You might have a point if they were the same bug on both browsers, but they're different bugs in different browsers, so obviously time to patch will vary depending on difficulty of the fix.
The fact they're pulling a SCO-esque FUD campaign means that these supposed infringements are questionable at best
Or, Microsoft saw how far the open source community will extend their necks from the SCO case, and is willing to give them all the rope they need, so that there is no way they can get out once the trap door opens.
Being involved with the distribution of a product isn't the same thing as distributing it.
By that logic, every retailer selling Linux is now subject to the GPL and is required to forfeit any intellectual property that may apply to Linux. You can also walk into any Fry's or Best Buy and demand they give you the source code, or sue them for not doing so.
Coupons for a product are like gift cards. You turn the coupon in to Novell, and Novell gives you the copy of Suse, Microsoft is not involved in the distribution of anything other than the coupon.
The XML format provides hints as to how the data should be displayed, that doesn't mean it MUST be displayed that way. Otherwise, how would a word processor for a PDA be able to show the document if it was required to format it exactly as a full fledged desktop? How would a word processor for the disable be able to speak a given format? How would a text-based word processor be able to read and write the format?
You're just being stupid. There is no requirement that any word processor implement the legacy word functionality, it need only understand the flags and do what it feels is best with that data. In fact, *NONE* of the flags mentioned in the link above define how the data should be rendered.
I said "even if", signifying that even if you changed the unit of measurement, it's still no easier
While other measurements are not divisible by 16, they are still more divisible by others. A foot is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. A gallon is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 8, and 16 (4 quarts in an gallon, 4 cups in a quart, so 16 cups in a gallon). All metric numbers are only easily divisible by 2, 5 and 10, making it difficult for common measurements like 1/3rd, 1/6th, and 1/8th. Also, by their nature, units that have smaller capacities have fewer units because there is less need to break it into smaller ones.
I'm no saying the English measurement is great, or that it even is better than Metric, just that there are cases, particularly with fractions, that it makes things easier.
Oh, please. Yes, I botched the second blockquote tag, but the rest is perfectly understandable. You appear to be using this as an excuse to not adress the points, which indicates that you have no response.
You should check things out before you make assumptions. Sun applied to be a PAS submitter to JTC1, but then they pulled out. Java was never standardized. In fact, they pulled this stunt twice. Once with ISO, and once with ECMA.
Certainly. If you understand the file format, that's all that's required to be compliant. Nothing says you have to display that data in any particular way. Obviously, your users will expect a certain amount of compatibility in the way data is displayed, but that's a different story.
What are you talking about? Why can't you have 1/3 of a kg, or 1/8 of a cm? What exactly is stopping you, and why is a pound or inch any more amiable to this? Sure, I don't have any 3/32 cm wrenches in my toolbox, but that's a matter of convention, not any "fractional superiority" of inches or Imperial units in general.
1/16th of a pound is 1 ounce. 1/16th of a kg is.0625 kg. Which is easier? even if you say 62.5 grams, that's a lot more difficult to remember than 1 ounce.
I disagree. I've followed this battle in pretty close detail. My observation is that Microsoft has only stood in the way of ODF being adopted to the exclusion of any other format. They seem to be perfectly happy with any case where ODF and other standards being allowed.
ODF is not supported by MS in Word natively. Thus, ODF adoption usually means MS is losing a sale. Further, it means it is easier for their customers to migrate away from MS Office. You really don't think MS is doing anything to stop people from moving to ODF. You don't think they're offering price cuts to stop migrations away from MSOffice to say Openffice and ODF?
You answered argument with speculation and leading questions, and did not address my point at all. Regardless of whether or not ODF means potential lost revenue for Microsoft, Microsoft has not opposed ODF in any way other than when ODF is being proposed as an exclusive choice by an organization. Please address this point, not going off on something irrelevant.
Microsoft does not appear to be fighting the adoption of ODF, they are merely fighting the exclusion of other standards.
Open standards traditionally bring certain benefits including [...] All of these things are benefits MS would prefer their customers did not have
First, you are making a lot of assumptions there. Yes, perhaps Microsoft WOULD prefer their customers not have those benefits, but I guarantee you that Sun, IBM, and others would also prefer such things. They know, however, that they can't reasonably achieve those preferences, though.
The fact of the matter is that OXML provides all the beneifts you mention as well, so regardless of what Microsoft might privately prefer, they're offering otherwise.
The restrictions needed to get patent protection from Sun are the same as PDF from Adobe, you just have to follow the spec.
"Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification ("Covered Implementation")"
Technically, there is nothing stopping MS from releasing a new version of OpenXML and telling all current software vendors implementing it that they are no longer in compliance with the license since they implement the "old" version and shutting down each and every competitor. That is not the case with ODF.
Wow, what bullshit. If you'll notice above, the promise is issued explicitly "Office Open XML 1.0 - Ecma-376". Also notice the "irrevocably" above. Where do you come up with this stuff, anyways?
No, ODF is currently implemented by software from dozens of companies and no one company can stop another from implementing the spec. So long as they are following the spec there is nothing Sun can do, including releasing a new version of the spec, to stop someone like the WrodPerfect team from implementing it.
There are also a number of companies in the process of implementing OXML, including Apple and Novell. ODF has an 18 month headstart, however, and implementations besides OpenOffice are still largely in development..
As I pointed out above, nobody, not even Microsoft, can make anyone not implement OXML so long as the spec is followed.
Those were separate list items. Note the comma. OpenXML is encumbered by patents that can still be brought to bear.
No, it's not. The covenent prevents that.
Additionally, OpenXML is tied by trade secrets. Parts of the spec refer to trade secrets and copyrighted implementations of other works. For example, in some in
You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what a document format is and isn't. Document formats do not specify how the data should be displayed in most cases. They define how the data should be interpreted, and leave up to the application how to display it.
Let's take HTML, for instance. If HTML defined how everything must be rendered, it would be impossible for text based browsers like Lynx or mobile browsers to work.
That flag merely says what a piece of data is used to represent. It's entirely up to the app how it wants to render that.
That's not, however, strictly true. Human interface is just as much a communication format as is a document format. Having different GUI's is the human equivelent of different file formats.
Since you agree that ODF and PDF do not do the same thing, you cannot say that they are multiple formats for the same thing.
No, I said they don't do PRECISELY the same thing. Neither do ODF and OXML. PDF can, in fact, be used as a changeable format. PDF is not immutable, it simply isn't usually used for that because it requires more work to do so, and PDF documents are typically not written in a way that makes them easily modifiable (but they can be written in such a way if that is the purpose).
ODF cannot fully represent Office documents. That means there are things that OXML can do that ODF cannot. There is loss of information in any conversion. Granted, much of that is legacy Office stuff, but it's still true none-the-less. ODF is great if you are creating new documents, it's not so great if you need to convert millions of legacy documents.
Imperial and metric for example, are used for the same thing. different people might have different preferences, but i doubt anyone would argue that it's useful to have two.
Actually, yes. Imperial is very useful in some situations. For example, when dealing with fractions. Imperial measurements are more easily divisible by more numbers than metric is. A pound, for example, can be easily broken up into halves, thirds, quarters, eights and 16ths. Metric can be easily broken up into Halves, and Fifths without resorting into decimals or fractions of fractions or changing the unit of measurement (which is really the same thing as a decimal).
And besides, preference is important. It's called choice.
I think you are very confused about what standards are. Java is not any kind of standard. I don't know what you're talking about with HTML, Microsoft has been a member of the W3C since its inception. I don't see how they could be "late to the game".
And for the record, Microsoft voted for approval of ODF in OASIS as well.
Actually, Microsoft does stand in the way of ODF adoption, just not of it becoming a recognized and official standard.
I disagree. I've followed this battle in pretty close detail. My observation is that Microsoft has only stood in the way of ODF being adopted to the exclusion of any other format. They seem to be perfectly happy with any case where ODF and other standards being allowed.
They fight tooth and nail against anything that gives users most the benefits of open standards.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I highly doubt your premise. Sure, Microsoft wants standards to benefit itself, but you claim that Microsoft is gainst anyone else benefitting from them.
When most people think of a standard, they think of something like SAE bolt specifications
Funny you should mention that. How many different standards are there for bolts? Several. SAE and a number of ASTM standards, ISO and ANSI standards, etc...
This is because of the application of patents, the ties to secret information, because it is copyrighted, and because MS has a monopoly in the desktop OS space, a "standard" from MS is not just a "standard" as it would be referred to in most other industries.
ODF is no more "open" than OXML is. It too is covered by patents (and required a patent covenant by Sun, just like OXML). It too is largely championed by a single organization (in this case Sun), with several other organizations involved. BTW, the very definition of a patent means the information is not secret. You might want to re-evaluate your argument.
Saying, however, that OpenXML, is just another standard is misleading to the majority of people, because openXML and ODF are not equal, in terms of what sort of standardization benefits they bring to the industry.
Ok, then you shouldn't have any problem explain exactly how they are unequal, right?
There already are more than one document format standard. For instance, ODF and PDF are both ISO standards, and while they don't do precisely the same thing (there is plenty of overlap though), neither does ODF and OXML. Multiple standards exist because some standards aren't universally applicable. ODF can't do everything that PDF does and vice versa, the same applies to ODF and OXML.
Why is it, by the way, that having 300+ Linux distro's and dozens of GUI is "choice" and a good thing, but having more than one document format is "stupid"?
I think you're misusing the term. There's a difference between the phrase "THE Standard" and "A Standard". "A Standard" simply means the details have been opened and defined by a standards organization. "THE Standard" means "the most common way of doing it", and can refer to things that may or not actually be open standards.
There are many cases where there is more than one standard to do the same thing. For example, bolt sizes. There are metric and English standards for precisely the same thing. Even document formats have multiple standards already. Both ODF and PDF are ISO standards, for example.
Ummm.. no. Know why? Microsoft has ALREADY acquired cross patent licensing from all those people over the years. And those companies are not going to recind their agreements because that would then open them up to lawsuits from Microsoft over Microsofts patents.
Linux is in a tough spot, it doesn't have much in the way of patent ammunition. There's the Open Invention Network, but my understanding is that most of those patents have been donated by the companies that already have cross-licensing agreements with Microsoft.
Ack, that feature sounds as stupid as Microsoft's new Seamless Terminal Services feature that does something similar with apps run across terminal services. It's just plain stupid, violates all kinds of good UI design rules, etc.. You don't know what machine an app might be changing files on, for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
You might have a point if they were the same bug on both browsers, but they're different bugs in different browsers, so obviously time to patch will vary depending on difficulty of the fix.
The fact they're pulling a SCO-esque FUD campaign means that these supposed infringements are questionable at best
Or, Microsoft saw how far the open source community will extend their necks from the SCO case, and is willing to give them all the rope they need, so that there is no way they can get out once the trap door opens.
Ahh.. so in other words,
"I'm not scared, because I have this army of lawyers that will leap to my aid the moment i'm in danger. Right guys? guys? GUYS? [crickets chirp]"
I'd get that in writing if I were you.
Being involved with the distribution of a product isn't the same thing as distributing it.
By that logic, every retailer selling Linux is now subject to the GPL and is required to forfeit any intellectual property that may apply to Linux. You can also walk into any Fry's or Best Buy and demand they give you the source code, or sue them for not doing so.
Does anyone see that happening?
Coupons for a product are like gift cards. You turn the coupon in to Novell, and Novell gives you the copy of Suse, Microsoft is not involved in the distribution of anything other than the coupon.
The XML format provides hints as to how the data should be displayed, that doesn't mean it MUST be displayed that way. Otherwise, how would a word processor for a PDA be able to show the document if it was required to format it exactly as a full fledged desktop? How would a word processor for the disable be able to speak a given format? How would a text-based word processor be able to read and write the format?
You're just being stupid. There is no requirement that any word processor implement the legacy word functionality, it need only understand the flags and do what it feels is best with that data. In fact, *NONE* of the flags mentioned in the link above define how the data should be rendered.
I said "even if", signifying that even if you changed the unit of measurement, it's still no easier
While other measurements are not divisible by 16, they are still more divisible by others. A foot is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. A gallon is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 8, and 16 (4 quarts in an gallon, 4 cups in a quart, so 16 cups in a gallon). All metric numbers are only easily divisible by 2, 5 and 10, making it difficult for common measurements like 1/3rd, 1/6th, and 1/8th. Also, by their nature, units that have smaller capacities have fewer units because there is less need to break it into smaller ones.
I'm no saying the English measurement is great, or that it even is better than Metric, just that there are cases, particularly with fractions, that it makes things easier.
Oh, please. Yes, I botched the second blockquote tag, but the rest is perfectly understandable. You appear to be using this as an excuse to not adress the points, which indicates that you have no response.
Apparently you aren't aware that the ML in XML stands for "Markup Language".
You should check things out before you make assumptions. Sun applied to be a PAS submitter to JTC1, but then they pulled out. Java was never standardized. In fact, they pulled this stunt twice. Once with ISO, and once with ECMA.
r efuses-to-relinquish-control-over-Java/0,339024620 ,320280607,00.htm
http://www.builderau.com.au/program/java/soa/Sun-
Certainly. If you understand the file format, that's all that's required to be compliant. Nothing says you have to display that data in any particular way. Obviously, your users will expect a certain amount of compatibility in the way data is displayed, but that's a different story.
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from."
-Andrew Tannenbaum
What are you talking about? Why can't you have 1/3 of a kg, or 1/8 of a cm? What exactly is stopping you, and why is a pound or inch any more amiable to this? Sure, I don't have any 3/32 cm wrenches in my toolbox, but that's a matter of convention, not any "fractional superiority" of inches or Imperial units in general.
.0625 kg. Which is easier? even if you say 62.5 grams, that's a lot more difficult to remember than 1 ounce.
1/16th of a pound is 1 ounce. 1/16th of a kg is
You answered argument with speculation and leading questions, and did not address my point at all. Regardless of whether or not ODF means potential lost revenue for Microsoft, Microsoft has not opposed ODF in any way other than when ODF is being proposed as an exclusive choice by an organization. Please address this point, not going off on something irrelevant.
Microsoft does not appear to be fighting the adoption of ODF, they are merely fighting the exclusion of other standards.
You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what a document format is and isn't. Document formats do not specify how the data should be displayed in most cases. They define how the data should be interpreted, and leave up to the application how to display it.
Let's take HTML, for instance. If HTML defined how everything must be rendered, it would be impossible for text based browsers like Lynx or mobile browsers to work.
That flag merely says what a piece of data is used to represent. It's entirely up to the app how it wants to render that.
That's not, however, strictly true. Human interface is just as much a communication format as is a document format. Having different GUI's is the human equivelent of different file formats.
Since you agree that ODF and PDF do not do the same thing, you cannot say that they are multiple formats for the same thing.
No, I said they don't do PRECISELY the same thing. Neither do ODF and OXML. PDF can, in fact, be used as a changeable format. PDF is not immutable, it simply isn't usually used for that because it requires more work to do so, and PDF documents are typically not written in a way that makes them easily modifiable (but they can be written in such a way if that is the purpose).
ODF cannot fully represent Office documents. That means there are things that OXML can do that ODF cannot. There is loss of information in any conversion. Granted, much of that is legacy Office stuff, but it's still true none-the-less. ODF is great if you are creating new documents, it's not so great if you need to convert millions of legacy documents.
Imperial and metric for example, are used for the same thing. different people might have different preferences, but i doubt anyone would argue that it's useful to have two.
Actually, yes. Imperial is very useful in some situations. For example, when dealing with fractions. Imperial measurements are more easily divisible by more numbers than metric is. A pound, for example, can be easily broken up into halves, thirds, quarters, eights and 16ths. Metric can be easily broken up into Halves, and Fifths without resorting into decimals or fractions of fractions or changing the unit of measurement (which is really the same thing as a decimal).
And besides, preference is important. It's called choice.
I think you are very confused about what standards are. Java is not any kind of standard. I don't know what you're talking about with HTML, Microsoft has been a member of the W3C since its inception. I don't see how they could be "late to the game".
And for the record, Microsoft voted for approval of ODF in OASIS as well.
Actually, Microsoft does stand in the way of ODF adoption, just not of it becoming a recognized and official standard.
I disagree. I've followed this battle in pretty close detail. My observation is that Microsoft has only stood in the way of ODF being adopted to the exclusion of any other format. They seem to be perfectly happy with any case where ODF and other standards being allowed.
They fight tooth and nail against anything that gives users most the benefits of open standards.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I highly doubt your premise. Sure, Microsoft wants standards to benefit itself, but you claim that Microsoft is gainst anyone else benefitting from them.
When most people think of a standard, they think of something like SAE bolt specifications
Funny you should mention that. How many different standards are there for bolts? Several. SAE and a number of ASTM standards, ISO and ANSI standards, etc...
This is because of the application of patents, the ties to secret information, because it is copyrighted, and because MS has a monopoly in the desktop OS space, a "standard" from MS is not just a "standard" as it would be referred to in most other industries.
ODF is no more "open" than OXML is. It too is covered by patents (and required a patent covenant by Sun, just like OXML). It too is largely championed by a single organization (in this case Sun), with several other organizations involved. BTW, the very definition of a patent means the information is not secret. You might want to re-evaluate your argument.
Saying, however, that OpenXML, is just another standard is misleading to the majority of people, because openXML and ODF are not equal, in terms of what sort of standardization benefits they bring to the industry.
Ok, then you shouldn't have any problem explain exactly how they are unequal, right?
There already are more than one document format standard. For instance, ODF and PDF are both ISO standards, and while they don't do precisely the same thing (there is plenty of overlap though), neither does ODF and OXML. Multiple standards exist because some standards aren't universally applicable. ODF can't do everything that PDF does and vice versa, the same applies to ODF and OXML.
Why is it, by the way, that having 300+ Linux distro's and dozens of GUI is "choice" and a good thing, but having more than one document format is "stupid"?
I think you're misusing the term. There's a difference between the phrase "THE Standard" and "A Standard". "A Standard" simply means the details have been opened and defined by a standards organization. "THE Standard" means "the most common way of doing it", and can refer to things that may or not actually be open standards.
There are many cases where there is more than one standard to do the same thing. For example, bolt sizes. There are metric and English standards for precisely the same thing. Even document formats have multiple standards already. Both ODF and PDF are ISO standards, for example.
Microsoft hasn't stood in the way of ODF at all. They just think there's room for more than one standard.
Ummm.. no. Know why? Microsoft has ALREADY acquired cross patent licensing from all those people over the years. And those companies are not going to recind their agreements because that would then open them up to lawsuits from Microsoft over Microsofts patents.
Linux is in a tough spot, it doesn't have much in the way of patent ammunition. There's the Open Invention Network, but my understanding is that most of those patents have been donated by the companies that already have cross-licensing agreements with Microsoft.
Ack, that feature sounds as stupid as Microsoft's new Seamless Terminal Services feature that does something similar with apps run across terminal services. It's just plain stupid, violates all kinds of good UI design rules, etc.. You don't know what machine an app might be changing files on, for instance.