____/ 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.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1510068k total, 233784k used, 1276284k free, 78588k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
