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.
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.
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.