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.
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....
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"
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
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
That was the grandparent's point.
Palm trees and 8
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.
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'!!