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.
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.
...what you engage in yourself.
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
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
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
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.