Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM Threatens To Leave ISO Over OOXML Brouhaha

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the brouhaha-is-a-funny-word dept.

IBM 200

barnackle writes "In addition to threatening to leave certain standards organizations over the OOXML shenanigans, IBM created new guidelines for its own participation in those organizations in an attempt to pressure the ISO and ECMA to be more fair in their approval procedures."

cancel ×

200 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I Like IBM (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124395)

Any company that helps exterminate Jews is a good company in my book.

hooray (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124397)

stick it to those bastids IBM! c==8

Quick Question (-1, Troll)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124459)

Hey since IBM whored out their hardware divisions overseas, does anyone still gives a rats ass about what they have to say?

Re:Quick Question (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124505)

Uh, you mean Lenovo ? That ain't the IBM
"Hardware Division" by a long shot

Re:Quick Question (2, Informative)

Steeltalon (734391) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124697)

What are you talking about? This is in regards to a software standard. Lenovo is IBM's old "PC Company"... Quite different from either Systems and Technology Group or Software Group.

Re:Quick Question (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124631)

That was only their desktop hardware division, which they sold to Lenovo, presumably as the margins are not very good. Their server and mainframe hardware divisions are alive and well.

Re:Quick Question (1)

Richard Steiner (1585) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124881)

Doesn't IBM still make IntelliStations? Lenovo is their consumer stuff. Blech. :-)

Re:Quick Question (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125153)

They appear to be ditching those in favour of their bladecentre stuff, as they're stopping sales of them at the start of next year.

Re:Quick Question (-1, Offtopic)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124691)

not sure why that got modded Troll... it is true they dumped their printer and computer divisions to china.

Re:Quick Question (2, Insightful)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125205)

It's not very accurate, and it is not very relevant to the topic at hand. Also, it is rather incendiary.

So the 'troll' mod may be undeserved, but if so only because 'flamebait' might be more accurate.

Re:Quick Question (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25126427)

> not sure why that got modded Troll... it is true they dumped their printer and computer divisions to china.

Desktop and laptop computer divisions. IBM has four server lines -- mainframe, Intel, and two based on the Power architecture, plus storage and backup peripherals.

I'm also beginning to suspect astroturfing.

Re:Quick Question (2)

Leafheart (1120885) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124695)

They are still one of the top service providers for big companies. Their support, SAP development, and services teams are still huge, and, IIRC the top one in USA. They do have a lot of saying in many things technical.

that's good news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124467)

this is the second best news of the day. First place: I got sucked off in the bathroom this morning :)

Re:that's good news (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124567)

First place: I got sucked off in the bathroom this morning :)

Boy's Jr. High B-ball coach, I take it?

Re:that's good news (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124835)

this is the second best news of the day. First place: I got sucked off in the bathroom this morning :)

Senator? Is that you?

Re:that's good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25125867)

Senator? Is that you?

It's either him, or George Michael.

ISO? (5, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124503)

Hmm... didn't they used to be some important international standards body at one point, before they got into the marketing business and went under?

I thought they were already gone...

Why is this news?

Re:ISO? (5, Informative)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125601)

For one simple reason. Gov't procurement procedures still require to purchase standard compliant ware. If there is a national (e.g. ANSI, depending on your nationality) standard, then it is must be ANSI standard compliant. If there is no national standard - then ISO standards must be checked.

We all shouldn't forget why M$ got into the standards game at all. I'm sure it was discussed before here too: one US agency said it can not renew office suit licensing deal with M$ because there is not international standard (guess which *grin* *grin*) for document formats and M$Office isn't compatible with it. M$ partner was more than just surprised and reported to Redmond to pull some strings. IIRC scandal actually erupted when they singed deal anyway without even doing proper public tender, later making up excuses that they were not aware that there are other suppliers.

Re:ISO? (4, Insightful)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125653)

Why was this modded "troll"? Would you mod IBM "troll" too?

Ha! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124511)

...because of concerns that their processes are not always fair.

A "fairness" lecture from IBM? They're one to talk! Oh, to count the ways....

Brought to you by.....IBM! Makers of bloated slow shit! OS/2, DB2, Websphere, and everything else they've ever did!

Re:Ha! (5, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124805)

Brought to you by.....IBM! Makers of bloated slow shit! OS/2, DB2, Websphere, and everything else they've ever did!

Er, you do know what IBM stands for, don't you? The "M" stands for "machines" and the "IB" doesn't stand for "Itty Bitty". IBM is primarily a hardware company. They make and have always made what's known as "big iron", i.e. mainframes, although they do and have made such diverse stuff as typewriters (their selectric was the king of the office at one time) and calculators.

Without actually googling I'd hazard a guess they made one of the top ten fastest computers in existance, and I'd bet money they're still in the top one hundred.

BTW it isn't an IBM app but it runs on their mainframes, my favorite database language is NOMAD.

Re:Ha! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124895)

"Without actually googling I'd hazard a guess they made one of the top ten fastest computers in existance, and I'd bet money they're still in the top one hundred."

Actually, IBM made 5/10 of fastest supercomputers according to top500... including first three positions...

Actually, it is more Software and Services now (3, Informative)

sirwired (27582) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124965)

While IBM certainly still does make enough servers to put it at the top of the quarterly lists of server vendors, they make even more selling software and services.

SirWired

Re:Actually, it is more Software and Services now (4, Informative)

rdejean (150504) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125261)

IBM's Software and Services is the legacy of CEO Lou Gerstner, who in the 90's started concentrating less on moving servers out of the warehouse and more on moving money into the bank. I'd say it worked.

Re:Ha! (-1, Troll)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125443)

Yes, IBM is primarily a hardware company, so unless they plan on implementing a document standard in hardware, who cares?

This is just an opportunity to attack MS. IBM philosophy has always been to make money for IBM - they don't give a rats ass about anybody else.

You fell for PR. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25125663)

Those "fastest Computers" were just for PR. Meaning, those projects got unlimited budgets and no red tape - I've been there.

Try again.

Re:Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25125991)

Actually, I believe you're incorrect.

IBM is primarily a services company now. Yes, they still have some branded hardware but the bulk of their revenues comes from services.

Cheers

Not any longer (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25126305)

While the "M" in "IBM" stands for machines, the company (of which I'm an employee) has been moving away from hardware as a core product toward high-margin software & services, which now comprise 54% of the company's business. The hardware is important, because the different parts of the business feed each other. For instance, Microelectronics exists to ensure state-of-the-art chip access for server products which allows complete turnkey service solutions for many customers and provides a platform for new software sales. However, the revenue is now more than half from software and services and this will continue to grow.

Re:Ha! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25126325)

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. OS/2 was an *excellent* operating system. I admit that the 1.x versions were lacking, but that is common for a new OS. Versions 2.1 and later were certainly not bloated, nor slow. This was a preemtive multitasking operating system with a full graphical shell that ran decently in 8MB of RAM, and ran *very* well in 16MB of RAM. It ran Windows 3.1 applications in a better environment than Windows 3.1 itself (3.1 ran on top of DOS). Yes, the OS was bigger than the Windows/DOS combo. Yes, it did require more resources than Windows/DOS, but that alone does not make it bloated. Windows/DOS was nothing more than a task switching OS. The cooperative multitasking it provided was completely useless. I used OS/2 from 1993 to around 1997 (Warp 4 being the last version). It was an extremely stable OS, and was a pleasure to use. If market share had been decided on technical merits alone, Windows of all flavors would have been many notches below OS/2 on the list. Alas, IBM didn't make a ton of deals with hardware manufacturers to practically give them OS/2 in exchange for not allowing any other OS to be sold on the PCs they sold (for obvious reasons--they were competitors to those manufacturers). Microsoft built its monopoly via those type of agreements with hardware vendors, and that is why we are where we are today.

BTW, there is no need to "educate" me by pointing out that in the old days IBM was just as bad as Microsoft in this regard. I am aware of the anticompetetive practices IBM has done in the past, and would not be surprised to hear about current things they might be doing in that regard. They are a large corporation, after all. And big money provides many people in a business with opportunity to misuse the power it provides. My point was that OS/2 did not "enjoy" the marketshare provided to Windows that was due to this kind of shady bundling deal.

Also, DB2 is no slouch in the database market. It performs quite well in comparison to other RDBMs. All RDBMs are fairly complicated, but I don't think calling DB2 "bloated" is an accurate statement.

I have no experience with Websphere, so I won't comment on that. I also won't argue that IBM never produced any slow or bloated software -- because they have. But to say "OS/2, DB2, Websphere, and everything else they've ever did" were slow and bloated is just making an ignorant statement.

Re:Ha! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25126365)

Er, you do know what IBM stands for, don't you? The "M" stands for "machines" and the "IB" doesn't stand for "Itty Bitty". IBM is primarily a hardware company.

Let's go to the discoteque, they have this hot "DJ" playing Afrika Bambaata hiphop music. Afterwards I'll show you my Modula II books and we can listen to Abba's latest album.

Re:Ha! (5, Informative)

Richard Steiner (1585) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125005)

Please... IBM's 32-bit OS/2 ran circles around Windows NT in its day (as a fine example, search for YouTube video of David Barnes demonstrating OS/2 versus NT back in the early 1990's), and I'm sure the Warp 4.5x kernel will run runs around XP, Vista, and probably also Linux and *BSD kernels on similar hardware even today. The OS/2 kernel used rings 0, 2, and 3 which was very usual for x86 code, but it also was extremely good at juggling multiple tasks and threads under load and at dynamically adjusting process/thread priorities to make the entire system smooth.

I remember some magazine doing a test of OS/2 Warp Server versus NT server sometime in the 1994/1995 timeframe, and a single-CPU Warp box trashed a 4-CPU NT box running the exact same benchmarks.

Notes is a bloated hog, yes, but OS/2? The evidence suggests otherwise.

Notes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25125257)

Notes they bought from Lotus, so you can't really blame the IBM software guys...

Re:Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25125045)

IBM! Makers of bloated slow shit! OS/2, DB2, Websphere, and everything else they've ever did!

You forgot clearcrap... oops, clearcase, sorry.

Please help (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124547)

If Sun other large tech companies join them, it will do a lot more good. IRTFA (some kind soul bought me a /. subscription and you can't comment on stories that come "in the future") and part of the end of the article explains why IBM just can't leave the standards bodies. They have their own standards to push, for instance.

More importantly, if some governments withdraw (5, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124869)

Some countries are already making noises about not automatically adopting ISO standards. The more countries that adopt this "a la carte" approach to ISO, the more it will weaken ISO. The more countries that adopt the a la carte approach "until such time as ISO gets its act together" the more pressure there will be on ISO to get its act together.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw (3, Insightful)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125711)

Screw letting it get its act together. One of the smaller standards bodies will become the de facto, and ISO's head can be placed on a pole in the public square as a reminder.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw (5, Insightful)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125897)

I think that was the whole point. Microsoft poisoned the well so they can sell bottled water.

Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25126071)

They may have poisoned one well, but will people stop drinking well-water altogether?

Not all as it seems (4, Interesting)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124889)

A quick look over at Groklaw [groklaw.net] has a good article about the motivations here. I'd still be cautious, but it's optimistic when IBM stresses open standards as being important to them. I'm actually surprised this didn't happen sooner with the garbage of OOXML.

Re:Not all as it seems (-1, Troll)

prockcore (543967) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125843)

I refuse to trust any website registered by proxy. As long as groklaw and PJ continue to be anonymous, the rumor that IBM owns and operates groklaw will continue to gain traction.

Re:Not all as it seems (3, Funny)

heritage727 (693099) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125919)

Forget to take your meds again, Darl?

Re:Not all as it seems (5, Insightful)

level4 (1002199) | more than 5 years ago | (#25126311)

So what you're saying is you're unable to separate the message from the messenger?

It doesn't matter a damn if IBM owns and operates Groklaw if the information on it is correct and stands up to scrutiny. To date, it has. So what's the problem?

In my opinion, the case of Groklaw is a great example of the public benefit of anonymous speech. If she had outed herself she might have been sued, pulled into court, lost her job, even physically harrassed. But by keeping her anonymity - and her integrity - she's been able to make a pretty big impact in the case, at least to us nerds who care about such things. She did exactly the right thing.

Names are meaningless. And even if you had it, what good what that do? What are you going to do, drive to that address, demand to see her bank statement to ensure there's no payments from IBM?

Where the information comes from is irrelevant. The quality of the information is the only thing that matters. Groklaw has stood the test of time, in my opinion, so you're doing yourself a disservice by downrating it on that basis.

Great, but does it really matter? (2, Insightful)

Garrick68 (1165999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124597)

It seems to me this will have little meaning in the long run. It's been shown the ISO is deep in the pockets of M$. Do they really care what IBM thinks or does? I mean they already got their money right?

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124655)

Well IBM is big enough to Push their own standards with or without the ISO label. So what that IBM may be able to do is invaladate ISO as a leader in International Standards Organization. If ISO label has no meaning then they become useless.

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (1)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124855)

IBM has hardly that kind of pull now a days. They are mostly a services and hardware reseller.

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#25126721)

Do you know what reseller means? They don't resell anything. They make it! They make their hardware and they design and sell their own software. They also spend millions a year on research and development in many scientific fields.

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (1)

resonance378 (1169393) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125917)

What really matters is that there is no 'pistol whip' tag to explain this. As in: The ISO just got a pistol whip from IBM.

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (4, Informative)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125995)

Do you even have a friggin' clue!

IBM and other raised serious objections to OOXML but OOXML was pushed forward, in violation of ISO's rules. IBM, with all it's clout, could not stop it.

More importantly the procedure that ISO had in place failed everyone. ISO violated its' own rules!

No discussions, no debates, no desents. People either approved OOXML or were forced to be silent.

ISO has been rendered usless as several countries have stated that are withdrawing from ISO and setting up their own standards body.

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (3, Informative)

WatersOfOblivion (1215490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124667)

Last year, Microsoft had $51bn in revenue and IBM had $98bn. So if it's about money, IBM is twice as important as Microsoft.

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (1)

Garrick68 (1165999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125099)

Granted IBM had more revenue but it was M$'s standard which was approved. That tells me M$ had more money to talk with.

no. (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125299)

it tells you ms is more experienced in doing dirty footwork than ibm is.

and we all know that from the stories of last 2 years on slashdot, even if not our own experiences, though ms fanbois may disagree.

Re:no. (1)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125459)

it tells you ms is more experienced in doing dirty footwork than ibm is.

I'll send you an invoice for the keyboard/monitor cleaning.

Re:no. (3, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#25126079)

No one is more experienced at doing dirty footwork than IBM; they set that industry standard along with hundreds of others. That's what made the SCO thing so damn funny, and look at the outcome there...They didn't just not lose, they annihilated the poor bastards. Now remember who was using their money to prop up SCO? Microsoft. This is an old feud.

No, the reason IBM didn't blow a ton of money on it is because they had nothing to lose. Their desktop suite is a hobby project, whereas Microsoft's is their life blood. Now IBM is throwing their weight around, and may end up getting to eat their cake and have it too, all for a piddly outlay of cash.

Who looks smart now?

Re:no. (2, Informative)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#25126235)

Ha!

IBM invented FUD. I've seen them playing hardball, and they were once so good at it that they used to manipulate the outcome of the World Series of Manipulation. IBM has simply learned that FUD could get you so far and no further, and now there's more to be gained by being honest (or at least more honest than Microsoft.)

Re:no. (2, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#25126629)

and they were once so good

I prefer to think they were so good at it, even they were ashamed by themselves and turned it round.

Some court case and anti-trust breakup thing might have had a hand in it too.

Re:no. (1)

LarsG (31008) | more than 5 years ago | (#25126633)

ms is more experienced in doing dirty footwork than ibm

+1 funny

Look up the origins of the expression "FUD" to understand why.

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124761)

It seems to me this will have little meaning in the long run. It's been shown the ISO is deep in the pockets of M$. Do they really care what IBM thinks or does? I mean they already got their money right?

Well, the cynic in me agrees with you -- I doubt IBM will follow through, and if they did, I doubt it would make much difference.

However, if people start viewing the ISO as irrelevant and just doing what a big company like Microsoft wants, then they run the risk of becoming irrelevant. That might be the kind of thing they take notice of.

I would like to see some correction to the fact that it's a standard that really only MS can implement. Rubber stamping OOXML basically just legitimizes it for governments to buy it.

Cheers

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (1)

Garrick68 (1165999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125173)

However, if people start viewing the ISO as irrelevant and just doing what a big company like Microsoft wants, then they run the risk of becoming irrelevant. That might be the kind of thing they take notice of.

Isn't that already happening? Are not some governments in Europe already viewing the ISO as irrelevant?

It COULD Matter (4, Interesting)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124891)

If a really major player leaves the organization it is a major "no confidence" vote in the organization itself.

While the official standards are a great idea, a really big player or a consortium of them can easily just create defacto standards that will have a great chance in the real-world marketplace. This is doubly true if they actually make their standards truly open, as IBM seems to advocate.

I'd say that if companies that manufacture about 10% of the market leave ISO, then it is wounded. If it hits a number like 25%, then it's basically useless.

Also, large companies pay an obscene amount in yearly dues to be part of the standards bodies. Losing that cash will sting badly.

Re:It COULD Matter (1)

Garrick68 (1165999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125233)

I agree with you that if a large number of companies jump ship it would hurt the ISO, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. Don't get me wrong. I'd love for it to happen but the cynic in me doesn't see it...

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25125311)

It's been shown the ISO is deep in the pockets of M$

No such thing has been shown. You've bought into IBM FUD.

How do I know? Because unlike 99% of those in the open source world, I'm suspicious of *everyone* with a large financial stake in something, not just MS. Thus, I actually *researched* IBM's numerous OOXML claims, and found that in most cases, they were blatantly lying. It was the pro-OOXML folks that were, overall, more honest and accurate.

IBM is in open source to make money, and they have no qualms about using people to achieve their monetary goals.

I urge you to research for yourself. You'll be surprised at what you find, and how much of the anti-OOXML crap turns out to be pure FUD. And you'll find that most of that FUD originates from IBM.

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25125837)

Ballmer's intern, is that you?

Re:Great, but does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25125965)

Is that you Bill?

Influence (5, Insightful)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124651)

Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member. This is particularly true of a 'Big Player' like IBM who will carry a lot of clout.
'Outsiders' can be discounted far more easily as they are simply not part of the process, and could therefore be said to be irrelevant.
IBM should collaborate with other large firms (but presumably not Microsoft) to enforce due diligence in future decisions.

Re:Influence (3, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124843)

I don't know much about the ISO process other than what I read here on Slashdot. But from what I gathered, big companies don't "carry a lot of clout" with ISO unless they bribe other smaller companies to join and vote with them.

It seems like a case where the most disreputable company with the most money wins. IBM's only choice then is to either play the game the way Microsoft did, or to leave.

Has ISO become a Bribeocracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25125087)

I don't know for sure, but, from what I've read recently, it seems so...and I think "bribeocracy" makes a good tag.

Turn that around (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124911)

Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member.

And surely ISO will be able to stay more relevant if it can retain IBM as a member. Standards bodies can be discounted for more easily if "Big Players" are simply not part of the process.

If IBM were pulling out simply because they weren't getting what they wanted, then the whole thing would seem childish. But when a standards body is approving bad standards because it's being manipulated/corrupted, and attempts to clean up the corruption are not being successful, then the appropriate thing for other "big players" to do is drop support for that standards body.

Re:Turn that around (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125935)

standards body is approving bad standards because it's being manipulated/corrupted, and attempts to clean up the corruption are not being successful

Cleaning up the corruption is almost impossible because of the enormous amounts of money that are ultimately at stake in the outcome of standards board decisions. Whenever large amounts of money are concentrated around a decision making process the powers that be will attempt to capture a share of that prize for themselves by whatever means necessary (laws are of no concern to multinational corporations because laws and justice can be bought just like everything else these days). I don't presume to offer a whole solution to this problem (conflict of interest problems are always difficult to resolve) but perhaps among the best would be to de-emphasize the importance of formalized standards (i.e. crowning of winners) and instead simply provide a forum for publishing papers, maintenance of professional wikis, and discussions and let those who are interested implement these best practices as and when it suits them, perhaps with certification that their implementation satisfies a spec paper published in the forum (the RFC system is sort of like this already, but it could probably benefit from modernized and improved processes).

Re:Turn that around (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25126239)

I don't know about de-emphasizing formal standards. Formal standards serve some pretty important purposes, which is exactly why so much money is at stake. I think it's one of those situations where something has to be done, but because it *is* so important, there are lots of people who will want to game the system. Therefore it's important to root out corruption, and keep the system clean and transparent. If you do somehow get to the point where the system is so corrupt that it can't be fixed, and the system is so corrupt that it isn't doing what it was set up to do, then you throw it out and make a new one.

You know, like a government.

Re:Influence (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124929)

I would like to buy some of what you're smoking!

Re:Influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124945)

If the big players won't play with ISO, then ISO becomes irrelevant and irrelevant things have a way of disappearing.

One big player is not enough to keep ISO alive.

Strike while the iron is hot (4, Insightful)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124971)

I don't think IBM feels like much of a 'Big Player', considering how much the ISO listened to them in regards to the OOXML stuff. If the ISO is going to act so stupid here, ignoring IBM, why should IBM expect their remarks to be considered by the ISO in the future? While it's true that MS isn't going to... influence the ISO's decisions quite so strongly on every tech-related issue as it did here (and so IBM will still have some voice) it is still a better idea to act now. If this happens again (and again and again), IBM won't have as much ground for fighting it. They'd have to justify why they didn't fight quite so hard before, and even if they make a perfectly reasonable argument (ie, your argument) the very fact they're put in that position weakens them.

IBM - and anyone else who cares to (and is in the position to) make a stance against the ISO's actions - must do it immediately and make it clear.

Re:Influence (4, Interesting)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125241)

Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member.

I don't believe that's true. IBM was a part of this OOXML process and yet it was, along with Sun, barred from the portuguese technical committee [boycottnovell.com] . This level of corruption doesn't leave fond memories of the whole process.

IBM? Didn't it used to make a PC? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25124675)

What's it up to these days? Anyone follow IBM anymore?

Re:IBM? Didn't it used to make a PC? (1)

zeropointburn (975618) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124815)

What's with all the astroturfing?
Someone with too much marketing money has a serious axe to grind with IBM.

Re:IBM? Didn't it used to make a PC? (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125959)

What would be the point? I can't think of any products IBM sells that a slashdot reader would want to buy. Thus, no commercial benefit in bashing IBM here.

IBM logo in the summary looks more beautiful (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124757)

today, dont you think ? it is to me at least.

Re:IBM logo in the summary looks more beautiful (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124791)

Ironic, too, as I've read about the Ancient Times(tm) when IBM was as reviled, if not more so, as Microsoft is today...

well (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124975)

we are here, here and now.

you heathen, with the mod point - yes you !! (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124963)

if you are unable to see the underlying deep meaning in a veiled statement such as the parent post, dont waste your mod points !.

this post is offtopic. not parent.

though since you have modded faultily, this post has somewhat become on-topic.

now work on this paradox you just created and prepare a paper on it until monday, 09.45 sharp. i want pie charts in appendix.

Settle down now.... (5, Interesting)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124783)

I have some friends and an ex-wife that work for IBM. While I would go as far to say that, by and large, my dealings with them have been fair an ethical, I would resist any sort of "white knight" metaphors, it is still a publicly traded company and stock holders mean more than standards.

It is only that IBM is a technically competent competitor that it *can* compete and win on a level playing field that they promote good standards.

That being said, having dealt with double dealing scum of Microsoft many times in the past, I'll take IBM any day.

Re:Settle down now.... (1)

Da_Biz (267075) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124981)

Kudos to those at IBM who championed this response to ISO!

Re:Settle down now.... (3, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125535)

"It is only that IBM is a technically competent competitor that it *can* compete and win on a level playing field that they promote good standards."

Sure, that's why they were investigated by the DOJ for a decade.

The difference between IBM and MS is that IBM knew how to play the game with politicians before the investigation started. MS made the mistake of thinking they didn't need to grease any palms. They know better now.

MS investigate for 20 years (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25126183)

and STILL not obeying the courts.

I think MS wins the "dirty little shitbag" contest.

PS as for MS using IBM's leaving as a stick to beat them with, when MS has shit in the pool, stop playing in it. m'kay?

IBM ??? (-1, Troll)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124789)

IBM? Who are they?

Oh, right, they were once an important company in the ancient days of core memory.

Re:IBM ??? (0)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125047)

I do all my thinking with core memory you insensitive clod!

Re:IBM ??? (1)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125165)

They are also the legitimate makers of the world's best processors [tomshardware.com] , despite what Intel's marketing may claim.

Re:IBM ??? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125343)

they have double the revenue ms has. so ?

Say it one more time with me (1)

metanoia3 (1255212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124949)

BROUHAHA

obligatory (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 5 years ago | (#25124969)

Mac: But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun.
        Thorny: Yeah, his shenanigans are cruel and tragic.
        Foster: Which wouldn't make them shenanigans, at all, really.
        Mac: (Irish voice) Evil shenanigans!
        O'Hagen: I swear to God, I'll pistol whip the next guy that says 'shenanigans!'
        Mac: Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?
        Farva: You mean Shenanigan's?
        Mac, Foster and Thorny: Oh, no! (Laughing) (Mac hands O'Hagen his gun.)
        Farva: You're talking about Shenanigan's, right?
        O'Hagen: Put those away!

You know you're thinking something similar. (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125019)

I think it would be best for everyone if IBM put millions of dollars for Blackwater to be their 'independent delegate' in discussing the situation with Microsoft.

Sometimes the only way to get a very level playing field is with a very big, heavy, unaccountable object.

I didn't actually hear this anywhere, I'm just trying to find some comfortable way to justify the complete and total annihilation of our good friends at Redmond. You know, besides the obvious reasons.

Acronym Overload (4, Funny)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125031)

"..OOXML...IBM...ISO....ECMA"

Danger! Acronym overload!!!

Must....keep.....head.....from......exploding. (MKHFE).

Re:Acronym Overload (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25126151)

Must....keep.....head.....from......exploding. (MKHFE).

Huh? Is that a new Mcafee product? MKHFE?

This can be a good move (3, Interesting)

slashdotlurker (1113853) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125089)

If IBM joins up with major countries that are on record against this infamy (like Brazil and India) and convinces other big players like Sun to join to form a rival to ISO, this could be a good move. I daresay, smaller players like Linux vendors (except Novell) will gladly join the new organization. They should then set up rules that an improperly documented and vendor-tied standard cannot even be brought up for a vote in that new organization, let alone bribed through like this OOXML bullshit.

Obligitory Groklaw Plug (2, Interesting)

CrkHead (27176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125217)

PJ has, as usual, her own thoughtful analysis [groklaw.net] on the announcemnt at Groklaw [groklaw.net] .

IBM can't "leave ISO" (2, Informative)

Osrin (599427) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125285)

A facinating slashdot headline. IBM isn't a "member" of ISO today, so can't exactally leave. ISO is made up of national standards bodies, there is no concept of corporate membership.

Devil's Advocate (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125297)

While I do think that IBM leaving ISO in protest would be a good thing overall for both ISO and IBM, I can't help but think that Microsoft will use this, as always, as a marketing ploy. In fact, I suspect they'll step up their rants against IBM and Sun.

"Look at IBM! Now we know they were the ones pushing ODF, and not us pushing Office on ISO!"

The other problem I see with IBM leaving ISO and succeeding in bringing other companies with it, is that now Microsoft has a very recognizable, international standards group under its heel and will probably monkey with software standards with impunity (first possible agenda: eliminate ODF as defunct). This will backfire on them in the long run, but keep in mind that Microsoft has historically favored short-term benefits for itself.

Important to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25125351)

That the words "brouhaha" and "shenanigans" are not used enough.

If IBM gets its way... (4, Funny)

grizdog (1224414) | more than 5 years ago | (#25125503)

maybe Microsoft will threaten to leave. Now that would be entertaining.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>