__/ [ 7 ] on Sunday 07 May 2006 12:29 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ,----[ Jason Matusow, Microsoft's Director of Standards Affair: ]
>> | "Yet we will support interoperability with ODF documents as they start
>> | to appear and will not oppose its standardization or use by any
>> | organization. The richness of competitive choices in the market is good
>> | for our customers and for the industry as a whole."
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog
> article.php?story=20060506173536926
>>
>> Frankly, I am surprised there is a role whose title is Director of
>> Standards Affair at Microsoft. Has he been in Maui for the past two
>> decades?
>
>
> No - he had been tied to a chair ready to be thrown out
> at earliest possible opportune moment by blammer.
>
> Mind you, they have already snuck into the standards room
> to add inappropriate features like embedded p2p networking
> supervised by 'catchy' clippy phrases like 'It wasn't me, it
> was that clippy over there that did it!!' and patented features so that
> the standards body becomes a rubber stamping body for micoshaft's
> superior 'open document format' because some money parted hands
> and micoshaftees gain board room positions within the standards
> group by expanding and bankrupting the organsation so that
> micoshaft can come in as bigger financial contributors for more votes.
>
> Fsck that!
>
> If I were a betting man, I would want more than one or two
> open document standard and standards bodies; at least one
> of which must completely exlude big commercial interests; and
> at least one separate body watching over all groups and their
> patenting activities because there is an aweful lot of billions
> to be made by handcuffing unsuspecting users and ripping them
> off at some future date.
> Get ready with alternative mark 2 ODF standards in case this
> one falls through some well laid traps paid for by subversives
> operating out of micoshaft.
> Also make sure that features written into software can be changed
> or pulled simply by simply adding or deleting a few #defines.
> That way anyone who has such temptations will know in advance
> their crooked ways will have very little milage within the open
> source community.
So you're suggesting that Microsoft /may/ , _in due time_, extend
save_ODF() and open_ODF() to incorporate all these elements which are
already supported and incorporated into DOC files? Macros perhaps? As in
opting for 'embrace&extend'-type strategies?
Would you argue that it was their motive in joining the consortium which
conducts the directions of Open Document? As to take the lead and propose
features that have already been implemented 'closed-sourcely' (behind
closed doors) and expect other vendors to catch up with the next revision
of the ODF ISO standard, e.g. ODF 2.0? Poisoning the format so to
speak...?
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | chmod a-r *.mbox
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
12:30pm up 9 days 19:27, 12 users, load average: 0.30, 0.66, 0.61
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
