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.
Do any of these flaws exist in Office 2007?
If not, why are they in the OOXML proposed standard. If the standard does not describe the OOXML format used by Microsoft, then what does it describe?
Why can't they just document the format that they use and get this over with? Or are they doing all this for show, and there is no real substance in OOXML?
Ballmer is that you?
This may be off topic but why exactly are there database connection strings in a document format?
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
how long will it take people to shrug off this death grip of MS and realize that it's costing billions in productivity? I received an XLS file of contacts yesterday and I figured I'd try using Outlook to import it into an address book so I could then sync to other things like Gmail. Outlook choked and recommended assigning values to the columns using another MS product - MS Excel. SO, I saved the file as CSV, and imported using Thunderbird which gave me an easy dialog to match up name,email, phone, website..and so on. Worked great! then I used thunderbird to open the second file and it remembered the previous adjustments and everything was already lined up! Awesome stuff and I wasn't prompted to buy any other products!
I'm seriously considering wiping all the PC's in my office and advising the staff to just learn Ubuntu to avoid this whole MS deathgrip. None of the staff are advanced users except my web guy who codes in a text editor anyhow. FMS.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
It was Miguel de Icaza, and he is paid money indirectly from Microsoft since he works for Novell.
One of the reasons I stopped using GNOME, I don't want anything to do with the Mono project.
c++;
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.
As I understand it, Microsoft isn't going to follow this standard. If Microsoft isn't going to follow this standard, then it is useless for OpenOffice, NeoOffice, KOffice, etc. to follow this standard. Or is this going to be for Office 2k10 or something?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
So you won't verify anything, or even check, but rather you feel that the exact same thing from someone else would be more true. Essentially, despite the facts, you don't feel the truthiness is sufficient.
By your logic, you may well be right, but you may also just be a shill for Microsoft. I'd be more inclined to believe someone else who didn't have a corporate interesting in picking data points to disparage the argument you'd like to make. Or maybe if you had an argument to make not based on a well-known informal fallacy.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
"Does the poster have a chair?"
Not any more.....
Yet a lot of people treat them that way like this Slash Dot commenter: "He might well be right, but I'd be more inclined to believe it from someone who doesn't have a corporate interest in picking data points to fit the line he would like to draw." Just why is that rated a 5? It is NOT about belief, but more about science--either the facts and peer review support Mr. Weir or they don't. Apparently they do and in Spades. The majority of "yes" votes on this "standard" are by Microsoft partners who have a vested interest in a dingle vendor, single application (the only full implementation read and write) solution they sell products and services for and can lock in business. Sure IBM is a commercial organization with a checkered past, but they don't own completely open ODF so they aren't doing this for gain. they jsut want a level playing field for formats. And it is a great idea.
One example given by wikipedia is:
Just replace the relevant references with words like IBM, OOXML, etc. and it's basically the same.
Even though none of the substantial problems have been addressed, NIST has approved OOXML.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
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.