Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
> By the [way], if you follow the thread a bit, you can see how deftly
> RMS handles de Icaza.
That's because most of the conclusions de Icaza draws seem to be based
on Microsoft propaganda rather than facts (e.g. "the ODF specification
is incomplete").
His bias is palpable, and for equally obvious reasons, given how much
time he spends inside the belly of The Beast. However this also means
his inside knowledge of Microsoft (both in terms of technical workings
and attitude) is very useful to those seeking an insight into how they
actually operate.
This "GPL ban" is one such example, and is especially interesting given
the Vole's subsequent support of ODF in MS Office (ironically to the
exclusion of their own OOXML), since according to the ODF antagonists
(i.e. those steered by Microsoft) it is unimplementable without
consulting the sources to OpenOffice.org (see OP), hence the assertion
that it's "incomplete". If that's actually true, and Microsoft engineers
are not permitted to view GPL sources, then how exactly did Microsoft
manage to implement ODF in MS Office?
Hmm, how easily the bigots' inconsistencies are unearthed.
The specifics of the claim upon which de Icaza seems to base his
(Microsoft's) entire anti-ODF position, is that it excludes definitions
for maths formulae [1] (e.g. in spreadsheets), which as explained by the
OASIS ODF Technical Committee is beyond the remit of a technical
description for an XML format [2]. IOW it's like the W3C drawing a
distinction between markup (HTML) and layout (CSS), and rightly
insisting that the two remain separate.
[quote] [2]
A comment was submitted concerning the inclusen(sic) of a grammar for
spreadsheet formulas which conforming implementations should support.
While we think that having interoperability on that level would be of
great benefit to users, we do not belive(sic) that this is in the scope
of the current specification.
[/quote]
The natural (and most technically correct) solution is to have a unique
specification for formulae interchange, and that is already being
addressed with the draft OpenFormula [3] specification.
Again we witness Microsoft's utter lack of comprehension of standards,
as they stuff (what should have been) a document specification with
irrelevant material, much of which is proprietary to Microsoft [4] [5]
[6], in addition to a vast litany of technical problems [7]. But then
what should we expect from a company that views "standards" as nothing
more than a means to lock customers into their products, and
subsequently ensure sales of future versions with planned obsolescence?
[quote] [4]
We are of the view that the format appears to be designed by Microsoft
for Microsoft products, and to inter-operate with the Microsoft
environment. Little thought appears to have been exercised regarding
interoperability with non-Microsoft environments or compliance with
established vendor-neutral standards
[/quote]
Having created this monster called OOXML, Microsoft then used bribery
[8]; threats [9]; blackmail [10] [11]; and vicious smear campaigns [12]
[13] to force OOXML into fast track acceptance, and all with the hot and
eager assistance of Miguel de Icaza, Jody Goldberg, Jeff Waugh, the
Gnome Foundation, Novell; and other Free Software "advocates" in the "We
love Microsoft" cheerleading camp [14], assistance which they gave under
the laughably weak pretext of "drilling for docs" [15].
Indeed de Icaza was so determined to help force through this ODF-killer,
that he even attempted astroturfing COLA shortly before the final vote,
bringing his pal Jesper Lund Stocholm with him for moral support. The
timing of this appearance could not have been more obvious.
Well given Microsoft's apparent lack of enthusiasm for implementing its
own (sub)standard [16]; Stuart McKee's recent comments about the death
of OOXML [17]; the final acceptance of OOXML being stalled by formal
complaints by NSBs [18]; and the European Commission's ongoing antitrust
investigations into the Microsoft's criminal behaviour in this process
[18], it looks like de Icaza and friends completely wasted their time,
and further isolated themselves from the rest of the GNU/Linux
community, for absolutely *nothing*.
But don't waste your pity on their self-induced ostracism. I'm sure
their new (crime) "family" Microsoft will welcome them with open arms,
if they haven't long-since already done so.
[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenFormula#Microsoft_Response>
[2]<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200501/msg00004.html>
[3]<http://www.dwheeler.com/openformula/>
[4]<http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/odf_ooxml_technical_white_paper>
[5]<http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/office2007bin.aspx>
[6]<http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-36122/printer-binary-and-ecma-tries-duck-and-cover>
[7]<http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections>
[8]<http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14871/2/>
[9]<http://www.lowyat.net/v2/latest/the-openxml-standardisation-update.html>
[10]<http://p2pnet.net/story/3901>
[11]<http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/144898/microsoft_denies_threatening_to_withdraw_funding.html>
[12]<http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/0B47485921D44083CC2574110068B1B6>
[13]<http://osindia.blogspot.com/2008/03/microsoft-files-complaint-on-ooxml-vote.html>
[14]<http://www.linux.com/feature/121930>
[15]<http://www.noooxml.org/ecma-and-vendor-capture>
[16]<http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080521092930864>
[17]<http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-68825/odf-won-says-microsoft>
[18]<http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/04/01/Microsofts-ISO-win-may-worsen-its-antitrust-woes_1.html>
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
| antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
| money." ~ Glyn Moody: http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2 (ComputerworldUK)
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
08:36:52 up 184 days, 5:12, 2 users, load average: 1.01, 1.13, 1.18
|
|
