Slashdot Mirror
Few of OOXML's Flaws Have Been Addressed
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "IBM's Rob Weir has done a study on how many flaws were addressed by the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting. So far, using a random sampling technique, he has yet to find a flaw that was addressed, making the upper bound a paltry 1.5%. Even so, he's found a number of new flaws, including a security vulnerability: OOXML stores passwords in database connection strings in plain text. At least there were no mistakes on five of the first twenty five random pages he reviewed."
Why fix flaws when you can buy voters?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Or are they doing all this for show, and there is no real substance in OOXML?
The reason MS is bothering with ISO is because a few places have started to require that documents be stored in an ISO defined format.
The problem is that having a true ISO defined format means that you open yourself up to competition, so MS wants to get their format defined as ISO certified without allowing any competition.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
There are no existing implementations of the proposed OOXML standard, so whether Office 2007 has the same defects or not is sort of irrelevant. MSFT has stated that they will not be implementing the standard as proposed, but will be going a different direction. And, given the nature of parts of the standard, nobody BUT Microsoft can fully implement it.
The mere fact that there ARE no implementations of OOXML, however, should be a giant, florescent, waving red flag. No standards body should adopt a standard that cannot and will not be implemented by the proposers.
Everyone has a bias but if he gives you the information that he used to form his opinion about something then you can read what he says and what he did and form your own opinions. He is giving detailed examples of what he found. He isn't just say "Everything is fine" or "They have WMD", he is giving how he comes to his opinion and showing you the facts.
Yes his company maybe bias in not wanting the format approved, but does that make what he says less true? The facts speak the truth.
If MSFT fixed the flaws with OOXML then there wouldn't be a problem.
it's not that OOXML is bad, it is that OOXML is broken and MSFT is trying to ram it through anyways. there is nothing there that can't be fixed. MSFT however doesn't want it fixed because OOXML 2010 is just around the corner and it won't be the same as OOXML 2007. Also OOXML 2010 becomes a defaco standard even though it isn't ISO certified since it is marketed as OOXML.
this is how MSFT works if you don't know this then go back and look at the past 30 years of how MSFT treats it's customers, vendors, and slaves.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
MS doesn't care about anyone following it (since even they themselves aren't going to). All they are doing it for is so they can claim that MS Office uses an open ISO standard, OOXML (even though it won't use the ISO passed standard) so that governments, businesses and buyers are not scared away from their products.
As with everything MS does it is all about control and money. They have observed the fights that took/are taking place at various governmental and state levels over the mandatory use of an open standard - and they see that it is a threat to their monopoly, hence they have strategised to nullify the problem without giving up any of their control. The whole thing is a rate 10 sham. And if anyone ever wants to know why a lot of people don't trust MS then this is a perfect example of it - the process and the mockery they are making of it is frankly satirical.
Riiight. We should have one of the few people willing and able to examine the standard for flaws just not do it. That's an excellent idea.
At what point has IBM been dishonest? Rob Weir is an employee of IBM. They have a distinct interest in making sure that whatever format is approved, they are able to implement it. Therefore, it is in their best interest to make sure it is a good standard. As they have determined that it isn't a good standard, what should they do? Not talk about it?
The fact that his bias is out in the open is perfectly fine, as is the example you give from Peter Torr. That allows people to judge their statements, and account for possible bias.
The problem with Weir recusing himself is this: nobody else seems to be doing this. Nobody else is standing up to a corrupted process, where the intended and stated results are sidelined for political expediency. If it takes one corrupt company to stand up to another corrupt company, then so be it. At least they are standing up to a corrupt company. (Yes, I'd prefer if neither were corrupt.)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.