Slashdot Mirror
GNOME Foundation Helping OOXML?
christian.einfeldt writes "According to long-time OpenDocument Fellowship member Russell Ossendryver, it appears that GNOME founder Miguel de Icaza's widely-publicized praise for OOXML as a 'superb standard' is being followed up with on-going support by the GNOME Foundation in 'resolving' the thousands of criticisms leveled against Microsoft's proposed standard. In an open letter in his blog, Ossendryver urges the GNOME Foundation to halt its apparent support for OOXML as a standard and to put its efforts behind enhancing adoption of the genuinely open standard, ODF, which was approved by the world standards bodies as ISO/IEC standard 26300 on 2 May 2006."
"Miguel de Icaza's widely-publicized praise for OOXML as a 'superb standard'"
There is really only a few possibilities:
1) The community is wrong and OOXML is really an open/good standard (heh)
2) One of the heads of GNOME is so inept as not to be able to see that OOXML is far from being an open standard
3) Icaza was bought off
Or is it something else:
4) ???
I was just about to say something closely approximating that.
What annoyed me most before this (which is simply unthinkable) was his extremely strong support of Mono. Personally, I feel that Mono, like Wine, should be treated as a compatibility layer to run software intended for other operating systems, not a viable target for open-source application developers. If everyone likes C# so much, then we should take matters into our own hands and implement a language with the features we like that is under our control! (My concern with Mono following Microsoft's language is that in the event that Microsoft changes a significant feature, like Java did when it added assert, Mono would almost certainly make the same change, leaving a bunch of open-source developers to deal with the whims of Microsoft.)
At some point, until Microsoft starts releasing truly open-source code and letting everyone hack on Windows, we have to keep at least some distance from Microsoft. There's nothing wrong with attempting to run their software, but we shouldn't be writing Windows software just because it's more convenient and we now have a way to run it on Linux.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
Je ne parle pas francais.
The article author is either stupid beyond belief or deliberately trying to cause spite and malice. Neither GNOME the project, nor The GNOME Foundation is in any way or form backing OOXML! Miguel de Icaza is, but most other foundation members are staunchly against it. Not that it matters, there is a big fucking difference between individuals opinions and the stance of an organization. If the author has some beef with de Icaza, then he should say so, but don't try to paint the GNOME Foundation with the same brush. Fucking moron troll.
Football Odds
" ... This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality of Gnome is a disease ... Please, just tell people to use KDE." -- Linus Torvalds
There may be more problems, but the one I like the most is "because it cedes control over how people develop software (C# and the .NET API) for a free platform (Mono) to Microsoft". With such control in hand, Microsoft can make the development as awkward or costly as they want. And in the unlikely hypothesis developers succeed, Microsoft may call in all their patents and make half of Gnome illegal in the US.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
G'day,
:-)
The background is really simple: While Jody Goldberg (Gnumeric maintainer extraordinaire) was at Novell, he had been doing rocking work on the ECMA committee to make sure OOXML didn't just slip through, under-specified and uninvestigated. Jody put them through the wringer!
So, when Jody left Novell, the GNOME Foundation supported his participation on the ECMA working group, so he could continue to "keep the bastards honest".
The GNOME Foundation does not support ISO standardisation of OOXML. But whether or not that happens, we're still going to have to support Microsoft document formats, just like everyone else. Should we let Microsoft shove OOXML through ECMA without challenge? Hell no. That's why we have one of our best hackers in there, holding their feet to the fire.
Thanks,
- Jeff Waugh, GNOME Foundation Board
(Given how often it comes up, I suppose it's also important to note that Miguel does not speak for the GNOME Foundation or the GNOME project in general.)
And for the last two decades, people were pushing AT&T stuff, some of it patented.
AT&T donated the key patent for UNIX (the setuid patent) into the public domain. The UNIX APIs were designed to be independent of the underlying hardware and implementation, and they never made any attempt to enforce any potential copyrights on the UNIX programmer's manuals. The only product I know of that felt it necessary to avoid using the precise APIs described in the manual, ever, was Idris... presumably because it was by a former Bell Labs employee. There are, so far as I can tell, only two significant operating systems started after the publication of the 1976 Bell System Technical Journal that were not based primarily on the UNIX "software tools" environment: Mac OS, and Windows... and both of those were instead based on the Xerox environment. I'm not counting MS-DOS, because it was an 8086 port of CP/M by Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Systems, and starting with MS-DOS 2.x it was increasingly adopting UNIX APIs.
By 1987 (two decades ago) the UNIX environment had been re-implemented dozens of times, both standalone and hosted on top of other operating systems. By 1997 (one decade ago) there was no operating system in the world that wasn't either UNIX-based, transitioning to UNIX, or shipping with a functional hosted UNIX environment... other than Windows.
And by that time AT&T had sold all their rights in UNIX to Novell, who had publicly disclaimed any intellectual property in the APIs.
If there was any remaining danger in these APIs, the results of the Caldera (the new SCO) suit have completely defanged it.
So far, there is no indication that there is any more risk to Mono from Microsoft than there was to Linux from AT&T.
On the one hand we have a set of APIs that were already in the public domain both because of explicit donation and due to being published without copyright notice before the US joined the Berne convention, and have since been been proven safe to use, and on the other hand we have a set of APIs that are actively controlled by a company that has a history of using submarine patents, and who is currently attempting to monetize them... with some success.
If you can't see there is a difference there you're deliberately not looking at it.
Looking at some of de Icaza's recent posts on slashdot, I find them hard to reconcile with that innocent interpretation. His public statements about OOXML are wildly disingenuous; I can't see how anybody who understands the nature of the criticisms of OOXML could fail to see them as pure FUD.
IMO, it would indicate a problem with GNOME if GNOME couldn't tolerate dissent on this issue, but it would also indicate a problem with the community if the community couldn't see through de Icaza's reality distortion field, and understand that he's saying ridiculous things because he has commercial ties to MS.
In the OSS world, it's all about whuffie. De Icaza earned a lot of whuffie by founding GNOME and writing a lot of code. In my eyes, he's lost it all by failing to be forthright.
Find free books.
He always gets sidelined. He mostly starts something or writes it badly but with some key interesting kernel. The "badly" is usually trying to mimic some underdesigned overengineered buzzword from MS - he seems to be enamoured by their financial success and thinks it is the intrinsic value of their technology that did it. Of course, it isn't - their success is due to acute business acumen and marketing ability.
GNOME (the GNU Network Object Model Environment) was designed around a COM approach (it actually used that well-known failure and DCOM copycat, Corba). Microsoft is abandoning COM, and using it (usually because the financial director told them that it will save money and is better anyway) costs developers a vast amount of time, money, and reputation as the interface conventions are appallingly unstructured. Suffice it to say, GNOME is moving away from corba and has been for some time.
Generally, it is a good idea to watch for what problem Miguel de Icaza wants to solve and then start solving the problem differently before he can damage Linux' reputation for several years until his plans are ripped out and replaced as they usually are.
Want to make a GPL-only fork of Qt? Go right ahead, Trolltech won't do a thing to stop you. In fact, up until the latest 4.3.2 release there was first a big project to port Qt3 to Windows, then a small one to add the compiler support to Qt4 that was missing compared to the commercial version and Trolltech never complained. But if you want Trolltech do to something for you, like adopt your source into their tree and maintain it, they're asking for something in return - that they can sell it for closed source software as well. I don't get your sense of entitlement, do you demand Linus accept your code as well? Or are they perfectly free to ask for something in return, or just to tell you to fuck off? Yes, they are.
Trolltech delivers a kick-ass platform for open-source development. They do it for free under the GPL, using their own paid developers to do it. How do they get paid? Well, they've found a way to make closed-source companies pay them for the use of their code. Who are you crying for? Those poor companies? That you can't ruin their business model by forcing them to take code they can't sell that way? That you have to run your own fork/patch set? Oh cry me a river... no, YOU go to hell. I bet Trolltech has done 1000x times as much for open source as you ever have.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
While working for Novell I was able to join both OASIS for ODF and ECMA for OOX. After leaving the OO.o development team at Novell to return to other work I lost both memberships and had to scramble to rejoin. Maintaing Gnumeric is a hobby, and my current employer is not involved in the standardization process. Paying out the membership costs of either OASIS or ECMA was not going to happen at the personal or corporate level. Thankfully there was a non-profit tier available, and the GNOME Foundation generously sponsored me to re-join ECMA and TC45 to continue to participate in the the specification process. After spending the last 8 years playing proctologist to every spreadsheet format around, and complaining loudly at the poor quality of documentation for XLS it seems ridiculous to pass up the opportunity to engage MS, and ensure that the spec of their new format was more detailed than previous efforts.
My personal opinion (not speaking for the GNOME foundation or past or present employers) is that both specs should be standards
http://www.gnome.org/~jody/files/2007-ON-Linux-Beyond-ISO-Dome.pdf
The FLOSS community is going to need to implement importers for both formats to help our users, and I'll be happiest when both OOX and ODF are significantly clearer. 5700 pages of OOX is too _short_, Likewise the 700 + 300 (Open formula) in ODF is far too short. Lets double the size of OOX (although with better formatting the number of pages would likely be unchanged), and lets quadruple the level of detail in ODF to get it into a useful state. I only wish that ODF had undergone a fraction of the review that OOX has seen.
This is not about GNOME endorsing OOX, it's about GNOME doing the work necessary for users. There should be reps from Sun's OO.o team on the ECMA TC, and MS reps in the ODF meetings. The goal of this process is to produce useful documentation, and it takes an implementor to know where the really important details are. It hardly seems in the best interest of the FLOSS community to leave the standardization efforts up to corporate interests at Microsoft, Sun, or IBM.