Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Bids To Take Over Open Document Format

what about sends in a Groklaw alert warning that, by PJ's reading, Microsoft may be trying to take over ODF via a stacked SC 34 committee. The article lists the attendees at an SC 34 meeting in July and gives their affiliations, which the official meeting materials do not. (The attendees of the October 1 meeting, which generated a takeover proposal to OASIS, are not known in full.) "Why do I say Microsoft, when this is SC 34? Look at this ... list of participants in the July meeting in Japan of the SC 34 committee. The committee membership is so tilted by Microsoft employees and such, if it were a boat, it would capsize ... Of the 19 attendees, 8 are outright Microsoft employees or consultants, and 2 of them are Ecma TC45 members. So 10 out of 19 are directly controlled by Microsoft/Ecma ... [I]f the takeover were to succeed, SC 34 would get to maintain ODF as well as Microsoft's competing parody 'standard,' OOXML. How totally smooth and shark-like. Under the guise of 'synchronized maintenance,' without which they claim SC 34 can't fulfill its responsibilities, they get control of everything." A related submission from David Gerard points out that BoycottNovell has leaked the ISO OOXML documents, which ISO has kept behind passwords.

37 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Super slimy. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

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

      Maybe when Linux actually works well for basic desktop use (it currently doesn't, though I like it on my servers), this would be a reasonable stance to have. As it is? Fuck you. When you don't offer an alternative that, quite simply, does not suck, you don't get to bitch and moan.

      For my use (programming, surfing, writing documents, creating websites...) Linux works significantly better in desktop use than Windows XP ever did and orders of magnitude better than the Vista I have in my laptop for the occasional use.

      Not only do I get the normal benefits (no need for antivirus program, etc.) but I can't stand the functionality Windows is missing. For example, no ability to choose any window to be always on top? What's up with that?

      For the last few years, Linux has been very suitable for desktop use. The main problem are drivers (Getting sounds, 3d acceleration, etc. to work can sometimes be a pain for a regular user). However, if buying two thousand computers for organizational use, knowing the OS you'll be using beforehand and making sure that the hardware is supported and installing all to be exactly identical... There isn't such a problem.

    2. Re:Super slimy. by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Funny
      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.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  2. Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Funny

    Probably because IE6 is irrelevant.

  3. Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 5, Funny

    maybe you clicked goatse?

  4. Hold 'em, fold 'em. by Ostracus · · Score: 3, Funny

    "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?

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em. by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em. by Tweenk · · Score: 3, Informative

      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".

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
  5. Exmbrace, extend, extinguish by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish by frisket · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "It's the file format, stupid :-)"

      Microsoft doesn't like FOSS, but even more they hate someone coming up with a file format that is better than theirs. Plenty of FOSS implements Microsoft file formats, but to have a competing format become more widespread than their own is what terrifies Microsoft.

      All your data are belong to us...

    2. Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish by GaryPatterson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "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.

  6. Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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 ...

  7. Paranoid... by retech · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  8. Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place. by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  10. OSS Standards by hachete · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
  11. Department of Justice by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  12. Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks... by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whence Firefox and ODF then? And why the big struggle on Microsoft's part to take over ODF? Also, I thought Eternal September's significance faded in inverse proportion to the length of time one has been on the net. ;-)

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

    The problem is that no matter where we go, MS will come and try polluting that, too. Now that we have a good standard that governments want to use, MS wants a piece of the pie. Are we supposed to just abandon ODF? If FOSS leaves ODF behind, then MS would be the only entity that supports the mandated format (which is exactly what they want).

    They can have a piece of the pie ... they just shouldn't get to be the baker.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  14. Google by oGMo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

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

    How about ENFORCING anti-trust law!

    (bada-bing)

    The DoJ couldn't get a proper remedy. I have faith that the EU will.

    Failing that, the public will eventually recognise Microsoft for the destructive, self interested criminals they are, and will shut them down.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:um, I know! by GaryPatterson · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2. Re:um, I know! by Whiteox · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  16. For all you MS optimists by pembo13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, Microsoft is still out to make a buck by stabbing anything in its way. That's how it started, that's how it grew, and that has been its very successful strategy. Why anyone would think that they would change what has worked very well for them is beyond me.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  17. Still think Apple is the new Microsoft? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure Apple has done some things that ware bone-headed and just plain wrong but nothing they've done remotely compares to what Balmer et al is trying to pull here.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
    1. Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  18. Acceptance of OOXML Failure? by JonSimons · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

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

      Does optimism include ignoring past history and evidence?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    2. Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure? by ianare · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    It's not a single niche app that's missing, it's that almost everyone has a niche app they need that is missing or not quite there. Exchange, AutoCAD, and Quickbooks as a set cover a whole lot of users, for example.

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

    Duh. The reason they want to control the standard is so they can force it to change, again and again.

    The reason MS doesn't like open standards is not because they're crazy or evil (which actually they might be, but that's not the reason, here) but because file formats are the key to upgrades.

    When you can change a file format so that older versions are incompatible, you can create a situation where 100 million people with word 2009 start getting new files from 1 million people with word 2010. The 100 million people cannot read them. They complain, they gripe, then THEY UPGRADE.

    A file format which stays the same breaks this model, and that would reduce MS revenue by a colossal amount. They can't allow that. So they need to control ODF so that they can keep changing it.

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

    Yes, and IBM decided to leave SC34 in protest, so no wonder just microsoft was represented. Anyway SC34 is stacked.

    As of Microsoft it would be wise to support ODF and ignore all the FUD.

    Not controlled by a company? Exactly, and that is going to happen. No single company will control ODF.

  23. Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place. by bersl2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  24. Microsoft's strategy is really stupid... by tjstork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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".

    --
    This is my sig.
  25. ODF defects: by Luke_22 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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*

    --
    "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain