Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Bids To Take Over Open Document Format
what about sends in a Groklaw alert warning that, by PJ's reading, Microsoft may be trying to take over ODF via a stacked SC 34 committee. The article lists the attendees at an SC 34 meeting in July and gives their affiliations, which the official meeting materials do not. (The attendees of the October 1 meeting, which generated a takeover proposal to OASIS, are not known in full.) "Why do I say Microsoft, when this is SC 34? Look at this ... list of participants in the July meeting in Japan of the SC 34 committee. The committee membership is so tilted by Microsoft employees and such, if it were a boat, it would capsize ... Of the 19 attendees, 8 are outright Microsoft employees or consultants, and 2 of them are Ecma TC45 members. So 10 out of 19 are directly controlled by Microsoft/Ecma ... [I]f the takeover were to succeed, SC 34 would get to maintain ODF as well as Microsoft's competing parody 'standard,' OOXML. How totally smooth and shark-like. Under the guise of 'synchronized maintenance,' without which they claim SC 34 can't fulfill its responsibilities, they get control of everything." A related submission from David Gerard points out that BoycottNovell has leaked the ISO OOXML documents, which ISO has kept behind passwords.
The problem is that no matter where we go, MS will come and try polluting that, too. Now that we have a good standard that governments want to use, MS wants a piece of the pie. Are we supposed to just abandon ODF? If FOSS leaves ODF behind, then MS would be the only entity that supports the mandated format (which is exactly what they want).
Yeah, you missed one very important fact - Microsoft and 'open' in a same sentence always were and always will be FUD.
Microsoft doesn't like FOSS, but even more they hate someone coming up with a file format that is better than theirs. Plenty of FOSS implements Microsoft file formats, but to have a competing format become more widespread than their own is what terrifies Microsoft.
All your data are belong to us...
Maybe we should create our own standards committees. And work out a way for them *not* to be corrupted.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
Whence Firefox and ODF then? And why the big struggle on Microsoft's part to take over ODF? Also, I thought Eternal September's significance faded in inverse proportion to the length of time one has been on the net. ;-)
The problem is that no matter where we go, MS will come and try polluting that, too. Now that we have a good standard that governments want to use, MS wants a piece of the pie. Are we supposed to just abandon ODF? If FOSS leaves ODF behind, then MS would be the only entity that supports the mandated format (which is exactly what they want).
They can have a piece of the pie ... they just shouldn't get to be the baker.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Maybe when Linux actually works well for basic desktop use (it currently doesn't, though I like it on my servers), this would be a reasonable stance to have. As it is? Fuck you. When you don't offer an alternative that, quite simply, does not suck, you don't get to bitch and moan.
For my use (programming, surfing, writing documents, creating websites...) Linux works significantly better in desktop use than Windows XP ever did and orders of magnitude better than the Vista I have in my laptop for the occasional use.
Not only do I get the normal benefits (no need for antivirus program, etc.) but I can't stand the functionality Windows is missing. For example, no ability to choose any window to be always on top? What's up with that?
For the last few years, Linux has been very suitable for desktop use. The main problem are drivers (Getting sounds, 3d acceleration, etc. to work can sometimes be a pain for a regular user). However, if buying two thousand computers for organizational use, knowing the OS you'll be using beforehand and making sure that the hardware is supported and installing all to be exactly identical... There isn't such a problem.
How about ENFORCING anti-trust law!
(bada-bing)
The DoJ couldn't get a proper remedy. I have faith that the EU will.
Failing that, the public will eventually recognise Microsoft for the destructive, self interested criminals they are, and will shut them down.
you had me at #!
No, Microsoft is still out to make a buck by stabbing anything in its way. That's how it started, that's how it grew, and that has been its very successful strategy. Why anyone would think that they would change what has worked very well for them is beyond me.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Sure Apple has done some things that ware bone-headed and just plain wrong but nothing they've done remotely compares to what Balmer et al is trying to pull here.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Google accepts like a regular soulless (seeing as they are not human), profit driven organization. But Microsoft seems driven to take the path which leads to the most destruction for others to their own benefit.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Does optimism include ignoring past history and evidence?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Yes, it always does -- otherwise it would be 'realism'
... the real issue is that they continue to be rewarded with profits for this behaviour.
No, they continue to be rewarded with profits for their products, some of which actually work well for their customers.
It's hard to fault someone buying WinXP (for example), as it works well enough, is unobtrusive and if problems occur there are plenty of people who have half a clue about fixing it. That goes for SQL Server and some of their other products.
No-one is giving Microsoft money for their practices, and tying their products to a slimy practice which requires some explanation before people realise it's bad is too much. People lose interest before you finish. Hell, I lost interest before I'd finished the sentence above.
Adopting it as a standard and taking it over and subverting the standard are two different things...
Nobody argued that MS should hijack the standard. It should be the other way around: Instead of trying to make ODF suitable to MS Office, they should make MS Office work with ODF as it is.
This sig is intentionally left blank
It's not a single niche app that's missing, it's that almost everyone has a niche app they need that is missing or not quite there. Exchange, AutoCAD, and Quickbooks as a set cover a whole lot of users, for example.
Duh. The reason they want to control the standard is so they can force it to change, again and again.
The reason MS doesn't like open standards is not because they're crazy or evil (which actually they might be, but that's not the reason, here) but because file formats are the key to upgrades.
When you can change a file format so that older versions are incompatible, you can create a situation where 100 million people with word 2009 start getting new files from 1 million people with word 2010. The 100 million people cannot read them. They complain, they gripe, then THEY UPGRADE.
A file format which stays the same breaks this model, and that would reduce MS revenue by a colossal amount. They can't allow that. So they need to control ODF so that they can keep changing it.
The DoJ has people who actually investigate things, and so would filter out all the inaccuracies and FUD...
So you agree with that anti-trust court ruling a while back? Excellent starting point. Microsoft is a company with a history of abusive, illegal practices. It's good that you agree with the DoJ.
At least 90% of what Groklaw has written about on this topic came straight from IBM blogs, and, if you actually fact check it, you find that IBM out and out lied about most of what they said.
Really? With such a high proportion it's odd that you don't provide any examples. Perhaps you keep looking at that 10%. I sympathise - all I can see is that 10%. Like an iceberg, the other 90% must be submerged out of sight.
I'm confident that with your fair-minded view of Microsoft's past abusive and illegal acts, you'll come back and point out several examples from that 90% overlap.
Because, for a long time, there were no solid alternatives. IE took over at a time when it was actually improving. Meanwhile, Netscape became bloated, outdated, and bug-ridden; Mosaic was already dead; Opera was not gratis; and everything else was obsolete or OS-specific.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Yes, and IBM decided to leave SC34 in protest, so no wonder just microsoft was represented. Anyway SC34 is stacked.
As of Microsoft it would be wise to support ODF and ignore all the FUD.
Not controlled by a company? Exactly, and that is going to happen. No single company will control ODF.
Since the illegal hiring practices, you should drop the word Justice from DoJ, and let it be just The Department...
You nailed it and never even mentioned it. MS has their own competing standard and should NEVER be allowed to sway standards governing bodies as long as they have their own competing standard. Of course, their plan is to get in, change things so they are the progenitors of the ONLY standard. This is MS's monopolistic practices in action. It needs to be stopped immediately or standards bodies should immediately reject all MS proposals outright... or both.
It's fine to argue that you have a better method, it's altogether a different beast to prove it. So far, MS has been unable to prove anything but that they are a predatory and monopolistic business entity that needs to be put to rest so the rest of the world can get along in peace.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Microsoft has a problem, they make too many enemies. It is like Hitler's war against the Soviets. Think of any product of Microsoft which does not make new enemies. Silverlight? A flash me-too. Google? Microsoft has live search. The Xbox is against everyone else in the market.
Microsoft's business is going to implode because they make too many enemies. They push too aggressive and try to invade too many islands which bind resources. Their ideological rejection of open source and standards made them lose the internet.
Microsoft does unfortunately not inspire the developers anymore. In lobbying Microsoft is as evil as it can be, Microsoft thinks they can outspent any government and of course try. Financially Microsoft can but they cannot beat a community.
Who put ISO in charge?
They are one standards organization, there are several others?
Question: What/who give a standards organization credibility?
Answer: The community of users.
The ones with dissenting opinions need to embrace a different standards organization.
The real issue here is running on a single platform. Just because the engineering department needs $5000 machines running windows and Autodesk(I run autodesk software. I have powerful machines for the real work, and a macbook pro for home use), does that mean everyone in the office does? Certainly, one would not say everyone is going to have a $5000 machine, so why Windows? You can argue exchange, but exchange is a solution to a problem, not the only solution to a problem. Ultimately this solution, which is CPU and management intensive, is going to be replaced by a better one, and MS has no incentive to crate it. As far a quickbooks, office spplications, etc, these either have comparable products on Linux, or emerging solutions that are OS independent.
No, the issue is not applications. The issue is MS site licensing. If once wants to site license, then it is customary to license all machines, even if they do not run MS software. And if you pay for it, you might as well use it. MS keeps the corporate license cheap enough to keep companies from fleeing, which means the common person is not exposed to other, maybe better, solutions.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Will someone PLEASE call the Department of Justice complaining that they are abusing the market place again?
What they need to do is "make MS Office interoperable with standards".
Now do you see? If you want to support a standard, you just go ahead and support it. You don't go paying a lot of soft bribes and stacking committees... The real agenda here is removing ODF as a competitor. The real money to be made, now and forever, is making sure your data is in a Microsoft-controlled format. Why is everyone so slow to catch on to this?
Microsoft only ever had one idea: Be the only option. (Not "Be the best option," or even "Be a good option.") Everything else follows from that. Competition isn't something they are prepared to do. They wouldn't know how. They just need everyone locked in. (Incidentally, this is why quislings like de Icaza are so dangerous and disingenuous, by pretending this is not the case.)
you had me at #!
Frameworks that do not integrate with each other very well and, apart from Qt, force you to open the resulting application.
I use Linux exclusively, but I make a point of being realistic about its downsides, as well.
(And yes, D-BUS makes the whole integration thing a lot better. As do Qt's GUI plugins)
"Anything I missed ?"
Yas, you missed the fact that they are apparently abandoning their own, now ISO certified, format in favour of ODF,
which makes the whole document war a big circus... and the clown in that circus is Microsoft.
They haven't told us anything about when they will support ISO-OOXML but they did tell us when they will support ODF.
They don't care. The Administration is busy handing the keys to the Treasury to large banks and insurance companies on Wall Street. The next administration won't be any better, since both McCain and Obama were in favor of the bail-out.
Seriously -- How is the parent post off-topic?
The thread here is about MS abusing its market position, again. The grandparent post, currently marked "3 Insightful", asks for folks to get the Justice Department involved. The parent post, currently marked "1 Offtopic", notes that the government is apparently not interested in actually cracking down on corporate abuses, as evidenced by the $700bn handout to the financial sector. This speaks directly to the concerns of the grandparent post, and is within the bounds of an appropriate response.
So what gives? Is this more of the same old "I don't agree so I'll down-mod" mod abuse? Or has someone really missed the connection between the parent and the grandparent?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I've grown up on Dreamweaver since way back when it was split into two versions. I'm well aware that it is ok for html and css. Aside from that it's not that good. The PHP it generates is appalling.
Just search for Dreamweaver generated code and read up on the security issues and the general lack of quality. XHTML and CSS are quite basic. I don't need my hand held for that when any time saved is wasted by the program throwing out rubbish code at me that needs fixing.
The original argument was that the average person won't use Linux because it's not ready for prime time. So the whole idea that my grandmother is up in arms over Gimp lacking full CMYK support or that she'll get no where in her web dev career with or without dreamweaver is a bit silly.
I use both Windows and Linux and I use a mixture of programs. I'm just as productive with Dreamweaver as I am with Notepad++ (which I use on windows anyway) but again this has no bearing on the needs of the average user who quite frankly probably gets most of what they need in a basic Ubuntu install.
As far as more advanced users who are tied to using certain programs that's obviously understandable and yet another reason why there should be a larger push for open formats. Especially now that Adobe has bought up Macromedia they pretty much own every popular format used for printing and multimedia. Their software will remain over priced and not doubt continue to become even more bloated.
A lot of professionals though aren't much better than the average person and will stick with something rather than learning something new no matter if currents skills are transferable. The sole reason I can't run Linux at work is because the helpdesk doesn't have any skills in that area which is annoying since we're working on a web app that run on Linux and local testing would be beneficial. Running it under Windows is like trying to keep a hard-on with your grandmother in the room.