Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 26 November 2007 13:47 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 26 November 2007 08:47 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> ____/ [H]omer on Thursday 22 November 2007 20:07 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>>>>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do realize that Sun or IBM were often the head of delegation in
>>>>>>>> many countries for ODF, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did they bribe too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, after all why would they? ODF is an /Open/ format, used primarily in
>>>>>> Free Software. Those promoting such a standard would have little to gain
>>>>>> financially from bribery. Even Lotus Symphony is free, and StarOffice is
>>>>>> little more than OpenOffice with a collection of templates and clip-art.
>>>>>> The sheer number of ODF adopters [1] (in application development), means
>>>>>> it would be rather difficult to accuse any /single/ company of trying to
>>>>>> create some kind of format lock-in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft, and their probably-MSO-dependant® Not-Really-Open® Oh-Oh-XML®
>>>>>> on the other hand ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Erik and other Microsoft apologists might as well face the fact, that MS
>>>>>> have been abusing document formats, and other "standards", as a means of
>>>>>> tying customers to their products for so long, that they are now totally
>>>>>> incapable of producing a truly Open standard. It's just not their nature
>>>>>> to do so. How will they lock customers in to their cash-cow without some
>>>>>> proprietary format, ensuring that MSO is a "requirement"? How indeed :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the horse has spoken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Halloween Memo I Confirmed and Microsoft's History on Standards
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>| By the way, if you are by any chance trying to figure out Microsoft's
>>>>>| policy toward standards, particularly in the context of ODF-EOXML, that
>>>>>| same Microsoft page is revelatory, Microsoft's answer to what the memo
>>>>>| meant when it said that Microsoft could extend standard protocols so as
>>>>>| to deny Linux "entry into the market":
>>>>>|
>>>>>| Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a
>>>>>| way to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?
>>>>>|
>>>>>| A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above
>>>>>| standard protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able
>>>>>| to deliver advanced functionality to users. An example of this is
>>>>>| adding transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a
>>>>>| value-add and would in no way break the standard or undermine the
>>>>>| concept of standards, of which Microsoft is a significant supporter.
>>>>>| Yet it would allow us to solve a class of problems in value chain
>>>>>| integration for our Web-based customers that are not solved by any
>>>>>| public standard today. Microsoft recognizes that customers are not
>>>>>| served by implementations that are different without adding value; we
>>>>>| therefore support standards as the foundation on which further
>>>>>| innovation can be based.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070127202224445
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem I have with Microsoft leading any debate on OOXML is that,
>>>> unlike a real standard, which is developed by multiple parties over a
>>>> long period, OOXML is a collection of Microsoft proprietary things, over
>>>> thousands of pages, which is unimplementable.
>>>>
>>>> There is *no way* that a Microsoft person should be chairing a debate on
>>>> such an obvious corruption of the standards process.
>>>>
>>>> I do know about this - I was an ITU/UN rapporteur for many years.
>>>
>>> It gets worse because I believe that they are even corrupting the Linux
>>> world (by association and proxies). They flip the Free software people in
>>> their favour...
>>>
>>> http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/25/gnome-foundation-ooxml/
>>>
>>> I'm virtually bullied by these people at the moment. I've received like 10
>>> angry E-mails so far today (and it's only 9 AM).
>>>
>>
>> Maybe they should clean up their act, then? Silly sods. Is this more
>> of the de Icaza influence here, do you suppose?
>
> In a separate (later) post, Jeff admitted his mistake and he's in hot waters
> now (developers and investors are watching). He's fuming (still getting
> E-mails), but only because we unveiled the truth.
>
Ashley Highfield at the BBC has been having the same problem, we're all
watching for the evidence of corruption. Best be clean. Don't take
bribes, don't push a line unless you believe it. Don't take money for
posting on usenet.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
