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.
Ballmer is that you?
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.
You'll remember Stéphane Rodriguez who gave us Microsoft Office XML formats? Defective by design back in August, 2007?
Since then, in February, 2008 he produced The truth about Microsoft Office compatibility and Typical B.S. in technical articles about OOXML and now Bad surprise in Microsoft Office binary documents : interoperability remains impossible Thursday, March 13, 2008.
These blogs are at the same level of depth as Rob Weir's latest blog, and demonstrate that Microsoft's policies as detailed below continue to this day.
From OOXML is defective by design...
"Mr Bill Gates in person sent in 1998 a memo to the Office product group (led by Steven Sinofsky at the time), memo undisclosed to the public thanks to the IOWA consumer case :"
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Saturday, December 5 1998
To: Bob Muglia, Jon DeVann, Steven Sinofsky
Subject : Office rendering
One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.
We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows.
I would be glad to explain at a greater length.
Likewise this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well.
-----------
Clearly the word is getting out about the problems in OOXML. Stéphane Rodriguez notes at the bottom of OOXML - Defective by design:
Update : this article was Slashdotted on Sunday 26 of August.
Update2 : this article is taking 300,000 hits a day, and is making it all around the world in all kinds of sites. My web host provider was so angry at the peak in traffic that he threatened to cut me off, so I had to redirect to a blog site such as Google's blogger to host the article.
Update3 : wednesday august 29, added a new section on Document security
Update4 : friday august 31, added more content to sections US English and Windows dates
Update5 : sunday september 2, added a quick comparison between ODF and ECMA 376
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.