The XMLized version they submitted was, essentially, the binary format in XML. Ask anyone who has worked in understanding the binary format, and they'll tell you that OOXML has helped them tremendously to understand the binary format. Essentially, OOXML documents all the elements used in the binary format.
Now, it's true that the binary format contains other format information, such as the OLE document container formats, but this ifnormation is pretty well known and is really only the container (much like mkv, Theoria, etc.. are containers for the actual video format.)
As such, while the actual XML container format is new, the content is still the de-facto format, which is also documented in OOXML. Complaining that OOXML is an entirely new format is just being a douche, because for all practical intents and purposes, it's not.
Also, saying Microsoft has no intention of support ISO OOXML is ridiculous. Sure, it would have been nice of Office 2010 supported it, but by the time the ISO approved OOXML, Office 2010's requirements and specifications were already frozen for development. Yes, certainly MS could have unfrozen them and committed time to making it compliant, but they didn't. Just like they could have invested time and money in making VC++ 6 standard compliant in the same situation. Microsoft doesn't move that fast.
They've promised full OOXML support in the next version of Office, we'll see what happens. However, it should be noted that Microsoft has been moving towards standards compliance all across it's products. IE9 is looking pretty impressive in that regard, considering how far they had to come in such a short time period. VC++ has added more and more standards conformance in each release.
I have a question though. What will you whine about should MS actually do what they've promised? Oh, I know.. "What are they up to? It's a trap!"
Revolution only occurs when people have nothing left to lose. Most people in the UK and the US still have plenty to lose, even though they may not be happy with their current situation.
Active Directory conforms to the Kerberos standard 100%. But, it's more than just kerberos. Most people, and I assume that includes you, have heard 20 different versions of the situation, and have a wrong understanding of what happened.
Kerberos has a field intended for vendor specific data. Microsoft uses that field for AD, in conformance with the Kerberos specification. What people were upset about was that Microsoft did not (initially) publish the format of that field, which some people thought went against the idea of kerberos. BTW, Kerberos is not a standard per se.. it's been approved by no standards body. It is an RFC though.
ISO OOXML was changed by the ISO during the standardization process, which is why Office doesn't conform to it. They claim they're working on making it compatible.
You're being a bit naive there. OOXML, as originally submitted for fast tracking, was just the XMLized version of the binary formats. As such, it was a de-facto standard in another skin. It was the ISO process itself that changed that submitted standard so that Office was no longer compatible with it.
So, it's a bit of a farce to say that MS did not fast-track a de-facto standard. They did, but the standard body itself altered it.
Anonymous claims they're not an organization. They're just a bunch of random people that get together to do something. Each time they get together, they're a different group of people. Anyone and Everyone is Anonymous because all you need is two or more people to get together and say you're doing something as Anonymous.
Anonymous may also be a community, and since there is no membership requirement, anyone that shows up is, by default, part of the community. Part of the community can claim that other part isn't really part of their part, but then the other part can say the same about the other part.
Either Anonymous *IS* an organized group, with a command and control structure, and someone pulling the strings. Or it's not. You can't have it both ways.
If you're running a 24x7 server that can't afford to be down, then you also can't afford to take the time to troubleshoot problems if a reboot will make it start working again.
The author makes a pretty glaring fault in his logic.
1) Unix admins don't need to reboot to make sure the system still boots, forgetting to configure things correctly is a rookie move which good admins won't need to do.
2) Rebooting is bad because some junior admin might have screwed up your/boot or/etc directory
You're being lied to. For some reason, CNN chooses to portray this issue as a salary and pension issue, when in reality the only issue.. and the one that has everyone upset, is that the governor is trying to take away collective bargaining. Remove the collective bargaining ban from the bill, and all this mess goes away.
While I don't generally have a problem with parents monitoring their children to a point, I think you very much misunderstand the role of parenting.
Your job is, initially, to protect them when they can't protect themselves. As an infint, toddler, maybe even up to 6th or 7th grade. But as time goes on, it's also your job to guide them, and help them to be adults. You can't shelter them, and control their every action until they turn 18 and then turn them loose on the world with absolutely no skills in how to do that for themselves.
You have to slowly give them responsibility, and make them accountable for their actions. This means slowly giving them freedom to make their own choices, or they will be unable to make choices for themselves when they are an adult.
Again, I see no evidence to suggest that Windows or.NET was where the problem was. You're making generalizations based on speculation.
Again, I suspect the real issue here is one of market specialization. MilleniumIT made a better product because they specialize in that product. Accenture merely build a product based on the specifications of their client (which may or may not have been what the client actually needed).
This is one reason I typically recommend against hiring consulting firms to build applications for my clients. Consulting firms are only interested in generating more billable hours, while product based companies are interested in making more sales. Thus, the latter is has more self-interest in creating a better product.
That may be, but there is no evidence to suggest it was the basic stack that was causing the problem.
It may simply be that the TradeElect software itself was not written to withstand the loads that were placed upon it.
Without a thorough analysis, there is no way for us to know. Therefore, claiming it's the stack is just as valid or invalid as claiming it's the custom software.
In any event, this is not an either/or situation. Microsoft did not write the TradeElect software, a third party did... Accenture. Although Microsoft was definitely involved, it was ultimately Accenture's baby.
I thnk what this boils down to is that MilleniumIT is a Trading system company. That's what they do. Accenture is a consulting company, that's what THEY do.
By that, I mean that MilleniumIT is focused on building the worlds best trading system, and everything they do revolves around that. Accenture is just trying to write software for their specific clients needs, and thus have their hands in many pies.
You do realize that it's not.NET, MSSQL and Windows 2003 alone that made up the trading system, right? It was also a boat load of custom developed software.
There is no evidence to suggest the problems that TradeElect had were directly the problem with the technology it was based on, but more likely due to problems in the custom software developed for it. I'd venture a guess that Microsoft's own web sites, like Hotmail, MSN, etc.. generate more load and have more complexity than TradeElect, and they handle things just fine.
Likewise, the problem today was unlkely to be a problem with Linux, C++, or any other frameworks or databases they're using. And to claim it was, will be ridiculous.
And what if the tarball included wasn't actually the real source code? Now Microsoft would have to verify that the application shipped was actually of the compiled source code provided. Plus, they would also have to grant any patent rights the software might use, if Microsoft owned a patent covering that work.
No. Take, for instance, the case of Mepis. The author of Mepis lost a lawsuit in this regard, and was forced to provide the source code himself, not simply point upstream.
They *ARE* complying with the GPL. That's the point. The GPL explicitly says, that if you cannot meet the requirements the GPL requires, then you are not allowed to distribute it. They are not able to meet the requirements the GPL imposes, therefore they aren't distributing it.
Actually, if you bothered to actually read the terms of service, you would realize that yes. Microsoft *IS* doing this in good faith. Licenses like the GPL make certain legal demands upon those that distribute the code. Microsoft does not wish to take on those responsibilities (namely that they have to be responsible for providing source code). There is also a more important legal risk. If any of those open source programs use technology covered by one of the patents Microsoft owns, then if they distributed the app they would be implicitly granting a royalty free, redistributabel patent license.
Because Microsoft doesn't want to do those things, they are doing what is required of them by the license, and electing to not distribute the code.
So are you really going to be bitter that microsoft is choosing to HONOR the terms of the licensing? Seriously?
“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.
Which is basically any GPL license, and several others, not every open source license. The BSD license has no requirements to do anything with it, nor does the X11 license. It's only licenses that require you to do things as part of the right to redistribute. Microsoft doesn't want to accept those requirements, therefore by law, they are not allowed to distribute such programs.
Great rant, but he is either being disingenuous, or missing the point.
Microsoft says that the W3C tests should be used to validate compliance, because the W3C are the ones that create the specs. If Mozilla doesn't like that, then they should submit more validation tests to the W3C, just like Microsoft has. Their failure to do so indicates they have no interst in a true standards conformance measurement.
Instead, they choose to use other tests that merely test for features, not whether the features are actually implemented correctly to the standard. Don't like that, then submit tests to the W3C for features that IE fails in.
Microsoft is doing the right thing here, they're trying to promote a single, unified conformance test and have put their money where their mouth is by donating thousands of tests to the W3C. Why hasn't Google? Or Apple? Or Mozilla?
Mormons believe in the same divinity as other christians. It's more in their rituals, and the belief that Jesus visited North America after his resurection where they differ. Now you might argue that they worship Joseph Smith as well, but no more so than Catholics worship the various saints.
Christians are also polytheistic, but they've rationalized that away by making Jesus and God the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The XMLized version they submitted was, essentially, the binary format in XML. Ask anyone who has worked in understanding the binary format, and they'll tell you that OOXML has helped them tremendously to understand the binary format. Essentially, OOXML documents all the elements used in the binary format.
Now, it's true that the binary format contains other format information, such as the OLE document container formats, but this ifnormation is pretty well known and is really only the container (much like mkv, Theoria, etc.. are containers for the actual video format.)
As such, while the actual XML container format is new, the content is still the de-facto format, which is also documented in OOXML. Complaining that OOXML is an entirely new format is just being a douche, because for all practical intents and purposes, it's not.
Also, saying Microsoft has no intention of support ISO OOXML is ridiculous. Sure, it would have been nice of Office 2010 supported it, but by the time the ISO approved OOXML, Office 2010's requirements and specifications were already frozen for development. Yes, certainly MS could have unfrozen them and committed time to making it compliant, but they didn't. Just like they could have invested time and money in making VC++ 6 standard compliant in the same situation. Microsoft doesn't move that fast.
They've promised full OOXML support in the next version of Office, we'll see what happens. However, it should be noted that Microsoft has been moving towards standards compliance all across it's products. IE9 is looking pretty impressive in that regard, considering how far they had to come in such a short time period. VC++ has added more and more standards conformance in each release.
I have a question though. What will you whine about should MS actually do what they've promised? Oh, I know.. "What are they up to? It's a trap!"
Well, anything you type into the google bar gets sent to google, how do you think they implement the search feature?
I think your confused. Samba is an implementation of SMB, not Kerberos.
Revolution only occurs when people have nothing left to lose. Most people in the UK and the US still have plenty to lose, even though they may not be happy with their current situation.
BTW, OOXML conforms to ISO OOXML transitional standard, but not the strict standard.
Active Directory conforms to the Kerberos standard 100%. But, it's more than just kerberos. Most people, and I assume that includes you, have heard 20 different versions of the situation, and have a wrong understanding of what happened.
Kerberos has a field intended for vendor specific data. Microsoft uses that field for AD, in conformance with the Kerberos specification. What people were upset about was that Microsoft did not (initially) publish the format of that field, which some people thought went against the idea of kerberos. BTW, Kerberos is not a standard per se.. it's been approved by no standards body. It is an RFC though.
ISO OOXML was changed by the ISO during the standardization process, which is why Office doesn't conform to it. They claim they're working on making it compatible.
You're being a bit naive there. OOXML, as originally submitted for fast tracking, was just the XMLized version of the binary formats. As such, it was a de-facto standard in another skin. It was the ISO process itself that changed that submitted standard so that Office was no longer compatible with it.
So, it's a bit of a farce to say that MS did not fast-track a de-facto standard. They did, but the standard body itself altered it.
Apparently, Every microsoft UI is the best it can possibly be, because any change is always complained about.
Seriously, do you really think the Windows or Office UI are so good that they can't be made better? Really?
Anonymous claims they're not an organization. They're just a bunch of random people that get together to do something. Each time they get together, they're a different group of people. Anyone and Everyone is Anonymous because all you need is two or more people to get together and say you're doing something as Anonymous.
Anonymous may also be a community, and since there is no membership requirement, anyone that shows up is, by default, part of the community. Part of the community can claim that other part isn't really part of their part, but then the other part can say the same about the other part.
Either Anonymous *IS* an organized group, with a command and control structure, and someone pulling the strings. Or it's not. You can't have it both ways.
If you're running a 24x7 server that can't afford to be down, then you also can't afford to take the time to troubleshoot problems if a reboot will make it start working again.
The author makes a pretty glaring fault in his logic.
1) Unix admins don't need to reboot to make sure the system still boots, forgetting to configure things correctly is a rookie move which good admins won't need to do.
2) Rebooting is bad because some junior admin might have screwed up your /boot or /etc directory
Uhhh... What? Great logic there, Gomer.
You're being lied to. For some reason, CNN chooses to portray this issue as a salary and pension issue, when in reality the only issue.. and the one that has everyone upset, is that the governor is trying to take away collective bargaining. Remove the collective bargaining ban from the bill, and all this mess goes away.
While I don't generally have a problem with parents monitoring their children to a point, I think you very much misunderstand the role of parenting.
Your job is, initially, to protect them when they can't protect themselves. As an infint, toddler, maybe even up to 6th or 7th grade. But as time goes on, it's also your job to guide them, and help them to be adults. You can't shelter them, and control their every action until they turn 18 and then turn them loose on the world with absolutely no skills in how to do that for themselves.
You have to slowly give them responsibility, and make them accountable for their actions. This means slowly giving them freedom to make their own choices, or they will be unable to make choices for themselves when they are an adult.
Ever heard of the term "Momma's boy"?
Again, I see no evidence to suggest that Windows or .NET was where the problem was. You're making generalizations based on speculation.
Again, I suspect the real issue here is one of market specialization. MilleniumIT made a better product because they specialize in that product. Accenture merely build a product based on the specifications of their client (which may or may not have been what the client actually needed).
This is one reason I typically recommend against hiring consulting firms to build applications for my clients. Consulting firms are only interested in generating more billable hours, while product based companies are interested in making more sales. Thus, the latter is has more self-interest in creating a better product.
That may be, but there is no evidence to suggest it was the basic stack that was causing the problem.
It may simply be that the TradeElect software itself was not written to withstand the loads that were placed upon it.
Without a thorough analysis, there is no way for us to know. Therefore, claiming it's the stack is just as valid or invalid as claiming it's the custom software.
In any event, this is not an either/or situation. Microsoft did not write the TradeElect software, a third party did... Accenture. Although Microsoft was definitely involved, it was ultimately Accenture's baby.
I thnk what this boils down to is that MilleniumIT is a Trading system company. That's what they do. Accenture is a consulting company, that's what THEY do.
By that, I mean that MilleniumIT is focused on building the worlds best trading system, and everything they do revolves around that. Accenture is just trying to write software for their specific clients needs, and thus have their hands in many pies.
You do realize that it's not .NET, MSSQL and Windows 2003 alone that made up the trading system, right? It was also a boat load of custom developed software.
There is no evidence to suggest the problems that TradeElect had were directly the problem with the technology it was based on, but more likely due to problems in the custom software developed for it. I'd venture a guess that Microsoft's own web sites, like Hotmail, MSN, etc.. generate more load and have more complexity than TradeElect, and they handle things just fine.
Likewise, the problem today was unlkely to be a problem with Linux, C++, or any other frameworks or databases they're using. And to claim it was, will be ridiculous.
It's unlikely to be a bandwidth issue, but rather having to validate they are always in compliance with the GPL in 100's of thousands of apps.
And what if the tarball included wasn't actually the real source code? Now Microsoft would have to verify that the application shipped was actually of the compiled source code provided. Plus, they would also have to grant any patent rights the software might use, if Microsoft owned a patent covering that work.
No. Take, for instance, the case of Mepis. The author of Mepis lost a lawsuit in this regard, and was forced to provide the source code himself, not simply point upstream.
They *ARE* complying with the GPL. That's the point. The GPL explicitly says, that if you cannot meet the requirements the GPL requires, then you are not allowed to distribute it. They are not able to meet the requirements the GPL imposes, therefore they aren't distributing it.
Actually, if you bothered to actually read the terms of service, you would realize that yes. Microsoft *IS* doing this in good faith. Licenses like the GPL make certain legal demands upon those that distribute the code. Microsoft does not wish to take on those responsibilities (namely that they have to be responsible for providing source code). There is also a more important legal risk. If any of those open source programs use technology covered by one of the patents Microsoft owns, then if they distributed the app they would be implicitly granting a royalty free, redistributabel patent license.
Because Microsoft doesn't want to do those things, they are doing what is required of them by the license, and electing to not distribute the code.
So are you really going to be bitter that microsoft is choosing to HONOR the terms of the licensing? Seriously?
Funny, but you forgot the rest of it:
Which is basically any GPL license, and several others, not every open source license. The BSD license has no requirements to do anything with it, nor does the X11 license. It's only licenses that require you to do things as part of the right to redistribute. Microsoft doesn't want to accept those requirements, therefore by law, they are not allowed to distribute such programs.
Great rant, but he is either being disingenuous, or missing the point.
Microsoft says that the W3C tests should be used to validate compliance, because the W3C are the ones that create the specs. If Mozilla doesn't like that, then they should submit more validation tests to the W3C, just like Microsoft has. Their failure to do so indicates they have no interst in a true standards conformance measurement.
Instead, they choose to use other tests that merely test for features, not whether the features are actually implemented correctly to the standard. Don't like that, then submit tests to the W3C for features that IE fails in.
Microsoft is doing the right thing here, they're trying to promote a single, unified conformance test and have put their money where their mouth is by donating thousands of tests to the W3C. Why hasn't Google? Or Apple? Or Mozilla?
Yes, but the mormons of earth worship the god of earth. They do not worship the gods of other planets.
Mormons believe in the same divinity as other christians. It's more in their rituals, and the belief that Jesus visited North America after his resurection where they differ. Now you might argue that they worship Joseph Smith as well, but no more so than Catholics worship the various saints.
Christians are also polytheistic, but they've rationalized that away by making Jesus and God the same thing.