OpenDocument Foundation Closes

Munchkinguy writes "First, they dropped support for their namesake OpenDocument Format and declared a switch to the W3C's 'Compound Document Format.' Then, W3C's Chris Lilley clarified that CDF 'was not created to be, and isn't suitable for use as, an office format.' Now, the Foundation has mysteriously closed up shop, leaving the following message: 'The OpenDocument Foundation, Inc. is closed. We sincerely wish our friends and associates in the OpenDocument Community all the best and much success going forward. Good-bye and good luck.'"

Comments

Microsoft shut them down

[JamesRose]

Oh come on, you were all thinking it.

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[d34thm0nk3y]

Probably... If nothing else it was a trademark suit waiting to happen.

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[semiotec]

nope, I was thinking that they realised their gaffe has really backfired and there was nowhere else left for them to go. So they simply packed up and went home.

On the assumption that these people are not entirely stupid:

1. If they were really working to break MS Office dominance, they would have realised by now that what they have said was completely stupid, and may have brought harm to the "cause", as the damages were amplified by clueless "journalists" and "analysts" (e.g. http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=875)

2. If they were MS stooges, the credibility required to carried out their work successfully was pretty much destroyed.

Nothing more to do in either case, to continue hanging onto the empty name of OpenDocument Foundation would be farcical on the same scale as Enderle or DiDio.

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[Anonymous Coward]

nope, I was thinking that they realised their gaffe has really backfired and there was nowhere else left for them to go.

And I was thinking that they realised that an "OpenDocument Foundation" that doesn't support OpenDocument is pretty silly, so they decided to take a breather to look at their options, and chances are they'll start up again in a month's time, having rebranded themselves. They can't just flick a switch and rename themselves, all their material is based around OpenDocument.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that people weren't expecting this. It's an entirely sensible thing to do.

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[Anonymous Coward]

> Microsoft shut them down

As in, stopped paying them?

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[LrdDimwit]

What part of this strikes you as "entirely sensible"?

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[Anonymous Coward]

You're really living up to your name there, LrdDimwit. It wasn't obvious? The part of this that strikes me as "entirely sensible" is them not continuing to operate as the "OpenDocument Foundation" when they support another format in preference to the OpenDocument format. You don't think that's entirely sensible?

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not stooges, they're just living on their own little planet.

The Foundation publicly trashed-talked ODF just the other day, saying that IBM's secret plan was to move to CDF, and that IBM were treating ODF as a transitional format. I wouldn't be surprised if IBM told them to shut up shop or they'd bring the lawyers in.

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[NeoTron]

No it wasn't, but, it did dilute the acronym for the format and their actions did manage to fuel the FUD-fire. http://hackfud.net/2007/11/06/now-its-open-document-formats-turn-for-the-fudmeisters/ Has a good summary of that plus links to further informative pages and information related to those chaps.

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[Trogre]

"If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

I read it in a book once.

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[Jerry]

Isn't it obvious?

They took the money and ran.

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[HeroreV]

Who cares if the OpenDocument Foundation shuts down? It never really did much of anything anyway.

OpenDocument will not be affected by this.

Re:Microsoft shut them down

[malaire]

Could be from Bible, Matthew 12:25 (e.g. http://ebible.org/web/Matthew.htm#C12V25)

Fishy

[corychristison]

This really does sound fishy to me... Especially since (last I checked) Microsoft was a large part of W3C?

Re:Fishy

[pablochacin]

Yes, Microsoft is a large member of W3C as almost any body else is the industry like IBM, SUN, HP and som 400 (four hundred) other companies. Please, give me a break, stop thinking that if some one doesn't agree with an open source project and prises that big pile of crap called Open Office, then is been paid by Microsoft.

Re:Fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, give me a break, stop thinking that if some one doesn't agree with an open source project and prises that big pile of crap called Open Office, then is been paid by Microsoft.

Wow... someone must have forgotten to take their medication this morning.

Re:Fishy

[Kalriath]

Well, yes, but their original point is sound. It seems that anyone who expresses even the slightest disagreement with Open Office (and the associated ODF) is immediately called down as a "MS Shill" or "Paid by Microsoft".

I highly doubt this is true in any case, let alone the borderline edge cases Slashdot keeps making unfounded accusations for.

They released a formal statement..

[Anonymous Coward]

But it was in .docx format, so no one is able to open it.

Re:They released a formal statement..

[vidarh]

That would imply that these people are smarter than the rest of us, which is not an impression I'd like to leave in any case.

Re:They released a formal statement..

[Diabolus777]

docx is simply a zip of xml files
everyone can open it
editing is the problem

Re:They released a formal statement..

[PinkPanther]

docx is simply a zip of xml files / everyone can open it / editing is the problem

Editing and reading/interpreting it. Those XML files (and the wretched directory structure they fall into) are non-trivial to read. Try opening a docx containing a picture inside of a table cell.

Look on the bright side

[antifoidulus]

this story is just BEGGING to be tagged "thanksforallthefish"

Good riddance

[tsa]

We don't need any official-sounding non-organizations spreading (F)UD.

Re:Good riddance

[Burz]

Maybe they were hoping to get Microsoft's attention, and a nice fat donation to help spread their "message".

Re:Good riddance

[Kalriath]

Wouldn't that be ironic. All the Slashdotters saying that they shut down because Microsoft gave them money, when the real reason was that Microsoft didn't give them money.

Re:Good riddance

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that they shut down, regardless of the reason, weren't anything to do with those in charge of ODF and OASIS, just a FUD machine.

Say wha??

[downix]

This sounds like someone forgot what they were there for, then gave up once they realized their issues.

It's ok to say "we messed up" and call a mulligan. Right guys?

Re:Say wha??

[Jesus_666]

It's ok to say "we messed up" and call a mulligan. Right guys?

Only if they have either no lands or nothing but lands on their starting hand, of course.

Is was not?

[Anonymous Coward]

CDF is 'was not

Rarely is the question asked: is our editors learning?

Re:Is was not?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.

Re:Is was not?

[VGPowerlord]

The Dailt Show explains all about this.

Re:Is was not?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they really don't speak English in Tennessee. Interesting.

Re:Is was not?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The Dailt Show explains all about this.

Aw, shoot - I thought they were going to have W. say the first part of the phrase, then cut to a woman in the audience in his line of site, wearing a low-cut dress and adjusting her bra line, before W. stumbles forward. :)

Another FUD bites the dust ...

[tomhudson]

[chorus]

dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
And another one gone, and another one gone,
another FUD bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna see it on youtube
another FUD bites the dust

How do you think OpenDoc Foundations gonna get along
When the M$ bux are gone?
You got all the FUD that they could give,
And kicked them out when you were done.

Are you happy? Are you satisfied?
How long can M$ stand the heat?
Out of Redmond, the chairs do fly,
To the sound of the FUD beat [chorus]

dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
And another one gone, and another one gone,
another FUD bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna see it on youtube
another FUD bites the dust

Re:Another FUD bites the dust ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I'm gonna see it on youtube
...
How do you think OpenDoc Foundations gonna get along
...
And kicked them out when you were done.
...
To the sound of the FUD beat

A few too many syllables there, Tex.

Re:Another FUD bites the dust ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I read this backwards and it told me to go play Warcraft. Good thing subliminal messages don't work on me. I was already playing.

Re:Another FUD bites the dust ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheer genius

Foundation has no official status

[ral315]

As was said in the last story, the OpenDocument Foundation has no official status -- it was merely a group founded by a few guys who have changed their minds about OpenDocument (whether they were paid to do so or not, no one knows). The closure of the Foundation has no impact, other than the ability for OOXML supporters to spread FUD headlines like this.

Re:Foundation has no official status

[fireboy1919]

To elaborate, the format was actually put forth by OASIS (which, the entire British parliament should agree is the best band ever), but that's just a little piece of what they do.

The open document fellowship are the community supporters (i.e., the ODF volunteer organization), while the ODF Alliance are the industry supporters. What did the Open Document Foundation do? Muddy the waters.

They're the Ross Perot of open document foundations - making people think that if they listen to them, that they'll get the real skinny because of their seeming-official status. Good to see 'em go.

Re:Foundation has no official status

[Anonymous Coward]

They weren't paid to change their minds... they were just given some $400,000 for a three-month deal to not market the OpenDocument Format.

Re:Foundation has no official status

[harlows_monkeys]

Why do I suddenly have an urge to watch "Life of Brian"?

Re:Foundation has no official status

[Ajehals]

To save you having to watch it again, (although feel free) here is an updated version, I assume its close to what you were thinking

Brian:Are you the Open Document Foundation?
Reg: Fuck off!
Brian: What?
Reg: Open Document Foundation. We're the Open Document Alliance*! Open Document Foundation. Cawk.
Francis: Wankers.
Brian: Can I... join your group?
Reg: No. Piss off.
Brian: I didn't want to code this stuff. It's only a job. I hate closed source formats as much as anybody.
ODA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
Reg: Schtum.
Judith: Are you sure?
Brian: Oh, dead sure. I hate closed source formats already.
Reg: Listen. If you really wanted to join the Open Document Alliance*, you'd have to really hate closed source formats.
Brian: I do!
Reg: Oh, yeah? How much?
Brian: A lot!
Reg: Right. You're in. Listen. The only thing we hate more than closed source formats are the fucking Open Document Foundation.
ODA: Yeah...
Judith: Splitters.
ODA: Splitters...
Francis: And the Popular Alliance for Open Documents.
ODA: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
Loretta: And the Open Document Alliance.
ODA: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
Reg: What?
Loretta: The Open Document Alliance*. Splitters.
Reg: We're the Open Document Alliance*!
Loretta: Oh. I thought we were the Open Document Group.
Reg: Open Document Alliance*!
Francis: Whatever happened to the Open Document Group, Reg?
Reg: He's over there.
ODA: Splitter!

* I Know its ODF Alliance but that doesn't work as well and this is, after all humour/satire.(Based on Movie "the Life of Brian")

Re:Foundation has no official status

[mattwarden]

REG:
        Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.:
        Yeah...
JUDITH:
        Splitters.
FRANCIS:
        And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.:
        Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA:
        And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.:
        Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG:
        What?
LORETTA:
        The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG:
        We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA:
        Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG:
        People's Front!
FRANCIS:
        Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG:
        He's over there.
P.F.J.:
        Splitter!

Mod funny

[EvanED]

Dear god I wish I had points right now.

Re:Mod funny

[QuietObserver]

I would feel very fortunate that people who had the points appropriately moderated this.

Please read previous articles.

[Eco-Mono]

For what it's worth to you, it's been known for some time that the Open Document Foundation doesn't represent any actual source of authority vis-a-vis ODF - nobody's really sure what the organization was for to begin with. More info in this (oft-linked) blog entry.

Honestly,

[EaglemanBSA]

I could care less what they do. I save all my open documents to pdf's that everyone can read anyway...what's the issue here?

Re:Honestly,

[astrashe]

Editing PDFs is hard.

Re:Honestly,

[SavedLinuXgeeK]

Well that might be because people want to be able to edit the document later. Just a thought.

Re:Honestly,

[Anonymous Coward]

http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html

Re:Honestly,

[Znork]

Feh. Save in UTF-8 Unicode text format and typeset in whatever presentation format you need.

Word processor formats are the computer version of toilet paper. You dont use it for longterm retention of important information.

Re:Honestly,

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me, how much less could you care?

Re:Honestly,

[elh_inny]

Unfortunately plain text stores no information about the organization of the text.
That's where you use DocBook for instance.
But average Joe nor even programmers understand the advantages of splitting the information , meta-information and presentation, therefore they all use Word for drafting their documents.

Re:Honestly,

[Fred_A]

Editing PDFs is hard. Granted it's not as convenient as a random office format (or an open office format for that matter) but it's not exactly *hard* either.

Re:Honestly,

[vandan]

I could care less what they do.

You mean you couldn't care less. If you say that you could care less, then it's clearly not at the bottom of your list of cares, or in other words, that you DO care about it.

Re:Honestly,

[MightyYar]

Yeah, try that with an Excel document and get back to us... somehow I don't think that the autocalculation function would work :)

Re:Honestly,

[Fred_A]

I don't see what that has to do with editing the document... It's not the document that calculates stuff anyway :)

Re:Honestly,

[hey!]

Actually, office document formats are essentially programming languages (or perhaps even something approaching a virtual machine specification) that are optimized for easy program generation by user tools.

In the case of word processor documents, the program renders something (unfortunately also called a document) on some kind of device, typically a printer (with various paper formats) and the screen. The difference between HTML with CSS and javascript, and something like MS Word doc format are: built in interfaces to other systems (e.g. compound documents in the case of word), services the underlying rendering platform is expected to provide, plus miscellaneous implementation choices (e.g. VBA vs. javascript). The differences in services provided (e.g. compound document linking and updating in the case of Word) reflect in part the practical differences in the target application domains. And these practicalities do matter, although as HTML matures it is becoming a more practical alternative (in my opinion) for many kinds of documents.

In the case of spreadsheets, they are also a "document" when we are talking about the standard in question, although they are also arguably special purpose programs. The main thing they have in common with "documents" of the prior type is that they are also expected to have graphical renderings.

So really, what we are talking about here are practical ways of achieving various things users need in the course of their work. There are always more than one way to get things done, and accordingly, users could make do with HTML or PDF for many tasks, particularly if they are provided with an editor. With CSS and javascript, there's an even stronger case to be made that there isn't any critical need for a "presentation" document format.

While such solutions would clearly be adequate, they are not necessarily optimal for everyone. For example, HTML does not provide change tracking and commenting capabilities, although this can be a blessing when interchanging documents.

Re:Honestly,

[mattpalmer1086]

He doesn't care about them enough to precisely order them in his care list - he could care less ;)

Re:Honestly,

[nuzak]

Let's try Sam and Max for our rejoinder:

"No, I was right, I could care less, because I care even less about what you're saying right now."

Re:Honestly,

[mfnickster]

I could care less what they do.

You mean you couldn't care less.

Uh huh. Do you go to Rolling Stones concerts and shout: "You mean you can't get ANY satisfaction!!" ?

Bet you're a real hit at parties. :)

Re:Honestly,

[vandan]

There's a difference between using slang and horribly butchering what you're saying to the extent that you're accidentally saying the exact opposite of what you mean.

I've noticed that a lot of Yanks have started the 'could care less' thing, so I thought I'd see how much thought process actually goes into it. Answer: zero.

Re:Honestly,

[mfnickster]

And my point is, there's a time to criticize, and a time to just shake your head and let it slide!

Re:Honestly,

[vandan]

So shake your head at me :)

Re:Honestly,

[mfnickster]

Touché!

(I hope I'm using that right...) :)

a closed doc shop with a shop closed doc

[Anonymous Coward]

if Windows was a plane,
i'd be riding on a train

poetic justice, or what!!

Re:Now

[shaitand]

I should know better than to feed the trolls but you do know these guys are not responsible for Open Document and have no official status. They were more or less a fan club. Redmond is the most likely culprit in this case so the addage NEVER... NEVER trust Redmond would be appropriate. This isn't even substantial news to the open source world and won't impact anything in it.

In related news

[LM741N]

The Republican Party released a similar piece saying the party was unsuitable for use in a Democracy. "We wish all the good luck too our Democratic colleagues in sustaining the intent of the US Constitution."

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

In more related news, the Democratic party quickly issued a statement saying "Us too!" after poll numbers revealed a sudden surge in popularity for the Republican party.

Re:In related news

[pilsner.urquell]

The Republican Party released a similar piece saying the party was unsuitable for use in a Democracy. "We wish all the good luck too our Democratic colleagues in sustaining the intent of the US Constitution."

That would only be true if we lived in a Democracy. Your statement indicates you don't know what kind of government you live under, I recommend you look it up.

Re:In related news

[nagora]

That would only be true if we lived in a Democracy. Your statement indicates you don't know what kind of government you live under, I recommend you look it up.

"Plutocracy".

TWW

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear god, why do they let middle schoolers have access to the internet. Check up on American history and the different forms of Democracy you semantic whore!

Re:In related news

[pilsner.urquell]

"Plutocracy"

So your answer is socialism?

Re:In related news

[Chandon Seldon]

Step 1: Identify the problems.
Step 2: Come up with potential solutions.
Step 3: Don't give up when you realize that the potential solutions might be more radical than you expected.

The fact of the matter is that the economic system in the United States is very likely incompatible with democracy. I'm not yet convinced that some sort socialist model is the only thing that would work, but hybrid-socialist systems (as in Northern Europe) are the best solution that has been demonstrated in practice.

Re:In related news

[nagora]

So your answer is socialism?

What a strange leap of logic. You need to study Lincoln.

Re:In related news

[ewieling]

Moving quickly to being a theocracy. I expect the atheists to be rounded up and put in "re-education" camps any day now.

Re:In related news

[urcreepyneighbor]

In related news, the Democratic Party changed their named to United Progressive Socialist States of America.

Re:In related news

[ozbird]

Plutocracy: A minor government.

Re:In related news

[pilsner.urquell]

What a strange leap of logic. You need to study Lincoln.

What part of Lincoln? The man was a tyrant imprisoning thousand suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial, revoked habeas corpus and spent money on the Civil War without Congresses approval. Abraham Lincoln was so unpopular that in 1925 when Mount Rushmore commissioned his bust almost didn't make it because of the fear that anti Lincoln sympathizers would vandalize the bust, sixty years after his death.

I would venture to say if there had been poles in Abe's time he probably make George Bush AND Congress look like golden boys. All and all he was probably a pretty good president although I defiantly don't believe the ends justifies the means.

Re:In related news

[belmolis]

You're confused. If you look it up, you'll find that the US is considered a democracy.

Re:In related news

[pilsner.urquell]

You're confused. If you look it up, you'll find that the US is considered a democracy.

Your the one that is confused. Go find an American Flag, stand in front of if, place your rught hand over ypour heart and say:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Democracy for which it stands, ..."

Now is that right?

Re:In related news

[the eric conspiracy]

Anti-Lincoln sympathizers? WTF is an anti-Lincoln?

Re:In related news

[belmolis]

I know perfectly well that the US is a republic. Your confusion is that you think that a republic is not a democracy, which is false. The US is a republic and a democracy. There's no conflict. You don't explain yourself, but the usual basis for this fallacy is the mistaken belief that only direct democracies are democracies. That just isn't the case: representative democracies like the United States are considered democracies by virtually everybody, and the definitions of democracy that you will find in dictionaries and encyclopedias are not restricted to direct democracies. As one of many examples, see the Wikipedia article on democracy.

Re:In related news

[Fred_A]

What a strange leap of logic. You need to study Lincoln.

What part of Lincoln? Numerous scholars seem bo believe that his left knee was especialy worthy of study for some reason.

Re:In related news

[pilsner.urquell]

Your confusion is that you think that a republic is not a democracy, ...

You make it sound like it's a democratic republic much like the former USSR was a socialist republic. We do not have a democratic republic.

Re:In related news

[belmolis]

You're confusing the names that countries give themselves with accurate characterizations of their systems of government. The US is correctly characterized as a democracy and as a republic in spite of the fact that neither word appears in its name. As you mention, many, perhaps most, countries that call themselves "democratic republic", are in fact dictatorships or oligarchies. Indeed, the reason that they call themselves "democratic republic" is precisely because they want to pretend to be something they aren't. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, although in name a kingdom, is in fact a democracy and a republic since the monarch has no real power.

Re:In related news

[vandan]

I'm not yet convinced that some sort socialist model is the only thing that would work

I accept this challenge then :)

All political systems can basically be split into 2 camps, based on who controls how society is run. I won't go into elaborate details about how socialism works, etc.

The main point, and this is something that Western society desperately needs to learn, is that money itself is an organising force. It attracts more money to itself, unless you specifically dis-allow this practice. What this means is that if you allow capitalism ( in particular private ownership of the means of production ), then you're on a very slippery slope towards Imperialism ( the highest form of capitalism ). This is because ANY allowances made to private ownership ( and control ) of capital will result in greater and greater collections of capital. Smaller capitalists will be swept up in the turmoil and you'll be left with huge monopolies. This is not a generalisation. This is what ALWAYS happens. It can't happen any other way. Survival under capitalism requires the capitalist to constantly profit, and to re-invest those profits to expand the business. Any capitalist who does not or can not do this will not remain a capitalist very long. Hence the constant trend towards fewer, larger capitalists. Hence larger barriers to entry for new competitors.

This is clearly what we see today. We have some token laws 'against' monopolies, but these are incredibly contradictory to the capitalist mantra, and are almost never enforced. Take Microsoft, for example. Microsoft is certainly not the only example though. Have you ever thought about starting your own oil drilling company? You can't, can you? Barriers to entry. What about a car company? Think you can navigate the patent mine-field just to produce an EFI system for an engine? You can't. Individuals can't enter any established industry. Large corporations with armies of lawyers can.

So getting back to the original point ... you've got 2 choices. You can either make the means of production completely state-based ( collective ownership with democratic control over how they're used ), or you can NOT make them collectively owned ... and this basically opens the floodgates to private accumulation, and eventually huge monopolies and imperial powers, not to mention an ABSOLUTE loss of democratic control over how these industries are run.

Anything in-between is transitory. This is one of the key reasons why the remaining socialists call themselves internationalists - because we realise that there is no possible solution on a small scale - we'd be at the mercy of the world's imperial powers. The only solution is an international revolution. It may seem like a long shot, but just wait for the Oil Wars to ramp up a couple of notches, and the price of living to go through the roof in industrialised countries, and climate change to start biting ...

Re:In related news

[pilsner.urquell]

The US is correctly characterized as a democracy and as a republic in spite of the fact that neither word appears in its name.

The official form of government of the United States of America is a "federal constitutional republic" which is much more complex that just a democracy or republic. A group of self-governing states in republic held together by a constitution.

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is not a democracy, despite ignorant appeals to the 'popular vote' and 'democracy' by both of its major parties. There's no reason to characterize the US as a democracy when it isn't.

Re:In related news

[Shai-kun]

It's just like Lincoln, but with opposite charge. When a Lincoln and an anti-Lincoln meet, they annihilate each other in a flash of abolitionism and emancipation, releasing constitutional amendments in the process.

Re:In related news

[belmolis]

You seem to think that descriptions of one aspect of a country exclude descriptions of others, which is false. The fact that the US is a federal constitutional republic does not mean that is not a democracy, which is the point at issue. Nothing you have said argues against the characterization of the US as a democracy. Further specifying what sort of democracy it is does not change this fact.

Re:In related news

[HeroreV]

I don't know about way back in the day, but the term "democracy" has included representative democracy for quite a while. For the meaning you're thinking of, you should use the term "direct democracy" or "pure democracy".

Re:In related news

[pilsner.urquell]

However, a pure democracy is government by mob rule. You know, like that mob in the book by Mary Shelley.

Re:In related news

[Chandon Seldon]

That's definitely the argument, and it absolutely provides a clear description of what has happened to economic systems in the real world.

What I don't accept is your two camps premise. There may be forms of capitalism that don't degrade into imperialism. There are definitely different forms of socialism. There are a number possible hybrid systems. There are probably even other options (I keep thinking that there must be a way to do non-linear money).

What I am sure of is this: Pretty much anything works on a small scale, and I haven't seen a way to keep any democratic system practical on a large scale.

Re:In related news

[tashammer]

ruled by a cartoon dog? Yeah, that's about right. i wonder if the dog would pee on the bush?

Re:In related news

[vandan]

There may be forms of capitalism that don't degrade into imperialism.

Not if they're exposed to international markets.

There are definitely different forms of socialism.

The complete failure of Stalinism shows that you can't have 'socialism in a state'. It has to be international, for the same reasons that less profitable capitalist powers are doomed to assimilation - everyone has to compete with the most cut-throat capitalist.

There are a number possible hybrid systems.

As transitory systems, yes. But they aren't the end goal; just one possible means of getting there.

Re:In related news

[thommym]

Thank, well whoever, I'm not living there...

Re:In related news

[argent]

Kleptocracy?

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, they're still teaching this "republic, not a democracy" business in grade school?

Well, maybe in the next grade you'll learn that the two in fact sometimes overlap and one is an instance of the other.

I bet you correct people's usage of "American" too because there's two continents with that name.

Re:In related news

[mattpalmer1086]

You have a brilliant political system, that will only work if everyone, or the vast majority of people in the world supports it? So do I, so do I...

Re:In related news

[Bent Mind]

I'm a bit confused by your analysis.

Have you ever thought about starting your own oil drilling company? You can't, can you? Barriers to entry. What about a car company? Think you can navigate the patent mine-field just to produce an EFI system for an engine? You can't. Individuals can't enter any established industry.

You can either make the means of production completely state-based ( collective ownership with democratic control over how they're used ), or you can NOT make them collectively owned ... Given that you end your analysis with:

This is one of the key reasons why the remaining socialists call themselves internationalists - because we realise that there is no possible solution on a small scale - we'd be at the mercy of the world's imperial powers. I'll assume you don't advocate the capitalist system. You show capitalism as bad because it's hard to start a business due to monopolies. You then show "internationalists" as good because they advocate making the means of production completely state-based. However, state-based ownership of business makes starting a business illegal due to government monopoly. I'm not really what you are advocating at this point. As for:

collective ownership with democratic control over how they're used I've done business with several capitalist businesses that use a co-operative model, particularly in farming areas.I've found co-ops work very well in capitalist systems.

Re:In related news

[mfnickster]

All right buddy, you owe me a new keyboard!!

Re:In related news

[Chandon Seldon]

I can't entirely make out what your reasoning is because you haven't really expressed it, but I'd like to point out a couple of problems that you've probably overlooked:

• Naive democracy doesn't seem to be any more "automatically stable" than naive capitalism is. Therefore, simply making your economic system "we'll do our resource allocation by hand democratically" is really just trading two problems for one extra-complicated problem.
• You aren't differentiating between government behavior and market behavior. Some of the things you are attributing to market failures are really political failures - patents for example. It would be more obvious that that sort of political failure should be labeled "corruption" in a socialist economic system, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't happen.

As transitory systems, yes. But they aren't the end goal; just one possible means of getting there.

Hybrid systems are what has shown the best behavior in practice, and there are good arguments that they have the best behavior in theory too. Markets really are better at small scale resource allocation than trying to vote on every little thing.

Re:In related news

[MikeFM]

The intent of the Constitution was to take money from big media companies to shut down educational institutions and make kids that download media, without paying for it, work at Burger King for their whole life?

Re:In related news

[vandan]

Naive democracy doesn't seem to be any more "automatically stable" than naive capitalism is. Therefore, simply making your economic system "we'll do our resource allocation by hand democratically" is really just trading two problems for one extra-complicated problem.

Sure. And when you hear people talking about public education, it's always the socialists saying that we need to invest more, and the capitalists saying that the government should back off and let the market provide, so people have 'choice'. But I agree 100% - we need people educated for it to work.

You aren't differentiating between government behavior and market behavior. Some of the things you are attributing to market failures are really political failures - patents for example.

The boundary is quite blurred under capitalism. The problem with patents, or any other legislation that is thrust upon us, is that it's big business that choose our politicians. If there's a policy they want, they'll get it. Take 'Work Choices' here in Australia. Our government made no mention of this prior to the last election, and had NO mandate for industrial relations reform. But guess what we got when they were re-elected? Wholesale attacks on unions and the right to organise. Removal of award conditions. Anti-terror-style legislation to intimidate and coerce workers to inform on each other in industrial disputes.

Now, you could say that this is a failure of the political system. But on the other hand, this is coming to us direct from the economic system, which is short-circuiting the political system.

Re:In related news

[vandan]

You show capitalism as bad because it's hard to start a business due to monopolies.

This is not what I was attempting to demonstrate. This line of criticism comes from a capitalist point of view, ie self-criticism. What I'm pointing out is that despite the mantra about how capitalism == competition == good, what in fact happens is the emergence of monopolies and imperial powers.

You then show "internationalists" as good because they advocate making the means of production completely state-based. However, state-based ownership of business makes starting a business illegal due to government monopoly. I'm not really what you are advocating at this point.

OK. I am in fact advocating an international socialist revolution ( attention CIA: watch this space! ). And you are correct that this state-based ownership model would make owning the means of production illegal, which is subtly different from 'starting a business'. For democracy to work, people have to have collective ownership of the means of production, and resources. Once you allow private ownership of these, you throw democratic control out the window.

As a simple example, imagine a country that has enough resources to achieve in 1 year:

Alternative 1)
  - build 10,000,000 cars for export
  - mine 10,000,000 tonnes of coal for export
  - build new missile defense system

Alternative 2)
  - replace 30% of fossil-fuel power stations with renewable
  - 300% increase in public education spending
  - convert 50% of farms to organic, dramatically increasing life expectancy

We all know which scenario will happen under capitalism, because there's simply far more money to be made in Alternative 1. You can argue with me over whether either alternative is sustainable in the long term. But the point is that under capitalism, no-one EVER asks us what we want. We are presented with the goods that the capitalists guess will make them the most money. How is this democratic?

You see, my idea of democracy is not voting for one dick-head over some arse-wipe every 3 to 4 years. I'm not interested in politicians. Democracy is not about politicians. It's about decision-making. It's not about some nebulous list of promises made by politicians in an election campaign. It's about people getting together in community groups, and making decisions that are actually acted upon. This requires collective ownership, otherwise your decisions really amount to nothing, because you don't actually control anything. And please let's not suggest that we can legislate our way to heaven. Collective ownership isn't about somehow making enterprises less efficient. It's about making them do what we decide that we want them to do. The only people who would find this offensive are the current business owners, who will no longer profit from 'their' enterprise. Everyone else will see a massive increase in their standard of living, because profits will be reinvested in society ... they way we decide.

Re:In related news

[Chandon Seldon]

But I agree 100% - we need people educated for it to work.

When I said "naive democracy" I meant "the obvious implementation of democracy" rather than "democracy with uneducated people". A society needs to be able to make economic decisions, and I'm unaware of any democratic model that has been demonstrated to have the properties unnecessary to usefully fill that role.

The thing that you seem to be missing here is that both economic systems and democratic systems both have the same basic problem - complex systems have complex properties, and any system with the wrong properties will reach the wrong equilibrium. Just doing away with monetary capitalism because it obviously has the wrong properties solves nothing unless you can show that the system that you're replacing it with (pure democratic socialism apparently) has better properties - simply assuming that it has the properties that you want (because "democracy is good" or whatever) is wishful thinking.

Now, there are lots of systems that would work if you could get everyone to accept them at once. Consider the following ideal hybrid system for example:

• Property (including money) belongs to human beings (rather than corporations).
• When a person dies, their property goes into a pool administered by the state.
• When a person becomes a full citizen of the society (i.e. turns 21), they receive a cut from the pool to get started with.
• There is a state-run welfare system to catch people who go bankrupt.

This has most of the beneficial properties of monetary capitalism without a tendency to degrade into imperialism - a person simply can't accumulate enough wealth in a lifetime to cause much trouble. The big reason it's unlikely to work is transitioning from the real world to that model. The second largest problem with this system is democratic to economic disruption - the masses may inadvertently change something that breaks the beneficial properties of the system.

Re:In related news

[vandan]

Property (including money) belongs to human beings (rather than corporations).

Well, that in itself is a pretty radical step. It basically points towards collective ownership, because capital accumulation is required for large projects. If you get rid of corporations ( which I agree that we should ), the state is the only other entity that can take their place.

So I'm not really sure that your 'hybird' system is very hybrid. It sounds like a good socialist model to me.

Re:In related news

[Chandon Seldon]

It basically points towards collective ownership, because capital accumulation is required for large projects. If you get rid of corporations ( which I agree that we should ), the state is the only other entity that can take their place.

Not really, people can still organize in groups and pool their wealth to accomplish things. They just don't get to hide behind corporations in the process - every check that gets written would have an actual person's name in the "from" and "to" fields.

So I'm not really sure that your 'hybird' system is very hybrid. It sounds like a good socialist model to me.

It still has money. It still allows people to accrue wealth and buy and sell in a market. People even still work for each other. It's more socialist than many models, but it still retains many of the useful properties of free market capitalism.

My general point is that once you start saying "Let's chose a good system without considering the current situation", there are more than just a couple of possible answers.

Resurrect it then

[presidenteloco]

Someone else (who isn't busy like me ;-) ) should form another organization by the same name then
I suppose.

Anyone?

The worst that could happen is that M$ will pay you a bundle to close it down again.

At best you could shepherd a format that we sorely need promoted.

MS Laughing Its A** Off

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft must be laughing its ass off. There'll be nothing but smug I told you so's for the next year.

Re:MS Laughing Its A** Off

[Anonymous Coward]

There'll be nothing but smug I told you so's for the next year.

Why? This was nothing but a sham organisation that existed to promote a sham document format (OOXML). This headline is the last bit of FUD they could throw, making it appear that ODF is dead. Why does Slashdot even given credence to these shills? Articles like this (and the lies about moving to CDF) deserve to be given a good ignoring, otherwise we're just encouraging Microsoft to make up more scam foundations.

Choose opendocumentcommunity.org Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

>We sincerely wish our friends and associates in the OpenDocument Community

And opendocumentcommunity (.org, .net, .com) domains are vacant. Quickly, choose one and spread FUD!! XD

Re:Choose opendocumentcommunity.org Quick!

[downix]

Hmm... **texts the boss**

Who cares?

[NetCow]

The "Open Document Foundation" is and was never a crucial part of anything. The Open Document Format was developed by OASIS - see http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDocument-v1.1-html/OpenDocument-v1.1.html/.

Microsoft Too....

[Sfing_ter]

Microsoft too is cutting back in these hard times, when fud is discovered as fud it no longer is fud it is an albatross around Ball(less)mer's neck, and does not reek enough already with his aerobic workouts at meetings and trainings...???

Excellent precedent

[belmolis]

This is an excellent precedent. Maybe the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution will follow their lead.

Obligatory South Park Reference

[Dunbal]

Oh God, if we add Microsoft's smug with the smug from all the hybrid drivers and the smug from George Clooney's Oscar acceptance speech then we're really in the shit.

Re:Microsoft shut them down - Nah. They outsourced

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe they outsourced to Novell.

The OpenDocument Foundation hasn't gone away

[Anonymous Coward]

The OpenDocument Foundation have moved to da-vinci.us... named after their vaporware converter product that they claimed could magically convert between ODF and OOXML losslessly. They showed it at conferences on their own test documents and their claims have never been substatiated.

On the OpenDocument Fellowship mailing list (not to be confused with the 'Foundation') there's been some posts from members of the foundation... hilariously they accidentally send a private email to the full list which reveals their plans (hint: they're not going away, but they will continue with their FUD)

Don't be fooled by their claims in that email. You'll see that despite being challenged they can't back up anything they say!

Re:The OpenDocument Foundation hasn't gone away

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent isn't a troll. Read it and follow the links.

Hello!

[Frosty Piss]

I should know better than to feed the trolls but you do know these guys are not responsible for Open Document and have no official status.

Yes, I think most people here at Slashdot understand that. And just about everyone else doesn't care. And that's the thing: While there is a good amount of frothing conspiracy theory going on, it really doesn't matter because no one really cared about the "Open Document Foundation" anyway. And that's probably one reason they shut down, they just where not effective FUD.

Re:Good riddance slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

"We don't need any official-sounding non-organizations spreading (F)UD."

Yay! You mean Slashdot's shutting down? Finally!

Still Making News...?

[mlauzon]

Why is this still making news, it has already been found out that the OpenDocument Foundation, Inc. has nothing to do with the OpenDocument Alliance...the real organisation behind ODF; so I ask again why this is still making news?!

rather tag it "!thisodf"

[Janek Kozicki]

because it is NOT this ODF (the ISO standard (almost?), by OASIS) everyone knows about. Just some stupid group of people with same name.

Re:rather tag it "!thisodf"

[Anonymous Coward]

Argh. That's exactly what They (Microsoft) want you think, and the press to regurgitate. The OpenDocument Foundation was NOT behind ODF. ODF is from OASIS and is ALREADY AN ISO STANDARD.

Re:rather tag it "!thisodf"

[Anonymous Coward]

ISO 26300

Also shut down

[vik]

That links to the foundation's website and is also shut down.

Vik :v)

Re:Also shut down

[Anonymous Coward]

All the members of the OpenDocument Foundation recently moved their email from opendocumentfoundation.us to da-vinci.us. Keep an eye on that site, and read those links (ps reprap rocks)

In other news....

[LingNoi]

...I just made a new organisation called the Open Document Format Gathering and we are now closing because ODF sucks / whatever.. now give me my Microsoft check...

Shut them down? -No, Send a large check? -Maybe..

[drgonzo59]

Microsoft can't shut them down, but a nice fat check to each one of them certainly will make them shut up.

Recently they tried to bribe their way to the Nigerians to get ahead of Mandriva. Then we hear of Blamer throwing chairs around the office yelling "I'm going to fucking kill Google", I really wouldn't put it above them trying to bribe this committee into submission.

In other words, when everything else fails, look for the money trail.

In all honesty, no matter how much I would care about some open standards, Linux, Linus, and so on (and I do care about those things), if Microsoft sent me a $100k check in exchange of not caring "as much" about open standards, I don't know if I would resist. (If I would resist, I probably wouldn't resist if they doubled the offer).

To me this "bribing conspiracy" makes sense. It would be pocket change for Microsoft and would quickly solve their problem (promoting OOXML). Not a bad business move on their part...

Pointless.

[Jessta]

We already went over this, the open document foundation is just four guys in a garage with no real connection to the OpenDocument Format.
This news is pointless.

As fishy as a fishy fisherman's fishy bits

[CarpetShark]

I don't know why you'd be suspicious. Huge evil megacorp, known for bribery and corruption, is facing it's worst nightmare in the form of ODF. It's tried everything to get rid of it, and ODF is still slowly but surely progressing. Suddenly, one of the big organisations behind ODF declares that ODF is somehow a failure when it's on top, and then decides to blink out of existence altogether.

Nope. Nothing fishy there. I'm sure the OpenDoc Foundation just accidentally ate a ring of teleportation or something.

Re:As fishy as a fishy fisherman's fishy bits

[tehBoris]

Checking on Wikihack, you can only eat rings when you are polymorphed into either a rock mole, a rust monster or xorn.

So, if they DID eat a ring of teleportation as you say, the only remaining question would be, did Microsoft zap them with the wand of polymorph?

I can't believe I just said that...

Re:As fishy as a fishy fisherman's fishy bits

[The Iso]

They were never a "big organisation behind ODF." They were two guys who picked an authoritative-sounding name at got invited to conferences.

Re:As fishy as a fishy fisherman's fishy bits

[ozmanjusri]

the only remaining question would be, did Microsoft zap them with the wand of polymorph?

Nope. It was a RED ring of teleportation.

They just stopped working and went away.

Re:As fishy as a fishy fisherman's fishy bits

[Chris Burke]

What and I'm supposed to believe someone claiming to be "The" International Standards Organization?

Well actually, do you want to come to my conference?

Tit for Tat

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Maybe I should found the OpenOffice XML Standardization Committee? Anyone interested in joining? Membership requires you prefer OOXML today, but plan to have a strong belief that ODF is superior to OOXML as per the announcement we'll make tomorrow. Don't worry, it won't take a lot of your time since we plan to dissolve in a week, and announce that to the tech press. ;)

Re:Tit for Tat

[zullnero]

I'll join! Do I get a share of the kickback payment?

Re:Tit for Tat

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'll join! Do I get a share of the kickback payment?

Sure... you call the PR department at Sun and I'll call IBM.

Sour grapes?

[loftwyr]

Maybe they're just really upset that Robert Weir from IBM was given co-chair status instead of one of them. After all they're in charge of a whole foundation.

Good to see them gone.

Correction, "and got invited" (n/t)

[The Iso]

There is no text of import in this comment.

I'm nominating

[zullnero]

.txt as the new standard document format for everyone to use. My slogan is "It just works."

Re:I'm nominating

[teh moges]

Ironically, Microsoft even makes a product that only half supports this format.

Re:I'm nominating

[mxmissile]

If this came true, we could then fight over which line feed format to use!

Re:I'm nominating

[The Master Control P]

I'll take a fight over whether to use [\r | \n | \r\n] over the Cryptonomicon-sized standards we're fighting over now.

Re:Now

[awrowe]

Microsoft give you money if you open a fan club?

This just in...

[Teilo]

Leading several prominent Ziff Davis publications to report, "The Open Document Format has been abandoned, as its parent organization has closed its doors."

Goodbye and good riddance to the trolling trio and their self-serving vaporware specification.

Attention! Announcement!

[the eric conspiracy]

In related news I have the pleasure of announcing that The Eric Conspiracy has commissioned a fully-owned subsidiary named "The Open Document Format Conspiracy" or ODFC. The ODFC has acquired all of the trademarks, intellectual property and desk accessories of the Open Document Foundation (not saying how) and will soon take over all of the rights, duties and responsibilities of the Open Document Foundation (if any exist).

Watch this space for future announcements, news, and requests for donations.

Patches are welcome

[A nonymous Coward]

This is open source -- don't just gripe, make your criticism constructive.

I hope

[Trogre]

these MS shills don't let the door hit them on their way out.

Re:Shut them down? -No, Send a large check? -Maybe

[fast turtle]

if Microsoft sent me a $100k check in exchange of not caring "as much" about open standards, I don't know if I would resist. (If I would resist, I probably wouldn't resist if they doubled the offer). Boy you're cheap. I wouldn't settle for less then One Million Euro. That gives me enough money to live comfortably where ever I want.

nope, that's YOUR job..

[newr00tic]

This is open source -- don't just gripe, make your criticism constructive.

Open Source means that YOU should 'constructivicize' HIS criticism, with an added license that the next man can un-'constructivicize' it right behind your back again.

;)

Re:Now

[Achromatic1978]

Redmond is the most likely culprit in this case so the addage NEVER... NEVER trust Redmond would be appropriate.

Cute quote. Way to fire up the hordes. Your evidence is, exactly, what?

(http://www.ganjablogger.com/)

Oh, I see where your ideas could have come from. Going to share?

There was a time when a standard was made by....

[3seas]

...popular usage and not by committee.

Ah, so this is a statement that we are getting back to that.

We don't need a foundation. all we need is popular usage....

Pythonesque.

[The Monster]

F**k the People's Front of Judaea; we're the Judaean People's Front!

Judaean Popular People's Front? Splitters!

Re:Pythonesque.

[Isauq]

Well what about the Popular Front?

Re:Pythonesque.

[The Monster]

Well what about the Popular Front?

He's over there.

Re:foundation for creators' planet/population resc

[Anonymous Coward]

vote with (what's left in) yOUR wallet What if that's a Capital One No Hassle(tm) credit card?

Smells like legal action

[Torodung]

Looks like they finally got a "cease and desist" letter for trademark infringement (the relevant TM being "Open Document"). That didn't take long. Good riddance.

--
Toro

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a good alternative now that OpenOffice is no more?

From Digg

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is slow. I read this on Digg eleven days ago. Roy Schestowitz, the anti-Microsoft FUDmaster-in-Chief on Digg claimed that "the funding for a project run by the OpenDocument Foundation ended some time ago after very aggressive lobbying and bullying in Massachusetts. Microsoft had people thrown out of their job for 'daring' to stick to ODF. ... After the funding ended, the OpenDocument Foundation was glued to a corner, so the wise step to take was to turn somewhere else."

You can read more of Schestowitz' rants at Boycott Novell

Re:Shut them down? -No, Send a large check? -Maybe

[somersault]

Agreed. A year or 2's wages are pathetic compensation for living in a world controlled by Microsoft -.-

Did anyone try ...

[donak]

... sending them a text?
How open is that?

ODF

[aafuss]

It's a bit sad to see one ODF group close down, but at least we still have the ODF aalliance.

Re:There was a time when a standard was made by...

[Just Some Guy]

We don't need a foundation. all we need is popular usage....

OK, so that makes Windows, .DOC(X?), and MSIE the standards. We can all pack up and go home now.

The reason for standards committees is that de facto standards often suck for everyone except the people who invented them.

Fixed URL

[NetCow]

Oops. The correct URL (without the superfluous trailing slash) is http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDocument-v1.1-html/OpenDocument-v1.1.html.

Damn, all the anti-MS FUD goes to naught

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, with all the heated hatred toward Microsoft, and how ODF was going to kill off Microsoft, and how FOSS was going to rule the entire universe and let Stallman ascend into Godhood (even further, that is)... ODF has gone as far as every other FOSSie initiative. Which is to say, less than nowhere.

Heck, say what you will about Teh Lunix, but at least it's not vaporware. Sure, it's never delivered on the promises it made toward being even remotely viable on the desktop (seeing as it's never even reached parity with Windows 95), but at least they've had a product out the door. ODF can't even manage THAT.

So much for the "acceptance" of "standards". ODF was, in the end, all chump and no pump. All talk and no action. All moan and no bone. You get the picture.

Bear all this in mind the next time "Teh Community", aka the Stallmanistas, start attacking Microsoft with their next goofy and vacuous idea.

Re:Damn, all the anti-MS FUD goes to naught

[tomhudson]

Guess you missed how the ubuntu-based linux pc sold out in one week at Wallyworld ...

... and btw - linux has been my only desktop for years.

Re:Damn, all the anti-MS FUD goes to naught

[PastaLover]

Obviously a troll but might I point out that ODF is available in several software products and that this particular organisation closing up shop has nothing at all to do with the standard really, as it is still, well, a standard which is being actively worked on and implemented in various office suites. It's still growing strong.

And tired puns like "lunix" and "stallmanistas" is the reason political discourse in the US is in the mess it is now, but that might get a bit offtopic.

Re:Shut them down? -No, Send a large check? -Maybe

[greedyturtle]

I'm sensing a business plan here, plug a free, alternate version of something M$ doesn't want to succeed until they show up to bribe you. It's remarkably similar to the old business plan of creating a startup with a product better than something M$ already offers and wait for them to buy you out and let your former company (now a div of microsoft) flounder and collapse.

Re:Now

[Chris Burke]

Cute quote. Way to fire up the hordes. Your evidence is, exactly, what?

I think the evidence made public during the anti-trust trial and conviction should be enough for anyone to have a healthy distrust of everything Redmond does, especially anything regarding openness or interoperability or anything else that threatens Microsoft's OS and office suite lock-in and thus their entire business model.