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.

15 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish by frisket · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "It's the file format, stupid :-)"

    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...

  2. OSS Standards by hachete · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  3. Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks... by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. ;-)

  4. Re:Standards by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Super slimy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. um, I know! by toby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 #!
    1. Re:um, I know! by GaryPatterson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their defacto standardization of the industry has driven productivity to heights it would never have reached if they had not been around.

      And the factual source for this alternate history is..? If Microsoft did not exist, other things would have happened. Why would the industry have stayed at the same maturity level of 1982?

      Many people around here imagine a better outcome. You clearly believe otherwise. Playing "What If?" games is fun, but essentially pointless because there is no way to know about the variables that were suppressed by the actual outcomes.

      Here's my go (just for fun) - standardisation would have happened earlier, through professional organisations getting ISO involvement for document formats (they'd want this to smooth business and government functions). Open documents would be the norm, and the choice of operating system and application would be far less critical than now, as documents would have been truly portable.

      Trash them all you want - but give them the credit they have coming.

      I give them absolutely no credit for doing better than a fictional alternate timeline. They should be doing better in this real one!

  7. For all you MS optimists by pembo13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. Still think Apple is the new Microsoft? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure? by pembo13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  10. Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure? by ianare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, it always does -- otherwise it would be 'realism'

  11. Re:Hypocritical by ElBeano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Adopting it as a standard and taking it over and subverting the standard are two different things...

  12. Re:please specify by jackbird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. ODF2, ODF 2009, ODF-2010, etc. by wonkavader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place. by Elektroschock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.