×

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!

Microsoft Bids To Take Over Open Document Format

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the pinching-the-oxygen-feed dept.

Microsoft 256

what about sends in a Groklaw alert warning that, by PJ's reading, Microsoft may be trying to take over ODF via a stacked SC 34 committee. The article lists the attendees at an SC 34 meeting in July and gives their affiliations, which the official meeting materials do not. (The attendees of the October 1 meeting, which generated a takeover proposal to OASIS, are not known in full.) "Why do I say Microsoft, when this is SC 34? Look at this ... list of participants in the July meeting in Japan of the SC 34 committee. The committee membership is so tilted by Microsoft employees and such, if it were a boat, it would capsize ... Of the 19 attendees, 8 are outright Microsoft employees or consultants, and 2 of them are Ecma TC45 members. So 10 out of 19 are directly controlled by Microsoft/Ecma ... [I]f the takeover were to succeed, SC 34 would get to maintain ODF as well as Microsoft's competing parody 'standard,' OOXML. How totally smooth and shark-like. Under the guise of 'synchronized maintenance,' without which they claim SC 34 can't fulfill its responsibilities, they get control of everything." A related submission from David Gerard points out that BoycottNovell has leaked the ISO OOXML documents, which ISO has kept behind passwords.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

256 comments

Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 now (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25258837)

why is this?

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259045)

Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 now
why is this?

I might be able to shed some light on this. Rob -- CmdrTaco -- Malda asked Netcraft, here's a transcript of the conversation:

NETCRAFT: We're confirming that we have answered the phone.
TACO: Hi, Rob Malda here. How's it hangin', still skewing your server figures in favour of Microsoft?
NETCRAFT: Our shit is good, Netcraft confirms it! Netcraft also confirms that we're still counting GoDaddy parked domains and MySpace accounts as full sites, IIS FTW!
TACO: Errr, ok. I was actually phoning to ask a question: is it worth developing for IE6, or should we dump it like a rotten BSD category?
NETCRAFT: IE6 is dead, Netcraft confirms it! So is BSD!
TACO: Thanks a lot, I think. Bye.
NETCRAFT: This conversation is over, Netcraft confi ... *click* *whhhrrrrrrr*

So you see, IE6 is dead. Netcraft confirms it! And the winner of the award for "Most Roundabout Way of Repeating a Tired Slashdot Meme" is ...

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259401)

In FireFox slashdot looks bad too, namely I can't click the tags of articles on the main page anymore and weird badly rendered semi transparent unreadable things pop up when hovering above it - so it's not just IE6 having problems with /. these days

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259717)

I get some sort of popupthingy when scrolling over them in Opera to, can't really figure out what it should be. I wouldn't say the whole page looks bad though, regarding looking bad in IE6 I'd consider that more of a feature than a bug anyway. The less compliance with IE6 the better.

Re:Slashdot looks like complete asshole in IE 6 no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259765)

Work computers, etc. I don't like to use IE6, but some times I have to.

Super slimy. (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25258853)

Let me get this straight:
Sit pouting on the sidelines during ODF standardization
Complain that ODF lacks all kinds of OMG Necessary! features
Hack together your own bloated abortion of a format.
Lie, cheat, and steal your way to its ratification as a standard, never mind that it duplicates functionality of an existing standard, and is of severly troubled quality.
And now: Demand to be placed in charge of maintaining the first standard?

Anything I missed?

Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place. (1)

GNUChop (1310629) | more than 5 years ago | (#25258933)

Their whole reason for making M$XML was that is served a different, never well defined, purpose. If that's true, they have no business running ODF, unless the reason was to kill ODF.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259109)

Actually there is a reason. They announced plans to incorporate native ODF support into Microsoft Office starting with a free service pack early next year. Now, granted, they don't need to be on a standards committee to work with a standard, but Microsoft has always been quite involved with standards committees for technologies that they utilize.

With the release of Microsoft Office 2007 Service Pack 2 (SP2) scheduled for the first half of 2009, the list [of supported file formats] will grow to include support for XML Paper Specification (XPS), Portable Document Format (PDF) 1.5, PDF/A and Open Document Format (ODF) v1.1.

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/may08/05-21ExpandedFormatsPR.mspx [microsoft.com]

This could be a bad thing. This could be Microsoft trying to abscond with the direction of the format for their own favor. Or they could be trying to close a number of known gaps, such as a complete lack of standard spreadsheet functions.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259145)

Depends what you want. Either

- ODF is a real industry standard, which means it supports the features of the office suite with 90% marketshare (Microsoft)

or

- ODF is competitive wedge which benefits the last place losers, Sun and IBM/Lotus.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place. (5, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259161)

Being involved with a format is one thing, microsoft are already members of OASIS, and have been invited to join the ODF committee many times over the past few years and always refused, tho they may have joined it more recently...
Trying to take control of it is quite another matter, as the format should remain neutral and not be controlled by a single for-profit corporation.

Re:Yes, you missed the excuse used in first place. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259461)

OOXML served to my knowledge one important purpose. Saying to governments and big company that they have an open and standardized file format. Because more and more of them asked for it in their call for tender.

hi twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259791)

Tell us about the shitstorm [slashdot.org] you organized yesterday.

Re:Super slimy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25258935)

You forgot ???? and Profit!

Re:Super slimy. (1, Redundant)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25258955)

Lie, cheat, and steal your way to its ratification as a standard, never mind that it duplicates functionality of an existing standard...

...Anything I missed?

Yes.

Lie, cheat, and steal your way to the maintenance of ODF and its reputation as a standard.

Re:Super slimy. (2, Insightful)

hdparm (575302) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259087)

Yeah, you missed one very important fact - Microsoft and 'open' in a same sentence always were and always will be FUD.

Re:Super slimy. (0, Flamebait)

cmacb (547347) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259105)

Anything I missed?

Yeah: Anyone who can still rationalize working for this company is an asshole.

Sorry, but that is my belief. I've worked for companies before where people quit on principle even when the company's actions didn't affect them personally. And on those occasions the company had done far less than Microsoft has done to harm the community.

It is high time it became a badge of dishonor to be affiliated with Microsoft in any way.

Re:Super slimy. (2, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259209)

Anything I missed?

Yeah: Anyone who can still rationalize working for this company is an asshole.

Sorry, but that is my belief. I've worked for companies before where people quit on principle even when the company's actions didn't affect them personally. And on those occasions the company had done far less than Microsoft has done to harm the community.

It is high time it became a badge of dishonor to be affiliated with Microsoft in any way.

By "affiliated" I hope you include "buying their products". It's easy to forget that Microsoft's business practices are only part of the problem; the real issue is that they continue to be rewarded with profits for this behavior.

Re:Super slimy. (-1, Flamebait)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259269)

Maybe when Linux actually works well for basic desktop use (it currently doesn't, though I like it on my servers), this would be a reasonable stance to have. As it is? Fuck you. When you don't offer an alternative that, quite simply, does not suck, you don't get to bitch and moan.

Re:Super slimy. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259353)

Maybe when Linux actually works well for basic desktop use (it currently doesn't, though I like it on my servers), this would be a reasonable stance to have. As it is? Fuck you. When you don't offer an alternative that, quite simply, does not suck, you don't get to bitch and moan.

For my use (programming, surfing, writing documents, creating websites...) Linux works significantly better in desktop use than Windows XP ever did and orders of magnitude better than the Vista I have in my laptop for the occasional use.

Not only do I get the normal benefits (no need for antivirus program, etc.) but I can't stand the functionality Windows is missing. For example, no ability to choose any window to be always on top? What's up with that?

For the last few years, Linux has been very suitable for desktop use. The main problem are drivers (Getting sounds, 3d acceleration, etc. to work can sometimes be a pain for a regular user). However, if buying two thousand computers for organizational use, knowing the OS you'll be using beforehand and making sure that the hardware is supported and installing all to be exactly identical... There isn't such a problem.

please specify (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259445)

where does linux fail at basic desktop functions? Right off the bat any mainstream large distro has loads more functionality out of the box when it comes to device drivers. So, what is basic desktop use? Browsers? No fail Media Playback? no fail eMail? no fail Messaging? no fail office productivity? no fail All quite functional. Those are basic desktop functions ( I don't count games as basic functions, they are covered with consoles as much as anything and it is too varied a market). If you mean fail to run some particular niche software, oh well, you might have a point there, no linux autocad for instance, but that isn't classed as basic desktop function, that is a specialty thing. Autocad is only used by well under 1/100th of 1% of people who use computers, if that really, probably a smaller number. So, where is the big fail on the desktop?

Re:please specify (4, Insightful)

jackbird (721605) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259701)

It's not a single niche app that's missing, it's that almost everyone has a niche app they need that is missing or not quite there. Exchange, AutoCAD, and Quickbooks as a set cover a whole lot of users, for example.

Re:Super slimy. (2, Insightful)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259645)

... the real issue is that they continue to be rewarded with profits for this behaviour.

No, they continue to be rewarded with profits for their products, some of which actually work well for their customers.

It's hard to fault someone buying WinXP (for example), as it works well enough, is unobtrusive and if problems occur there are plenty of people who have half a clue about fixing it. That goes for SQL Server and some of their other products.

No-one is giving Microsoft money for their practices, and tying their products to a slimy practice which requires some explanation before people realise it's bad is too much. People lose interest before you finish. Hell, I lost interest before I'd finished the sentence above.

I know what's happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259345)

Microsoft finally put 2 and 2 together, and realized that its most profitable days coincided with its period of greatest corruption. Ever since it drew its claws in slightly, it's been fading badly.

So now it wants to get back to its glory days, and what better way to start than to embrace, extend and corrupt everything that's left in Computing. Before it was just a few languages and networking standards, but that's not good enough for the New Microsoft: now it'll corrupt all rival standards too, by subverting the standards bodies themselves.

This is sheer genius. It's VASTLY cheaper and faster to corrupt a few committees than it is to actually embrace and extend some actual software. Sheer genius.

Re:Super slimy. (1, Troll)

Geheimagent (679949) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259561)

Let me get this straight:
Sit pouting on the sidelines during ODF standardization
Complain that ODF lacks all kinds of OMG Necessary! features
Hack together your own bloated abortion of a format.
Lie, cheat, and steal your way to its ratification as a standard, never mind that it duplicates functionality of an existing standard, and is of severly troubled quality.
And now: Demand to be placed in charge of maintaining the first standard?

Anything I missed?

...
Profit

Re:Super slimy. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259727)

How we shouldn't had to go thru it if ISO had just accepted that whatever .doc was the standard already? ;)

Hold 'em, fold 'em. (3, Funny)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25258893)

"A related submission from David Gerard points out that BoycottNovell has leaked the ISO OOXML documents, which ISO has keep behind passwords. "

OK we slashdot their servers. Now what?

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em. (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259271)

We laugh at AlexH for thinking that because a bug existed in a calculation, it should be specified and mandated that all future calculations contain the same bug, in case people corrected for it?

Or perhaps at Microsoft for creating non-existent dates.

Or at ISO for creating one of the worst backlashes against a standard I think I have ever seen through their inept handling of the crisis and their blatant disregard for their own procedures.

Or at ODF's board for their suicidal willingness to allow the makers of a competing standard dictate their own direction. (Even if ODF survives - and no guarantee of that - AlexH has already made it clear that the bugs present in OOXML are being deliberately introduced into ODF for "backwards-compatibility" reasons. If ODF becomes a re-implementation of OOXML, who is going to use ODF?)

Re:Hold 'em, fold 'em. (3, Informative)

Tweenk (1274968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259837)

You ate AlexH FUD. Read further into the comments and you'll see this:

Luc Bollen said,
October 3, 2008 at 9:41 am

Here is what OpenFormula says about this (normative text):

"Implementations of formulas in an OpenDocument file shall use the epoch specified in the table-null-date attribute of the element, and shall support at least the following epoch values: 1899-12-30, 1900-01-01, and 1904-01-01.

Many applications cannot handle Date values before January 1, 1900. Some applications can handle dates for the years 1900 and on, but include a known defect: they incorrectly presume that 1900 was a leap year (1900 was not a leap year). Applications may reproduce the 1900-as-leap-year bug for compatibility purposes, but should not. Portable documents shall not include date calculations that require the incorrect assumption that 1900 was a leap year. Portable documents shall not assume that negative date values are impossible (many implementations use negative dates to represent dates before the epoch). Portable documents should use the epoch date 1899-12-30 to compensate for serial numbers originating from applications that include a 1900-02-29 leap day in their calculations."

I think we are far from "ODF 1.2 will standardise this bug as well".

This link still works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259695)

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/1080c.htm

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34
Document Description and Processing Languages
Secretariat: Japan (JISC)

DOC. TYPE Final Text Submitted for IS Publication
TITLE Final Text for ISO/IEC 29500-1, Information technology -- Document description and processing languages -- Office Open XML File Formats -- Part 1: Fundamentals and Markup Language Reference
SOURCE Mr. Rex JAESCHKE - Project editor
PROJECT JTC 1.34.29500.01
STATUS This text has been submitted to ITTF for publication. It is circulated to the SC 34 members for information.
ACTION ID FYI
DUE DATE
DISTRIBUTION P, O and L Members of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 ; ISO/IEC JTC 1 Secretariat; ISO/IEC ITTF
ACCESS LEVEL Def
ISSUE NO. 42
FILE
NAME
SIZE (KB)
PAGES

1080c.htm 1080.pdf OfficeOpenXML-WordprocessingMLArtBorders.zip OfficeOpenXML-SpreadsheetMLStyles.zip OfficeOpenXML-DrawingMLGeometries.zip OfficeOpenXML-RELAXNG-Strict.zip OfficeOpenXML-XMLSchema-Strict.zip
3 40847 14088 82 51 94 164
1 5570

Secretariat ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 - IPSJ/ITSCJ (Information Processing Society of Japan/Information Technology Standards Commission of Japan)* Room 308-3, Kikai-Shinko-Kaikan Bldg., 3-5-8, Shiba-Koen, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0011 Japan *Standard Organization Accredited by JISC
Telephone: +81-3-3431-2808; Facsimile: +81-3-3431-6493; E-mail: kimura@itscj.ipsj.or.jp

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/1080.pdf

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/OfficeOpenXML-WordprocessingMLArtBorders.zip

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/OfficeOpenXML-SpreadsheetMLStyles.zip

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/OfficeOpenXML-DrawingMLGeometries.zip

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/OfficeOpenXML-RELAXNG-Strict.zip

http://boycottnovell.com/forms/ooxml/OfficeOpenXML-XMLSchema-Strict.zip

Exmbrace, extend, extinguish (4, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25258959)

Microsoft must be truly scared by the prospect of widespread adoption of open source office software. The question now is, what can the open source community do to prevent another OOXML-type situation? How will interested parties prevent Microsoft from engaging in its usual "embrace, extend and extinguish" behavior?

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish (4, Insightful)

frisket (149522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259159)

"It's the file format, stupid :-)"

Microsoft doesn't like FOSS, but even more they hate someone coming up with a file format that is better than theirs. Plenty of FOSS implements Microsoft file formats, but to have a competing format become more widespread than their own is what terrifies Microsoft.

All your data are belong to us...

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish (-1, Troll)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259283)

Arguably, ODF is not as good as OpenXML. ODF has some pretty gaping holes (hello, spreadsheets) and some very ugly failures (encryption, for example).

OpenXML isn't great either, but ODF is really not "better" than OpenXML. (Don't give me the tired BoycottNovell-tard line about OpenXML not being implementable--it simply isn't true.)

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish (3, Interesting)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259685)

"A > B but I won't tell you why."

"Don't tell me the problems you think A has, you're just plain wrong. I won't tell you why."

You're going to need to do more than simply disagree if you want to be taken seriously. Why is OpenXML better than ODF? Why are people wrong about OpenXML being un-implementable?

You may be spot on, but just giving the endpoint for your argument misses the crucial bit where you convince other people that you're right.

Ah, that explains it. (1)

GNUChop (1310629) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259665)

Microsoft doesn't like FOSS, but even more they hate someone coming up with a file format that is better than theirs.

Now you know why they hate everyone.

I don't see that the demise of ISO would really be the demise of ODF. The issue is important enough that credibility will shift to any standards body that does a good job of maintaining ODF and ISO will sink like a stone.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish (3, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259335)

Think about what happens if Microsoft Office is supplanted:
1. Microsoft loses 1 of its 2 big cash cows.
2. Businesses have no reason to choose Windows desktops over Apple or Linux, cutting the Windows market in half.

In other words, open protocols + open file formats + improved OpenOffice cuts Microsoft revenues by 75%. They will fight tooth and nail for that.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259417)

Ummm... not sure what you are talking about, but Office has, and always will be available for the Mac, and most versions other than Office 2007 are emulated in WINE-like projects (such as Cross-Over and such)

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259643)

Ummm... not sure what you are talking about, but Office has, and always will be available for the Mac, and most versions other than Office 2007 are emulated in WINE-like projects (such as Cross-Over and such)

yes, it has been available in the Mac, but who wants to run it?

MS Office has sucked worse on each release since the O2K release, which made the single improvement of moving away from the horrible O97 MDI interface.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish (1)

Teilo (91279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259753)

And if you have ever actually used Office for Mac, you would realize that it's compatibility with Office for Windows is hardly any better than NeoOffice or OOo 3.0.

Not only that, it's slow. It has horribly stupid font management. Every release since Office for Mac 10 has gotten progressively worse. The current release, 12, is so bad, that on an Intel machine, it is actually faster to run version 11 (which is PPC only) through Rosetta emulation.

I am nearly convinced that Microsoft deliberately stunts Office for Mac to drive Mac users to Windows. Well it worked for me. I deleted Office for Mac, and now run Office 2003 via VMWare Fusion.

um, I know! (4, Insightful)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259403)

How about ENFORCING anti-trust law!

(bada-bing)

The DoJ couldn't get a proper remedy. I have faith that the EU will.

Failing that, the public will eventually recognise Microsoft for the destructive, self interested criminals they are, and will shut them down.

Re:um, I know! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259593)

You know, if it weren't for Microsoft we would still have a small computer industry with a bunch of completely incompatible machines, software that was all priced like it used to be ($700 for just a word processor), etc.

Bad business practices? Sure, agreed. Destructive? Hell no. Their defacto standardization of the industry has driven productivity to heights it would never have reached if they had not been around.

Trash them all you want - but give them the credit they have coming.

Re:um, I know! (4, Insightful)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259741)

Their defacto standardization of the industry has driven productivity to heights it would never have reached if they had not been around.

And the factual source for this alternate history is..? If Microsoft did not exist, other things would have happened. Why would the industry have stayed at the same maturity level of 1982?

Many people around here imagine a better outcome. You clearly believe otherwise. Playing "What If?" games is fun, but essentially pointless because there is no way to know about the variables that were suppressed by the actual outcomes.

Here's my go (just for fun) - standardisation would have happened earlier, through professional organisations getting ISO involvement for document formats (they'd want this to smooth business and government functions). Open documents would be the norm, and the choice of operating system and application would be far less critical than now, as documents would have been truly portable.

Trash them all you want - but give them the credit they have coming.

I give them absolutely no credit for doing better than a fictional alternate timeline. They should be doing better in this real one!

Re:um, I know! (2, Insightful)

niiler (716140) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259855)

In this country we've had the foxes watching the hen-houses for the last eight years. I can't recall any enforcement action (from EPA to anti-trust) over that period although rulings were made. Hopefully this will change shortly, no matter who wins in November.

That said, this is only peripherally a MS anti-trust issue in that if MS wasn't so big (and felt that it could get away with murder), perhaps it wouldn't be on their agenda. It's really more of an ISO issue, as others before have said.

Re:Exmbrace, extend, extinguish (1)

JonSimons (1026038) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259501)

The question now is, what can the open source community do to prevent another OOXML-type situation?

Exactly!

We have a situation where Microsoft is, for better or worse, attempting to participate in the open standards game. Will the fact that ODF is an open standard fundamentally reduce Microsoft's leverage?

I'll conjecture that the open process will prevail. I'm an optimist, though...

Standards (1)

colganc (581174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25258967)

Create their own standard. Companies, organizations, and individuals can create standards away from this. It is not like this is the only option. Take what you have and go play somewhere else, leaving Microsoft to theirselves. I imagine though, Microsoft buying in is needed more by the people in these standard organizations than Microsoft needs their seal of approval.

Re:Standards (2, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259019)

The problem is that no matter where we go, MS will come and try polluting that, too. Now that we have a good standard that governments want to use, MS wants a piece of the pie. Are we supposed to just abandon ODF? If FOSS leaves ODF behind, then MS would be the only entity that supports the mandated format (which is exactly what they want).

Re:Standards (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259265)

The problem is that no matter where we go, MS will come and try polluting that, too. Now that we have a good standard that governments want to use, MS wants a piece of the pie. Are we supposed to just abandon ODF? If FOSS leaves ODF behind, then MS would be the only entity that supports the mandated format (which is exactly what they want).

They can have a piece of the pie ... they just shouldn't get to be the baker.

This is just the first step, why don't we fight? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25258991)

Can we say.... One Nation... One Gov't.... One World.... This is scary, if M$ can control a committee just by sheer majority what can't money buy? Honestly, I give it another 15-20 years and we will see things crumble, we will see things happen that totally change the way we all (the world) lives. Look at it this way.... Europe has the Euro, its only a matter of time before other major continents feel the economic hardship, as well as the seize and control of corporations and governments alike.

We have to somehow stop M$ soon, otherwise you will not see him just taking over "Software Standards", he is joined w/ probably roughly 30 others in a like-mind stand to revolutionize the World. Just wait and see, this will happen; these are just the first major steps.

Re:This is just the first step, why don't we fight (0, Offtopic)

[cx] (181186) | more than 5 years ago | (#25258997)

Globalization crushes poor people, I'm in favor of it.

Re:This is just the first step, why don't we fight (1, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259311)

Globalization crushes poor people, I'm in favor of it.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

Doesn't really matter, methinks... (1)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259007)

Look at WhatWG and W3C. Concepts are important, but the Internet treats censorship (on MS's part) as damage and will, naturally, route around it. People get angry, publicity is gotten, groups are formed. MS is shut out of the new goodness.

(Just for the record, I think that censorship quote is horribly snarky but I'm using it anyway)

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks... (0, Offtopic)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259075)

...the Internet treats censorship (on MS's part) as damage and will, naturally, route around it.

Ever since the Eternal September [wikipedia.org] started, the Internet has been less inclined to route around technical damage such as IE and .doc

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks... (3, Insightful)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259255)

Whence Firefox and ODF then? And why the big struggle on Microsoft's part to take over ODF? Also, I thought Eternal September's significance faded in inverse proportion to the length of time one has been on the net. ;-)

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259477)

I didn't say it won't route around damage. But it is now very slow to. IE has had a majority marketshare since, what? 1999? It is slowly dying, but it has been nearly a decade. If it weren't for the Eternal September, it probably wouldn't have ever gained a majority marketshare.

With ODF we have much the same situation. It just isn't spreading with the same speed it would have without n00bs on the Internet.

Re:Doesn't really matter, methinks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259811)

Firefox took forever. The Mozilla products are still nowhere near 50% in most markets. OpenOffice is hardly visible. Normal people buy Windows PCs, write their letters with Microsoft Office and send DOC files and synchronize schedules with Outlook. Microsoft isn't faced with an inferno. They're putting out a burning camp fire... and most people couldn't care less.

Eternal September, as bad as it may seem, was an important milestone: It marked the end of the time when the internet was used by people who treated it as an end in itself. It marked the point when the internet stopped being just a geek toy and became a tool. Open Source software as a concept has not reached that milestone and the few projects which have become tools are fragile and have a hard time balancing their geek support base and their careless users, because these projects are faced with unhealthy economic dependencies and very vigilant opponents. The internet on the other hand grew almost unnoticed until explosive growth set in and it was too late to stop it.

Hello David (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259025)

You fucking bastard Wikipedian. The Willy on Wheels and Grawp are going to stretch your ass with our massive cocks.

fuck the following wiki administators

zzuuzz, oxymoron83, ryulong, jpgordon, alison, knightlago and all the other cocksucking bastards who like to delete articles as not notable even with 3rd party reliable source.

Interesting that the this article [wikipedia.org] is so long compared to stomach [wikipedia.org]

My latest sleeper sock is User:N-C7 by the way.

softwar gangster 'business' failing everywhere (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259053)

it would be easier to learn to understand that all we are, & all we have, are gifts from the creators.

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Paranoid... (4, Funny)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259059)

Putting this just above the article on paranoid Linux distro seems like there's a conspiracy.

In Soviet Russia... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259073)

In Soviet Russia, ODF format bids to take over you!

What, no "Go to Hell" tag? (2, Funny)

Azuma Hazuki (955769) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259139)

Subject. Between this and the weasel-word butchering of "open source" MS is trying to pull off I have just about had enough of them. ...if Bill Gates goes to Hell, will he be forced to use Ubuntu on a SPARCStation as the BSD daemon prods him with a pointy little pitchfork? With a loop of Richard Stallman's rancid songs playing in the background?

OSS Standards (4, Insightful)

hachete (473378) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259193)

Maybe we should create our own standards committees. And work out a way for them *not* to be corrupted.

Re:OSS Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259611)

That already exists. GNU.

Department of Justice (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259207)

Honestly, PJ should forward all data related to the ISO/OOXML scandal and these latest actions to the DoJ and request they open another antitrust case. I'm not sure there has ever been a more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior from MS.

Re:Department of Justice (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259273)

Honestly, PJ should forward all data related to the ISO/OOXML scandal and these latest actions to the DoJ and request they open another antitrust case. I'm not sure there has ever been a more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior from MS

It won't work. The DoJ has people who actually investigate things, and so would filter out all the inaccuracies and FUD, and find there is pretty much nothing left of the "scandal".

At least 90% of what Groklaw has written about on this topic came straight from IBM blogs, and, if you actually fact check it, you find that IBM out and out lied about most of what they said.

Re:Department of Justice (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259367)

IBM made up the litany of complaints from technology boards around the world? Afraid not, since those are confirmed and I've been reading those first hand from the boards complaining.

IBM made up Microsoft replacing seats on various boards to push this?

IBM made up ISO fast-tracking a huge document that is impossible to implement?

You know what, I just shouldn't respond to ACs. The only FUD and lies here in your post.

Re:Department of Justice (2, Insightful)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259779)

The DoJ has people who actually investigate things, and so would filter out all the inaccuracies and FUD...

So you agree with that anti-trust court ruling a while back? Excellent starting point. Microsoft is a company with a history of abusive, illegal practices. It's good that you agree with the DoJ.

At least 90% of what Groklaw has written about on this topic came straight from IBM blogs, and, if you actually fact check it, you find that IBM out and out lied about most of what they said.

Really? With such a high proportion it's odd that you don't provide any examples. Perhaps you keep looking at that 10%. I sympathise - all I can see is that 10%. Like an iceberg, the other 90% must be submerged out of sight.

I'm confident that with your fair-minded view of Microsoft's past abusive and illegal acts, you'll come back and point out several examples from that 90% overlap.

They wanted government contracts (2, Interesting)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259263)

And they were told OOXML wouldn't work, because despite its ISO blessing, there was no reference implementation of ISO OOXML.

So Microsoft is going the other route: subvert and gain control of ODF.

Google (3, Interesting)

oGMo (379) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259349)

Next time some whiner points out something new cool thing Google is doing is really a veiled conspiracy to take over the world, please point to this and tell them to kindly STFU. Microsoft is really evil and they've consistently and continuously done things like this since their inception 25+ years ago.

Re:Google (2, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259453)

Google accepts like a regular soulless (seeing as they are not human), profit driven organization. But Microsoft seems driven to take the path which leads to the most destruction for others to their own benefit.

So, how do we protect ODF? (1)

Eryq (313869) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259395)

A million Davids can kick the ass of one Goliath. What rocks should we use? Ideas?

Re:So, how do we protect ODF? (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259861)

A million Davids can kick the ass of one Goliath. What rocks should we use? Ideas?

Real ones. And pitchforks. And torches.

For all you MS optimists (4, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259405)

No, Microsoft is still out to make a buck by stabbing anything in its way. That's how it started, that's how it grew, and that has been its very successful strategy. Why anyone would think that they would change what has worked very well for them is beyond me.

Still think Apple is the new Microsoft? (4, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259427)

Sure Apple has done some things that ware bone-headed and just plain wrong but nothing they've done remotely compares to what Balmer et al is trying to pull here.

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft? (1)

Zigbigadoorlue (774066) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259755)

Thats because they aren't a monopoly yet. If they had the same power and market stranglehold as Microsoft they would have just as much to loose from allowing competing standards to exist. Right now they are one of the competing standards. If they ever ascended to Microsoft's position I'm sure they would use the same underhanded tactics. Behavior like this is not specific to Microsoft, it's more that these tactics are inherent to monopolies.

Re:Still think Apple is the new Microsoft? (0, Flamebait)

pugdk (697845) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259809)

Sure Apple has done some things that ware bone-headed and just plain wrong but nothing they've done remotely compares to what Balmer et al is trying to pull here.

You are correct, Apple simply ignores current standards instead and invents their own and/or adds DRM / security-through-obscurity crap on top of known standards.

Examples: The "mailbox" file format of iMail (or what its called) and ipods. I know there are more, I can't be bothered to find them :-)

Parasitic Behavior (1)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259433)

Somehow OOXML has managed to survive long enough sucking on the juices of the ISO host and now it's time to swallow the better performing competitor. True market forces at play, except it's no market forces and it will ruin everything. But who ever cared about that at Microsoft.

Acceptance of OOXML Failure? (3, Interesting)

JonSimons (1026038) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259467)

This is a good thing. Microsoft has publicly shown that they have accepted the failure of OOXML, and are now attempting to participate (for better, or for worse) in ODF.

Those that cry "Microsoft is taking over!" -- remember how touted the "open-ness" of the process for ODF has been in the past, and how the contrast of that open process versus the less-open ECMA process has been attempted to be used as one of the many criticisms of the OOXML debacle.

Now the important question is, can an open standard like ODF prevail in face of the juggernaut Microsoft?

I think so. I'm an optimist.

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure? (4, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259489)

Does optimism include ignoring past history and evidence?

Re:Acceptance of OOXML Failure? (1)

JonSimons (1026038) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259869)

Does optimism include ignoring past history and evidence?

In my case, no. I'm not ignoring any history of which I'm aware.

However, I don't claim to be aware of everything.

For my edification, have there been any other open standards in the past with which Microsoft has associated itself, only to "ruin things"? (It seems as though this is the concern for ODF).

I'm genuinely interested, but just unaware of any past precedent. I'd definitely appreciate any links or references discussing similar situations in the past.

Windows 7 will not be a standard desktop OS like V (0, Offtopic)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259493)

why would Microsoft put another desktop OS out there and totally mess up the migration off of XP and on top of that, give them another black eye like Windows ME. Granted, ME was a subset market since Win98 held it's own and Windows 2000 carried the main business user sector so the WinME flop was a consumer issue at best.

From what I see, Windows 7 is going to be the rent-a-Windows kit more to the likes of gOS where it's tied to online services or rental apps. You know, Ozzy's plan now that Gates is out of the way.

But I did get a laugh when it was said that Maine will "hope for the best" with regards to what comes out of Microsoft next. I do think they'll be unpleasantly surprised at what Windows 7 is and probably give GNU/Linux a good look-see as that time approaches. Just my guess. ;-)

LoB

wrong story - wierdness (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259749)

doh, ff3 and the new-ish /. layout gives me problems getting to the story 'read more' link and somehow it ended up here. Sorry.

Microsoft still sucks for this next phase of their _destroy ODF_ policy and/or plan. Very much so indeed.

LoB

According to Gandhi, we're getting close! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25259549)

These days, at least we *know* we're most of the way through Ghandi's Progression:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

They're starting to fight pretty hard (and dirty)...

Hypocritical (-1, Troll)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259587)

Didn't PJ and others who opposed OOXML suggest that MS should get involved with ODF and adopt it as the standard document format for MS Office?

Isn't MS doing exactly as suggested in getting involved with ODF to make the format suitable for use with MS Office?

Re:Hypocritical (5, Insightful)

ElBeano (570883) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259657)

Adopting it as a standard and taking it over and subverting the standard are two different things...

Re:Hypocritical (2, Insightful)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259687)

Isn't MS doing exactly as suggested in getting involved with ODF to make the format suitable for use with MS Office?

Nobody argued that MS should hijack the standard. It should be the other way around: Instead of trying to make ODF suitable to MS Office, they should make MS Office work with ODF as it is.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

EveLibertine (847955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259781)

Isn't MS doing exactly as suggested in getting involved with ODF to make the format suitable for use with MS Office?

No

Re:Hypocritical (1)

beh (4759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259785)

Not quite - PJ and others suggested that MS should get behind ODFs acceptance as an ISO standard.

Right now we have MS basically screwed official ISO standardisation by providing a document format they can't do properly themselves - and now they're trying to control the other format, which then they could change and disrupt however they wanted without ISO having any say in it -- after all, ODF isn't ISO...

ODF2, ODF 2009, ODF-2010, etc. (5, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259709)

Duh. The reason they want to control the standard is so they can force it to change, again and again.

The reason MS doesn't like open standards is not because they're crazy or evil (which actually they might be, but that's not the reason, here) but because file formats are the key to upgrades.

When you can change a file format so that older versions are incompatible, you can create a situation where 100 million people with word 2009 start getting new files from 1 million people with word 2010. The 100 million people cannot read them. They complain, they gripe, then THEY UPGRADE.

A file format which stays the same breaks this model, and that would reduce MS revenue by a colossal amount. They can't allow that. So they need to control ODF so that they can keep changing it.

yeah, so... (1)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259747)

; A related submission from David Gerard points out that BoycottNovell has leaked the ISO OOXML documents,
; which ISO has kept behind passwords.

So, what was the terrible secret that ISO were hiding??

Screw all this, (0)

Maguscrowley (1291130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259823)

I'll use plain text where accepted and latex+acrobatpdf when I need formatting.

Let's see microsoft try fighting Knuth's tex and see how they fair. A glance by his most high will make their bits WITHER to 0's and Z's!!!

Why not just ignore MS (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 5 years ago | (#25259883)

and keep on developing 0DF and promote/advertiste OO and its derivitives more and more while improving MS vs ODF compatability. Just like anything you need to build a brand name that people will recognize and then Office will eventually drop in numbers. Might not be anytime soon but hey thats what it takes.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...