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.""

Comments

where is the problem?

[xlyz]

if they don't change it, then don't approve it as standard

Re:where is the problem?

[QuietLagoon]

if they don't change it, then don't approve it as standard

The problem is that Microsoft (in an implicit admission that its software is sub-standard) is using the profits from its cash-generating Windows monopoly to buy votes in favor of its submission.

In other words, to paraphrase Ballmer, Microsoft could submit a ham and cheese sandwich for ratifcation, and it would be approved.

Re:where is the problem?

[DogDude]

Wrong. This has nothing to do with buying votes from the ISO. This has everything to do with standards bodies being ignored because they're irrelevant. Remember the W3C? Yeah, they still exist, but who in their right mind pays attention to them? Why would anybody? They pick arbitrary standards that they think are good ideas, but if nobody actually uses those standards, what's the point? That's what a de-facto standard is. It's a standard that comes about through everyday use, not some arbitrary organization of people making arbitrary decisions.

In this case, most of the working world will use MS's OOXML standard, regardless of what any organization says is the "right" standard. MS is going to continue to be able to dictate the "office document" data standard because it's what people use. If they had some competition that made a decent product that people actually used, then there'd be more relevancy of a 3rd party designing a "standard". As is, Office is what most people use. Such is life.

Where does that leave the standardization process?

[GreatBunzinni]

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?

Why does it need Microsoft to say yes?

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:Why does it need Microsoft to say yes?

[nine-times]

Why should the standards body bother to try to fix Microsoft's broken spec at all? Why not just reject it, and say, "Sorry, Microsoft, but here's a list of things you have to fix before we'll look at it again."

Re:Why does it need Microsoft to say yes?

[Locutus]

yes, there is a problem here isn't there? For one, an open spec is usually accepted and governed by an industry organization. So ISO, after years of working with industry partners on ODF, maintains the ODF formats/specs. But the Microsoft spec, well that is and EMCA spec and ECMA allows proprietary IP in their spec and allows the charging of licensing fees. Also, MS OOXML was created be and is controlled by Microsoft. They effectively purchased their way into the ECMA standards process with their sole ownership of the product. It was intended that they would use a special "fast-track" mechanism the ECMA and ISO have, and use it to quickly sidetrack much of the public forums an ISO spec goes through.

But back to the point of who manages an open spec. So ISO has a spec they are managing and it's called ODF. Now, Microsoft wants them to also spend their time/efforts on the MS OOXML spec and it would be ISO's job to maintain both specs. The thing to realize here is that never has Microsoft intended to do this for open access to their file formats. This whole thing has been devised as a scheme to block acceptance of ODF and is a reaction to ODF. Remember, ODF took years to get through the process. Not to mention that Microsoft has been fooling the public+dog with it's open XML talk for over 10 years now. It is all bull shit. It is Microsoft. Need I say more?

LoB

Re:Why does it need Microsoft to say yes?

[Locutus]

the ECMA brought it to ISO via the existing Fast-Track mechanisms already in place. ISO is following it's rules in how it handles the Fast-Track process with ECMA. The fact that Microsoft picked through the process and found and is exploiting holes in it are all part of the way Microsoft does "business".

So the ISO is following the rules of the organization with regard to this. Unfortunately, that's all it is doing. Even after it has seen how the rules are being manipulated to further push a very bad specification through the process. From what I've seen, the "process" now is to allow the comments regarding the "spec" to be discussed and Microsoft is given the right to respond to the comments. A vote will be taken after Microsoft responds and this vote could accept the MS OOXML as an ISO spec even without corrections but promises of corrections. It's all a scam and the ISO as an organization is allowing itself to be scammed. IMO.

LoB

Re:I must have missed something HUGE

[shutdown -p now]

If you count not just web servers, but e.g. intranet Exchange servers and AD controllers, 70% sounds plausible.

The sooner viable alternatives are provided.....

[3seas]

....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....

Rarely Asked Questions

[jkrise]

I think Microsoft and even Slashdot must replace the FAQ section with a RAQ section, where questions of the "Emperor's New Clothes" type can be asked and answered. This bit in the original article is very thoughtful, and one I've been asking myself:

"...after analysis by some of the experts on the list we discovered that there were some theoretical holes to the new signing protocol, which needed a few trivial changes in order to fix and improve the security. After these proposals were submitted, 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...." I think Mr. Jeremy Allison and Microsoft have different views on security. Any layman would think that security means 'of the product' or 'of the user'... but Microsoft seems to think about its own financial security; which in turn seems to be based on the INSECURITY of its products, services and service packs!

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?

Quality is Job 1.1?

[Prototerm]

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.

what a mess IT is!

[FudRucker]

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 $profit$...

That's where it gets political.

[khasim]

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.

Re:Where does that leave the standardization proce

[jkrise]

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?

Re:Can't claim Office 2007 is ISO?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the point of the excersize was the extra positive spin in the early phases of the Office 2007 product life cycle.
"we submitted our new file format for ISO standard certification" is just an extra bullet point in their presentations to convince the, generally conservative, decision makers that switching to a new file format might actually be a good idea. It suggests vendor independance, easily accesible data etc.

Of course when the new file format has taken over a significant portion of the market there certification efforts will be abandoned with the convenienent excuse that the ISO did not want to accept their standard without modifications that would break their own product.

Then the rest of the market will be taken over as usual, by peer pressure. The file format will be left undocumented in key area's, there will be no competing products supporting it, and we will be back where we were 10 years ago with Office 97 and a monopoly for another 10 years or so.

they have no intention of making an open standard

[Locutus]

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

This demonstrates why

[WhiteWolf666]

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.

Re:Two ways?

[betterunixthanunix]

The point the poster was trying to make was that simply counting the number of physical servers in use is not an accurate measurement. His point was that there is more to it than physical servers; a single server could potentially be supporting thousands of users in an organization. There is also the question of, for a given hardware platform, how many users can be supported by one server system vs. another (Linux usually wins on this one, since the kernel has been tweaked to create processes very fast, even faster than Windows can create threads).

That was the grandparent's point.