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.

Comments

Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 now

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this?

Super slimy.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Let me get this straight:
Sit pouting on the sidelines during ODF standardization
Complain that ODF lacks all kinds of OMG Necessary! features
Hack together your own bloated abortion of a format.
Lie, cheat, and steal your way to its ratification as a standard, never mind that it duplicates functionality of an existing standard, and is of severly troubled quality.
And now: Demand to be placed in charge of maintaining the first standard?

Anything I missed?

Re:Super slimy.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot ???? and Profit!

Re:Super slimy.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Lie, cheat, and steal your way to its ratification as a standard, never mind that it duplicates functionality of an existing standard...

...Anything I missed?

Yes.

Lie, cheat, and steal your way to the maintenance of ODF and its reputation as a standard.

Re:Super slimy.

[hdparm]

Yeah, you missed one very important fact - Microsoft and 'open' in a same sentence always were and always will be FUD.

Re:Super slimy.

[cmacb]

Anything I missed?

Yeah: Anyone who can still rationalize working for this company is an asshole.

Sorry, but that is my belief. I've worked for companies before where people quit on principle even when the company's actions didn't affect them personally. And on those occasions the company had done far less than Microsoft has done to harm the community.

It is high time it became a badge of dishonor to be affiliated with Microsoft in any way.

Re:Super slimy.

[causality]

Anything I missed?

Yeah: Anyone who can still rationalize working for this company is an asshole.

Sorry, but that is my belief. I've worked for companies before where people quit on principle even when the company's actions didn't affect them personally. And on those occasions the company had done far less than Microsoft has done to harm the community.

It is high time it became a badge of dishonor to be affiliated with Microsoft in any way.

By "affiliated" I hope you include "buying their products". It's easy to forget that Microsoft's business practices are only part of the problem; the real issue is that they continue to be rewarded with profits for this behavior.

Re:Super slimy.

[FishWithAHammer]

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.

Re:Super slimy.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Super slimy.

[Geheimagent]

Let me get this straight:
Sit pouting on the sidelines during ODF standardization
Complain that ODF lacks all kinds of OMG Necessary! features
Hack together your own bloated abortion of a format.
Lie, cheat, and steal your way to its ratification as a standard, never mind that it duplicates functionality of an existing standard, and is of severly troubled quality.
And now: Demand to be placed in charge of maintaining the first standard?

Anything I missed?

...
Profit

Re:Super slimy.

[GaryPatterson]

... 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.

Re:Super slimy.

[aliquis]

How we shouldn't had to go thru it if ISO had just accepted that whatever .doc was the standard already? ;)

Re:Super slimy.

[mikael]

There is still the future...

Merge the two formats/committees together, while giving the reason that it is unnecessary to have two standards.

If that fails, FUD the second standard giving the reason that the committee never moves fast enough to respond to customer requests.

Result: Global domination of open document standards.

Re:Super slimy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not by me...Debian FTW and fuck microsoft

Re:Super slimy.

[Elektroschock]

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.

Re:Super slimy.

[timmarhy]

i can't believe your dribble was marked insightful - oh wait this is /.

MS make plenty of really good products - SQL server, WIN2k3 (check netcraft and see it's uptime is in the top 5), .net and visual studio. They also provide patches and updates to products for free for almost a decade after their original sale - win98 for example went for about 9 years. MS treat their employees VERY well, they also donate a lot of money to charity and run their offices in as environmentally friendly manner as they can.

as far as business practices go they hardly even rate a mention compared to monsters like IBM or AT&T, who both got busted up decades ago for the kind of market manipulation that makes MS look like a corner hotdog stand. i'd rate MS about average on the sneaky stakes, their huge and so everything they do attracts a lot of attention, but they really are very subtle about throwing their weight around when you consider their annual profits are large than the GDP of small countries.

when you look at it rationally they aren't the devil - just a huge company and the throws of change they aren't well prepared for.

Re:Super slimy.

[jedidiah]

Sql Server and NT are both relative lightweights when compared
to much older competitors. For the most part, the best Microsoft
can do is to acquire technology (like the aforementioned sql
server). Most of their leading edge work is in finding new ways
to create viral infaction vectors. Sql Server is another great
example of this.

Re:Super slimy.

[aztektum]

I think when he said

And now: Demand to be placed in charge of maintaining the first standard?

he covered everything. ;)

Re:Super slimy.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, no ability to choose any window to be always on top? What's up with that?

The solution for those stuck on Windows is PowerMenu, BTW.

Re:Super slimy.

[gacl]

For all the years that i've been using Linux i have _never_ installed an antivirus. I can play any type of media i want without problems, openoffice has all i need to create/edit my documents, it has specialized software that i need such as LilyPond. . . All this for free. I just don't know what you are talking about.

Re:Super slimy.

[timmarhy]

how the fuck is sql server "viral"? maybe i can decode this one, to you if it's from microsoft and it's a great product that's getting acceptance due to it's capabilities, then it's an evil virus. but if it's not then it's just good software? If that's viral then Gates claims of the GPL being viral must also be true.

And since when is it illegitimate that a company buys out another company to acquire their product, simply because they recognize it's potential? this is exactly what google did with youtube, did you decry that move also? the only other reason i can think of that you even mentioned it is because your stuck in some immature "zomg M$ can't code" mindset. MS aren't interested in any of your stupid OSS dick measuring contests.

Re:Super slimy.

[Tenebrousedge]

Viral infection vectors is not the same thing as a virus. The guy was saying that the product was full of security holes. Please don't argue the accuracy of his statement with me, I really don't care.

The rest of your post would be a less obvious troll if you weren't so vulgar.

Re:Super slimy.

[RichiH]

They have been doing that for decades with next to no negative feedback. What has changed, now?

Re:Super slimy.

[Almahtar]

Agreed, but especially for web developers the ability to drag a file from a remote server onto your text editor, edit, save, and it saves the remote copy for you is priceless.

Beats the pants off of "download, edit, save, upload"

The ability to do this over ftp and ssh/sftp has been built into gnome and kde apps for years now. I haven't found competing functionality in Windows or OSX.

After you get spoiled by little features that end up being huge time savers like this, it's hard to call the competition usable. No offense - like I said I'm just spoiled.

Re:Super slimy.

[Hymer]

"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.

Re:Super slimy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything I missed?

You missed:

???

and

Profit!

Re:Super slimy.

[betterunixthanunix]

The main problem with end users running Linux is that we have been encouraging them to just insert an installer disk, install it, and "everything will work." This is a sentiment we have been promoting among people who wouldn't be able to do that with a Windows installer disk. Worse than that, we've been acting like setting up a multiboot system is a simple task, when it really isn't. Partition management? Swap? These are terms that are completely confusing to most people, and yet they encounter them as soon as they try installing a Linux distro. Configuring drivers to work is a nightmare, especially on distros committed to shipping only free software; worse is when someone discovers that they don't have MP3 support, and don't really care about the legal issues surrounding it.

That being said, it is also fair to point out that most people have no clue about the various features a typing X11 UI has over Windows, or the various ways the system can be accessed (remotely, uucp, etc.). There is no perceived advantage, so why would they want to have it installed, or worse, go through the process of installing it?

Re:Super slimy.

[Elektroschock]

Critical mass of the internet tools.

Re:Super slimy.

[thetoadwarrior]

It does work well and in fact it works better. It's only downside is it's not very retard friendly which is probably why you find it problematic as a desktop solution.

Re:Super slimy.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

I agree Microsoft is too aggressive with trying to maintain its dominance in the software market. However, I'm afraid you may have associated a bad behavior with a good one:

If it is a mortal sin to make a "me-too" product then we would not have Linux, nor would we have a me-too desktop called Gnome (that countered KDE), nor would we have a bunch of programmers making open source me-too products.

In fact, "Me-too" products are great. Competition forces developers to come up with more consumer friendly features. Hell, I thought the whole point of open source software is spur a bunch of "me-too" software to benefit the computer user. Don't like what's out there, then make a better one.

BTW: Despite what you may think - Google did not invent web searches or web advertising. Google is a me-too version of AliWeb, or is it a me-too version of WebCrawler, Infoseek, Lycos, AltaVista, Magellan, Excite...?

Speaking of Google - The following could apply to them:

... is going to implode because they make too many enemies. They push too aggressive and try to invade too many islands which bind resources.

History lesson is in order:

Microsoft didn't become number one by holding a gun to everyone's head and forcing them to purchase Windows. They made an OS suite that made the personal computer easier to use, and people like it. Manufacturers bundled it because it was the best out there at the time because it had APPLICATIONS. Microsoft knew that in order for an OS to be successful it needs to have applications and therefore a whole suite of Microsoft products were born.

It is Microsoft's do everything possible to keep the consumer locked into their products that make them evil. If you consider self preservation evil.

I see the potential for the same thing happening with Google. Everyone uses Google because it appears to be the best thing out there. Google isn't forcing us to use their products, but Google understands that in order to be successful they need a suite of products that extend their business model. So they created web applications that drive traffic to their servers, and they are now getting into the phone OS market that will bundle software that would continue to drive business to their server. Basically, they made a bunch of me-too software to further their business model (Worse they own rights to all the information stored within their products).

The question we should ask ourselves is "After all the years of drinking Google's kool-aid, what methods will Google use to keep their market share?"

So what's the point behind my rant which tries to link Microsoft's past to Google's future?

The article rightfully understands the dangers of allowing a company that has a well documented history of extending a standard into something that only a Microsoft product could render.

I'm just pointing out that it's the actions that Microsoft takes to keep their dominance that is harmful to the industry, and we should learn from this.

"Me-too" (regardless who makes them) products are good for the industry and for the consumer, it's the leverage that we allow a single company to gain against us that may come back and haunt us later. We need to make sure all our standards are well written and allows for unfettered implementation by anyone.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, because you ended your comment with:

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.

.

I just wanted to expound upon it and make a cautionary tale so that maybe we won't repeat the cycle (oh I know we will - but I could at least say I told you so).

Re:Super slimy.

[William Baric]

What Linux lacks is not only drivers, but also (legal) codec and, more importantly, honesty from the "community". Too many times I read reviews saying how good a piece of software was, then tested it and realized it was too buggy to be really usable and with a with a very bad user interface. The truth is there are far too many zealots in the open source community and this hurts a lot more than what Microsoft do.

As for me, a few years ago, I was a strong supporter of Linux and OpenOffice. Now, I still do install linux servers, but I don't put it on desktops anymore and I almost completely abandoned OpenOffice, except for my own personal use (for example all the documentation I give to my clients is done with OpenOffice). In fact, I now use OpenOffice as some sort of bogeyman against piracy : "if you don't pay for MS Office, I will install OpenOffice"... and it works!

Re:Super slimy.

[FishWithAHammer]

That's funny. Obviously I must be retarded for calling your holy OS unusable for a desktop. I mean, I was only using RH back about as far as version 4, I totally have to be clueless.

When Ubuntu rolled around, I even went "I'm going to try to go Windows-free." And you know what? It worked, for small values of "worked." Sure, Eclipse worked--but it was slower than a dog on Linux when it was entirely snappy on Windows. Sure, it worked--when I wasn't starting WINE for Dreamweaver or Photoshop or Office (because OpenOffice sucks, thank you very much, and KOffice, while having potential, is still not very good). Sure, it worked--but I had to run a VM to work in .NET, because Mono wasn't there yet (it is now, mostly, but with all due respect to mhutch and his crew, MonoDevelop is nowhere near as good as Visual Studio). Sure, it worked--when my xorg.conf file wasn't magically disappearing (and given that I have an ATI card, that makes it doubly special!).

Eventually I realized that I got more done in Windows than I did on Linux. So I switched back, and the problems went away. 'Mazing, that. Windows is, for most normal people, the path of productivity and least resistance. Whining that people aren't using your alternative when it is more difficult to use is moronic.

Here's a guideline for the desktop: if you ever have to open a terminal outside of truly exceptional error cases, you have failed to make a good enough desktop. The fact that Linux desktop aficionados don't get this makes "why does Linux on the desktop suck?" a question that is much easier to answer.

Re:Super slimy.

[Elektroschock]

True, but Google does not do everything. Microsoft has cash, so they buy markets which generate no profit. XBox made massive losses but still did not win. Internet Exporer, massive investments no profit, no dependency anymore.

Microsoft tries to attack all established markets and while it is true that me-too is beneficial for consumers, they build alliances of commercial opponents by entering new markets.

Re:Super slimy.

[thetoadwarrior]

That's funny. Obviously I must be retarded for calling your holy OS unusable for a desktop. I mean, I was only using RH back about as far as version 4, I totally have to be clueless.

That doesn't mean anything. I've been using Lotus Notes in my job for quite some time but that doesn't make me a Notes expert or mean I've done that much with it.

When Ubuntu rolled around, I even went "I'm going to try to go Windows-free." And you know what? It worked, for small values of "worked." Sure, Eclipse worked--but it was slower than a dog on Linux when it was entirely snappy on Windows. Sure, it worked--when I wasn't starting WINE for Dreamweaver or Photoshop or Office (because OpenOffice sucks, thank you very much, and KOffice, while having potential, is still not very good).

As an ex-Eclipse user I'd say it works the same across both systems. The only thing that slows it down is the amount of plugins you use. But Eclipse in general isn't that great, imo. I prefer Netbeans which has better performance on both Windows and Linux, imo. Open Office works just fine which is why I use iton my Windows and Linux machines. Plus it creates PDFs out of the box unlike MS Office.

Give your aggressive stance, I suspect you're the type of person that gets upset and gives up quickly when you don't get something straight away and just go on claiming that âoeproduct xâ sucks.

Running Dreamweaver and PS in Linux is just dumb when Dreamweaver doesn't offer you anything of value anyway unless you need a helping hand in coding. All its generated code is absolute rubbish. I prefer to either use Jedit or Notepad++ and sometimes Netbeans for larger PHP stuff now that it supports that language.

The only benefit to PS is if that's all you know and the fact it's easier to pick up thanks to the fact people think it's cool to steal PS so there's an army of kids writing tutorials for it. Gimp is just as powerful, not as bloated and doesn't include lame software like Bonjour. In fact Hollywood uses Gimp too so if it's good enough for the movies we watch then I don't see how you can be doing something that it can't handle.

Sure, it worked--but I had to run a VM to work in .NET, because Mono wasn't there yet (it is now, mostly, but with all due respect to mhutch and his crew, MonoDevelop is nowhere near as good as Visual Studio).

What little experience I have of C# and other .Net technologies is that C# is ok but I think people like it thanks to Visual Studio's point and click programming. It allows you do a lot without knowing much which is ok until something goes wrong and you don't have much knowledge of what you've done or how it works.

Plus it's ridiculous to support a language that tries to tie you into one system. That might be fine if the whole world decides everything should be run on Windows but in the real world that is far from the truth so why tie yourself into a language that won't allow you to create software for most electronic devices?

Sure, it worked--when my xorg.conf file wasn't magically disappearing (and given that I have an ATI card, that makes it doubly special!).

The only issue I've ever had is that my drivers are restricted so I have to enabled them after installing the operating system. I've never had to touch my xorg.conf file.

Eventually I realized that I got more done in Windows than I did on Linux. So I switched back, and the problems went away. 'Mazing, that. Windows is, for most normal people, the path of productivity and least resistance. Whining that people aren't using your alternative when it is more difficult to use is moronic.

Here's a guideline for the desktop: if you ever have to open a terminal outside of truly exceptional error cases, you have failed to make a good enough desktop. The fact that Linux desktop afici

Re:Super slimy.

[FishWithAHammer]

As an ex-Eclipse user I'd say it works the same across both systems.

It doesn't. It lags when trying to render a tooltip--a tooltip--when you're using Compiz, probably because it's trying to create another X window.

But Eclipse in general isn't that great, imo. I prefer Netbeans which has better performance on both Windows and Linux, imo.

Netbeans isn't what my clients who hire me for Java work use--so it's easier for me to use Eclipse like they do. And I don't do Java development for any other reason, so I don't really care.

Open Office works just fine which is why I use iton my Windows and Linux machines.

"Fine" is not the same as "well." You say OpenOffice works fine (I disagree), whereas I say that Office 2003 works well.

Plus it creates PDFs out of the box unlike MS Office.

I own Adobe CS3. Acrobat works fine for my purposes.

Give your aggressive stance, I suspect you're the type of person that gets upset and gives up quickly when you don't get something straight away and just go on claiming that Ãoeproduct xà sucks.

You suspect very wrongly; I simply don't have the time to waste on products that waste my time. Linux remains such on the desktop when Windows just works. The Linux-on-the-desktop types don't understand this. "But Linux is better!" Is it better enough to waste time re-learning what I already know and am productive with? At one point, I thought it might be. Then I realized "holy shit, it's not, I made a mistake."

Running Dreamweaver and PS in Linux is just dumb when Dreamweaver doesn't offer you anything of value anyway unless you need a helping hand in coding. All its generated code is absolute rubbish. I prefer to either use Jedit or Notepad++ and sometimes Netbeans for larger PHP stuff now that it supports that language.

I use Dreamweaver as a glorified text editor with IntelliSense and quick-preview (and a bit of the CSS builder functionality, which works well). There may be better, but they don't integrate as well with the rest of my tools, and I'm not interested in screwing up my workflow for arbitrary reasons.

The only benefit to PS is if that's all you know and the fact it's easier to pick up thanks to the fact people think it's cool to steal PS so there's an army of kids writing tutorials for it. Gimp is just as powerful, not as bloated and doesn't include lame software like Bonjour. In fact Hollywood uses Gimp too so if it's good enough for the movies we watch then I don't see how you can be doing something that it can't handle.

Oh, I love this line. I truly do. The GIMP is not as powerful (CMYK says what? Even the new release doesn't really support it--and yes, I do print work as well, so this is something of a vital feature). The GIMP's user interface is unpleasant to work with; the MDI paradigm is more comfortable. (And the majority of film work done is with CinePaint, which forked from the GIMP way back in version 1.x. It's considerably less annoying than the GIMP because they listen to users and implement suggestions. I still prefer Photoshop.)

This is another example of the kind of mindset that leads to (wasted) "Linux on the desktop" advocacy: "but GIMP is betterrrrrrrrr than Photoshop!" If you say so--but it sucks to use (and no, don't bother arguing, I'm telling you that as a user of Photoshop that the GIMP is unpleasant to use) and I already own Photoshop, so why the hell should I switch?

What little experience I have of C# and other .Net technologies is that C# is ok but I think people like it thanks to Visual Studio's point and click programming.

There is very little "point and click programming" in .NET; there's visual composition for some bits (and let's be honest, if y

Re:Super slimy.

[man_of_mr_e]

You seem to have the typical Linux user skewed view of how people use real software.

Dreamweaver has come a long way. It's HTML generation is fully XHTML/CSS oriented, and it's quite good. Professionals use it because it improves their productivity, not because they don't know how to code by hand. Coding by hand is error prone, time intensive, and stupid. Yes, you still have to drop back to manual mode for some stuff, but the tools it provides and integration with the other adobe tools is invaluable.

Photoshop is a difficult program to learn, just like the GIMP and most professional level tools, but for those that know it well, they can do pretty much anything. The GIMP simply can't do many of PS's tasks, even if you discount CMYK and other print level tools. Remember, many times professionals are stuck using the tools their professional suppliers require (for instance, many print shops require Quark or InDesign file formats.

It's completely unrealistic to tell people "you don't need that program". Saying such shows that you really don't understand their needs at all, and you're really proving the parents point.

Re:Super slimy.

[thetoadwarrior]

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.

Re:Super slimy.

[thetoadwarrior]

It doesn't. It lags when trying to render a tooltip--a tooltip--when you're using Compiz, probably because it's trying to create another X window.

First that's mostly irrelevant to the people for which linux distros want to grow their market and It's probably PEBKAC related seeing how my outdated Linux machine has no problem with it. ;)

Netbeans isn't what my clients who hire me for Java work use--so it's easier for me to use Eclipse like they do. And I don't do Java development for any other reason, so I don't really care.

Then you can't complain. You've opted to do that for the money so it and don't cry or find something else to do.

"Fine" is not the same as "well." You say OpenOffice works fine (I disagree), whereas I say that Office 2003 works well.

Princeton defines Fine as very well or alright. In both instances that gets my point across that it will do what most people will require from it. Now that it we have ODF and OOXML there should be less compatibility issues...aside from the fact Office 2007 is shit (funnily you mentioned version 2003) and a lot of people probably won't move to either format soon. Luckily OpenOffice doesn't do too badly with MS' closed doc format.

I own Adobe CS3. Acrobat works fine for my purposes.

Compare how many copies have been sold of CS3 (hell include the pirated copies too) and compare that to the over all computer owning population. That option isn't available to most people nor would they want to consider it.

You suspect very wrongly; I simply don't have the time to waste on products that waste my time. Linux remains such on the desktop when Windows just works. The Linux-on-the-desktop types don't understand this. "But Linux is better!" Is it better enough to waste time re-learning what I already know and am productive with? At one point, I thought it might be. Then I realized "holy shit, it's not, I made a mistake."

You're the one that sees it so black and white. Where as I get on fine with either system. Linux is safer than Windows. Fact. So for the average idiot it is a logical solution. It runs better on older hardware. Fact. Hence the reason netbooks use it and MS has to desperately keep XP alive to try to compete in a market they didn't see coming. This is again beneficial to the average person who doesn't buy things like Adobe CS3 or a top of the line Macbook Pro (like I'll be doing in the near future).

I use Dreamweaver as a glorified text editor with IntelliSense and quick-preview (and a bit of the CSS builder functionality, which works well). There may be better, but they don't integrate as well with the rest of my tools, and I'm not interested in screwing up my workflow for arbitrary reasons.

I used to do that too but then I realised it was mostly pointless because Dreamweaver doesn't render things like IE or Firefox so there's no real point in using it when most any editor gives you the option to open your work in the browser of your choice. It's not that hot for languages other than HTML and CSS and yes I could do most of my PHP work in a separate editor if I'm doing proper MVC development but why use two programs when I can use one?

Oh, I love this line. I truly do. The GIMP is not as powerful (CMYK says what? Even the new release doesn't really support it--and yes, I do print work as well, so this is something of a vital feature). The GIMP's user interface is unpleasant to work with; the MDI paradigm is more comfortable. (And the majority of film work done is with CinePaint, which forked from the GIMP way back in version 1.x. It's considerably less annoying than the GIMP because they listen to users and implement suggestions. I still prefer Photoshop.)

Cinepaint is still GIMP when you get down to it and once CMYK support, which is com

Re:Super slimy.

[FishWithAHammer]

Most of your post is just the same tired back and forth, but this is the important bit:

Personally I think you'll find Distro companies are more concerned with getting your mom to use Linux than for you to give up Photoshop. There are more clueless people than educated people so why go after the smaller market will probably won't change because their job depends on something where as average person doesn't really care as proven by Mac's increasing popularity.

That's fine, they're more than welcome to go after them (because I have a workflow that works for me, and Linux has no part of it on the desktop), but they're going to keep failing at it. Why? Because open-source developers don't know how to go after the clueless people. That's really what it boils down to. Even Firefox, one of the few cases where an open-source product demonstrates definite advantages, has a small market share (although with Chrome and IE8 coming, Firefox is looking fairly fucked). The open-source community does not, in many cases, want users. They want contributors. The two mindsets (targeting clueless people and contributors-not-users) are fairly incompatible.

Linux still has some issues, no doubt, a lot of which have to do with accessibility which, again, doesn't affect most people.

You mis-spelled "usability." Linux--or GNOME, at least--is remarkably accessible, to the point of making programming for their platform a huge pain in the ass (anyone who's ever had to create a custom GTK+ widget knows exactly what I mean). What Linux is not is usable, for most people. Put someone passably familiar with a computer at a Linux desktop, and to do anything beyond open up Firefox, they will be at a loss. (Most people don't learn the concepts, they learn by rote. Which means that you'd better be copying Windows, or you've lost a lot of them right there.)

What companies need to do is start funding game development that is OS neutral or on Linux. It will be a loss at first but if they push that's what'll bring people to Linux.

Why would they do that? When consoles are right there and when closed-source programming for wide distribution on Linux is fucking insanely difficult? When OpenGL is, to be frank, shit on Linux, compared to Direct3D on Windows or the Direct3D-lite-ish API on the XBox 360? Not to mention that sound systems, among other areas, are so horrible as to be almost not worth even considering.

Companies should go against their own interests in hope of a vague future payoff? Sorry, but magic fairy wishing won't get you far.

(My favorite line from the freetard-brigade comments in that post I linked: "Time to put on your humility hat, not your ridiculing asshole hat. You need us, we don't need you. There is a lot of black magic and dragons in linux development, and one of them will eat weeks of your time if you aren't careful." WRONG! Instead, Jon just said screw-you to Linux and saved himself some time. And if there was a credible attempt to get users to Linux, wouldn't they first make developing less of a chore...?)

That's the whole reason MS decided that maybe it should eat its own lunch by killing off PC gaming to promote the 360. Gaming is the only thing windows has that most people care about and can't find some sort of acceptable alternative elsewhere.

If you think people will magically switch to Linux for games, you're out of your tree, sir. Exchange (Exchange clients on Linux are terrible, Evolution is the best of them but it's a crashy mess) and Office (OpenOffice isn't a seamless drop-in replacement, so yes, for many people it is out) alone are enough reason for companies to stick to Windows. And where business goes, consumers follow.

Re:Super slimy.

[FishWithAHammer]

This is one of the few sane posts about Linux I've read on /. -- my hat's off to you.

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[Tubal-Cain]

Probably because IE6 is irrelevant.

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[ZERO1ZERO]

maybe you clicked goatse?

Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[Ostracus]

"A related submission from David Gerard points out that BoycottNovell has leaked the ISO OOXML documents, which ISO has keep behind passwords. "

OK we slashdot their servers. Now what?

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[jd]

We laugh at AlexH for thinking that because a bug existed in a calculation, it should be specified and mandated that all future calculations contain the same bug, in case people corrected for it?

Or perhaps at Microsoft for creating non-existent dates.

Or at ISO for creating one of the worst backlashes against a standard I think I have ever seen through their inept handling of the crisis and their blatant disregard for their own procedures.

Or at ODF's board for their suicidal willingness to allow the makers of a competing standard dictate their own direction. (Even if ODF survives - and no guarantee of that - AlexH has already made it clear that the bugs present in OOXML are being deliberately introduced into ODF for "backwards-compatibility" reasons. If ODF becomes a re-implementation of OOXML, who is going to use ODF?)

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[Tweenk]

You ate AlexH FUD. Read further into the comments and you'll see this:

Luc Bollen said,
October 3, 2008 at 9:41 am

Here is what OpenFormula says about this (normative text):

"Implementations of formulas in an OpenDocument file shall use the epoch specified in the table-null-date attribute of the element, and shall support at least the following epoch values: 1899-12-30, 1900-01-01, and 1904-01-01.

Many applications cannot handle Date values before January 1, 1900. Some applications can handle dates for the years 1900 and on, but include a known defect: they incorrectly presume that 1900 was a leap year (1900 was not a leap year). Applications may reproduce the 1900-as-leap-year bug for compatibility purposes, but should not. Portable documents shall not include date calculations that require the incorrect assumption that 1900 was a leap year. Portable documents shall not assume that negative date values are impossible (many implementations use negative dates to represent dates before the epoch). Portable documents should use the epoch date 1899-12-30 to compensate for serial numbers originating from applications that include a 1900-02-29 leap day in their calculations."

I think we are far from "ODF 1.2 will standardise this bug as well".

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[RAMMS EIN]

``If ODF becomes a re-implementation of OOXML, who is going to use ODF?)''

The way I see it, ODF is an open format for storing data produced and handled by software like the programs in Microsoft Office. Compared to proprietary formats, it has the advantage of being open. Anybody can implement it, the documentation is available, etc. This is a great good.

On the other hand, I don't have a very high opinion of "software like the programs in Microsoft Office". And I don't have a very high opinion of ODF, either. Both are overly complex and bound to contain bugs. I believe in decomposition: small, simple parts, that can be put together to build anything you want. That goes for programs and for file formats (and several other things).

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[IamTheRealMike]

If ODF becomes a re-implementation of OOXML, who is going to use ODF?

The real question is, if ODF doesn't become a re-implementation of OOXML, who is going to use it?

I think a lot of people are struggling with a painful but unavoidable truth - ODF does not matter, has never mattered and never will matter. The vast, vast, vast majority of spreadsheets today are produced using Excel, which has a long history as a program and has at various times had bugs and defects introduced into its calculation engine. People went on to produce millions of business documents that either rely on these bugs, or work around them such that they will break if the bugs are fixed.

Microsoft, PR wise, are in a lose-lose situation here. Either they can request that ODF has a way to express some of these bugs, and be able to reliably export Excel documents to it. Or they can leave ODF "pure" and "clean" and implement an exporter that subtly mangles documents such that they appear to work but produce incorrect answers. The latter is probably a good way to get sued and would certainly result in a shit-storm of "Microsoft makes deliberately buggy code to discredit ODF", but the former is a good way to ALSO get a PR disaster of "Microsoft dictates direction of open standards".

I'd really like to see more competition and better compatibility in the office suite world, but to be completely honest if I was a program manager for Excel at Microsoft I'd be very tempted to walk away from the whole standardisation process. I'd publish precise documentation for the binary formats (which they've done) and then leave it. No slow XML formats. No stupid attempts to pretend that the StarOffice spreadsheet format can be some kind of international standard when the actual, de facto standard is .XLS, warts and all. No lose-lose PR situations. Publish the bugs so other companies can be compatible with the 800 pound gorilla, and that goes far enough.

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[metamatic]

Representing times and dates as "seconds since epoch" is itself fundamentally broken.

ODF should use a representation that actually allows future dates to be represented with second accuracy.

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[jd]

If future systems are going to use 64-bit or 128-bit timestamps that measure down to nanosecond precision, it makes no sense to use a different level of precision that isn't a direct power of two from the system timestamp. Either simplify by not changing the precision or simplify by making things a straight bit shift. Ideally, given resources are cheap, don't simplify at all.

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[jd]

What's wrong with writing an emulation module that shifts results by the same amount the bugs would have done? The Excel exporter then simply identifies which emulation module is required for a given set of bugs in that version of Excel. The main ODF files then don't need to have bugs added, the stuff that includes workarounds will continue to work, and those who want to clean their spreadsheet of cruft can gradually switch off the bug emulation.

Microsoft could use the same module in Excel to the same effect. They wouldn't need to keep bugs in, they simply need to have the bugs emulated for existing work unless otherwise deselected. Microsoft then becomes the "hero" for solving both cross-compatibility and backwards-compatibility issues and simultaneously reducing the cost of new work (because new work would need fewer workarounds). This would also be a win for ODF, as they then don't need to introduce bugs, they only need to introduce a modifier layer, which could be used to provide all kinds of other benefits and interesting effects. There, everyone wins.

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[metamatic]

You missed the point. Representing times and dates by counting units of time from an epoch is fundamentally broken, however large or small the units are. The problem is fundamental, based on the fact that the time scales we use every day cannot be extrapolated into the future indefinitely, because leap seconds occur at random.

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[jd]

This is why you have a concept of "absolute" time (which is really time relative to an agreed frame of reference and increments at a uniform rate as seen by the current timeframe), a current deviation from "absolute" time (which allows you to factor in leap-seconds, relativistic effects, the rate of change of the Earth's rotation, and anything else you care to throw in) and a "timezone" (which is a fixed deviation from "absolute" time with respect to position relative to the agreed frame of reference).

Modern high-performance crystals can give you absolute time directly. If you've a variable-speed crystal with low-enough latency and high-enough precision on the variability, you can adjust it by the current deviation directly without having to store that as a distinct value. The fact that it's random, in either case, is irrelevant, as it's an externally-provided or externally-derived delta. The third value is equally random, given that you can relocate at any time and therefore cross timezones at random intervals, but since you can know position with almost absolute certainty (GPS), this delta is not only trivial to add in but also trivial to see how to add it in.

Leap-seconds are inconsequential when they're considered deltas to an absolute time except for real-time work where the precision of real-time required is comparable to the precision with which you can distribute the addition of the delta. (If you evenly distribute a second over a thousand deltas, your hard realtime will work to bounds of around a thousandth of a second. And so on, to whatever accuracy your realtime software requires and/or your hardware supports.)

Deltas also have the benefit that you can express time outside of the bounds of an epoch by windowing. This solves the problem of trying to time-shift before 1970, for example, and eliminates Y2K-type issues, because your timestamp doesn't need to have sufficient width for the full range of dates required, so long as there is a way to point to the correct set of deltas.

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em.

[metamatic]

Well, that's fine--if you want to have your spreadsheet store dates in UT1 (absolute time), and provide functions to convert to and from UTC (time we actually use every day).

However, I doubt that most users would find that acceptable for a couple of reasons, the biggest being that they could save a spreadsheet, open it up a few years later, and find that the values had magically changed because a leap second had been inserted into UTC in the intervening time period.

Personally, I doubt that would be deemed better than actually storing and calculating with UTC date/time values.

Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[GNUChop]

Their whole reason for making M$XML was that is served a different, never well defined, purpose. If that's true, they have no business running ODF, unless the reason was to kill ODF.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is a reason. They announced plans to incorporate native ODF support into Microsoft Office starting with a free service pack early next year. Now, granted, they don't need to be on a standards committee to work with a standard, but Microsoft has always been quite involved with standards committees for technologies that they utilize.

With the release of Microsoft Office 2007 Service Pack 2 (SP2) scheduled for the first half of 2009, the list [of supported file formats] will grow to include support for XML Paper Specification (XPS), Portable Document Format (PDF) 1.5, PDF/A and Open Document Format (ODF) v1.1.

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/may08/05-21ExpandedFormatsPR.mspx

This could be a bad thing. This could be Microsoft trying to abscond with the direction of the format for their own favor. Or they could be trying to close a number of known gaps, such as a complete lack of standard spreadsheet functions.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends what you want. Either

- ODF is a real industry standard, which means it supports the features of the office suite with 90% marketshare (Microsoft)

or

- ODF is competitive wedge which benefits the last place losers, Sun and IBM/Lotus.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[Bert64]

Being involved with a format is one thing, microsoft are already members of OASIS, and have been invited to join the ODF committee many times over the past few years and always refused, tho they may have joined it more recently...
Trying to take control of it is quite another matter, as the format should remain neutral and not be controlled by a single for-profit corporation.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[Anonymous Coward]

OOXML served to my knowledge one important purpose. Saying to governments and big company that they have an open and standardized file format. Because more and more of them asked for it in their call for tender.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[Elektroschock]

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.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[zappepcs]

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.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[bersl2]

Or they could be trying to close a number of known gaps, such as a complete lack of standard spreadsheet functions.

The solution to this (OpenFormula) has been pending final quality control for a year or so, but the drafts are complete enough that the major ODF-capable programs implement more recent drafts.

I imagine that this mess involving so many players in the standardization community is not very helpful for getting things done.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[mysidia]

This could be a bad thing. This could be Microsoft trying to abscond with the direction of the format for their own favor. Or they could be trying to close a number of known gaps, such as a complete lack of standard spreadsheet functions.

There's a problem MS needs to fix: it's too easy for the competition to implement their standards.

They need to adjust the standard to include items that are impossible for anyone other than MS to implement.

For example to paper certain sections such as "do X like Office 2003"

And include better support for opaque binary blobs and objects.

Without opaque binary blobs and objects in a document, how are they supposed to make all documents' true ODF output lock many things in as vendor-proprietary objects?

You know.. things like section headers, and special effects, "document richness" features, that should be made to not be possible in the competition's software.

Vendor lock-in features (that MS would believe) ODF badly needs.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[erroneus]

Will someone PLEASE call the Department of Justice complaining that they are abusing the market place again?

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ODF guys do NOT need Microsoft for spreadsheet functions.

The ODF guys recongnised this hole in their specs years ago, long before Microsoft noticed a similar lack in their original OOXML submission, and have been working to build a standard for spreadsheet functions. Unlike Microsoft's "standard", which is just a printout of the help files from Excel, this work-in-progress spec covers functions in detail, with unambiguous descriptions (and math) for exactly what each function does, and a complete test suite as part of the spec to verify compliance.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[Elektroschock]

Yes, so it is time that governments insist on the conditions offered and codify "open standards". Read this letter to the EU from 2004.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[initialE]

So much for protesting. If IBM's objective was to protest the OOXML decision, this was the wrong thing to do, giving Microsoft a wedge into ODF. If their objective was to protest the existence of ISO itself, though, I guess a lot of people are paying attention.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[Elektroschock]

No idea. It is just what they do, what ever the reason.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place.

[Anonymous Coward]

"utilize" is the wrong verb

Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[Adrian Lopez]

Microsoft must be truly scared by the prospect of widespread adoption of open source office software. The question now is, what can the open source community do to prevent another OOXML-type situation? How will interested parties prevent Microsoft from engaging in its usual "embrace, extend and extinguish" behavior?

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[frisket]

"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...

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[FishWithAHammer]

Arguably, ODF is not as good as OpenXML. ODF has some pretty gaping holes (hello, spreadsheets) and some very ugly failures (encryption, for example).

OpenXML isn't great either, but ODF is really not "better" than OpenXML. (Don't give me the tired BoycottNovell-tard line about OpenXML not being implementable--it simply isn't true.)

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[dkleinsc]

Think about what happens if Microsoft Office is supplanted:
1. Microsoft loses 1 of its 2 big cash cows.
2. Businesses have no reason to choose Windows desktops over Apple or Linux, cutting the Windows market in half.

In other words, open protocols + open file formats + improved OpenOffice cuts Microsoft revenues by 75%. They will fight tooth and nail for that.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[Darkness404]

Ummm... not sure what you are talking about, but Office has, and always will be available for the Mac, and most versions other than Office 2007 are emulated in WINE-like projects (such as Cross-Over and such)

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[JonSimons]

The question now is, what can the open source community do to prevent another OOXML-type situation?

Exactly!

We have a situation where Microsoft is, for better or worse, attempting to participate in the open standards game. Will the fact that ODF is an open standard fundamentally reduce Microsoft's leverage?

I'll conjecture that the open process will prevail. I'm an optimist, though...

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[Gr8Apes]

Ummm... not sure what you are talking about, but Office has, and always will be available for the Mac, and most versions other than Office 2007 are emulated in WINE-like projects (such as Cross-Over and such)

yes, it has been available in the Mac, but who wants to run it?

MS Office has sucked worse on each release since the O2K release, which made the single improvement of moving away from the horrible O97 MDI interface.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[GaryPatterson]

"A > B but I won't tell you why."

"Don't tell me the problems you think A has, you're just plain wrong. I won't tell you why."

You're going to need to do more than simply disagree if you want to be taken seriously. Why is OpenXML better than ODF? Why are people wrong about OpenXML being un-implementable?

You may be spot on, but just giving the endpoint for your argument misses the crucial bit where you convince other people that you're right.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[Teilo]

And if you have ever actually used Office for Mac, you would realize that it's compatibility with Office for Windows is hardly any better than NeoOffice or OOo 3.0.

Not only that, it's slow. It has horribly stupid font management. Every release since Office for Mac 10 has gotten progressively worse. The current release, 12, is so bad, that on an Intel machine, it is actually faster to run version 11 (which is PPC only) through Rosetta emulation.

I am nearly convinced that Microsoft deliberately stunts Office for Mac to drive Mac users to Windows. Well it worked for me. I deleted Office for Mac, and now run Office 2003 via VMWare Fusion.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[grasshoppa]

they hate someone coming up with a file format that is better than theirs.

It's not about what's better or worse, in this or technology in general. Instead, MS hates it when someone other than they come up with a standard that gets more widespread adoption than their own.

Small but very important distinction.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[timmarhy]

businesses aren't going to run a linux desktop just because office is no longer a compatability problem (i'm not convinced ODf will solve that anyway)

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[Lennie]

'Funny' how they always have there own standard(s)

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[Elektroschock]

So let's make that happen?

OpenOffice3 is really cool. I use RC3.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[Nursie]

Care to back up your assertion?

I work for a place where platform choice is left to the individual, and linux is one of the choices.

Office compatibility is one of the major reasons people stick with windows. That and IT departments not having experience with anything else.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[man_of_mr_e]

So let me get this straight. During the OOXML standardization, everyone said "But microsoft could just participate in ODF and all would be good".

So now Microsoft decides to participate in ODF and "ZOMG!!!! Microsoft is trying to take over ODF".

Talk about hypocrisy.

Need I remind everyone, that the OASIS ODF committee was composed of, almost entirely Sun employees, until IBM got interested and then it was composed of a majority of IBM employees? As of late, both Sun and IBM make up a majority of the OASIS ODF TC.

So why didn't anyone complain when IBM sent a boatload of participants to OASIS in an attempt to control ODF's destiny?

The fact of the matter is, Microsoft knows that if it only sent one or two people, they would be marginalized and ignored. Their participation would be pointless, and they would not get anything they needed to make ODF more interoperable with Office, something that Sun has been adamantly against because they want to give OpenOffice an advantage over Office.

A truly open and collaborative TC would be the only solution, but both OASIS and ISO allow the deck to be stacked, and IBM and Sun have used that to their advantage. And, as long as IBM and Sun are allowed to stack the deck, Microsoft will likely respond in kind.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Where do you work.

2. Are you hiring?

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish

[Nursie]

1. Think big

2. Always.

Standards

[colganc]

Create their own standard. Companies, organizations, and individuals can create standards away from this. It is not like this is the only option. Take what you have and go play somewhere else, leaving Microsoft to theirselves. I imagine though, Microsoft buying in is needed more by the people in these standard organizations than Microsoft needs their seal of approval.

Re:Standards

[Tubal-Cain]

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).

Re:Standards

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:Standards

[colganc]

Have everyone who agrees to the current spec leave the committees or what not and create a new organization publishing the spec. Make sure everyone agrees that the next version is not to have any MS involvment. Let MS do what they want. Let everyone else do what they want as well.

This is just the first step, why don't we fight?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we say.... One Nation... One Gov't.... One World.... This is scary, if M$ can control a committee just by sheer majority what can't money buy? Honestly, I give it another 15-20 years and we will see things crumble, we will see things happen that totally change the way we all (the world) lives. Look at it this way.... Europe has the Euro, its only a matter of time before other major continents feel the economic hardship, as well as the seize and control of corporations and governments alike.

We have to somehow stop M$ soon, otherwise you will not see him just taking over "Software Standards", he is joined w/ probably roughly 30 others in a like-mind stand to revolutionize the World. Just wait and see, this will happen; these are just the first major steps.

Re:This is just the first step, why don't we fight

[[cx]]

Globalization crushes poor people, I'm in favor of it.

Doesn't really matter, methinks...

[TheModelEskimo]

Look at WhatWG and W3C. Concepts are important, but the Internet treats censorship (on MS's part) as damage and will, naturally, route around it. People get angry, publicity is gotten, groups are formed. MS is shut out of the new goodness.

(Just for the record, I think that censorship quote is horribly snarky but I'm using it anyway)

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks...

[Tubal-Cain]

...the Internet treats censorship (on MS's part) as damage and will, naturally, route around it.

Ever since the Eternal September started, the Internet has been less inclined to route around technical damage such as IE and .doc

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks...

[TheModelEskimo]

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. ;-)

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks...

[Tubal-Cain]

I didn't say it won't route around damage. But it is now very slow to. IE has had a majority marketshare since, what? 1999? It is slowly dying, but it has been nearly a decade. If it weren't for the Eternal September, it probably wouldn't have ever gained a majority marketshare.

With ODF we have much the same situation. It just isn't spreading with the same speed it would have without n00bs on the Internet.

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox took forever. The Mozilla products are still nowhere near 50% in most markets. OpenOffice is hardly visible. Normal people buy Windows PCs, write their letters with Microsoft Office and send DOC files and synchronize schedules with Outlook. Microsoft isn't faced with an inferno. They're putting out a burning camp fire... and most people couldn't care less.

Eternal September, as bad as it may seem, was an important milestone: It marked the end of the time when the internet was used by people who treated it as an end in itself. It marked the point when the internet stopped being just a geek toy and became a tool. Open Source software as a concept has not reached that milestone and the few projects which have become tools are fragile and have a hard time balancing their geek support base and their careless users, because these projects are faced with unhealthy economic dependencies and very vigilant opponents. The internet on the other hand grew almost unnoticed until explosive growth set in and it was too late to stop it.

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks...

[Stormwatch]

IE has had a majority marketshare since, what? 1999? It is slowly dying, but it has been nearly a decade.

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.

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks...

[xant]

Mostly correct, but it seems a bit strange to cast IE as the alternative to "OS-specific". :-)

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks...

[Stormwatch]

Mostly correct, but it seems a bit strange to cast IE as the alternative to "OS-specific".

There used to be a Mac version - and IE 5 was the best browser back in the "classic" days.

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks...

[Lennie]

And IE 5.5 is still the least buggy in the line of IE5, IE5.5, IE6 and IE7. And IE8, well we're not really certain yet.

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks...

[Stormwatch]

I suppose you mean on Windows. But the Mac version was a whole different beast, not even using the same layout engine as the Windows version.

Hello David

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking bastard Wikipedian. The Willy on Wheels and Grawp are going to stretch your ass with our massive cocks.

fuck the following wiki administators

zzuuzz, oxymoron83, ryulong, jpgordon, alison, knightlago and all the other cocksucking bastards who like to delete articles as not notable even with 3rd party reliable source.

Interesting that the this article is so long compared to stomach

My latest sleeper sock is User:N-C7 by the way.

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 now
why is this?

I might be able to shed some light on this. Rob -- CmdrTaco -- Malda asked Netcraft, here's a transcript of the conversation:

NETCRAFT: We're confirming that we have answered the phone.
TACO: Hi, Rob Malda here. How's it hangin', still skewing your server figures in favour of Microsoft?
NETCRAFT: Our shit is good, Netcraft confirms it! Netcraft also confirms that we're still counting GoDaddy parked domains and MySpace accounts as full sites, IIS FTW!
TACO: Errr, ok. I was actually phoning to ask a question: is it worth developing for IE6, or should we dump it like a rotten BSD category?
NETCRAFT: IE6 is dead, Netcraft confirms it! So is BSD!
TACO: Thanks a lot, I think. Bye.
NETCRAFT: This conversation is over, Netcraft confi ... *click* *whhhrrrrrrr*

So you see, IE6 is dead. Netcraft confirms it! And the winner of the award for "Most Roundabout Way of Repeating a Tired Slashdot Meme" is ...

softwar gangster 'business' failing everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

it would be easier to learn to understand that all we are, & all we have, are gifts from the creators.

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

If this is true...

[TihSon]

...where is IBM?

Re:If this is true...

[frisket]

IBM gave up the fight.

Re:If this is true...

[ScrewMaster]

Well, IBM probably figures that, for their purposes, they don't need a global standard. For a lot of things, they are a global standard.

Re:If this is true...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish this were false.

IBM doesnt use ODF internally. Heck, even their developers dont actually use ODF, inspite of them having their proprietary Symphony.

IBM has more than 300,000 employees, if it were really interested in ODF, it would convert them away from MSOffice

Paranoid...

[retech]

Putting this just above the article on paranoid Linux distro seems like there's a conspiracy.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, ODF format bids to take over you!

What, no "Go to Hell" tag?

[Azuma Hazuki]

Subject. Between this and the weasel-word butchering of "open source" MS is trying to pull off I have just about had enough of them. ...if Bill Gates goes to Hell, will he be forced to use Ubuntu on a SPARCStation as the BSD daemon prods him with a pointy little pitchfork? With a loop of Richard Stallman's rancid songs playing in the background?

Re:What, no "Go to Hell" tag?

[JonJ]

Didn't seem so bad until you got to the last part there.

OSS Standards

[hachete]

Maybe we should create our own standards committees. And work out a way for them *not* to be corrupted.

Re:OSS Standards

[Anonymous Coward]

That already exists. GNU.

Re:OSS Standards

[Zigbigadoorlue]

And work out a way for them *not* to be corrupted.

Good luck with that.

Re:OSS Standards

[RAMMS EIN]

What do we actually need standards committees for?

Re:OSS Standards

[greenguy]

Ya know, there's only one way to have a non-corruptible standards committee for file formats.

Let the FSF design file formats.

And no, I'm not kidding. They know what it means to create one thing for one purpose, and have it do its job very well, but also have the results be reusable.

Re:OSS Standards

[Anonymous Coward]

And work out a way for them *not* to be corrupted.

If you could solve this problem, there are a lot of more important things that it could be applied to.

Re:OSS Standards

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

Maybe we should create our own standards committees.

Yeah! With Blackjack!

Re:OSS Standards

[Anonymous Coward]

Get rid of cash, and make all monetary transactions matters of public record?

Re:OSS Standards

[jgrahn]

Ya know, there's only one way to have a non-corruptible standards committee for file formats. Let the FSF design file formats. And no, I'm not kidding. They know what it means to create one thing for one purpose, and have it do its job very well, but also have the results be reusable.

I heard RMS talk about open standards a few years back (Göteborg, May 2007), and as I recall it, he wasn't very interested. Following a standard means to explicitly allow non-free software to compete.

Department of Justice

[Enderandrew]

Honestly, PJ should forward all data related to the ISO/OOXML scandal and these latest actions to the DoJ and request they open another antitrust case. I'm not sure there has ever been a more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior from MS.

Re:Department of Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, PJ should forward all data related to the ISO/OOXML scandal and these latest actions to the DoJ and request they open another antitrust case. I'm not sure there has ever been a more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior from MS

It won't work. The DoJ has people who actually investigate things, and so would filter out all the inaccuracies and FUD, and find there is pretty much nothing left of the "scandal".

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.

Re:Department of Justice

[Enderandrew]

IBM made up the litany of complaints from technology boards around the world? Afraid not, since those are confirmed and I've been reading those first hand from the boards complaining.

IBM made up Microsoft replacing seats on various boards to push this?

IBM made up ISO fast-tracking a huge document that is impossible to implement?

You know what, I just shouldn't respond to ACs. The only FUD and lies here in your post.

Re:Department of Justice

[mevets]

Can't we add a "+1 Shill" to the moderator options?

Re:Department of Justice

[GaryPatterson]

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.

Re:Department of Justice

[omuls are tasty]

Could you give us some examples of what has IBM been lying about?

Re:Department of Justice

[JAlexoi]

Since the illegal hiring practices, you should drop the word Justice from DoJ, and let it be just The Department...

Re:Department of Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you give us some examples of what has IBM been lying about?

They lied about base dates in document, claiming OOXML was bad compared to ODF because it required supporting three different base dates. The lie: that's not bad compared to ODF, which requires supporting thousands of different base dates. (It allows arbitrary base dates, as opposed to just the three specific ones OOXML required for backwards compatibility).

They lied about binary blobs in documents, again in comparison to ODF. The lie: every place that OOXML allows a binary blob, ODF also allows a binary blob.

They complained that OOXML was bad compared to ODS because it did not sufficiently specify the cryptographic hashes that were allowed for stored passwords. OOXML simply said that you should use one from a large list. The problem? ODF doesn't even give a list. It just says, in the three places it mentions passwords, that they should be hashed. (BTW, OOXML was changed to give precise references to the official standard for each of the hashes it says must be supported)

IBM made a similar complaint about calendars. OOXML listed the names that were allowed in the attribute that specifies calendar type, along with a description of the calendar. This was too vague for IBM. Guess what ODF does? It just lists the short name for use in the attribute, with NOTHING about what that calendar is. Some you can guess, but some are mystifying. (OOXML was changed to not only give the attribute and description, but to also give a detailed cite to the official specification for the calendar)

There was at least half a dozen or more similar things cited in the thread on this a few months ago here.

It's hard to find any technical criticism of OOXML from IBM that wasn't inaccurate, and they knew it--they were publicly called out on much of their FUD when they first published it, but continued to repeat it.

Re:Department of Justice

[xant]

Not PJ. The EFF. This is what they were founded to do. While I'm at it, I think I'll go make them a donation. The EFF has probably done more for you (as an observer interested in technology) than either presidential candidate.

They wanted government contracts

[magus_melchior]

And they were told OOXML wouldn't work, because despite its ISO blessing, there was no reference implementation of ISO OOXML.

So Microsoft is going the other route: subvert and gain control of ODF.

Re:This is just the first step, why don't we fight

[ScrewMaster]

Globalization crushes poor people, I'm in favor of it.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

I know what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft finally put 2 and 2 together, and realized that its most profitable days coincided with its period of greatest corruption. Ever since it drew its claws in slightly, it's been fading badly.

So now it wants to get back to its glory days, and what better way to start than to embrace, extend and corrupt everything that's left in Computing. Before it was just a few languages and networking standards, but that's not good enough for the New Microsoft: now it'll corrupt all rival standards too, by subverting the standards bodies themselves.

This is sheer genius. It's VASTLY cheaper and faster to corrupt a few committees than it is to actually embrace and extend some actual software. Sheer genius.

Google

[oGMo]

Next time some whiner points out something new cool thing Google is doing is really a veiled conspiracy to take over the world, please point to this and tell them to kindly STFU. Microsoft is really evil and they've consistently and continuously done things like this since their inception 25+ years ago.

Re:Google

[pembo13]

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.

Re:Google

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

It is frightening how obnoxiously cynical Microsoft is. The sad thing is, if they had any confidence in their own products, they could do themselves and the world so much good.

Balmer needs to go. Microsoft need a leader with vision who can instill confidence in their product and their abilities... that way, they might still exist in ten years time.

So, how do we protect ODF?

[Eryq]

A million Davids can kick the ass of one Goliath. What rocks should we use? Ideas?

Re:So, how do we protect ODF?

[Fred_A]

A million Davids can kick the ass of one Goliath. What rocks should we use? Ideas?

Real ones. And pitchforks. And torches.

Re:So, how do we protect ODF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Azuma Hazuki, earlier in the page, gave me the idea: what about a colorful "Go to hell" flag. Every time we see a OOXML document, we send it to the author. And we make an add-on for common free servers (mail, apache...) which automatically adds the flag inside OOXML text documents and diaporamas.
Sounds good, no?

Re:So, how do we protect ODF?

[Whiteox]

What rocks should we use? Ideas?
The simplest is by practice.
Just send everyone ODF docs instead of MS docs.
When they complain, tell them to download OO!

Re:So, how do we protect ODF?

[jgrahn]

Just send everyone ODF docs instead of MS docs. When they complain, tell them to download OO!

The thing that get lost in this Spy-vs-Spy circus is that we'd be better off without both of them. If you send a document to me, it's probably for viewing only. Then I'd want (in order of preference) plain text, well-formed HTML, gzipped Postscript, or PDF. Why should I have to install a bloody office suite just to *read* something?

Microsoft Office is evil because it's under Microsoft's control, but *more importantly* because WYSIWYG editors in general are evil. Take the fact that you cannot put these documents under revision control in a sane way -- just that detail costs organizations I don't know *how* much in wasted time, money and opportunities.

Re:So, how do we protect ODF?

[Whiteox]

Yeah I know. I had to tag a 700 page word document for a publisher. First, I had to turn it into a text file while trying to preserve end notes (that is not fun), then every time there was an chapter heading, chapter number, indent, paragraph, quote etc, I had to add and so on. It would have been much simpler to do the damn thing in text in the first place.

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[Anonymous Coward]

In FireFox slashdot looks bad too, namely I can't click the tags of articles on the main page anymore and weird badly rendered semi transparent unreadable things pop up when hovering above it - so it's not just IE6 having problems with /. these days

um, I know!

[toby]

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.

Re:um, I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, if it weren't for Microsoft we would still have a small computer industry with a bunch of completely incompatible machines, software that was all priced like it used to be ($700 for just a word processor), etc.

Bad business practices? Sure, agreed. Destructive? Hell no. Their defacto standardization of the industry has driven productivity to heights it would never have reached if they had not been around.

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

Re:um, I know!

[GaryPatterson]

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!

Re:um, I know!

[niiler]

In this country we've had the foxes watching the hen-houses for the last eight years. I can't recall any enforcement action (from EPA to anti-trust) over that period although rulings were made. Hopefully this will change shortly, no matter who wins in November.

That said, this is only peripherally a MS anti-trust issue in that if MS wasn't so big (and felt that it could get away with murder), perhaps it wouldn't be on their agenda. It's really more of an ISO issue, as others before have said.

Re:um, I know!

[Whiteox]

Agree. By 1985-1990 you had the following companies/computers/OS (in no particular order):
1. Apple II, III Apple Lisa, Apple Mac, Apple GS
2. PC PCjr - 808x and CP/M (Z80)
3. Microbee
4. BBC
5. Commodore
6. Atari
7. TI
8. + small gaming/programming machines - forgive me if I missed any others out.

Out of all of them, IBM's PC, CP/M and Apple Macs/Lisas became the defacto standards in soho business, with the others available for home use.
Wang/Sun/Dec/IBM and the rest of the Unix style mini-computers held the mainstream corporate roles.
By 1988 pretty much all of them could and DID communicate to each other via direct modem link or via BBS through standard txt or binaries. The OS was not a factor because everything went through common protocols.
Even as late as 1996/1997 I was still producing professional documentation on an Apple //e that was transferable to virtually any brand of computer and OS.
Now I only have 2 choices: WinX, or Linux for the PC or Apple Macs.
Why CP/M went down is beyond me. Why PCs with MSDOS and Windows 1 to 3.1 became a standard is also beyond me. It was ugly to use, hard to set up, crap graphics - (CGA anyone?). I don't think anyone would have willingly chosen that compared to the ease of use of other systems.
Because IBM, the 'Big Blue' was so identified with 'real computing' and that 'micro-computers' were still identified as toys, IBM itself was responsible for the proliferation of the 8086 and 8088 mainstream. That forced the 'PC' and Windows onto the world which was regrettably enough to wipe out all but Apple.

Re:um, I know!

[timmarhy]

Wrong. you would have probably had apple as the standard. and how open are those guys????? we'd be even worse off....

Re:um, I know!

[GaryPatterson]

As far as document formats, Apple is very open indeed. It's all either text files or packages (containing rtf, txt, xml or image files, some may be gzipped). You may want to respond about NDAs or iPods or whatever, but we're talking document formats here, and Apple have a good record in that arena.

Re:um, I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft did not exist, other things would have happened. Why would the industry have stayed at the same maturity level of 1982?

I admit it, Linux came some years later than 1982, but its intention wasn't to become a DOS/Windows clone. The latter goes for other operating systems like Minix and Hurd, too. Therefore, I'd add to your comment: If Microsoft did not exist, some of those UNIXoid systems would have developed even faster, with GUI and everything. In a world without walls and fences there was indeed no need for Windows and Gates.

At the time computers became so popular and necessary for all of us, Microsoft was definitely the big winner. But computers did not become so popular and necessary for all of us because of Microsoft, but because of technological advancements.

Re:um, I know!

[Lennie]

And now we also have other common protocols, IP and IPv6. And I don't think there is a big problem people not adopting common protocols.

Re:um, I know!

[Nivag064]

Actually the company Acorn made the BBC Microcomputer - the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) commissioned Acorn to produce a microcomputer.

Re:um, I know!

[Whiteox]

I forgot Apricot too! Thanks for reminding me.

Re:um, I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the ABC computers from Sweden. But you are forgiven, they where only used in Sweden (except for those exported inside Swedish machinery). Especially the first one, ABC 80 from 1978, played a vital role to Swedish industry. It was constructed to be a affordable home and gaming computer, but become very important for controlling machinary (last one I saw in production use was in 2005).

Even after the IBM PC was created they continued to be more popular for CAM, because:

• They where much cheaper (about 1/8 of the cost) then the IBM PC and it's clones.
• They where much more reliable (actually, I don't know of any that malfunctioned and they where running for decades, day and night).
• They where much easier to hook up with machinary.
• They responded faster.
• They had exellent documentation, true open source.

They also had a decent word processor for Swedish, years before IBM PC. But professional office workers used Commodore PET, because that computer had the only good office suit for Swedish use, that has ever been created. Word Perfect, with complementary software, eventually become good enough for abandoning the PETs, but that was not until the late 80's. Nowadays everybody use MS Office or OOO and they suck at meeting Swedish needs.

Re:um, I know!

[denis-The-menace]

Why CP/M went down is beyond me. Why PCs with MSDOS and Windows 1 to 3.1 became a standard is also beyond me.

It's the lemming effect. Once enough people bought it, enough PHBs thought it was the way to go. besides, moving pictures around is prettier that typing commands.

Re:um, I know!

[Whiteox]

I heard also that Microbee was used schools in Sweden. Is that correct?
Did schools eventually adopt Apple?

For all you MS optimists

[pembo13]

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.

Still think Apple is the new Microsoft?

[gyrogeerloose]

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.

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft?

[Zigbigadoorlue]

Thats because they aren't a monopoly yet. If they had the same power and market stranglehold as Microsoft they would have just as much to loose from allowing competing standards to exist. Right now they are one of the competing standards. If they ever ascended to Microsoft's position I'm sure they would use the same underhanded tactics. Behavior like this is not specific to Microsoft, it's more that these tactics are inherent to monopolies.

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft?

[pugdk]

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.

You are correct, Apple simply ignores current standards instead and invents their own and/or adds DRM / security-through-obscurity crap on top of known standards.

Examples: The "mailbox" file format of iMail (or what its called) and ipods. I know there are more, I can't be bothered to find them :-)

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

pages doesn't support openoffice.. let's start there.

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft?

[GaryPatterson]

The mailbox is now a simple folder, and each mail is a plain text file within it. Or at least, that's how it is in 10.5.5.

Apple have had some screwy formats in the past, but these days it's pretty much either plain text (maybe with a different extension) or gzip-ed folders/packages with rtf, xml and image files. It's been that way for a while now.

There are plenty of things to complain about with Apple, but file formats aren't on the list these days. They're far more open than ever in that sense.

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft?

[gyrogeerloose]

I know there are more, I can't be bothered to find them

Not a convincing argument. The mailbox in Mail.app is a simple OS X folder structure. iPods play standard MP3 files just fine. The DRM thing was forced on Apple by the recording industry. And, in any case, none of this is on the same level as putting company-paid shills on a quasi-governmental standards board.

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft?

[toby]

invents their own and/or adds DRM

They sometimes do that, and are justifiably chastised for it; but usually they don't.

Apple can hardly be compared to Microsoft: they don't have the same 95% monopoly; they have a business model clearly based on innovation and quality rather than forced lock-in; etc.

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

they have a business model clearly based on innovation and quality rather than forced lock-in; etc.

lulz. Ever heard of ALAC? How about the ridiculous tie-in between the iTunes store and iPods? How about the tie-in with AT&T and the iPhone? How about the tie-in between OSX and Apple hardware?

Apple defines a company built on lock-in

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft?

[Almahtar]

I agree Microsoft has pulled off worse travesties than Apple, but that's because it's had the power to do so.

I support Apple and Linux as much as I can until Microsoft doesn't have the market share necessary to abuse everyone.

At that point I'll re-evaluate who I support.

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a 100% monopoly on people with false sense of superiority!

Parasitic Behavior

[meist3r]

Somehow OOXML has managed to survive long enough sucking on the juices of the ISO host and now it's time to swallow the better performing competitor. True market forces at play, except it's no market forces and it will ruin everything. But who ever cared about that at Microsoft.

please specify

[Anonymous Coward]

where does linux fail at basic desktop functions? Right off the bat any mainstream large distro has loads more functionality out of the box when it comes to device drivers. So, what is basic desktop use? Browsers? No fail Media Playback? no fail eMail? no fail Messaging? no fail office productivity? no fail All quite functional. Those are basic desktop functions ( I don't count games as basic functions, they are covered with consoles as much as anything and it is too varied a market). If you mean fail to run some particular niche software, oh well, you might have a point there, no linux autocad for instance, but that isn't classed as basic desktop function, that is a specialty thing. Autocad is only used by well under 1/100th of 1% of people who use computers, if that really, probably a smaller number. So, where is the big fail on the desktop?

Re:please specify

[jackbird]

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.

Re:please specify

[Anonymous Coward]

autocad maybe, the other two are the Pointiest of HB wanker programs that aren't even needed. People may have gotten used to using them, but you can run a business or your own personal finances quite well without them.

Look around the headlines, modern business is falling apart, part of it is just mindset, inability to focus on core functionality and fixating on fluff and creuft and powerpoint nonsense. Meetings to schedule meetings about when to have the meetings bull crap. Spending 4 hours a day on trivial email and 'scheduling" more power point presentations and committee meetings about them. That's wanker crap that is going down the tubes daily. People having a hissy over them will be finding themseleves out on the street with no job soon, mortgaged and in overlapping debt out the ass, and wondering why their precious little office wanker software isn't saving them. hint: The real world needs real work done, not office electron shuffling and schedules of meetings. Those days are freeking *over*, even with the bailout. That's a temporary stopgap postpone the crash measure, nothing more. You can rearrange your debt all you want in quickbooks, you'll still be in debt.

This system is collapsing. Why people are wallowing in cognitive dissonance is beyond me, this isn't even rocket surgery, you don't even have to go beyond the *headlines*, let alone do any in depth analysis to see it.

Those little cutsie pie little office "apps" that are so precious to the glorified clerks and marketing warriors won't be able to do a thing to stop it, and the quicker people realise that and switch to actually working for a living the better. The planet earth isn't going to support hundreds of millions of busywork office drone typists while a billion people elsewhere do the real work, they will be "routed around" as an impediment and useless skim. You produce wealth, or you offer raw materials, exchanging schedules and synching those with your ipodphone and other assorted stupid things will soon be a hazy memory as people will be forced to deal in reality. Autocad, granted, a different story altogether, it is a wealth productivity piece of kit. Most of the rest of the MS specific stuff is just useless baggage, it is garbage. It's designed to make it "look" like you are working.

Have fun with your scheduling meetings! And the videogame addicts? HAHAHAHA! They won't be able to cope *at all*. At least the office wankers pretend to sort of deal in the real world.

Re:please specify

[fermion]

There was a time when everyone had niche application, and it ran on Unix. Then everyone, for a brief time, had a niche application, and it ran on Apple. Now everyone has a niche application that runs on Windows. This was true for small and medium business.

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.

Re:please specify

[jackbird]

re: Quickbooks being "the Pointiest of HB wanker programs that aren't even needed" - have fun invoicing for that day of digging ditches with your double-entry ledger. I've worked at small businesses that tracked all their billing and accounts on paper, and I'll stick with (an ancient, internet-independent version of) Quickbooks for my consulting business, thanks.

Re:please specify

[Anonymous Coward]

there are plenty of exchange compatible linux apps out there, as well as acceptable replacements for all three apps you mentioned. some happen to be better

Re:please specify

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Apparently Quickbooks & Quicken run on CrossOver, which was about $100 last time I looked. Almost certainly they now also run on Wine too, since CrossOver usually donate their changes back to Wine every few months.

If you haven't looked at Wine for a few years, I'd definitely recommend doing so. Since the 1.0 release it has really become useful, and seems to have crossed a line where it now runs anything with a few exceptions versus before where it ran only a few exceptional things.

Rich.

Re:please specify

[Elektroschock]

Autocad is really no everyday use for normal desktop users. Exchange is a server application. Quickbooks is not even the market leader.

So what is missing is a mature video editor and the Adobe suite.

All these problems can be solved with money.

Re:please specify

[Anonymous Coward]

These all have Linux equivalents that are arguably better. And i'm not necessarilly talking about free software.

1. Exchange - how about Zimbra? (there was another one recently claiming to be a replatement for exchange bu i can't track down the link). I've used and administered both, and Zimbra wins hands down on both fronts. (Why do you think Microsoft was trying to buy Yahoo? I guarantee if MS succeeds, Zimbra will disappear.)

2. AutoCAD - depending on which industry you're in this may be difficult, but the Intellicad based products can do all of what autocad can (and better), but may not have all the same third party apps for it. I'm thinking some of the architectural apps for autocad don't have replacements, but i could be wrong. Also, does anyone know if Microstation runs on linux?

3. Quickbooks - frankly as a user, quickbooks sucks (yes i'm migrating off it end of year), the only compelling feature it has is auto download of bank records. Here are a few the replacements for it. Small business - GnuCash, Appgen MyBooks Pro, and a few of the larger packages to be detailed next. Larger Businesses - Quasar, TinyERP, OSAS. These larger packages can actually rival things like Microsoft General Dynamics, and other enterprise accounting packages.

A note - never touch SQLLedger I've read about far too many problems in all areas for me to trust it.

Re:please specify

[FishWithAHammer]

None are drop-in replacements (which would be necessary); none are as good. Exchange has no open-source competition worth mentioning. Zimbra is closest, but it's not as good.

Re:please specify

[mr_mischief]

There is no need to run Exchange at all. There are a number of mail servers that work better and scale easier. There are a number of shared calendar and shared address book solutions, too. It's not all open-source, either, as Novell has Groupwise which is perfectly workable.

AutoCAD is a good point, although CAD software on Linux is consistently improving.

QuickBooks (which IMO frankly sucks, BTW) and PeachTree are the real deal-killers on a Windows-free office for many. GNUCash or any simple double-entry ledger program do not compete with this sufficiently. Once there's a full-fledged small to medium business accounting package for Linux then that's a significant hurdle down. Yes, I might be able to run PeachTree through Wine or CrossOver. No, I'm not willing to call Sage with a nightmare support ticket some day only to be told my installation can't be supported. That's reason enough to have Windows installed on one VM or physical machine per office. QuickBooks or PeachTree handle data and processes too important to overlook.

Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[JonSimons]

This is a good thing. Microsoft has publicly shown that they have accepted the failure of OOXML, and are now attempting to participate (for better, or for worse) in ODF.

Those that cry "Microsoft is taking over!" -- remember how touted the "open-ness" of the process for ODF has been in the past, and how the contrast of that open process versus the less-open ECMA process has been attempted to be used as one of the many criticisms of the OOXML debacle.

Now the important question is, can an open standard like ODF prevail in face of the juggernaut Microsoft?

I think so. I'm an optimist.

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[pembo13]

Does optimism include ignoring past history and evidence?

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[ianare]

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

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[the eric conspiracy]

That's called insanity.

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[JonSimons]

Does optimism include ignoring past history and evidence?

In my case, no. I'm not ignoring any history of which I'm aware.

However, I don't claim to be aware of everything.

For my edification, have there been any other open standards in the past with which Microsoft has associated itself, only to "ruin things"? (It seems as though this is the concern for ODF).

I'm genuinely interested, but just unaware of any past precedent. I'd definitely appreciate any links or references discussing similar situations in the past.

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[mesterha]

I'm far from an expert, but these should get you started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[NatasRevol]

>For my edification, have there been any other open standards in the past with which Microsoft has associated itself, only to "ruin things"? (It seems as though this is the concern for ODF).

HTML?

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[syousef]

I think so. I'm an optimist.

Don't you mean you're a MS MVP? Did they change the name? Did I miss the memo? How do I join the exclusive club so I can get kickbacks too?

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[JonSimons]

>For my edification, have there been any other open standards in the past with which Microsoft has associated itself, only to "ruin things"? (It seems as though this is the concern for ODF).

HTML?

You didn't provide any reference or links. I'm fully aware of IE's brokenness. This has not directly "ruined HTML", though. They've just not implemented W3C recommendations.

The point is, Microsoft is not going to "ruin ODF", as far as the technical specification itself goes. Could Microsoft reduce the effectiveness of ODF by not implementing it? Sure, but they've not done anything to actually harm the technical specification.

ODF is safe, for the time being.

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[JonSimons]

I read those pages, and I've already been aware of Microsoft not playing nice with other standards. But, to my knowledge they have not infiltrated and actually harmed the technical specification of anything, ever.

Now, if a heavy-weight player like Microsoft chooses not to implement ODF, could that negatively effect ODF's adoption? Sure. But in that case Microsoft would not have ruined the ODF standard itself. The technical specification would still be as (good/bad/great/whatever as) it is today.

I'm curious if Microsoft has been involved in defining the specification of an open standard, and if that involvement has led to the specification's downfall. To my knowledge this has never happened. Past events (the Java embarassment, heck, OOXML itself) have shown that Microsoft is more likely to try to fork off their own-grown version of something that isn't quite the same. Note that Microsoft paid for trying to fuck with Sun's Java. I don't believe they'll try to directly pull the same stunt with ODF ("implement" it incorrectly but try to advertise it otherwise).

Those quick to decry Microsoft's involvement with ODF (and I'm not saying you are one of these people) have, thus far, failed to provide critical analysis of the situation, and have failed to recognize it as a new and unique situation. I believe this event isn't 100% like what we've seen from Microsoft in the past. I still stand behind my insane optimistic hope that the open standards process behind ODF will prevail, and prevent the Microsoft Empire from being able to destroy it.

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[Lennie]

SMB, Kerberos, LDAP

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure?

[NatasRevol]

Yeah, they didn't implement the 'standard' and made their own standard.

Which people are still following. Try going to a phone system, or corporate intranet without IE. Try getting support for 'non-standard' browsers. It just ain't happening.

Now replace HTML with ODF.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Windows 7 will not be a standard desktop OS like V

[Locutus]

why would Microsoft put another desktop OS out there and totally mess up the migration off of XP and on top of that, give them another black eye like Windows ME. Granted, ME was a subset market since Win98 held it's own and Windows 2000 carried the main business user sector so the WinME flop was a consumer issue at best.

From what I see, Windows 7 is going to be the rent-a-Windows kit more to the likes of gOS where it's tied to online services or rental apps. You know, Ozzy's plan now that Gates is out of the way.

But I did get a laugh when it was said that Maine will "hope for the best" with regards to what comes out of Microsoft next. I do think they'll be unpleasantly surprised at what Windows 7 is and probably give GNU/Linux a good look-see as that time approaches. Just my guess. ;-)

LoB

According to Gandhi, we're getting close!

[Anonymous Coward]

These days, at least we *know* we're most of the way through Ghandi's Progression:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

They're starting to fight pretty hard (and dirty)...

Re:According to Gandhi, we're getting close!

[Lennie]

I only think the list is a bit longer in this case something like: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they try to embrace you, then they try to extend you, then you win, profit (ok last one for the slashdot-crowd)

Hypocritical

[d_jedi]

Didn't PJ and others who opposed OOXML suggest that MS should get involved with ODF and adopt it as the standard document format for MS Office?

Isn't MS doing exactly as suggested in getting involved with ODF to make the format suitable for use with MS Office?

Re:Hypocritical

[ElBeano]

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

Re:Hypocritical

[AlXtreme]

Isn't MS doing exactly as suggested in getting involved with ODF to make the format suitable for use with MS Office?

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.

Re:Hypocritical

[EveLibertine]

Isn't MS doing exactly as suggested in getting involved with ODF to make the format suitable for use with MS Office?

No

Re:Hypocritical

[beh]

Not quite - PJ and others suggested that MS should get behind ODFs acceptance as an ISO standard.

Right now we have MS basically screwed official ISO standardisation by providing a document format they can't do properly themselves - and now they're trying to control the other format, which then they could change and disrupt however they wanted without ISO having any say in it -- after all, ODF isn't ISO...

Re:Hypocritical

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck, the morons have gotten access to mod points again.

Ah, that explains it.

[GNUChop]

Microsoft doesn't like FOSS, but even more they hate someone coming up with a file format that is better than theirs.

Now you know why they hate everyone.

I don't see that the demise of ISO would really be the demise of ODF. The issue is important enough that credibility will shift to any standards body that does a good job of maintaining ODF and ISO will sink like a stone.

This link still works

[Anonymous Coward]

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/1080c.htm

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34
Document Description and Processing Languages
Secretariat: Japan (JISC)

DOC. TYPE Final Text Submitted for IS Publication
TITLE Final Text for ISO/IEC 29500-1, Information technology -- Document description and processing languages -- Office Open XML File Formats -- Part 1: Fundamentals and Markup Language Reference
SOURCE Mr. Rex JAESCHKE - Project editor
PROJECT JTC 1.34.29500.01
STATUS This text has been submitted to ITTF for publication. It is circulated to the SC 34 members for information.
ACTION ID FYI
DUE DATE
DISTRIBUTION P, O and L Members of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 ; ISO/IEC JTC 1 Secretariat; ISO/IEC ITTF
ACCESS LEVEL Def
ISSUE NO. 42
FILE
NAME
SIZE (KB)
PAGES

1080c.htm 1080.pdf OfficeOpenXML-WordprocessingMLArtBorders.zip OfficeOpenXML-SpreadsheetMLStyles.zip OfficeOpenXML-DrawingMLGeometries.zip OfficeOpenXML-RELAXNG-Strict.zip OfficeOpenXML-XMLSchema-Strict.zip
3 40847 14088 82 51 94 164
1 5570

Secretariat ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 - IPSJ/ITSCJ (Information Processing Society of Japan/Information Technology Standards Commission of Japan)* Room 308-3, Kikai-Shinko-Kaikan Bldg., 3-5-8, Shiba-Koen, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0011 Japan *Standard Organization Accredited by JISC
Telephone: +81-3-3431-2808; Facsimile: +81-3-3431-6493; E-mail: kimura@itscj.ipsj.or.jp

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/1080.pdf

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/OfficeOpenXML-WordprocessingMLArtBorders.zip

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/OfficeOpenXML-SpreadsheetMLStyles.zip

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/OfficeOpenXML-DrawingMLGeometries.zip

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/OfficeOpenXML-RELAXNG-Strict.zip

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/OfficeOpenXML-XMLSchema-Strict.zip

Re:This link still works

[Elektroschock]

And Rex Jaeschke works for Microsoft, right?

ODF2, ODF 2009, ODF-2010, etc.

[wonkavader]

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.

Re:ODF2, ODF 2009, ODF-2010, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I say we send a container made of buckyballs back to 1980 via a wormhole. In this container will be a copy of MS-DOS and the container itself will be encoded with the Linux kernel source. That should fix everything.

Re:ODF2, ODF 2009, ODF-2010, etc.

[DavidD_CA]

Your statement might hold merit if that were the case, but current history has shown the opposite.

My contacts have had no problems opening the Office 2007 files I send them, despite being on older versions of Office. Microsoft has made free upgrades available to those users so that they can open my documents, edit them, and send them back to me without me even knowing they were on an old version.

And I still have the ability to Save As if needed.

Re:ODF2, ODF 2009, ODF-2010, etc.

[Almahtar]

Yep. My clients have the same ability with their Office 2003 licenses. And it only took them paying me a ton per hour to figure out how, download the upgrade, and train their staff how to use it (for instance, they didn't get the save as... thing without help).

This is what standards are for. They should have been able to do this for free. I'd rather they didn't have to pay me: it isn't fair.

Re:ODF2, ODF 2009, ODF-2010, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably because you aren't using any new Office 2007 features that weren't available in older versions. Then again, Office 97 already had more features than most anyone will need in an office software suite. In fact, the best justification for a new round of the upgrade mill for Microsoft right now is the move to OOXML and/or ODF...

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[aliquis]

I get some sort of popupthingy when scrolling over them in Opera to, can't really figure out what it should be. I wouldn't say the whole page looks bad though, regarding looking bad in IE6 I'd consider that more of a feature than a bug anyway. The less compliance with IE6 the better.

yeah, so...

[edxwelch]

; A related submission from David Gerard points out that BoycottNovell has leaked the ISO OOXML documents,
; which ISO has kept behind passwords.

So, what was the terrible secret that ISO were hiding??

Re:yeah, so...

[David Gerard]

Just what a ludicrous shower of shit the OOXML spec is. Check the comments on the boycottnovell post. Black humour aplenty.

wrong story - wierdness

[Locutus]

doh, ff3 and the new-ish /. layout gives me problems getting to the story 'read more' link and somehow it ended up here. Sorry.

Microsoft still sucks for this next phase of their _destroy ODF_ policy and/or plan. Very much so indeed.

LoB

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[Anonymous Coward]

Work computers, etc. I don't like to use IE6, but some times I have to.

hi twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us about the shitstorm you organized yesterday.

Screw all this,

[Maguscrowley]

I'll use plain text where accepted and latex+acrobatpdf when I need formatting.

Let's see microsoft try fighting Knuth's tex and see how they fair. A glance by his most high will make their bits WITHER to 0's and Z's!!!

Why not just ignore MS

[future assassin]

and keep on developing 0DF and promote/advertiste OO and its derivitives more and more while improving MS vs ODF compatability. Just like anything you need to build a brand name that people will recognize and then Office will eventually drop in numbers. Might not be anytime soon but hey thats what it takes.

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[sir fer]

More like a large steaming pile of excrement.

Sounds Familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds familiar. Sounds like the (literally) bloody Obama campaign.

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[Hurricane78]

If I can quit friendships over them using Vista, you can quit your job over being forced to "wear a bikini in a hail of bullets". Especially if you're male. ;)

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[xant]

NETCRAFT: We're confirming that we have answered the phone.

Awesome. :-)

Let ISO die - They are on their way

[wilby]

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.

Re:Let ISO die - They are on their way

[phantomfive]

No, actually this is the first time the community of users has ever been so involved in any ISO standard. Until now, it has almost always been companies who have been the ones who have used the ISO, it has been companies who have pushed different standards (for various reasons) and it has been companies who have implemented the standards. I mean, realistically, how many users have ever had to worry about manufacturing an outlet (for example) to the precise size required by the standard? It's mostly something only various companies (and maybe a few geeks) can do anything about.

So now, with Open Office, we suddenly have a product where we DO actually have a say in what gets implemented, and we started paying attention to the workings of the standards organization, we realize that it is corrupt. It serves the purpose of corporations, since they are the ones who have always cared about it (IEEE is the same way, probably all standards organizations are that way).

And quite honestly, though Microsoft is certainly trying to use the ISO for its own selfish reasons, I think it's fair to say the community is also using it for their own selfish reasons (along with IBM), to try to hurt Microsoft. If it weren't for that, I am quite sure many people wouldn't care as much (since shenanigans like this have been going on for quite some time).

Re:Let ISO die - They are on their way

[catman]

And quite honestly, though Microsoft is certainly trying to use the ISO for its own selfish reasons, I think it's fair to say the community is also using it for their own selfish reasons (along with IBM), to try to hurt Microsoft.

You are not totally wrong, I, for one, would gleefully watch Microsoft collapse. However, the only entity that could hurt them now is Microsoft itself, bu refusing to support ODF in their products. There are signs and portents that someone at Microsoft just realized that ...

Re:Let ISO die - They are on their way

[Lennie]

While it is probably good for the market is we get rid of microsoft, the idea is create freedom for the users by having a good standard that not just one company controls, but is controlled by most, if not all.

also,

[toby]

It's also an anti-trust issue in that these machinations should play very badly before an anti-trust investigator, as should have the OOXML debacle itself. As somebody already on the wrong end of rulings in the US and Europe, Microsoft is acting like a convicted gangster getting drunk and shooting up the bar.

The only way they can stay out of jail is having the best lawyers money can buy and substantial purchased political influence (that may change quickly with a more accountable government in the USA). And nobody likes that kind of dangerous, unstable bully. Sooner or later, their past catches up.

Re: Missed?

[TaoPhoenix]

Lucy. Charles Schultz FTW!

"Awww. Be nice and quit bashing Microsoft"
(... Microsoft does yet another unbelieveable act)

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[just_another_sean]

Probably because IE6 is irrelevant.

More like a large steaming pile of excrement.

Steaming piles of excrement are totally relevant when discussing Microsoft with First Post trolls.

Microsoft's strategy is really stupid...

[tjstork]

The bread and butter of the Windows desktop is the SDK and Microsoft is letting it languish at a time when Linux is working to make inroads. Windows SDK has a lot of faults but it has a model for device independence, and has a lot of good functions with which one could theoretically build a good native code framework around in C++...

but... Microsoft's basically giving C++ the back door treatment at the same time C++ has really become the technology it was supposed to be. There's been a lot of C++ stuff that historically was hard to get acceptance on largely because either the compiler or the STL was buggy and within the last few years, both have just clicked into place. I've long preached that C# and "business languages" are better but as I get more and more into STL, I'm just shocked at how elegant this framework can be. STL isn't perfect but C++0x is going to fix some things so that it can be much, much better.

But sadly (or fortunately for Linux), Microsoft is becoming the GM of software, where internal consistency is more valued than creating any strength of any product. We find that everything is being built to leverage or create an artificial economy around Windows now and the proposition isn't there, just as artificial distinctions between Chevy and Pontiac don't make sense any more either. In fact, its so bad, that, Windows Vista is basically torched because the SDK doesn't have that much more to offer. You would want to upgrade the OS often in Windows to get a bunch more USER controls and GDI features, but instead, the path forward is to abandon everything that made Windows so predominant, and instead drive everyone towards .NET.... why force this migration? why throw away all of that Windows SDK skillsets?

It's like, just from a basic marketing perspective, there's Windows saying that we're throwing away everything you did, and along comes Linux, screaming, "for the love of God we have not one but several C++ frameworks for programming it".

Re:Microsoft's strategy is really stupid...

[RichiH]

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)

Re:Microsoft's strategy is really stupid...

[Almahtar]

I agree. When I program an app in Qt, it runs beautifully on Windows even if I originally wrote it in Linux. All I have to do is recompile it.

All the compatibility issues are taken care of for me. Feels almost like someone wants my app to be compatible. Call me crazy.

Re:Microsoft's strategy is really stupid...

[Lennie]

I like how you were able to get a car analogy in there. :-)

Re:Microsoft's strategy is really stupid...

[tjstork]

I like how you were able to get a car analogy in there. :-)

Next time, I'll not only include cars, but I'll also see how many times I can say "Main Street" and "Joe Six Pack"

No tilted participation

[Anonymous Coward]

There should have been a rule put in place for this standard, that no corporation/group could have more than 5 or 10 percent participation. If they are the only interested party, they can have 100%. Two parties automatically go to 50% (each). 3 parties, 33%. 4:25%, 5:20%, 6:16 2/3%, 7: 14.28%, 8: 12.5%, 9: 11.1%, 10: 10%. No matter how many people you have in a company, your company can only have a certain percentage, split among parties equally. In dong this, microsoft has shown itself once again to be a pariah. Where is Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly? They came up with a format that is untennable, and on realizing that they couldn't push it and have it accepted anywhere, they are trying to destroy the one that can bring real competition to the market. This clearly shows them to be a predatory, abusive monopoly. They should have been broken into 50 small pieces 10 years ago. Its long past due.

we can afford to be optimistic

[toby]

Since it's entirely in our hands what prevails. Vote with your wallet. Never buy another Microsoft license. Campaign at your workplace for open tools. Don't stop until your data is safe again.

you got that around the wrong way

[toby]

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.)

Re:you got that around the wrong way

[catman]

Exactly. We saw from documents that came up in lawsuits that Microsoft does not have competitors - anyone competing is regarded as an enemy. Enemies must be destroyed. "A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software."

Actually

[toby]

RTF markup always struck me as TeX-inspired.

But your idea is right on: We must make choices that don't involve Microsoft. This is much easier now than people think, in 2008, when we have many better, mature alternatives.

PLEASE Don't hug me it hurts ;0

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear microsoft, While, I do appreciate the hug. I find that you hug to hard and only when it suits you. Please don't cheat on ooxml any more.. I thought that was your better standard because you couldn't work with my makers. I do not want to be second best because ooxml is to long for you (with over 6000 page of documentation, its really really big !) so you had to give ooxml up. I hope you don't think you can change me to be more like ooxml. I will never be ooxml. Never ever ever. ooxml is just to bulky to backwards and too deceptive. Love, odf.

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[mrchaotica]

And the winner of the award for "Most Roundabout Way of Repeating a Tired Slashdot Meme" is ...

...not you. Netcraft confirms it!

..sure..

[RichiH]

I find it fascinating how little knowledge need to have a lot of opinion. Did you ever stop & think about what ISO did? Without ISO and its national counterparts, we would either still trade firewood or have a different organization which goes by a different name, but does the same.

Yes, the OOXML mess was just that: a mess. One wants to scream and shout and shake sense into people.

But to imply that ISO outlived itself over this, believe it or not, relatively small issue.. I don't think so.

ODF defects:

[Luke_22]

This is the list of defects that odf still has, according to the SC4
Considering ooxml has much more and much serious problems, I'm starting to think this will end just like the dis29500(ooxml) standardization process.
*sigh*

Re:This is just the first step, why don't we fight

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, nothing like popping an asshole in the face at a party :)

Re:This is just the first step, why don't we fight

[[cx]]

Nothing like making threats over the internet as an "anonymous coward".

MSOOXML is not XML

[Anonymous Coward]

XML is a markup and tree oriented markup.

MSOOXML binds markup to the element and therefore is not a tree based markup.

One.

"1900 is a leap year" No it isn't, no matter how much MSOOXML says it is.

Two.

License: MSOOXML you are only covered for some of this stuff and only if you implement it ALL. So what about images for braille readers? Still have to decode and handle images to no frikken use.

Three.

Oh, ODF has a half dozen failures in the ISO spec. MSOOXML still has several hundred that haven't even been read.

+N00.

Want more?

"It's been 22 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[thetoadwarrior]

Because only a complete turd uses IE6 so it' just completing the theme.

No, Microsoft is not involved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Groklaw is a lier.

The letter to JTC1 was written by UK, Denmark,
India, and US. Remember that India appealed
against OOXML. South Africa, which also appealed,
did attend the SC34 meeting, and agreed on the
letter. Microsoft is not involved.

Back to the EU commission then

[cheros]

Does anyone have the email address?

This is anti-competitive behaviour which ties in with earlier complaints. As the EU is rather concerned about a level playing field they will look at this in the context of earlier events - I have no doubt they will start asking questions.

MS is really playing with fire here.

Not evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason MS doesn't like open standards is not because they're crazy or evil....

A file format which stays the same...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.

They want to force dependence on their own formats by undermining independent efforts to create an open standard. Their sole motive for this destructive behavior is increasing their own profits.

How is that not evil?

Mods: How is parent post off-topic?

[zooblethorpe]

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,

Re:Mods: How is parent post off-topic?

[Grishnakh]

It's unfortunate, but it's what frequently happens on Slashdot when you voice an extremely unpopular opinion. Remember, most Slashdotters are American (like me), and most of them want the bail-out, as evidenced by their support of Congresscritters who voted for it, which is most of them, in both the Democrat and Republican parties. Some vocal people (including myself) wrote their Congresscritters vehemently opposing the Bush/Paulsen bail-out, but in the end they passed it anyway. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet money that the same Congresscritters (both D and R) who passed this will be mostly re-elected next month. What's more, both Obama and McCain supported this bail-out of Wall Street. If the People really didn't want this bail-out, they would elect someone other than these two. But that won't happen, so I have to assume that the People really do want to bail out Wall Street.

MOD PARENT UP

[zooblethorpe]

The GP here makes the claim:

My contacts have had no problems opening the Office 2007 files I send them, despite being on older versions of Office.

When MSO 2007 first came out, the relatively clueless IT wannabe at my wife's school had it installed on all computers, mid-school-year, without letting anyone know. Now, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth among the staff about the dumb UI changes aside, the default file format was MSO 2007 -- including new, MSO-2007-only features. Files my wife sent to herself at home, where we only have MSO 2003, sometimes could not be opened. It wasn't until some time later, after folks figured out about the so-called "Compatibility Mode" for saving files, that this particular problem was worked around.

Cheers,

Are there ANY ms fanbois left here, i wonder

[unity100]

the ones with brains that is.

im really, really wondering what they will be able to say at the wake of such blatant filth playing by microsoft.

really, im honestly asking, is there anyone who thinks there is ANY part to microsoft left that can be referred to with respect now ?

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no

[aliquis]

lol, sounds like my, "Oh fuck it let's remove all friends using MSN from my adium contact list"-attacks.

I guess that's why I feel so alone :(

PS

[RichiH]

PS: Open is good, but let's be realistic about the requirements of the average software shop.