____/ 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).
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Vista: as the reputation of "Longhorn" was mucked
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 149 total, 1 running, 148 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
