MS does in fact do this.
However, all the articles I have read forget to make the distinction between "will" and "might" and "can". It's not intentional; rather, it is a symptom of the desire to use strong language in writing, especially journalistic writing.
I won't contest that PJ is a lot like ESR, in that she likes to pull the trigger. However, she does consciously mollify what she says with modifiers of uncertainty, and this is not conducive to traditional journalism.
(Disclaimer: I also believe that I have ESR Syndrome. However, I know that I have nothing of value to say; and even if I did, I know that nobody wants to listen to me.)
One is a father of the Open Source movement, the other is instrumental in disseminating anti-FUD regarding legal threats to OSS. I'm sort of wondering what it'd take to impress you.
lmao. ESR the father of the open source movement? You mean RMS? Maybe you get the two confused. ESR has written little software and his software to loudmouth ratio isn't near that of RMS. I've read a lot of RMS's work and it's nothing impressive. I remember a few months back Microsoft invited him in for an interview, and his response was that of a 12 year old. It was completely childish. This is who you want representing the movement?
As for PJ, she's done almost nothing. She has no technical standing to be an authority in any anti-fud matters. She's not a lawyer. She's basically a pundit. She's no better than the likes of Laura Diddo. Microsoft shouts, she shouts louder. I posed the question, what has she actually done for us. I haven't recieved one response other than she battles anti-fud. In reality her abrasive approach just makes open source users look like pony-tailed sandle wearers.
Open source doesn't need loud mouth clowns like these. In years of working in mixed environments I've found the best way to get open source used isn't by being a loud mouth. It's with level headedness. IBM and Redhat have been so successful with open source because they aren't shooting off their mouths every five minutes and seem like a mature responsible vendors that people feel comfortable using. I wish some other people would get the clue.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
If a group starts excluding others, is it really 'Open'?
Ulterior motives, that's what. Discussing the fine points of the standard to make it better is one thing, but deliberately arguing over uninportant stuff with the intent of delaying the standards group is entirely another -- and that's what I (and everybody else on Slashdot, apparently) suspect Microsoft is planning to do.
I appreciate what you are saying but the "and everybody else on Slashdot" just sucks the life out of your argument. It's creepy, it feels like "and everyone else at the church of scientology thinks battlefield earth is going to be a blockbuster movie".
MS did exactly the same thing to the DMI standardization effort (DMTF) a few years back, as a stalling tactic until their "CIM" model came along. The last thing they wanted was an open, cross-platform standard management interface.
I simply don't understand the pressure from the industry placed on Microsoft to become part of the ODF. The fact of the matter is that there would be no benefit to the Open Source community for Microsoft to adopt this format, worse, it would be highly detrimental to the community if Microsoft were to implement it and in the future standardize on it.
OpenOffice is by no means a tinker toy application anymore. It is gradually coming to support as many useless features as Microsoft Word does. In time, the number of features will be almost beyond documentation.
Wikipedia documents the original release of Microsoft Word as May 2nd, 1983. The entry also states that Charles Simonyi left Xerox PARC to work at Microsoft starting in 1981, so I can only assume that the development of Word had already begun at this point.
So by this, I'm suggesting that in a period of 23 years and a sum of money far exceeding the gross income of billions in development, marketing, user research, testing, etc... Microsoft word includes such a vast amount of functionality, that any document format standard that could contain all these possible data types requirements would have to be huge.
So that brings me to the next item, ODF is being advocated through the industry under false pretexts. The companies noise makers out there are possibly under the false assumption that a document format is all that is needed to guarantee interoperability between word processors and spreadsheets made by different organizations. This is simply false.
If Microsoft were to make a serious attempt to use ODF as their document container format, initially what would occur is that Microsoft Word would be able to save only a limited subset of its features in this format. Microsoft would be forced to introduce extensions to the format. And although extensions are provided for in the format, the ODF consortium would need to either make alternative suggestions to provide the same functionality or they would simply have to adopt the Microsoft extension since it would already be in wide spread use.
Now this in itself is not a real problem, but the problems starts to occur as we go further. Microsoft provides multiple scripting languages in their document format, for example, it is quite common to find Word Basic and Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) in the document format. These languages have bindings to objects such as toolbars, menus, internal document structures, image decoders and more. If Microsoft were to provide support for these languages through an extension to ODF, then in reality, for ODF to remain a standard, ODF would have to bless these extensions. In the case of scripting language support, there is a much bigger problem than with simple document primatives like tables. For OpenOffice or AbiWord to be ODF compliant, then they would in fact have to implement scripting engines for each of these languages supported by Word and build in the minimum required user interface and object bindings to support the languages since these languages are in fact useless without the ability to interact with the application.
This brings me to the next point which is items such as font embedding. Using a language such as SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics), it is entirely possible to encapsulate fonts as moveto, arcto, lineto, etc.. paths. But as many know, the graphics world is clearly less friendly to the Open Source concept than the software world is. There would have to be some sort of digital rights management to guarantee the intellectual property of the font vendors that guard their property as much as the music or movie industry does. This would require the introduction of a DRM engine to be standardized on. The reason for this is that simple encryption or obsurification would not be good enough to satisfy the font vendors, the open products would provide source to extract fonts from the documents. This is obviously not acceptable. So OpenOffice, ABIWord (etc...) would then have to implement a DRM engine that would cause equally as m
If you see a document on a site that's a .doc, write to the site owner, telling them that making it available as a pdf would be more useable and font-friendly. Tell them that they can either get a free printer driver to create this from their software, or if they want to, use OpenOffice.org, an office suite that can easily make PDFs, which incidentally is free. And that if they want, you'll send them a CV in the post.
Sitting back and complaining about Microsoft's domination isn't going to change anything. Piece by piece, deconstruction of the customer base and word-of-mouth will work.
lmao. ESR the father of the open source movement?
I knew I should have bolded the 'a' in that sentence. Easy to miss.
I posed the question, what has she actually done for us. I haven't recieved one response other than she battles anti-fud.
And my response was "what the hell do you want from her". Battling the FUD is a full-time job (she quit her day job in the early stages of the SCO trial if I remember correctly). Groklaw is the go-to site for legal analysis regarding OSS, and you're going to throw that away because the editor of the site wrote an opinion piece you don't like? That doesn't make sense. That site is invaluable for these articles regarding the GPL alone, and that's a fraction of the information available. How do you justify dismissing all of this?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
You must be new here, then.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Completely useless? Only because you didn't understand it.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)