Slashdot Mirror
Norway's Yes-To-OOXML Is Formally Protested
An anonymous reader writes "Norway's yes-to-OOXML may tip the vote in favor of accepting it as an ISO-standard, but the committee chairman just faxed a formal protest to the ISO. 'I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman (of 13 years standing) of the Norwegian mirror committee to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34. I wish to inform you of serious irregularities in connection with the Norwegian vote on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Office Open XML) and to lodge a formal protest. You will have been notified that Norway voted to approve OOXML in this ballot. This decision does not reflect the view of the vast majority of the Norwegian committee, 80% of which was against changing Norway's vote from No with comments to Yes.'"
Is if ISO contracted Diebold, er, I mean, Premier Election systems, to tally the votes. This is the most ludicrous thing I've seen since 2000.
Perhaps I don't understand how voting bodies work, but how can anyone take these folks seriously with all the nonsense surrounding this vote?
All that will happen, in the long run, is that ISO will become untrusted, marginalized and obsolete. Microsoft has graphically demonstrated how easily ISO's processes can be corrupted, which means that other corporations will follow suit (assuming they didn't get there first.) Don't expect the world to have the same respect for ISO after this.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That is AWESOME!
But shouldn't it really be called "open content governance"?
Open source is for source code. Open content is for--- content.
RANDOLPH: The objection's overruled, counsel.
JO: Sir, the defense strenuously objects and requests a meeting in chambers so that his honor might have an opportunity to hear discussion before ruling on the objection.
RANDOLPH: The objection of the defense has been heard and overruled.
JO: Exception.
RANDOLPH: Noted.
Wire transfers from Redmond.
you had me at #!
You would be surprised at how reliable pens, paper and scrutineers are. Not perfection (screw with the votes instead of with the count), but a lot safer that "voting machines".
Also, the correct response to a vote no-one can agree on how it turns out is to hold another vote, not to say "no more recounts, Bush wins". It costs more, but the benefit of having everyone accept the result is worth more to democracy and in the long term the economy than a short-term saving.
Look out!
If you can't win, simply get the rules of the game changed. Lawyers and politicians understand this. Nerds don't.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
And that is the real tragedy here.
We already had OOXML rubber-stamped by Ecma, proving, once again, that Ecma likes to rubber-stamp things. Having it ISO-certified, while a blow, is perhaps not the most serious result of this...
If OOXML is certified, we're put in a lose/lose situation. Either we accept it, and OOXML becomes a "standard", even though it really isn't -- or we continue to write letters and refuse to accept it as a "standard", which implies we can't trust ISO -- which means we're just about out of standards organizations to trust. And a world without official standards is a world of defacto standards, which means Microsoft will win every future battle.
Think of it this way: If we couldn't trust the w3c, or the Acid2/3 tests, the standard for websites would likely fall back to "Works Best with Internet Explorer 8." That's effectively what's about to happen to everything ISO.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Be glad, at least someone blew the whistle. How many votes from other nations do you think could be somehow influenced and nothing done about it? Yeah yeah I'll grab my tinfoil hat :-p
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
Which is probably why we're even AWARE of a scandal in the first place.
Had Norway been corrupter, it might have been silent corruption.
People will still choose MS Office because they like it, not because it does or does not save documents in a government mandated open specification. Microsoft could simply add a new "Save As" filter following the Open Specification.
There are certain government regulations about acceptable file specifications. This is to preserve interoperability, facilitate competition between vendors, and to guarantee accessibility in one or two hundred years.
By getting this sham declared a "standard," they can continue to sell to certain government agencies, who can continue to produce docs that are only readable on proprietary Microsoft software and platforms.
Microsoft could most definitely offer a valid save-as file filter to create ODF documents. But it is in their best financial interest to retain user lock-in as much as possible. Ironically, this is exactly the sort of thing that standards bodies like the ISO are supposed to prevent. If this goes through, one must seriously reconsider the weight attached to an ISO certification.
The ______ Agenda
Is Microsoft completely unable to play fairly and with integrity in anything they do?
I hardly see it as a lost cause, it's that kind of attitude that allows corruption to win. If ISO is compromised to that extent then it is important that people are informed about it. Keep up the pressure, provide evidence that is not anecdotal, discredit ISO in the eyes of governmental and business interests as a last resort.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
I think you have that backwards. It's because the Norwegians are not silent that they have less corruption.
And that would be different from the other loves how? ;-)
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
So what's their strategy here? Well one (or both) of two things happen:
- Their BS non-open "open standard" is accepted, so they can claim their format meets the needs of governments who mandate open standards.
- ISO is no longer respected as a standards organization, so their approval of ODF no longer means as much.
I'm going out on a limb here, but there is a possible third outcome of this:
- ISO acceptance of OOXML is used to justify legal penalties against MS for not implementing interoperability
I basically think that this is a horrible outcome and the example of the worst sort of corruption--not to mention the ongoing saga of problems with MS.
However, I could potentially forsee this coming back to bite MS, in that someone might eventually argue that MS is withholding specs necessary to implement an ISO standard, in order to maintain a monopoly.
Maybe the whole ISO process was a bit like the Internet. The protocols were originally designed with the assumption that the participants (at least the servers) are trusted entities. The protocols themselves trust the underlying delivery mechanisms and servers trust their peer servers. Then came the realisation that you can't trust servers, you can't trust administrators, you can't trust routers or even the cable - you can't trust anything and anyone on the Net.
Probably the whole ISO process was designed with a similar mindset, assuming that the standard sub-committies themselves are serving the public interest and not their own, the thought of corruption didn't even occur to them. Now we have a malicious script kiddie with a very powerful toolset (i.e. billions of dollars) to wreck havoc and to set up a spam botnet.
Interesting, you're attempting to censor twitter? While I agree with the end, I'm going to play devil's advocate and point out that he, like you, has the right to free speech.
I'm not pointing this out to defend his right to free speech, but more to point out the flaw in the current Western perception of "rights" and their role in society. Everyone gets all hot and bothered about their "rights", but I personally believe that each right has a corresponding duty, the execution of which earns you the corresponding right. You want a right to free speech? Your duty is to listen honestly to others' opinions and exercise your right to speak responsibly. You want the right to free movement? Your duty is to assist others in their endeavours, should you be able. You want the right to vote? Your duty is to actively assess the society you live in and make an informed decision regarding the suitability of the candidate you vote for.
You want the right to democracy? Your duty is to open your eyes and recognise when it is under attack, and from whom.
Wow, that's a big ass rant over a twitter post. Perhaps I *do* get on my soapbox a little too often...
I hate printers.
Seriously, ISO should drop all other work and start thinking about some vaguely coherent and transparent voting procedures.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
But, with all due respect, I think that your perception of free speech isn't entirely right either. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism! Nor does free speech mean--as you say--that others have to listen to you.
Free speech means exactly what it says--say what you want to say! It doesn't ensure that anyone has to listen to you, has to agree, or has to care.
"Your duty is to assist others"
Um, this is Slashdot. The editors have every right to remove your comments, or only display a portion of them. You can write stuff here and have it never see the light of day.
If it were a street corner, then you could talk about free speech. But it's private property.
This Reuters article is, technically speaking, utter rubbish.
It's Office Open, stupid. (Albeit not open).
Only by Sun Microsystems ...?
Whattt? ODF is an accepted ISO standard for office documents. To convert it to utter rubbish, you need a converter (like OpenOffice.org), stupid.
First, you need a converter here, too. Second, Microsoft does not support ODF up to now, therefore I'm wondering when MS Office "made it possible to do so" ... Perhaps later? No, never, if OOXML gets accepted by ISO.
There are many other ways to game the system if you have the time, inclination and knowledge (or the right accountant).
Every version of Windows except 95 and 2000 have been as poorly received as Vista when they first came out. It's not a fluke, and it's not evidence of impending Microsoft collapse! I wish it were, but it's not!
WINE?! Don't you realize that WINE is irrelevant? Sure, maybe in 2013 WINE and/or ReactOS might be good enough to run all Win32 and MFC software. But it won't matter, because Microsoft already moved the goalposts to newer proprietary APIs that are patented to boot!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What's wrong with C99? (Note: I'm curious, not argumentative.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Only on slashdot does anyone think that Gates runs his foundation for tax purposes. The man has sixty billion fucking dollars, why would he want to dodge tax? What would he do with the money? As it is he's given more than half of it away to charities. He spends more annually on disease prevention than the entire US government. Just fucking grow up and give the man some credit.
I've no intention of defending MS, but it is just abiding by the rules of capitalism. It's required by *law* to generate as much profit as possible and it's playing by the rules of the game. If you don't like the rules stop voting republican.
I could of course bring in single expert opinion: I happen to track both American and Norwegian politics, including being quite interested in how different political and social systems lead to different results. There are sides where the US is better than Norway, and there are sides where Norway is better than the US. Political corruption is one of the ones where Norway is better - due to a host of factors working together.
I just happen to think that the corruption perception index is the best resource we have, much better than my personal opinion even though my personal opinion is somewhat qualified in both political areas (including, of course, knowing a number of anecdotes in each, like you're able to search up.) This view of the corruption perception index as some of the best corruption information available seems to be shared by most others that are writing about the field, being regularly referred by most experts I see writing about the field in general.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
VLAs are just syntactic sugar on pointers and alloca(). They are fairly trivial to implement, and easier to use safely than alloca(). GCC has supported them for years (and I think even the MS compiler does too), and I've used them in my code.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News