Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Believes IBM Masterminded Anti-OOXML Initiative
mahuyar writes "Microsoft executives have accused IBM of leading the campaign against their initiative to have Office Open XML approved by the International Organization for Standardization. 'Nicos Tsilas, senior director of interoperability and IP policy at Microsoft, said that IBM and the likes of the Free Software Foundation have been lobbying governments to mandate the rival OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard to the exclusion of any other format. "They have made this a religious and highly political debate," Tsilas said. "They are doing this because it is advancing their business model. Over 50 percent of IBM's revenues come from consulting services."'"
Is that the pot calling the kettle black? If Microsoft is pulling out all the stops to steamroll their way to the front, I find it incredibly hypocritical of them to call someone else out on a counter.
So sad, that such a tiny little garage shop like Microsoft should be beaten up by the big bad IBM.
Anyone else think that this sounds like whining?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
You know how I know there's no God. Because if there was, a lightning bolt would come from the sky and blast this guy to smithereens.
After all the revelations of Microsoft's attempts to poison the standards process by buying votes, to accuse someone else of some dirty campaign is so hypocritical and immoral that one has to stand in awe of the kind of twisted mind that could produce it.
I thought only SCO's pathetic supporters with their claims that Groklaw was an IBM front were this warped, but Microsoft, congrats, you've produced the same specimen of irony-meter destroying beastling.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
IBM believes that Microsoft masterminded the Pro-OOXML Initiative.
...what you engage in yourself.
Regardless of IBM's motives (obviously they have some interest in this, they are a company that wants to make a profit), the main reason why everyone is against MS.. is because they cannot be trusted....
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
IBM executives have concerns microsoft of leading the campaign against their initiative against microsoft's initiative to have Office Open XML approved by the International Organization for Standardization.
But, Nicos Tsilas, senior director of interoperability and IP policy at Microsoft, said that IBM and the likes of the Free Software Foundation have been lobbying governments to mandate the rival OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard to the exclusion of any other format.
IBM responded with, "They have made this a religious and highly political debate, worse than we did" "Yes, we ARE are doing this because it is advancing our business model. But, over 50 percent of microsoft's revenues come from abusing and INsulting services against their customers needing a way out."
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Seriously, we've seen plenty of stories right here on Slashdot about Microsoft trying to buy the vote. Sweden comes to mind. And frankly, you can't call it lobbying when all you are doing is pointing out that Microsoft's "open" format is not actually open.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
Because it took me two years to figure out that OOXML had *nothing whatsoever* to do with Open Office. Evil scum should be flailed just for creating that confusion.
Can we flail Steve Jobs too, just for good measure?
Salut,
Jacques
I do believe the likes of Google and Sun were firmly on IBM's side in pushing back against MSOOXML. Goes to show, it takes a group effort to stand up against a monopolist.
like the stunt they pulled in sweden, poor microsoft.
are they trying to get people felling sad for them? think they will get votes that way
arrh, f**k I don't really have anything good to write, just feeling upset, plz mod me down now.
preview button, my computer does't have any preview button
The sheer kettle/pot chutzpah of it. Against my will I find I'm actually impressed.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
Everybody who cares to look already knows that ODF is about IBM's business AND the pubic good.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
For putting aside vendor difference and suggesting that IBM be recognized for their alleged efforts. For, in my mind, campaigning against bad spec does indeed make one masterful.
or it could just be a massive wave of consensus that's causing their denial. Oh, and backlash from being caught red handed more than once.
just maybe..
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
I wish Microsoft would accuse me of masterminding the plot against OOXML seeing as 50% of my business comes from dealing with crappy software.
After all, who isn't running OS/2 on their thinkpads these days, or typing on Model M keyboards? And the IBM PowerPC chip - now that's a popular chip for the mainstream market if ever I saw one!
Yep, I'm sure the guys who sold us all on "I just totally warped my files" would be capable of blocking a Microsoft initiative... When I think powerful and successful marketing, I know I think IBM.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
IBM clearly deviated from established and acceptable protocol--buying and intimidating voters.
TODO - Insert Creative/Witty Signature
There is only one company to blame and it's Microsoft. If it had been a decent spec and unencumbered people would have respected it despite the author. This spec though did not deserve the light of day.
If it wasn't for their 'IP policy,' we wouldn't have half the problems we do with 'interoperability.'
I don't care why you're posting AC
And what percentage of Microsoft's revenue comes from Office? Isn't this advancing the business model of Microsoft?
Does Microsoft really believe that everyone is out to get them, or are they incapable of understanding why any standard which says "do it like Word 95 did it" isn't open or implementable by anyone else?
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Never ascribe to malice what results from trying to dishonestly force junk through standardisation processes. Memo to Microsoft: Your product stinks, is why you didn't get your way. And your business practices stink even worse. Go away.
you had me at #!
From the article: "If it was not for IBM, it would have been business as usual for this standard."
Isn't is so that Fast Track is meant for technically simple standards? So for Microsoft "business as usual" means that they should be allowed push their broken format into ISO on the wrong track.
No, Microsoft, we web/slashdot trolls masterminded it. Live with it!
Table-ized A.I.
So wait...
Microsoft is crying about this, this is not fair?
Are they... losing this battle? Is this their last defence?
I sure hope so!
Dependency hell? =>
In this post and the posts above and below it I have an interesting discussion with someone who says essentially the same thing.
Personally, when it comes down to it, I don't care who is behind the standard as long as the standard meets certain *ahem* standards. Mainly I want inter-operable implementations from more than one vendor, and I would like at least one implementation that's fully Open Source and considered the reference implementation.
ODF meets all of those requirements. OOXML meets none of them. I don't think even Microsoft could make an implementation of OOXML in a clean room without using any of their other source code.
So, I care not one whit for the political machinations behind it all. All I care about is having a standard that's really a standard. Putting the political machinations to the fore is a mistake, and Microsoft is trying to capitalize on that to create a smokescreen that obscures the real issue, which is that their 'standard' is awful and unimplementable.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It is certainly possible that IBM, Sun, Google, and FSF could have played a role in leveraging ODF over OOXML, but Microsoft shot themselves in the foot with OOXML by publishing a faulty standard that was easily demonstrated to be non-standard (i.e. "implement the way Word '97 does").
Lord only knows what tactics Microsoft will use when usage of ODF is actually twice that of OOXML, and their Office Productivity Suite monopoly disappears...
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Thanks to IBM lobbying, we'll all be using EBCDIC-XML for our documents.
Knäpphuvuden
Ask you local office what that means...
sigh
Who asked
Who farted
I would have thought that they wouldn't or couldn't care less who or what disagrees with them so long as they got the bits of ISO paper they need so they can claim that they are "an international standard". Have they done a quick back-of-the-envelope tot up of the numbers for the vote (even at this stage)? Do they anticipate that they will fail and are getting their excuses and blames in early?
When Flower Child Bill Gates says we need a Kinder, Gentler Capitalism, why do the suits IBM only seek to run the business?
When CEO Squirts Ballmer dons his Love Beads and Stallman Wig[TM] and asks for Peace, Love, and Understanding, why does IBM fight a religious and political battle?
Peace out, Brothers and Sisters! We are Stardust. If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
that's been MS's excuse for all their misdeeds of the past, that it's just business. I guess the point he is trying to make is that IBM isn't doing it to be a good guy, but frankly who cares if it prevents MS getting their hooks into a standard.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
They have made this a religious and highly political debate.
Mwwhaaaaaa. Get the comfy chair!! Our quest against the non-believers must continue!
Seriously? Who actually wants to get stuck with *another* Microsoft spec that they either won't doc, honor or support. What do we fear? Could it be their history of "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish"?
"And the likes", Jeesh.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Well if that's really how stupid Microsoft employees are, they did great with Vista!
Anyhow, not that it matters, but the truth seems to be the latter. Several groups and entities were opposed to OOXML, including many FOSS organizations like the FSF. And also IBM. Given IBM's money, perhaps it acted more than the others, I have no idea. If IBM did anything underhanded or unethical, then that would be very wrong, regardless of the worthiness of the goal. But, as it happens, Microsoft was caught buying votes, not IBM, so these accusations of Microsoft's are just ridiculous.
If I was buying votes left and right all across Europe to have my broken non-standard approved (and I don't mean "trying to"), to the point that those bribed to vote Microsoft are now causing the standards body to be disfunctional by not attending other sessions - after all, the bribe was only for voting for OOXML - well, if I did such a blatantly illegal thing for which I might still pay dearly, I should at the very least lay low and STFU! Doesn't Microsoft think IBM could very well retort in kind, but this time with some fscking well-documented and proven cases, and just for the heck of it sue Microsoft for corruption?
I bet IBM has at least a dozen lawyers at any time, idling and just waiting to be given a task just like this. IBM's lawyers have a certain fame (should I say "notoriety"?), too.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
All I can say is, waaaaaaa! Honestly, Microsoft dropped the ball on themselves on OOXML. There's no technical reason they could not have created a truly open standard that anyone could use to read and write Office compatible documents. So I can only wonder what really went on behind the scenes. Surely they have plenty of developers on staff who knew OOXML was not going to fly and that IBM and others would call them on it. I learned the hard way in grad school to never give a presentation or submit anything that's not ready. Either OOXML wasn't really ready, or some business-bots decided to try and pull a fast one.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Making unbelievable statements while getting rich. I know I couldn't possibly make such a deceitful statement in a public forum. At the very least not for money.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
This should be a highly political debate - otherwise we encourage our Governments/Schools to continue to waste our taxes. If Microsoft didn't lobby such institutions then it would not be a political debate.
Calling Free Software a religious movement is a dubious and cheap slur against a movement.
Classic FUD.
In reality, we should be pissed at both Microsoft and IBM; they're both subverting a process that is soposed to be for the good of the consumers.
This Microsoft shill didn't provide any evidence, do you have any?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sounds like Hitler crying that Britain and France were entirely to blame for the war that started after they invaded Poland.
Infuriate left and right
A specification 6000 pages long is probably another factor. Heck, try to get something that is spec compliant from a 100 page specification is hard enough, but with 6000 pages you must be smoking something good to even expect compliance. Good specs are easy to implement and understand, but then again I doubt Microsoft was even expecting anyone to be able to implement OOXML.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Wow, sounds like someone's nethers hurt. Yes, shame on those religious zealots at IBM who think that a poorly written format shouldn't become a standard.
"Just a fox, a whisper."
I don't see msft accusing IBM of "dirty" campaigning.
The problem is that another company may be campaigning at all. I mean, how friggin *dare* they! Doesn't IBM know that msft has a sacred right to all PC OSes and office products?
IBM has already shown itself to have the unmitigated gall to donate IBM's own code to Linux. This prompted msft to fund caldera to file a bogus lawsuit against IBM. According to the original lawsuit, caldera owned UNIX, and therefore anything that ever touched UNIX was also owned by caldera.
Yet, it spite of being punished, IBM has still not learned their lesson. To do anything that might obstruct msft is an absolute sacrilege! Msft is understandably appalled. Msft will not accept this horrible injustice silently. Msft wants the world to know just how completely unethically IBM is behaving.
I mean, to try and compete with msft! Of all the bloody nerve
You're with IBM too, aren't you!? Aren't you!!?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
There you have it folks. No more discussion required and everyone who's defending Microsoft is welcome to leave apologies as replies! This is just more of them using money to try to brand their software as some sort of open standard when it isn't.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
Did anyone else note that they claim that IBM is doing it because of their consulting business?
Silly me, but wouldn't it be in their business interests to let their customers buy in to screwed-up technology like OOXML so that they could charge them for fixing it?
Anyhow, if they really want someone to blame, they should blame me for submitting all those stories from Rob Weir's blog to Slashdot, especially the AutoSpaceLikeWord95 approach to backward compatibility one. The only problem with their theory is that I'm not under any of their employ, I'm just a low level systems administrator slacking off at work who fits most of the Slashdot stereotypes remarkably well.
It said, "You are lost in the Swamps of Despair".
Proverb: "A thief believes that everyone steals."
Well. I strongly participated in the antiooxml campaign here in Mexico against ooxml becoming an iso standard. I did this because there is already a fully supported, open, non-patent-encumbered standard covering the whole domain of what ooxml proposes, so it makes more sense for the industry, no matter how strong is microsoft in it, to support the other standard. It is within microsoft's reach to support the iso standard we have now and they did not present any reason whatsoever for its support or adoption in the industry.
I can tell you now that IBM had nothing to do with it. Its just that many smaller foss vendors see in microsoft's initative a way to further their bussiness model in detriment of ours. We are consulting shops, we live on services and providing added value around them and open source software. To have a patent encumbered iso standard that can only be safely and completely supported by one software vendors not only hurts us, it hurts all of our client's choices in the market.
We dont mind integrating MS products in solutions, when it makes sense. Microsoft wants things done their way, weather it makes sense for the client or not. I find this unacceptable as the market is quite capable of providing good alternatives for microsoft software and fileformats and just letting the dominant set their own standard as a public one, with strings attached, hurts customer choice. The customer would be much better if microsoft simply supported ODF in their products. This way they can compete with their (yes, i do mean this) SUPPERB office product on the basis of it being better, not on the basis of them having a monopoly.
Its interesting to see how microsoft has been searching for "the linux enemy". One guy or company that, if they manage to hurt, theyd be hurting the whole movement to the point of crippling it. This year their "linux enemy" is IBM, who is in a great position to benefit themselves from FOSS (being that they are the earlyest of the high end and rich adopters of foss). But they dont get it.
Even if IBM signed in blood tomorrow to use exclusively microsoft software, that would not have changed things on our ISO vote. Microsoft is hurting US, not IBM. US: smaller companies providing consulting without having to give anyone a dime for essentially nothing (which is the current microsoft-owned IT bussiness model). US, who have invested in developing a FOSS expertiese so that we can leverage its cost advantage in front of a microsoft dominated, license driven market.
Perhaps things have gone so far for microsoft, that they dont realize that taking on opensource is not taking on sun or ibm, its taking on US. Thousends and thousends of engineers and entrepreneurs that are opinion leaders when it comes to technology supplies, that are choosing NOT to pay the microsoft tax when it comes to deliverance of IT products and services.
And US thousends have both the numbers and the technicall expertiese to determine where and how their bloated ooxml turns into a useless piece of (insert your own insulting language here) xml , when compared to the ODF standard that has already much more time in development and real world testing. I mean, its THERE its already working, its already dominant in the non-ms industry (meaning all office suites from larger vendors support it). The cost for MS tu support it is really close to nil, while the cost of all the rest of the market to support microsoft's format would be much more. If overall cost for the industry is any kind of meassure, then iso support for OOXML is just plain stupid.
So no, Microsoft, its not "IBM". Its everyone in the world that does not live or want to live on your products and shady bussiness practices.
NO SIG
Says there are No Americans in Iraq .
Its not against you Microsoft, it is the fact that your flawed 6000 page specification plus 2300 pages of bug fixes throws mud in the face of everything ISO has been working on for almost 20 years.
So? Real competitors compete. I understand that Microsoft isn't used to real competitors, so doesn't recognize one when it sees one.
But until Microsoft can complain about evidence that IBM is competing with Microsoft illegally, or even actually unethically (as Microsoft has routinely been demonstrated to do), this just shows that Microsoft can't compete on a level playing field. Which of course is exactly why Microsoft needs to get OOXML installed, before it's too late.
--
make install -not war
Doesn't matter who did it, we didn't want it. The whole idea of standards is a single standard. This idea of dueling parallel standards was garbage from the beginning.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I thought the story was that the efforts to promote ODF and "suppress" OOXML were sponsored and led by Sun in order to boost sales of Staroffice. Now it's supposed to be IBM? Can't MS make up their minds who their real enemies are? (Hint: anyone with a stake or interest in a free market for software and IT services. Or, more generally, anyone in favor of free markets.)
I don't see why Microsoft has to be so darn special and can't just adopt the ISO standard? What is the REAL issue here? will it cost a lot in monetary and programming terms? Is the format broken or crippled? Or do they just want to be in control and suck us even drier and bog everything down even more with DRM and XZYguzzi3 and whatever else they've built into Vista that sucks 90% of my ram and makes sure that I own 156% legal Microsoft stuff and look both ways before I cross the street?
I'd love to know more about the actual pros and cons of both OODLES (i really suck with abbreviations, I'm referring to Microsofts proposed standard) and UDUFFI (the other thingy). Can anyone point me to a good summary?
"They are doing this because it is advancing their business model. Over 50 percent of IBM's revenues come from consulting services."
The only way that this could be true is if MS's OOXML format somehow locked out competitors in the consulting services industry. Hmmm... Is MS not arguing for the dropping of OOXML? It sure sounds like it.
"In reality, we should be pissed at both Microsoft and IBM; they're both subverting a process that is soposed to be for the good of the consumers."
Care to explain exactly what IBM did to the subvert the process? Was IBM involved in ballot stuffing or bribing? Did IBM try cheat it's way into pushing a proprietary standard through the system, and calling that standard open?
According to msft, all ibm did was oppose the standard. In deverence to what msft shills may think, there is nothing improper about voicing opposition to msft's lying and cheating.
Or am I missing something?
All's fair in love & war. Sometimes business is like war. IBM was the Microsoft of its day. They've got a longer history of dirty tricks than just about anybody out there.
So how do you destroy a competitor, legally, soaking up goodwill from the programmer community all the while? Commodify your Competition's Product! Sun was pushing Java big-time for awhile. So why would IBM help it by funding Eclipse? Because by doing so, they commodify Java development environments, eliminating a potential revenue stream for Sun. Eclipse is a weapon against Sun! Why do you think they named it "Eclipse!?" What does an Eclipse do?
It's one thing to pull dirty tricks. It's another thing to be able to pull dirty tricks on the dirty tricksters. It's yet again another thing to do all that, and win the goodwill of the community at the same time! So, by opposing OOXML, IBM is hurting Microsoft, opening up a potential market for consulting services (There has been a fair bit of money to be made in automated document processing for government!) and winning kudos from us Open Source community to boot.
Bravo!
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Ghandi
So, we're definitely in the third phase now...
"Hey, Microsoft. You fight like a girl!"
Dueling parallel standards is fine, provided that:
- Both are technically good (clear, easy to implement, do what they're supposed to do), and
- Neither are encumbered (patents or other royalty requirements).
If that's the case, then, while one standard might be better, two competing standards is actually just fine.
But I absolutely have to agree with your first statement: We don't want it.
"Brett Winterford travelled to Redmond as a guest of Microsoft." from TFA.
>> "They have made this a religious and highly political debate," Tsilas said. "They are doing this because it is advancing their business model...." ....and of course Microsoft are just the innocent victim who weren't doing exactly the same at all, no sir.
My irony browser plugin just seg-faulted and crashed..
ODF comes from Sun, not IBM. Actually, maybe it comes from pink fairies, like OOXML and RTF. Where are my tablets?
Stick Men
Let's try this:
Take1:
"IBM and the likes of the Free Software Foundation have been lobbying governments to mandate the rival OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard to the exclusion of any other format. "They have made this a religious and highly political debate," Tsilas said. "They are doing this because it is advancing their business model."
Take2:
Microsoft has been lobbying governments to mandate the rival Microsoft Document Format standard to the exclusion of any other format. "They have made this a religious and highly political debate. They are doing this because it is advancing their business model."
LOL. Standards can't be "rival." They exist to level playing field and shift useless rivalry into other markets. In this case, it is to abolish file format locking to level playing field in productivity software market.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Microsoft is not poor when it comes to enemies. There is no shortage of people or businesses that have been burned, damaged or destroyed by Microsoft and its tactics. If it wasn't IBM alone, it could be any number or combination of entities that happened to have the same idea to resist Microsoft's corruption of ISO and the standards adoption process where OOXML is concerned. And the reasons against OOXML are objectively valid reasons. OOXML cannot withstand the examination and criticism required to become a useful ISO standard and that much is undeniable. But for Microsoft to shift focus away from the raw facts of OOXML's unsuitability, they seem to want to point fingers at some other "bad guy" harming them.
For a company as abusive as Microsoft, you don't have to look far to find a likely suspect and not many people are prepared to feel sorry for Microsoft even if they happen to be right in their accusations. Microsoft has done much to thwart and corrupt [city/state/federal/foreign] government activities that attempt to shift away from Microsoft products and services; playing dirty is something they should be quite comfortable with.
. . . so, there!
Well, that MS person states why IBM would, but no evidence for that they did.
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
I'm sure they've forgotten that little fiasco regarding MS-DOS? Why, I'm quite sure IBM doesn't even miss the revenues licensing that little jewel to M$ cost them. I'm sure it's all forgive and forget there, eh?
Go ahead, Bill. Retire and make yourself comfortable.
Everybody already knows that Microsoft has been playing dirty. This is just their attempt to say 'everyone is doing it'. If they can spread enough FUD, most people will just turn around in disgust and most of them will just be muttering something about 'What a mess, I guess everyone's hands are dirty to some degree' without trying to understand the difference between bribery on one hand and advocacy on the other.
Think global, act loco
Mind you, not just the Free Software Foundation, but the likes of the FSF as well? Well, what is the Free Software Foundation about? Freedom in software. So I guess what they're saying is "those that espouse the ideas of Freedom in software confounded our ISO vote". That is, as far as I can see it, actually a correct statement, as well as a tenable one.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
I had a wonderful time on Saturday. We really should get together more often, it's been far too long. It was nice catching up. I hope all is well with the children. Sincerely, The Pot P.S. You're Black.
"Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
Acts 12:22-23 The people kept crying out, "The voice of a god and not of a man!" And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died.
Boy, do I wish the mod points went higher! This is at least +20 insightful!
I never laughed as much as reading this. Best. FUD. Ever. Thanks, Microsoft, for making my day with this great joke!!!
Let's see it point by point, from TFA:
Microsoft senior director of XML technology
WTF? Director of XML technology? Why would a sane mind company need something like that? Oh, maybe before joining Microsoft he was Senior Director of Steering Wheels at Ford.
If it was not for IBM, it would have been business as usual for this standard.
Yes, it would have been business as usual. Ballot stuffing, buying votes, even buying whole countries to join as P-members at the last minute. All business as usual for Microsoft.
Microsoft claims its competitor has since opted for more covert tactics to influence the ISO vote...
...as opposed to the open tactics mentioned above, used by Microsoft to influence the ISO vote.
Nicos Tsilas, senior director of interoperability and IP policy at Microsoft
AKA Senior Director of Lock-in and Extortion
...said that IBM and the likes of the Free Software Foundation have been lobbying governments to mandate the rival OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard to the exclusion of any other format.
Hmmm... yes, really naughty of them... making governments adopt a true ISO standard... which was openly developed...
They [IBM] are doing this because it is advancing their business model.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is pushing for MSOOXML because of their humanitarian thoughts. They truly believe that MSOOXML is the best format, and they're donating it to the world, just to show how charitable they are.
...proprietary-software model championed by Microsoft, in which the customer buys a licence in the hope that they won't require services to implement the solution.
The word hope says it all. Even if you don't really need any services, the licensing model has other shortcomings, for instance, the upgrade cycles, the artificial prices for premium features, the inability to make the product suit your needs, just to name a few. And I haven't yet seen a company buy licenses without buying support contracts, which means you keep spending money for a product that you bought already.
"IBM have asked governments to have an open-source, exclusive purchasing policy," Tsilas said.
Funny, now the argument changed... before they were saying that IBM was bad because it was pushing ODF, now IBM is bad because it's pushing Open Source. Now, let's make something really clear. ODF is not a synonymous of Open Source. Your proprietary software may well implement ODF, in fact, Corel WordPerfect supports ODF and is not Open Source.
Pushing ODF makes sense, because it protects governments from vendor lock-in. They won't need to buy software from Microsoft, they'll be able to buy it from Corel, Sun, IBM, or even download it for free directly from the Internet, using OpenOffice.org or KOffice.
Pushing Open Source to governments makes sense too, by the way. But the point is that Microsoft is changing the argument, trying to confuse ODF with Open Source, just to spread more FUD.
Our competitors have targeted this one product...
Again, more confusion. It's not one product. It's one standard. It makes sense to have one common standard that all applications use, that's what makes interoperability possible to start with. There are many products which implement the ODF standard.
...mandating one document format over others to harm Microsoft's profit stream.
Now, that's the worst argument of all. ODF is a standard and it can be implemented by everyone! No hidden clauses, not patent encumbered, no agenda. Microsoft itself is going to harm its profit stre
Microsoft does not believe any of it, they just want to throw mud. They did the same thing, with some success in state legislatures but that was before they were caught handing out bribes. One of Microsoft's tactics has always been to cast all of their flaws onto opponents and claim all of their opponent's good qualities for themselves. The goal is to convince people that ODF is no better than OOXML so that they will stick with M$ Office and step into the next generation lock in, Vista and all that. It's hard for them to do that honestly because they know it's a lie.
The only interesting thing about this story is that anyone still listens to them.
IBM and FSF are lobbying governments ? This is strange, as I remember this is microsoft's main strategy and not FSF's. If I recall correctly microsoft is "lobbying" governments for adopting their proprietary solutions. One such strategy was used with east european governments...
Someone want to answer why this gets any press? Microsoft will do anything and say anything to get their way. Everyone should understand the way Microsoft is. They have damaged our industry and stifled the advancements for the past decade. Why should anyone care how they feel or what they lose? We all need to grow up and come to grips with the fact that there are other operating systems out there and other standards that we should be supporting. We should be staying away from Microsoft. They are like the Bush presidency. We don't need their ideas or direction any longer. We will advance farther and do more if we can get competitive companies all working on new technologies instead of sitting at Microsoft's feet.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Impeach IBM!!!
IBM is a war monger!!!
IBM murdered 20 billion virtual Iraqis!!!
Arrest them if they show up in Vermont!!!
IBM suppresses women!!!
IBM is racist!!!
IBM is a right wing Nazi Thugocracy!!!
IBM is Big Brother!!!
IBM disenfranchises undocumented voters!!!
Oh, wait... wrong campaign.
The original specs as laid out by MS were recently found to be the darkest thing on this planet. Did you not read the original original article? The ones that was circulated LATER simply omitted the MS part.
"long history of dirty tricks" doesn't scratch the fucking surface. IBM committed probably the most heinous crime in corporate history. Ever wondered how the Third Reich managed to find 6 million people and horde them into camps without using computers?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
On that note, how did Stalin manage to pull off this Great Purge without computers, OR tabulating machines? Like it or not, the tabulating machines sold to the Nazis had one intended task, assist in censuses. A census is not evil, doing evil things with a census is evil.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
I see you made it over here from Rob Weir's blog. I think you know that that claim was debunked as ridiculous: they helped out. So what? It doesn't make the criticism less valid. I'm sure lots of people cited contradictions found by Groklaw folks, but the source doesn't actually matter.
Now, if IBM were, say, bribing folks like Microsoft admitted to, it might make a difference.
Speaking of which, have you ever disclosed your interest in this? Because you have an awful lot of free time to go around the internet defending Microsoft and OOXML and we run into each other a lot, but you wouldn't know because I prefer to be anon. I'm not saying your a paid shill or anything, I mean, I do more or less the same thing against OOXML and nobody pays me a dime (well, I *am* slacking off at work, but my employer doesn't give a damn about OOXML and they'd probably prefer I not get them in trouble with Microsoft). My interest is that of a techie--eventually, I'll be forced to support OOXML, I know that it deserves a feature on thedailywtf.com, and I'm not looking forward to dealing with it.
But that's just me.
Are you a manager, by any chance?
Wikileaks, no DNS
Above link with a clearer URL: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:MlI8ESfxZ3MJ:www.cyberlawcentre.org/2007/ooxml/background_v12.pdf+Office+Open+XML+Opportunity+or+minefield%3F+site:cyberlawcentre.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
Wikileaks, no DNS
Score one for the FUD machine.
Wikileaks, no DNS
It doesn't matter if IBM is the main anti-OOXML force, or if they are, why they are. What matters are the anti-OOXML arguments, and the fact that they make sense. The motivation behind opposing arguments is irrelevant. Only their merits matter.
There is a name for the logical fallacy that this MS exec is commiting. Anyone know the name of it?
When Microsoft and IBM attack each other we all win.
It's OS/2 payback time. Have to laugh.
How often has MS done it to others. They did it to Borland, WordPerfect Corp, Novell, the Lotus people, the DB can't remember their name people, and yes to IBM.
"DOS is not done 'till 1-2-3 won't run" was the saying it those days.
You're joking. Are you refering to that book by Black about IBM in Germany, which was instantly debunked? Black's book was tripe. Even the most lurid Nazi and leather nostalgia screwball out there could not take it seriously.
Computers. Why not Jew-sniffing attack squirrels, while we are at it?
You know, it's the kind of crap that plays right into the hands of negationnists. If history can be bent to include mainframes in camps, surely it can be bent a bit more to turn the camps into Club Meds, right? (Yes, that was sarcasm).
Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
To reduce the (probably intended) market confusion over the pedigree of the format names, it would be nice if people used "MS-OOXML" to differentiate it from ODF and OpenOffice.
[repost]
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
It really is hilarious when I do see MS complaining IBM masterminding something like that. Must be a desperate manager somewhere in MS hierarchy! MS is business and, don't flame me, I really think they were better with BG on top. Now, I see more and more this kind of things coming out. Something is going is MS, they really are implementing more Open Source to their systems, they are buying or hiring more from Open Source, but keeping it very tight. I just hope they will follow the copyright laws they are so fond! MS has a lot of bright people but management sometimes doesn't give that impression. IBM is capable of any trick, they have shown that over years, but why would open standards be bad? Maybe for one company the proprietary methods and protocols are beneficial but what about the rest of the world? Just a stupid question, money, of course!
This is the second time in the last couple of days that stories hinge on a blatant attempt at Bulverism. Rather than actually argue on the basis of the merits (or the lack thereof) of OOXML, Microsoft is postulating on the potential nefarious motives of their opponents, assuming those motives are true (and relevant), and trying to sweep the arguments of their opponents under the rug on that basis. It's an invalid tactic (even people with bad motives can be right - you find out if they're right by examining their logic and arguments, not by speculating on their motives), but it's alas, too often effective.
It's interesting to see an OOXML proponent (I've seen your blog & you sure get around to everywhere people are talking about OOXML) admitting that OOXML has the "same" software patent problems. But I'm afraid that all software has this problem thanks to the ridiculousness of software patents.
Anyhow, IANAL, but I think there's one thing you're neglecting: Sun is a participant. Take a look at the FTC's recent slapdown of that patent troll who bought patents relating to the Ethernet specification. Basically, at least in the US (the only country that _has_ software patents for the time being), it just got harder to troll patents against a standardized process. Groklaw put up a good legal analysis a while ago of how that precedent changes things, too.
In other words, yeah, I agree with you that Microsoft could create a SCO 2: Electric Boogaloo, but I don't think it would actually accomplish anything except to get them in even more anti-trust trouble.
The only answer that would surprise me would be "Microsoft."
Because it doesn't matter *how* they were caught. It doesn't matter who caught them.
They. Were. Buying. Votes. Period.
The fact they were caught is all that matters. They were gaming the system, and in a big way. This is, of course, just one act in a long line of systems-gaming by Microsoft. Microsoft is usually much more subtle than this, which indicates to me they are either getting sloppy, or this is a big deal to them.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
So? Were the comments valid?
So some IBM employees may have helped out with the Kenyan response. Unless the comments were spurious or incorrect, this is a *good* thing. After all, a standard should be as complete, simple, consistent, and clear as possible. If IBM helped Kenya out, and the result was a good critique of the proposed standard, *that's all good*!
If that's all the controversy they can dig up on Kenya's response, it seems like they're reaching for strawmen.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
So Microsoft are complaining about IBM pushing for the use of ODF, a format which benefits them (and others), when they themselves are pushing hard for OOXML, a format which only benefits them at the expense of the users and other companies, and which is late to the party among other things.
IBM are pushing for a neutral format that probably benefits Sun more than it does IBM... In fact it benefits pretty much everyone except MS.
The complaints would be more reasonable if IBM were trying to push a proprietary IBM format, but they're pushing an ISO standardised open format supported by many other vendors. It may benefit IBM, but it will benefit many more people a lot more. This is a clear case of corporate self interest coinciding with the public good.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
If OOXML is open and interoperable, then IBM will STILL sell consulting services. In fact, they'd probably sell more (partly because this xmling opens up possibilities when openly translateable). IBM will only get less consulting services from OOXML becoming a standard is if IBM will then be unable to work with this standard. And that can only happen if OOXML is not open and/or doesn't help interoperability.
IBM don't sell office suites in any significant capacity.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"...
IBM's actions benefit many, while Microsoft's actions benefit few. You can't expect corporations to behave like charities, IBM's actions are better than most.
Taken to it's ultimate conclusion, consider the end result of IBM's action:
All software people use day to day is free, and some help can be obtained online for free.
For everything you might want to do, there is a choice of applications which all interoperate using standard formats.
For businesses who want accountability and someone they can demand immediate help from, there are still consultancy services but they are now capable of providing more complete support (code fixes etc).
Home users would get software included when they bought a computer, and would get it supported by geeky friends/family, just like they do now... they would get a much larger selection of software included tho, and be able to install newer versions (or have the geeky friends do it) for free. The customer would get a lot more for their money, and have a choice of software just like they currently have a choice of hardware.
Companies selling computers would still provide support to their customers, just like they do now.
Microsoft are the only ones who would lose out. Unless you receive money from Microsoft, it's almost certainly in you're interest to support IBM's actions.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
He's not talking about mainframes or even computers. He's talking about tabulating machines that sort punch cards (containing information about all german citizens) according to a hardwired "programming". These machines were apparently sold through IBM Germany, even after trading with them stopped.
Whether or not it's true or IBM was being evil in this case is decision i'll leave to you.
I wasn't there, so I have to take the word of other people. But none of the historians I read have ever written about tabulating machines in the equipment that was seized in the extermination camps' offices. Black's book dissolved after the threat of a defamation lawsuit.
Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
"Masterminded" makes it sound like they're some evil villain from a Bond movie. Isn't this what businesses do all the time?
So, Microsoft's point / valid complaint is.... what? That IBM made smart business decisions that happen to also be in the best interests of the general public? Those BASTARDS!
I really hope someone at MS reads this, and finally knows what we think of their whining.
Seriously are they for real? I hope they read this, and finally just stop pushing the OOXML standard once and for all.
NO ONE IS INTERESTED. STOP PLEASE...YOU'RE LIKE THE KID THAT NEVER KNOWS WHEN TO SHUT UP!
>Actually, yes. There is a great deal of controversy around the Kenyan national response.
Actually no. I read the blog post, and the response. Apparently this "controversy" is nothing more than a rumor. A rumor started, and perpetuated by msft zealots.
And so what? Microsoft played lots of games to get OOXML pushed through ISO and IBM is fighting back. It's not like Microsoft's motives are pure in this...
First he talks about mandating the use of ODF (which wouldn't stop people using MS Office). Then he talks about mandating the use of open-source software (which wouldn't stop people using OOXML). We were talking about ODF / OOXML, right?
They are separate issues - you can have proprietary software and standardised document formats. You can have open source software and proprietary document standards. And all other combinations. This from the "senior director of interoperability and IP policy at Microsoft". I leave it to you to decide whether this is pure FUD or pure stupidity.
"Our competitors have targeted this one product..."
Interesting that he's supposed to be talking about document standards, but goes on to talk about software and products. Maybe this is just a Freudian slip. He just can't help talking about what's really on his mind - the future of their Office software monopoly.
But nah - I'm sure he knows exactly what he's doing - FUDing up the debate nicely.
And of course, the OOXML "spec" being 6000(yes, SIX THOUSAND) pages of disorganized crap that still manages to leave some "features" undocumented had nothing to do with it's failure. MS reserving the "right" to revise the spec at any time based on whim couldn't possibly reduce confidence in its usefulness. MS's long history of working cooperatively with others just long enough to jam the knife in their partner's back wouldn't make people naturally cautious. I'm sure that the bribes MS threw around had NOTHING to do with people questioning their motives.
No, none of that could have anything to do with people in general opposing OOXML. It had to be an army of IBM zombies. If MS reads that they'll probably be SURE that some IBM goon is forcing me to type this.
MS should apply for their board certified tinfoil hat now. I'm sure it'll be approved.
Absolutely true - if OOXML is truly open, it won't hurt IBM consulting a bit. In fact, having two open document standards would almost certainly bring more revenue for them.
... that there are so many to choose from.
Now seriously. Microsoft always says that Windows is not a monopoly, but a standard and that the PC is so successful, because there is just one standard: Microsoft Windows. And now they want to establish two standards for documents, where it makes *much* less sense to have more than one?
Stubbornness is part of genius; without it, you get people who learn to do things the "safe" and obvious way, rather than refusing to do so, and trying the brilliant and inventive way, failing several times along the way.
Are you a manager, by any chance?
I am no manager. The quote is about attitude, in that if you assume to know everything and won't learn then there is no way to progress. Sometimes it is better to be humble and accept that there is still more to learn and that you don't always have the only answer.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I think people are getting confused by the idea of revocability. It says that the versions Sun participates in are freely implementable by anyone without fear of patent reprisal. Even if Sun drops out of future versions, those earlier versions are still freely implementable. It appears to be a condition of contributing to the OASIS standards process - otherwise you could just make sure your patented technology was included in a standard, then just drop out of the process and sue everyone.
If Sun do wish to cease participating in future versions of ODF, then they can use their patents against implementors of those future versions. It's not clear to me whether this means only against any new features introduced - I assume this must be the case, but IANAL.
Hi - I'm the Microsoft employee quoted in the ZDNet article. If you want to find out more about Microsoft's OXML policy positions please go to http://www.microsoft.com/office/openxmlpolicy or http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/ Regards, Nicos Tsilas
When good happens, it's because it somehow serves the interests of evil. ($$$)
Not that I'm against that. Just that people should be aware.
Why would they write about it in history books that weren't concerned with tabulating machines? The book has far from 'dissolved' - its criticisms have never been disproven by IBM and your claim that they have makes me smell a shill.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Wikileaks, no DNS
In unrelated news: OS community claims Microsoft has masterminded plan to trick world into using OOXML format
Yes, in business that is invariably the case...
The best you can hope to achieve is to serve the lesser evil, or to serve an evildoer who does as much good as possible as a side effect, as in this case.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
But precisely, there have been countless books on early computing, including machines used during WWII on both sides. The Z4 was extensively studied and documented. The auto-pilot of the V1 and V2, the radiobeam guidance system used by German bombers, all these innovations have been studied in great details and documented in many books. And yet, something as major as this -- statistical tabulators in camps-- would never have been documented? Until Black, a disgruntled ex-IBMer fired from his job and with no historian background, comes around and miraculously "finds" about this? It just doesn't pass the smell test.
Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
Except none of what you just said stands up to basic scrutiny. First off, I can't find any evidence Black ever worked for IBM. He has been an author for decades, and wrote another book about the holocaust prior to the one focussing on IBM. Also, IBM themselves admit that the Nazis use hollerith machines in their crimes ( http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1388.wss ) their defence being that the German subsidiary was nationalised by the Nazis at the time.
Unlike Black, I suspect you are an employee of IBM
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?