Slashdot Mirror
Jeremy Allison On Microsoft, OOXML and Standards
An anonymous reader writes "OOXML is already Microsoft's "de facto" standard as implemented in Office 2007, so when would any changes arising from the Comments Resolution meeting in February 2008 be put in place? According to Jeremy Allison's latest column, when last minute changes were suggested for the CIFS standard, which Samba exists to disentangle, "the response came back from Microsoft that although the fixes were valid, unfortunately the code was already written and was going to be shipped in the next service pack. End of discussion. It wasn't even in a shipping product yet, but the specification was determined to be unchangeable as they didn't want to change their existing code.""
"Today, ninety-two percent of desktops and now seventy percent of servers run the completely proprietary and non-standardized Microsoft Windows operating system." 70% of servers are running Windows? What year is this? Have I been in some kind of coma?
Palm trees and 8
if they don't change it, then don't approve it as standard
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it that in order for a file format to be accepted as an ISO standard there has to be at least a couple of independent working implementations? If Microsoft's OOXML is amended but the only piece of software which implements OOXML doesn't even follow the standard presented to ISO, where does that leave the OOXML's standardization?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Presumably that would mean that Microsoft couldn't legitimately claim that Office 2007 followed an ISO standard, which is the whole point of this exercise?
Well, I guess it wouldn't stop them from trying, or at least issuing confusing public statements on the subject.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
"My own favorites were Cuba voting "yes" to the fast-tracking of OOXML, even though Microsoft is prohibited by the US Government from selling any software on the island that might even be able to read and write the new format, and Azerbaijan's "yes" vote, even though OOXML as defined isn't able to express a Web URL address in Azeri, their official language."
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
If this is supposed to be a standard, supposedly in the hands of a standards body, then why would it need Microsoft's permission to change the things that are broken in it. The standards body should change the spec to fix some of the worst deficiencies highlighted by the comments. And then if Microsoft doesn't change their code match, then point out that Microsoft's implementation is in breach of the standard.
Microsoft may have the 'market' share but as you know, this is misleading because the percentage dwindles in comparison to the number of deployed servers (many of which ship without any OS). There's also the "one app per machine" requir^w mentality that artificially inflates the number of machines running Microsoft crapfest.
MSFT will take a while to come up with a fix to that security hole that is covered by some patent or something. That way only the MSFT implementation would be free of that hole while samba team would be handicapped. I am tempted to say MSFT intentionally created the hole in protocol, but they it is not likely. Security holes are never seen by MSFT and finally when others spot it, they use the fix as an excuse to create more hurdles for other platforms.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The article is in an Indian-based web site. As odd as it may seem, Microsoft is the clear leader over there. You'd think that expensive, proprietary software wouldn't be used much in a nation where so many suffer from from extreme poverty, even to the point of starvation. One would expect Linux and OSS to be widely used.
However, many of the universities and technical institutes to use only Microsoft products. So you end up with these Indian schools generating many thousands of graduates each year who only know VB.NET, SQL Server and IIS. You ask them what Linux or Apache are, and you'll get blank stares. Some will even describe them as "lower quality" products, even though we've seen time after time that they're superior in essentially every way.
So in the end, this ignorance has resulted in Windows and other Microsoft software becoming very prevalent within the Indian enterprise. From those I know who work over there, that number might actually be somewhat lower. Many organizations, as stupid as it is, go with 100% Microsoft solutions. And when worms and other nasties come their way, they usually have to deal with thousands upon thousands of fucked up systems, ranging from servers to desktop PCs.
....the sooner people will stop using MS products.
And that is even more blunt, to the point, that anything coming out of MS's mouth.
I'd strongly promote switching to Linux at work if only the applications I use had realistic alternatives on Linux.
Namely Autocad, Illustrator, a cad/cam package with non-buggy cnc post processors that would plug into a linux version of autocad,....
And what ever the alternatives are, they have to be file compatable as we have a large store of cad drawings to deal with.
There are other programs as well, like filemaker and the resources we have built up in that, etc..
Its not just a matter of finding a similar program but one that have realistic support for existing files and resources.
I have no doubt that many more would change away from Windows if such a realistic change was possible.
Whether or not MS knows this...... or have they become so arrogant to be stupid?
Stupid seems to be the direction that have been taking....
Microsoft has laboured hard to create an impression that a 'secure' system is one that needs daily patching, and must be 'closed' and 'proprietary'. Allison & co. KNOW FULLY WELL that an open, documented and properly implemented system provides true security.
The recent unwarranted update of Windws Update is a case in point. Users who would trust only themselves, and who use Windows only to run their applications, would not like to destabilise their environments by introducing new untested undocumented additions. If it works, they reason, no need to touch it.
In Microsoft's view, their present proprietary document formats have been an enormous cash cow, they will not break that by opening up the formats and inviting needless competition. Which is why, even if the OOXML spec undergoes lots of changes and lengthy explanations; there will not be a single faithful implementation. Including in Office 2007.
Can someone ask this "Rarely Asked Question" to responsible folks at Redmond, and see how they respond?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Once again, Microsoft proves there's no such thing as doing it right the first time.
Or the second (Service Pack 1).
*Maybe* the third (Service Pack 2), but don't count on it. If you recall, Microsoft released the first version of NT as version 3.1 in an effort to combat this effect. And after they slip-stream the new OOXML changes into Office 2007, obsoleting old documents, sheeple will groan and moan, but they'll still drink the Kool-aide.
(Sigh!) Sometimes, I wonder why FLOSS even bothers.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
i sincerely believe the computer industry is a mess, no private corporation or company should be able to dictate an ISO standard, i believe open file formats & open networking protocols should be mandatory for anything & everything that is distributed between different computers anything less is perpetuating a crime allowing a corporation to maintain vendor lock in & a monopoly for $profit$...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Actually I thought so too myself, but apparently this is forbidden by the ISO! However the spec itself must be complete, self-contained and authoritative... this bit I am quoting from a related link from a Groklaw article, in the comments section of Mr. Alex Brown's blog:
http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=07&m=09&entry=entry070909-104641
and the Groklaw article is here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070910110639612
The relevant answer: ISO rules forbid reference implementations. The thinking is that the text must itself by complete, self-contained, and authoritative; a reference implementation opens the possibility of deviation from the text, thereby creating uncertainty about which is "right".
That said, in SC34, we follow the practice of informally requiring that our "home-grown" standards (RELAX NG, NVDL, Schematron etc) are proved efficiently implementable during standardisation. If my time wasn't so taken up with DIS 29500 I would be working on an implementation of DTLL in Java to accompany the draft standard, for example!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Exactly where it belongs - nowhere. Hence the best thing which can happen now is to vote through at least a couple of amendments.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Speculation is cheap. Proof is expensive.
Wait a minute, doesn't that make the spec inherently unacceptable due to the large number of "do this like this previous version of our software did, but we're not going to tell you how" parts?
"Whether or not MS knows this...... or have they become so arrogant to be stupid?"
What does a file format in Office 2007 have to do with apps for Linux? Microsoft isn't going to write them. Mainstream companies aren't either. Your feelings towards Microsoft notwithstanding. What incentive does the commercial industry have to support yet ANOTHER operating system? Especially considering even Macs have trouble getting the apps they want, and the argument is even stronger there in moving to that platform instead of Linux.
If OOXML is accepted as an ISO standard then Microsoft's implementation of that "standard" will be the "de facto" standard implementation of it. Not exactly a "reference implementation" but effectively accepted as such.
Even if Microsoft's implementation doesn't follow any of the published "standard".
Just as IE was the "standard" when you were designing a web page. Sure, you could follow the official WWW standards, but if IE couldn't render it, it was considered "broken" by the general public.
Wait a minute, doesn't that make the spec inherently unacceptable due to the large number of "do this like this previous version of our software did, but we're not going to tell you how" parts?
Nice question. 3 answers:
1. Technical answer: Yes, the spec as currently documented, would be technically unacceptable, unless detailed explanations are provided over the next few months; covering all 'proprietary' and legacy behaviour.
2. Viable answer: A half-hearted attempt will be made to explain these 'quirks' and resubmitted for consideration.
3. Financial answer: The Office market is worth billions to Microsoft. Countries like Ruritania, Fuckmenistan, Utopitamia, Timbucktoo etc. are available for a few millions. If not the earth, even places on the moon can be declared independent nations for ISO purposes... a trip to the Moon is just a few millions; while a trillion dollars are at stake. These new P-members will pee on the sanctity of the ISO processes, and the OOXML will be on a fast track to nowhere.
Next question?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Requiring implementations is different from requiring "reference implementations". Since their network standard, ISO changed its procedures to encourage people to ask for functional implementations (from different vendors) of the standards they create.
But a reference implementation is "do it like Office 2007". ISO doesn't accept that, the specification should be on a document, not a software.
Rethinking email
"Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it that in order for a file format to be accepted as an ISO standard there has to be at least a couple of independent working implementations?"
It's RFCs and Internet Standards which need to have multiple implementations. See RFC 2026 for the meta-standard (explanation of what standards an RFC needs to meet)
Internet standards are also required have been tested in real-world scenarios for long periods, plus they should be as simple as possible to implement, plus all discussion needs to be in public, which might explain their popularity compared to ISO computing standards.
Interestingly, if there's a patent needed in an RFC, then the two reference implmentations even need to have used "separate exercises of the licensing process"
That's for Internet standards.
See 4.1.2 "Draft Standards" of RFC 2026 "Internet Standards Process".
So, if the metric shows Linux gaining ground its valid, but if the metric shows Windows dominating, the numbers are suspect? And we can find all sorts of explanations?
This is like the metrics for the Anthro Global Warming crowd. Any study that suggest geo, solar, and other causes is dismissed. Any bad math is dismissed.
Yes, MS is dominating and not really losing ground. Downloads of Linux are up, but that does not indicate use, it indicates curiousity. Everytime there is a significant release by any of the distro groups, I download it and build a VM out of it, but for use, we stick to W2K3, SharePoint, Office, Visual Studio, and the like. We have a few Unix machines, a few Linux machines, but those are what we call seagull servers. A contractor was contracted to develop a solution and they flew in, shit in our server room and we have to provide the support for this one off system. All because some congressman made a deal to funnel money to them. I love working for the Government. Meanwhile, we provide office and MS SQL (reports, AS, IS) supportable solutions that bypass these seagulls and provide more robust functionality.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
If Microsoft fixes the OOXML specification and it becomes a standard, then Microsoft Office won't even be compatible with Microsoft's own standard. Color me not surprised.
Personally, I think they need to go one step further beyond just 'documenting the standard' and demand that the standard and all reliant technologies are open sourced under a BSD/X11 licence for every tom, dick and harry to use in their products - royalty free. If you're not even going to allow that to happen, it should be made a standard, just that simple.
What do I mean by reliant? For example, OOXML and WMF; WMF has to be opensourced, same goes for all the other 'technologies' Microsoft wishes to embed into documents.
Ditto Illustrator. CorelDraw runs on wine (gold supported for crossover...illustrator is only bronze). Xara has been open sourced on Linux. For simple labeling & format conversions that some engineers end up using Illustrator for, Inkscape & other F/OSS programs are surely sufficient.I hate to say it, but there is always a cost to upgrade and/or migrate.
The formula is simple
A. Take the sum of all license cost for sticking with MS Windows & an estimated cost for your apparent frustrations with the MS platform.
B. Compare this to the licensing cost for running on Linux (as there are certainly competitive commercial products if you find F/OSS to be lacking) & the frustrations you anticipate on that platform.
If AB, stick with A (but consider investing in apps that will work in both Windows and Linux & will ease a transition should B become cheaper).
If BA, switch. If you're smart: Allocate funding to fix the frustrations in the F/OSS apps you use (F/OSS developers will often listen to the needs of small corporate backers and/or you can use a "rend-a-coder" like service that is not directly affiliated with the project).
don't fool yourself, Microsoft has no intention of letting other compete and/or have open access to its application file formats. Microsoft Office generates over 30% of Microsoft's profits, yes profits, and they will not give that up.
All this stuff about openness is about keeping Open Office and its ODF fileformat from being chosen as a government standard.
So don't kid yourself an believe there is any other motive or that they would consider implementing those comments to clean up the spec. Hey, there's nothing in their history to suggest they want to compete in this sector. They own it now, it's worth billions in profit annually, and they will not give it up. So let's stop fooling ourselves into thinking it is anything else.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
That's how software in the commercial world works. Software has to ship, and changing code at the last second means complete test runs which both pushes the schedules back as well as costing and organization a lot. Releasing patches is an expensive ordeal as well. It's not like you just can put up a .patch file and expect everyone to download, integrate it, and re-compile their app.
Of course a company isn't going to change their software at the last second. Just because something hasn't shipped yet doesn't mean it isn't done.
Have you take a look at these products?
http://www.varicad.com/VariCAD - supports DWG files via the http://opendesign.com/"Open Design Alliance"
http://fastcad.com/ fastcad - Created by none other than the original developer of AutoCAD, Mike Riddle. Apparently version 8 will run on Linux
note: I have only researched these products because I want to start a Linux solutions company. I have not used them myself (yet). Also IANAE (I am not an engineer)
Here's to the crazy ones
And MS, as an entire company, is only worth about 272 billion dollars, and had gross revenue of about 50 billion last year.
For OOXML to be worth "a trillion dollars", it'd have to somehow be worth twenty years of Microsoft's 2007 total revenue. Or, four entire companies the size of microsoft.
Much more likely: you're just not from America, and use a nonstandard "Trillion." (This is a US site, default to US measurements or state otherwise, please.) Yes, OOXML being a standard is probably worth about one thousand-million dollars. Or, about 5% of what Microsoft makes from Office anyway.
CIFS was never on the standards track, and Microsoft never ceded change control of CIFS to the IETF. Therefore, unlike, say, NFS, CIFS is not an IETF Standard (it's not even an RFC), and at no point was it developed as part of a consensus process. CIFS was and is a proprietary protocol.
If they approve the OOXML spec with request to change it, or deny it standardization altogether, MS doesn't really need to care. This entire exercise is a bone thrown at the market. MS may be trying to placate the government entities and business partners that are tired of Office vOld.1 no longer working in their archives, but MS hasn't lost share of the desktop office productivity market because of their proprietary formats. Just like IE, they can shove OOXML down our throats anyway.
I hate to admit this simple fact, but even if MS apps saved their documents as bloated, mangled, insecure and limited capability formats, they'd have plenty of buyers. Like now.
Get ready for the onslaught of OOXML to ODF converter needs.
Microsoft should not be designing standard.
MS submits a standard expecting it to get fasttracked. MS bribes decision makers to make this so.
The the standards committee comes back and says, "we need these changes", MS says, "Too late. We've shipped. Take it or leave it."
This is not good behavior.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Actually, whereas Ruritania, Fuckemenistan and Utopitamia are all figments of your imagination, Timbuktoo exists. It is not a country however, but a city in Mali. This fact doesn't change the thrust of your comment which is valid.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Sorry - s/Timbuktoo/Timbuktu/
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
First time or two I read this I thought it said Jennifer Aniston.
I work for a national standards organisation.
One of our suppliers has a large infrastructure application. We are defining standards for communication.
We wrote the standard in the best way possible according to our parent standards body, which provides a meta-standard which should make messages comprehensible even if you haven't read the standard. Our supplier pouted, sulked, whined, and eventually we were forced from above to rewrite them to comply as closely as possible with the existing API, which contains horrible magic numbers and revolting anachronisms.
It's really strange how standards are weakened by money.
Go ahead and stick with Windoze. We open sourcers are in no hurry; we can easily wait for you to die off. The younger generations, raised on the ubiquitous $100 computers, will be fluent in Linux.
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat
In Germany it only gets complicated insofar that a "billion" from US publications is sometimes translated 1:1, i.e not as a "milliard", which leads to a ridiculous number that is 1000 times to high. This almost never happens in stock trade news, fortunately.
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat
I have been following this lateest tatic of M$ to FUD the ISO, and I never heard this aspect of their unwillingness to follow their own standards, and of course, ship the clothes anyway.
I am going to let users know, and have them bail out of Office 2007 by the thousands.
Actually they don't have to give it up. But to keep it they HAVE to put more effort into it. Because in their monopoly situation they just have to sit still and enjoy.
I believe that MS is not too bad on the tech side, but the business side is plain EVIL and OMG "think of the children"!
They could produce an office suite that is ODF and could be really competitive, but that would COST them now. And the cost would be somewhat financial, but mostly in confidence of profits. But they are NOW overconfident.
Ironically, when reading this article it is accompanied by a Microsoft ad proclaiming "Defy all challenges". A fitting motto, I suppose.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Thanks for writing all your posts in this thread, they were helpful and insightful.
I think you're confusing the ISO process with the IETF Standards Process.
http://outcampaign.org/
If you count not just web servers, but e.g. intranet Exchange servers and AD controllers, 70% sounds plausible.
LAN numbers are not really on M$'s side, even within dumb companies. Outside of dumb companies, gnu/linux rules. If you count every desktop with a "shared folder" you might get to 70% within a specific company. M$ does not want to go there because they would like you to believe in asymmetrical computing, where others have power and you do not. If you include embedded devices with web servers, the M$ share goes to ten percent. Within every big dumb company running a windoze server with all the lock-in trimmings, you will find six or seven system administrators who run a normal *nix computer because they can, hundreds of WAPs, printers and other devices that people expect to be able to talk to because they must. In the world at large, free software rules because no one in their right mind would blow all sorts of money of a M$ solution when they can get a free one. The kinds of junk hardware these servers run on and their superior reliability completely deflates the M$ meme of asymmetrical computing and most other non free propaganda.
First you call Microsoft "M$" and Windows "Windoze" since you don't like the business nor the product, now you call anyone who uses Windows or anyone who disagrees with you stupid? That is just as immature as someone calling Linux "Linsux", Open Source "Open Sores", and anyone who disagrees with them some sort of retarded sheeple.First of all, IIS 7.0 is very secure. The choice of using either Windows with IIS or Gnu/Linux with Apache is really like a choice between Coke or Pepsi, it all depends on someone's taste, need, or want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Information_Services
Second, Vista is a long way from being a failure like Windows ME. Windows ME didn't even have a service pack. If I am not mistaken, Windows ME was actually just another version of Windows 98. I do agree that it would be wise to hold off on anyone purchasing or upgrading to Vista since it is a new Operating System. I did just that with XP. I will wait to see how well Service pack 1 performs when it rolls out before I purchase Vista.
BTW, free isn't always better. It is still up to the eye of the beholder. For example, if The GIMP works for you then that is wonderful. I have used The GIMP and it is a great for being free, but it doesn't do everything I need it to do. There are thing in Paint Shop Pro 7 and Photoshop the GIMP doesn't even do yet. That is why I purchased the Adobe Creative Suite 3 Professional, it does what I need it to do.
Some advice, when you want to put your point across please do so without using immature sayings such as M$ and Windoze and lose the FUD, you will find your karma raising back to at least normal.
Naturally a fat fucktard would support Micro$haft Windoze. All fat fucktards seem to support fucktarded OSes, just take a look at that fat chair-throwing fucktard Ballmer.
Remember fat fucktard, anytime you post I will remind everyone how much of a fat fucktard you really are. Eventually someone in their right mind will mod your whole fucking account into fucking oblivion which is what fat fucktards like you should do by slitting your fucking wrists. Once all you fat fucktards do so, then there will not be a shortage of food ever again.
If you flame me or ignore my post, then you will prove just how fucking right I am fat fucktard.