×

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!

de lcaza calls OOXML a "Superb Standard"

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the say-it-ain't-so-miguel dept.

Microsoft 615

you-bet-it's-not-out-of-context writes "A blogger on KDE Developer's Journal has found an interesting post by Miguel de Icaza, the founder of GNOME and Mono, in a Google group dedicated to the discussion of his blog entries. Six days ago Miguel stated that 'OOXML is a superb standard and yet, it has been FUDed so badly by its competitors that serious people believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with it.' In the same post he says that to avoid patent problems over Silverlight, when using or developing Mono's implementation (known as Moonlight), i's best to 'get/download Moonlight from Novell which will include patent coverage.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

615 comments

Good morning, people. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546715)

The developers had a conference on the Brain Slug Planet. Miguel liked it so much he decided to stay of his own free will.

Re:Good morning, people. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546997)

I for one favor unreasonably huge subsidies to the brain slug planet.

Sounds like he's sold out (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546717)

I wonder how much Microsoft paid Miguel to say this.

Re:Sounds like he's sold out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546863)

Migeul's slogan: "How can I suck off Bill today?"

What a traitor.

Re:Sounds like he's sold out (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546943)

I wonder how much Microsoft paid Miguel to say this.
Wait...Microsoft will PAY you to say shit like this? Holy fuck! Hey, Microsoft! What you want me to say? I'll say anything provided you pay me and Ballmer doesn't get to throw any chairs at me!

w00t!

*wakes up from mind-control state*

Wait? Huh? What did I just say? I was almost a goner!

Always been a MS Shill (5, Informative)

plasticsquirrel (637166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547011)

I wonder how much Microsoft paid Miguel to say this.
You're obviously new here. He's been praising Microsoft for years, every chance he gets. Pretty sad, really.

Re:Always been a MS Shill (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547299)

> He's been praising Microsoft for years, every chance he gets.

Not only that, he has yet to encounter a Microsoft technology he didn't like so much he wanted to clone it into the Free Software world and make us all dependent on it.

For years the joke was GNOME was cloned Microsoft internals with a goofy (vaguely MAc inspired treat the user as an idiot motif but without the consistency or polish of the Mac UI to make up for it) UI while KDE was cloned Microsoft UI with goofy Trolltech internals. Then Miguel hell head over heels in love with .NET and was all setto rewrite GNOME using that patenttrap. Thankfully saner heads have prevailed.... so far.

The sooner we all write off Miguel and Novell the better off we will all be. Taking any code from that camp is just inviting a lawsuit. Sooner or later, BOOM!

First things first. (2, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546731)

Can it be verified that it really was him posting that?

Re:First things first. (5, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546849)

It's his own blog.

That statement proves it: (2, Insightful)

Burz (138833) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547267)

Icaza is a thoroughgoing Microsoft shill.

OOXML is objectively horrible/unworkable as a "standard" and if Icaza's attitude is reflective of (or impacts) Novell's then IMO what little FOSS credibility and good standing Novell had will have vanished.

It seems Mono has become a non-starter and he needs another way to grab attention.

Long time since QT license issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546873)

If that is the same Miguel, it is fun how things have changed since the KDE license issue that gave birth to GNOME. Fun fun fun.

Or maybe just abstruse like the captcha.

Re:First things first. (2, Funny)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547087)

Why? It's hardly out of character. I'd want more proof of attribution if he was scathing.

KDE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546747)

KDE, here I come.

I know this is kdawson, but... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546751)

I know this is a kdawson slashtroll, but does it happen to be true?

zero street cred (0, Troll)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546755)

Hey Miggy, how much $$$$ did microsoft deposit into your swiss bank account for spewing that kind of utter fucking bullshit? You are one sad motherfucker.

ROXXXX-annne (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546757)

You don't have to put on that Silverlight...

Is Miguel speaking as a Microsoft officer? (4, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546765)

Downloading from Novell comes with a Microsoft patent license?

I'm sorry, Miguel, but this is getting weirder and weirder. You may be a sierra-hotel coder, but I'm not sure that translates into authority to make legal commitments on behalf of Microsoft.

Re:Is Miguel speaking as a Microsoft officer? (5, Informative)

raddan (519638) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546977)

It should be added that de Icaza is a Novell VP. So in light of the Microsoft/Novell patent agreement, I think we should all take his opinions with a dose of skepticism. That's not to disparage in any way his work in Free software, of which there are many and great, and I thank him for this. But that does not exonerate him from future badness and/or idiocy.

Re:Is Miguel speaking as a Microsoft officer? (2, Informative)

hdon (1104251) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547265)

Matusow continued, "To do this, Novell and Microsoft are providing covenants to each other's customers, therefore releasing each company from the other's patent portfolio. This may sounds odd vs. a traditional patent cross-license agreement but it is one of the things that makes this deal so unique."

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2927608517.html [linux-watch.com]

no way it's really him (0, Troll)

keeboo (724305) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546775)

I'm sure the real Miguel is able to see the obvious technical deficiencies of OOXML.

Re:no way it's really him (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547099)

I'm sure the real Miguel is able to see the obvious technical deficiencies of OOXML.

No - he gave us gconf :(

No Single Person Has Done More Damage (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546787)

than this little shit.

This dimwitted Microsoft fanboy has made fools out of the entire open source world with the Mono fiasco. You gleefully jumped on the Mono patent mess proclaiming how open minded you were and how enlightened the open source crowd was where you were so open minded you would even embrace technology developed by Microsoft.

Microsoft must be just shaking their head in disgust. They aren't even having to lift a finger while one stupid little punk rampages through the open source world causing devastation.

Re:No Single Person Has Done More Damage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546969)

Sorry that you aren't able to compete.

What damage has he done? (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547119)

Use his stuff or don't. It's not like all the coding talent in the world is being exhausted on his projects. I have no interest in .NET or Mono, and what's it to you if other people do?

-jcr

Re:What damage has he done? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547185)

Because it's in Gnome?

Re:What damage has he done? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547195)

Your stupidity is nauseating.

Re:No Single Person Has Done More Damage (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547305)

I think they are laughing their asses off at how much this guy is willing to screw over open source developers. Microsoft did not pick Novell for their sucker license for nothing. Because of Mono and its ties to Microsoft's patented MS .Net software, they already had the suckers and then they were able to make them think the deal was all about Microsoft wanting interoperability with Suse Linux. Yup, all was smelling like roses to Novell and they never knew the stink bomb was that last minute little thing about patent protection. Nope, they never saw it coming and Miguel is as blinded by Microsoft's spell as he's ever been. And with Novell still approving of this, WTF are they thinking? It appears there's still no intelligent life at Novell.

What idiots for even thinking anything with Microsoft would be good for anybody but Microsoft. IMO.

LoB

Riiiiiiiiight.... (4, Insightful)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546797)

' In the same post he says that to avoid patent problems over Silverlight, when using or developing Mono's implementation (known as Moonlight), it's best to 'get/download Moonlight from Novell which will include patent coverage.'

I'll think about getting it from Novell....as soon as MS hands over the list of "patent violations". IMHO, this is just a try to make the "If it's Novell/MS, it's legal" line of shite more palatable.

If you're going to try to feed us a crap sandwich, do NOT tell us it's filet mignon.

Re:Riiiiiiiiight.... (3, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546869)

Well, when it comes to .NET, there is a crap ton of copyrighted and patented stuff, and Mono breaks a lot of em, and they know it. They just know Microsoft won't do anything, since they are semi-partners and all.

C# the language is an ECMA standard (I beleive?), but from VB.NET to just about anything in .NET beyond console applications, everything is patented, copyrighted, etc (well, anything that could be), and MONO uses tons of it. No need to list em (in opposition to Windows vs Linux kernel, where its far from being as obvious).

Now, if those patents and other intellectual property crap would stand up in court, thats another story altogether, but unlike the Windows vs Linux patent thing, these are much harder to deny.

(note that the above doesn't change that telling people to get it from Novell is indeed FUD because no one will ever get sued for using Moonlight from someone else's than Novell. I'm just stating how this situation is different from the mostly baseless "Linux is stepping on X amount of our patents" deal)

Re:Riiiiiiiiight.... (1)

DreadSpoon (653424) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547033)

[quote]They just know Microsoft won't do anything, since they are semi-partners and all.[/quote]

Bull. This has NEVER been stated anywhere by anyone with an actual clue as to what the legal agreements in place are, what patents Microsoft has, or what the Mono team knows.

Quit spouting lies without at least trying to back them up with a credible reference.

Re:Riiiiiiiiight.... (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547097)

Huh? Who talked about any legal agreements? I'm not talking on paper stuff (though I'm sure there are some, especially in the Silverlight deal). I'm saying whats (most likely) going through the developer's heads while they so boldly walk all over Microsoft's IP without even sweating it (ASP.NET, VB.NET, I think they started Winform too?).

I'm not saying that Microsoft CANNOT do anything. I'm saying that from the way the Mono people act, they really are seeing themselves as "safe from Microsoft", and so far they have been proven correct (instead of stopping em, Microsoft is giving em their blessing). Thats why I said semi-partner, and not actual partners, and hoped people would read between the lines. But man is it hard on Slashdot.

My apologies if I don't feel like spelling it out in little details. I figured since we're not in a court of law, common sense had some place... my bad.

Re:Riiiiiiiiight.... (1)

Shimmer (3036) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547275)

Just about anything in .NET beyond console applications, everything is patented, copyrighted, etc

I think this is considerably overstated. For example, my understanding is that windowed applications ("WinForms") are not protected.

Re:Riiiiiiiiight.... (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546899)

...although I am NOT surprised, after checking his wikipedia page, to find that his company was acquired by Novell, and he's STILL there as "Vice President of Developer Platform".

Shill hunt over. The foo shits.

Re:Riiiiiiiiight.... (2, Funny)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546915)

Actually, having read the 6,000 page standards document, I have to admit it's well designed has has excellent.... ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Ok, I couldn't say that with a straight face.

Nope (5, Insightful)

christurkel (520220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546805)

Little things like this in the spec make it less than superb:

Table like Word95

Only Microsoft has that information. No one else can implement this "superb" standard like MS can.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547001)

The spec also doesn't describe how to render a font or properly anti-alias a circle, but nobody seems to be complaining about that...

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547207)

how to render a font or properly anti-alias a circle, but nobody seems to be complaining about that...

That's because there are open implementations of both of these things, so anyone that wants to know how to draw a circle or place a glyph can figure out how it's done, or can at least claim compliance with the spec without having to figure out what Microsoft does. The same cannot be said for doing table layout the way Word does it.

Re:Nope (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547041)

Which doesn't mean it can't be better than ODF, which is all he said.

I'm willing to believe that Office Open XML might in fact be a better format than ODF, because I've never actually taken the time to look at ODF.

I can't help but wonder if what he really meant is that if you remove all the backwards compatibility elements, OOX becomes a superior format than ODF. Personally I think Microsoft should remove all elements like that and resubmit their format. Then they might have a spec that really could be better than ODF.

Don't support ODF just because it's not the Microsoft format. Unless you've actually looked at both specs, there's no way you can say one is better than the editor.

And since you're just repeating classic anti-OOX FUD, I can be pretty sure you haven't.

Re:Nope (4, Interesting)

un1xl0ser (575642) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547221)

The fact that Microsoft has their legacy blobs all over the OOXML that they write is exactly why I don't like it. They don't seem to want to implement it in an open fashion. They just want to fein like they are being open so that all of the goverment agencies and corporations that are concerned about vendor lock-in are given a warm fuzzy feeling.

So yeah, the standard is shit. Nobody can implement it the way that the creator can, by the creator's very design. It is defective by design, as the nutty FSF people like to say.

Re:Nope (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547295)

I've developed in both formats, and ODF uses consistent naming conventions and builds upon existing standards whereas OOXML is exceedingly inconsistent (google: "sz" node) and it comes with a lot of new standards.

The implications of this are that OOXML is considerably more expensive to implement because there aren't a lot of components to choose from (eg, compare the number of SVG serializers to DrawingML serializers). Building upon existing standards is a very important part of a good standard, I think (and so do the ISO)

Don't take my word for it though, both files are ZIPs of XML* so google for some files and see which one makes sense to you :)

[*] although it's recently been discovered that OOXML refers to OLE objects which are undocumented in OOXML and in Office '07 these are stored as binaries :( ODF and OOo have their own problems of course, but nothing complex like this.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547309)

Why are you wasting your breath even saying that? The majority of slashdottians will attest to anything Microsoft, even if it saved their lives. I believe the current generation thinks its cool to say how everything Microsoft is shit, and how anything open source is gods gift to earth. But, that is their given right though, and theres that thing called Karma..

In the end, Microsft format will prevail because it will be more widely accepted. Same goes with desktop computing. Linux is just way behind Windows and even MacOS. And I am talking about things that MATTER. Ease of use and available applications being the biggest ones. And lets not forget, familiarity with one operating system which stops people from switching.

Re:Nope (1, Interesting)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547205)

That's clever. Did you miss the part of the standard where that sort of thing is required for backwards compatibility [freesoftwaremagazine.com] ? Apparently only Microsoft cares about that sort of thing, so that's why it's in the damn standard. If the ODF fanboys and FSF-sponsored trolls don't care about that sort of thing, I reckon they can safely ignore them and not implement them. But I guess that's no fun because it eliminates one of the fav memes being thrown around to prove that the standard is somehow deficient.

When de Icaza talks about OOXML being "FUDed" to death, he's probably referring to this sort of ignorant thing. Bullet point evangelism seems to work quite well with the Slashdot/Digg crowds, which are amusingly enough the first ones to complain about Microsoft doing the same things to them.

I don't particularly cherish the idea of XML-based file formats. A binary one could have been well-documented and work a hell of a lot better, so I dislike both ODF and OOXML. But the level of stupidity in the "criticism" being leveled at OOXML is just ridiculous. Complete with "OMFG the 1.0 implementation as a BUG!!! Therefore the standard SUCKS!!!" detailed articles that include blatant misconceptions about how certain things work, ignorant points about the compatibility sections and the number of pages in the fucking document.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547253)

wow. So why aren't all the other backward compatibility issues addressed in the standard. For example, format like WordStar, wordperfect, abiword, macwrite, etc. Why only is backwards compatibility only important for "Microsoft" products and no others.

If they were serious about backwards compatibility there would be tags defined for products other than Microsoft. But they are not really after compatibility, they are after market share.

Re:Nope (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547229)

You're pretending that Microsoft's internal understanding of 'like Word95' is somehow better than just looking at how word95 works(something anybody who happens to have a copy lying around can do). This seems unlikely to me.

There is good in him! (5, Funny)

Andrei D (965217) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546819)

-But, why must you confront him?
-Because, there is good in him. I've felt it. He won't turn us over to the Emperor. I can save him. I can turn him back to the good side. I have to try.

Miguel, send your CV to M$ already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546823)

Enough of your bull with patent-covered Mono, SilverLight, and OOXML. Something that is born to crawl will not fly, don't fool yourself and others. Farewell!

He's been there & done that (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547151)

> In summer of 1997, he was interviewed by Microsoft for a job in the Internet Explorer Unix team (to work on a SPARC port), but lacked the university degree required to obtain a work H-1B visa. He declared in an interview that he tried to convince his interviewers to free the IE code even before Netscape did with their own browser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza [wikipedia.org]

> Miguel de Icaza has received the Free Software Foundation 1999 Award for the Advancement of Free Software, the MIT Technology Review Innovator of the Year Award 1999, and was named one of Time Magazine's 100 innovators for the new century in September 2000.

Awards for Innovation, blimey,

GNOME - puke
Gnumeric - puke again
Midnight Commander - I'm wretching now, don't mention Ximian & Mono, I'll bust my ring

any futher code (2, Interesting)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546831)

that miguel releases under a true oss licence should be treated with extreme caution and prejudice. Who knows where this guys eyes have been. All of his code is tainted as far as I'm concerned, unfortunately any Novell contributer should be treated in the same light as well. This SOB is on the microsoft payroll and it will come back to haunt the oss community in a few years.

Re:any futher code (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546909)

Isn't it the other way around? I mean, Moonlight will be released under LGPL, with the blessing of Microsoft, which is official and everywhere in the news. That would be freakishly hard to retract in court. Once the code is released under LGPL willingly, its pretty much impossible to retract permanently. So shouldn't OSS advocates be drooling over this?

Microsoft will never be able to close down the code that has been released, nor ever be able to say they didn't willingly allow it to be released under these licenses... especially if there are some contracts between MS and Novell. So in my book, that code is now "Free", and Microsoft can't change their mind or do a damn about it even if they want to...

nyet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547215)

Until they decide to drop the patent whammy bomb. Sure you can get the code "free speech", but no place does it state that it is "free beer" always. And there is no time provision for patent claims. Feelin' lucky are ya?

as always, the fine print rules

Does this guy have any credibility left? (5, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546839)

First Mono. Now he wants us to download stuff from a specific vendor to get patent protection. And finally he thinks a standard that has hundreds of pages of backward compatibility modes for 10 year old apps is a good standard? Is there anyone not ignoring him completely yet?

Re:Does this guy have any credibility left? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547021)

you mean first gnome; what a load of crap this guy comes out with.

Re:Does this guy have any credibility left? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547029)

"Is there anyone not ignoring him completely yet?"

No one will the ignore the stupid little punk. Open source developers and users are terminal losers. They live to embrace disasters like this clown.

1. Ignore every this clown says or does and go right on creating and using open for everyone software and formats.

Or

2. Embrace this clown while proclaiming to the world just what a bunch swell guys you are for being to open minded and reasonable that you'll happily embrace software and formats that were expressly created to destroy the open source software world.

You'll gleefully go for option 2 every time thinking the world is going to pat you on the back.

Face it open source world, you're losers. Terminal losers. You'll be fighting amongst yourselves in this thread to try to look on the good side of this one man Microsoft weapon of mass destruction.

Well, yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546851)

Well, yeah I'm not too surprised. I mean, de Icaza has kind of followed the Microsoft line for quite a while.

          I don't know how gnome is internally designed NOW, but at one point de Icaza had decided COM was the best thing since sliced bread, and was making a COM-workalike for Gnome to use.

        Mono is a .NET reimplementation, which de Icaza also said was the shit, really talked up how everything for .NET was going to be completely cross-platform, honest.

          So, having him say that OOXML is really great does not surprise me at all. I won't call him a Microsoft troll or shill, because I think he believes it, but it does keep in line with his view on other Microsoftian technologies.

It's not too surprising (5, Insightful)

Analog (564) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546855)

Miguel has been fascinated with Microsoft since long before he started writing Gnome, and that fascination shows no signs of having waned. Unfortunately, while it allows him to see the good things MS has done in a clearer way than many of those in the free software world, it also tends to give him a bit of a blind spot where some of their deficiencies are concerned.

Re:It's not too surprising (1, Troll)

sepluv (641107) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547249)

Miguel has been fascinated with Microsoft since long before he started writing Gnome

I notice in his Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] (which he apparently bemoans on the talk page) that he applied to work for MS on MSIE all the way back in 1997, although he says he tried to persuade his interviewers to liberate the code, so I guess one cannot hold that against him. There's nothing wrong with being MS-friendly. His being so anti-software-freedom is a problem though since the FSF gave him the 1999 Award for the Advancement of Free Software. Can they withdraw that or something?

I probably shouldn't feed the troll (de Icaza) but...what really shocks me about that exchange is not his extreme views, but his childishness, how transparent his trolling is and his inability to hold an argument. I love the way he attacks those who reply by suggesting their English isn't very good (when it is perfect) instead of addressing their concerns when his English is hardly perfect.

Sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546879)

Miguel is a regular troll/shill on /. so no surprise here.

Miguel! (2, Informative)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546885)

You have now officially jumped the shark!

You're technically competent, so what part of "AlignLikeMicrosoftWord98ForMac" is a good standard, eh? How much did you cost? I'd really like to know, I need a stripper for the bacherlor party of a gay mate of me...

Miguel's just doing what's best for himself... (1, Offtopic)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546887)

... he's doing his master's bidding and getting paid. That's all he likely cares about.

Re:Miguel's just doing what's best for himself... (2, Funny)

lotsofsand (950221) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546939)

I even heard a rumor that Miguel has a brown Zune!

Re:Miguel's just doing what's best for himself... (4, Funny)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547069)

Everyone has brown zune, unless they are having intestinal difficulties.

Yikes (1, Redundant)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546893)

Seeing this article made me wince, like when I see a skateboarder about to break twelve bones. The coming violence that we're going to see in this thread is giving me sympathy pains. Miguel is going to get savaged here.

Re:Yikes (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547077)

Yes he is.. but he's going to get savaged by idiots who have no idea what they're talking about, so who cares?

Re:Yikes (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547169)

He might even join [slashdot.org] the flamebait fest!

God, you just have to browse at -1 to see all the hate people have for him.

I agree with the sentiment of some comments who ask, whatever happened to the QT-non-free GNOME starting, Open Source Government , UNAM guy?

It seems we all have a price after all.

What does respect really mean? (-1, Flamebait)

pclminion (145572) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546897)

I've seen this over and over, not only in the tech field. Somebody who is "highly respected" by a great number of people, because of technical proficiency, wisdom, or what have you, expresses an opinion that a lot of people disagree with.

I think the reasonable response to this is to say, "Hmm. This guy I look up to and respect says X, but I don't think X. Maybe I should re-examine the evidence and see if I've missed something." But instead, it seems like most people just react emotionally and reject and push away the guy they've invested so much respect in.

Seriously, how can your respect of a person change so DRASTICALLY based on a single expressed opinion? You're basically admitting that you were a fool ever to respect the person in the first place.

There are few people who I truly respect and admire in this world, but I certainly take notice of what they say and give it careful consideration. In the end, I might still come away disagreeing, but I'm not going to just ditch somebody because they said something I don't like.

Grow up, people.

Re:What does respect really mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547023)

I think the reasonable response to this is to say, "Hmm. This guy I look up to and respect says X, but I don't think X. Maybe I should re-examine the evidence and see if I've missed something." But instead, it seems like most people just react emotionally and reject and push away the guy they've invested so much respect in.

The criticism is not new. From the beginning there has been controversy in the open source community about these efforts to clone proprietary Microsoft APIs.
I'm just sayin'.

Re:What does respect really mean? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547113)

The criticism is not new. From the beginning there has been controversy in the open source community about these efforts to clone proprietary Microsoft APIs. I'm just sayin'.

Okay. But clearly, quite a few commenters here do NOT respect de Icaza, and seem to just want to bash him. Okay, we get the point -- you don't like the guy. Can we move on please?

Technical proficiency more common than wisdom. (3, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547111)

I've seen this over and over, not only in the tech field. Somebody who is "highly respected" by a great number of people, because of technical proficiency, wisdom, or what have you, expresses an opinion that a lot of people disagree with.

One can disagree with someone without losing sight of their strengths, and respect someone's strengths without losing sight of their weaknesses. In this case: just because someone is technically proficient, that doesn't mean he's wise.
I don't consider depending on standards that Microsoft (or any company) controls "wise", whether that's OOXML, CIL, or Silverlight. Miguel's score on the subject is public knowledge.

Re:Technical proficiency more common than wisdom. (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547147)

One can disagree with someone without losing sight of their strengths, and respect someone's strengths without losing sight of their weaknesses.

Sure, but that's not what's happening here. People are basically jumping on him and calling him a scumbag for having an opinion.

Re:Technical proficiency more common than wisdom. (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547239)

People are basically jumping on him and calling him a scumbag for having an opinion.

Technical proficiency does not prevent someone from being a scumbag, either, if that's the term you want to use rather than the more diplomatic "unwise". I'm not sure why people are (or even IF people are) jumping up and down on him more for this than for his other pro-Microsoft positions in the past. At the very least, this shouldn't be a horrible surprise...

Re:What does respect really mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547145)

You fucking piece of shit.

So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546921)

First and foremost specs need to be judged on their own merits not on who likes or does not like them.

Secondly what exactly does mono and a windowing system have in common with ooxml? I don't see the overlap?

Why does this remind me of Mr Hawkings lecturing us to build spaceships and leave earth before its too late?

Is there an opposite to FUD? (4, Interesting)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546925)

Maybe the opposite is Uninformed Praise and Optimism (UPO).

It seems he hasn't read about how you can "look but not touch" when it comes to the internal data. An expert in the Office format recently proved you could modify the xml in the new Office formats but Office would complain and not load it.

The fact that it's XML seems to only benefit the world in one way, it compresses nicer.

Re:Is there an opposite to FUD? (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546983)

An expert in the Office format recently proved you could modify the xml in the new Office formats but Office would complain and not load it.

Do you have a source? I don't really doubt you, I'm just curious to read about that.

I suppose it could be argued that's a deficiency in the Office implementation of the format, not the format itself. That's a bit of a half-hearted argument, but hey, it's Microsoft.

deficiency (2, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547153)

"it could be argued that's a deficiency in the Office implementation of the format, not the format itself."

Doesn't matter. MS will be viewed as the "standard" and if a file won't load then the file will be blamed, not Microsoft.

The whole point of XML is to be human readable and editable with a simple text editor. It seems that if you try to edit Excel worksheets by hand then Excel will refuse to load them.

The link:

http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/microsoft-office-xml-formats-defective.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Is there an opposite to FUD? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547013)

And is easier to parse, and very easy to generate through XSLT. All properties that are shared by other, probably superior formats, but still. Its nice when customers want simple Word documents auto-generated and its just a quick XSLT call away.

Another non-story posted by kdawson (1)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546931)

Before everyone starts flaming Miguel, bear in mind that this story was posted by kdawson who has a less than stellar record of posting inflammatory non-stories whose sole source of reference is usually a sketchy blog post, forum comment, or usenet posting.

Re:Another non-story posted by kdawson (2, Insightful)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547009)

as much as that seems to be the consensus atm, what do we do when the post comes from Miguel's own blog?

I'm so bored of these debates (1)

Tell999 (874678) | more than 6 years ago | (#20546957)

I could be off topic, but... Why the hel. can't the sane people agree on a basic version on things. Then the rest of us can argue about what tweak we fancy. This will/could lead to an end of all this shi. that remind me of Babylon. (I/we am/are better than you because I/we like mine/our basic better than your basic) For some: GROW UP!

the ultimate fanboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546959)

Considering all the love between Miguel and Microsoft, why isn't he an outright MS hire making gobs of smack? Maybe he's more valuable as a mole attempting inject MS IP into GNU/Linux?

I think this whole thing started as a lifelong campaign to overcome an inferiority complex induced by failing to become an outright Microsoft hire. He's going to show them, and us, and everyone! He's going to be the next Bill Gates! What better way to get there than by following in the master's footsteps: spend countless coffee fueled hours copying someone else's work so you can call it your own and then try to build an empire on top of it. The next head of MS isn't going to rise through the ranks like all of the other MS peons, he's going to sidestep that whole awful business. He's going to get his attention by being as Machiavellian and ruthless as Bill himself. Anyone ever wonder why MS doesn't just pounce on him? Because they're grooming him...

The only other possibility that I can see is that he's just plain stupid, which doesn't appear to be the case.

The retarded cousin no one wants to acknowledge (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546967)

Miguel is like the mentally challenged relative that everybody smiles at lovingly when he speaks as he is sitting in a pool of his own urine.
At what point are we going to treat him as an adult and tell him he is either out of his freaking mind or so far up the Microsoft orifice that he cant see the light of day anymore?

Mono always left me a nauseous feeling and I tried not to attack Miguel because of his work with GNOME but I think we've past the point where he was harmless and maybe misguided.

Yes Miguel, we all get our technical news from Groklaw because you obviously think that everyone who doesnt agree with you is an FSFer. Check the comments from AROUND the planet this past few weeks from people who've studied the specs and you might be shocked to find out a few things.

Had this been signed by Bill Hilf, I wouldnt have said a word, its part of his job description but Miguel was supposed to be one of 'us'.
Watch as his language starts incorporating more and more of the key phrases that Microsoft execs repeat like a mantra.

A buddy on IRC just mentioned that Miguel must have been very unpopular as a kid and is now trying to fit in with the older, cool kids. And whenever that situation used to happen in school, the dweebs who try to 'fit' in usually come across as ackward, clumsy and borderline retarded.
Just like Mig.

And forget folks, Novell is the best distro out there because they have patent protection.
F U Miguel.

Sincerely,

Lyle Howard Seave

bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20546981)

i got nothing smart to post, just a loud f u to a ms shill.

De como Miguel le chupó la verga a Bill Gates (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547039)

Me cae que si, este hijo de su puta madre hace mucho que se agachó para chuparle el piturrín a su papa-cito Goatse*ahem*Gates. El cabrón nada más está buscando ser contratado por el chango Ballmer... todo esto ha sucedido extrañamente desde que Mr. Gates fue a México para comprar al queridísimo presidente Fox para que E-Mexico estuviera basado en tecnologías Microsoft en lugar de tecnologías de Open Source... y aunque ya habían muchas empresas de la talla de IBM, SUN, entre otras, que respaldaban el proyecto Open Source, nuestro corrupto presidente prefirió el dinero del señor Windows que fue "canalizado" a la fundación de su esposa (Vamos México) que está siendo investigada por corrupción (qué raro no?).

Solo resta preguntarse, qué ganó Miguelín de ese trato? y porqué no intentó defender el proyecto de software libre E-mexico?

Ahora el guey hace cada vez más evidente su amorcito hacia el señor Gatos... desafortunádamente no se le ha hecho que lo contraten en Microsoft (o tal vez si, si se piensa que Novell es ahora una parte de Microsoft).

En fin...

Read his latest comment . . . (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547065)

. . . here [google.com] before starting a flamefest.

I'll paste it here to make sure those averse to clicking on links can read it too (anonymously even so you don't say I'm karma whoring):

  Hello,

On 9/10/07, martin.schlan...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 6 Sep., 07:37, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote:
> > OOXML is a superb standard and yet, it has been
> > FUDed so badly by its competitors that serious people believe that
> > there is something fundamentally wrong with it. This is at a time when
> > OOXML as a spec is in much better shape than any other spec on that
> > space.

> Michael Meeks didn't seem to think so at FOSDEM 2007.

That is odd. Michael and I have discussed this topic extensively. He certainly would like clarification in various areas and more details in some. But Michael's criticism (or for that matter, the Novell OpenOffice team working with that spec) seems to be incredibly different than the laundry list of issues that pass as technical reviews in sites like Groklaw.

The difference is that the Novell-based criticism is based on actually trying to implement the spec. Not reading the spec for the sake of finding holes that can be used in a political battle.

Finally, Michael sounded incredibly positive after the ECMA meeting last month when all of their technical questions were either answered or added to the batch of things to review. I know you are going to say "The spec is not owned by ECMA", well, currently the working group that will review the ISO comments is at ECMA.

For another view at OOXML look at what Jody Goldberg (no longer a Novell employee) has to say about OOXML and ODF from the perspective of implementing both:

http://blogs.gnome.org/jody/2007/09/10/odf-vs-oox-asking-the-wrong-questions/ [gnome.org]

I find it hilarious that the majority (not all) of the criticism for OOXML comes from people that do not have to write any code that interacts with OOXML. Those that know do not seem to mind (except those whose personal business is at risk because Microsoft moved away from a binary format to an
XML format, which I also find hilarious).

> >Will I have to suffer
> > > the shadow of Microsoft patents over Silverlight when using or
> > > developing Moonlight?

> > Not as long as you get/download Moonlight from Novell which will include
> > patent
> > coverage.

> You're saying two things here that really shock me. Please tell me I
> misunderstood.

1) You're saying that people _will_ have patent problems - i.e.

> Moonlight "infringes" MS patents and doesn't work around them. Even
> though Novell promised never to ship code that infringes MS patents -
> but always avoid them one way or another.

First of all, am not aware of such Novell promise to "never ship code that infringes MS patents". You can not make such statement because for one, the patent system is broken. Novell statements are wildly different, they are of the form "we do not believe that we infringe" and am sure they say something along the lines of "we dont plan on infringing, and we plan on removing infringing code". But I am not aware of all the promises Novell has made, and I can not comment on other parts of the organization. If you want an official answer, my personal blog on politics and poor attempts at humor is not the place to get an official answer. Contact Novell public relations for that.

But you might be referring to the policy that we use for Mono, and I will be happy to discuss those with you. The policies are on our FAQ, so you might want to read that before you post in panic again.

Moonlight does not have the same policy that Mono does in terms of us working around to remove infringing code. For one, we do not know what it could be (that is how the patent system works) and two we have agreed and have obtained permission from any patents that might exist in Moonlight to implement it. So our policy with Moonlight is different from Mono because of the requirements of this task (see mpegla.com for your own amusement).

That being said, in neither case are we aware of infringements. But like with any software piece, every 100 lines of code infringe someone's broken patent, there is just no way around that.

2) You're saying other distributors can't ship Moonlight legally (in

> the US) because of patent issues. Making Moonlight effectively non-
> free (as in freedom).

Am not sure where you get the idea that the "US" is the only place where software patents exist. Free software people are under the mistaken impression that software patents are only a US thing, while many of the stake holders are European companies. The only difference is that in Europe your "software patent" is written to describe a machine. Law firms will offer you a set of checkboxes to "port" your patent from the US-wording to any other nation wording. And the patents are enforceable in most countries in the EU. Not surprising, as the EU owns many of patents on the media space.

We are obtaining covenants (from Microsoft) and patent licenses (from MPEGLA, the consortium of American, European and Asian companies that own the "media space") to be allowed to redistribute Moonlight with a minimal risk to the end user.

I say "minimal risk" and not "risk free", because that is the nature of software patents, we could be infringing a patent from some guy in Latvia for walking a linked list.

So that is the approach that we are taking to distribute for commercial use Moonlight, a plugin that operates in the media space: a patent rich and incredibly profitable space for the patent holders. The rights negotiated will give anyone patent coverage, as long as it is downloaded from Novell. Although I would like to fix the patent system, am not the one going to do so. It feels like boiling the ocean, and I have already done my share of ocean boiling, feel free to pick the good fight.

I hope it's just a matter of you being too fast on the trigger and

> your answer missing some elaboration - if this is the case you should
> really choose your words more carefully when talking about patents in
> the future - unless you want to hurt Novell.

Well, it certainly merits an extended explanation. I have tried to summarize some of the issues above media patents but the space is incredibly complicated and no amount of one-liners can precisely describe the problems, the limitations and all the special conditions attached to them.

The problem is that people think that the problem is as simple as "patents bad" and everyone wrapping his virtual kafia around his head and running to the streets yelling "death to patents" has no idea how complex the system is and how little effect yelling has on actually changing anything. If you
want to engage on a serious patent discussion, I would love to do so, but you are going to need some legal training and get a lot more depth before we can have a productive discussion.

If you're actually saying what it sounds like you're saying (see item

> #1 and #2) I can only say OMFG...

Well, I did not say that. So you can put the Ventolin down and breathe.

Miguel.

Slow news day (0, Troll)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547079)

I slashdot so desperate for stories (at least those that will prompt endless Microsoft-bashing) that a simple post to Google Groups is worth the front page? Heaven help us.

It's a wonderful spec (5, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547127)

Well, I suppose there's room for opinion on that. For instance, Jim Mason [ibiblio.org] seems to think it's a long way from prime time, just as a specification.

Now, to put this in perspective: Jim Mason (of Oak Ridge National Laboratory) isn't on one side or the other, but has been doing document-format specifications for a looooong time -- he was, I believe, the founding chair of SC34 and had a hand in the creation of SGML. The dude knows documents, he knows standards, and when he writes

the submitters obviously did not read -- and edit -- this submission into a consistent whole. If it were coming through the normal ISO process, I'd say it was in the state of a Working Draft and not yet ready for registration as a Committee Draft and assignment of a number
I'm inclined to take his word for it than Miguel's.

Must be looking into the palantir a bit too long (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547131)

Somewhere, there is a blog entry which reads:

"I have learned the designs of Lord Ballmer, and I now am Gnome of the Many Colors!"

This could answer a longstanding puzzle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547133)

I've long wondered what to make of Miguel: (1) Genuine advocate of free software sincerely trying to improve it through better compatibility with software's dominant force, or (2) corrupted Microsoft whore trying to contaminate free software and lure it into a patent minefield?

If Miguel really did say this, then it lays to rest all uncertainty in my mind about this question.

IBM has a serious conflict of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547135)

First they vote down OOXML, then next week they announce they are giving code to Open Office.

This is just getting downright indecent. (5, Informative)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547141)

Some reasons why OOXML is unacceptable:

OOXML is wholly un-XML-ish.

It doesn't re-use existing ISO and W3C standards, whose behaviors have already been publicly vetted.

Its licensing is still quite unacceptable, especially in its lack of clarity.

Look, Miguel, I know you love MS and all, and I guess I can at least partially tolerate that, but keep the fellatio behind closed doors, OK? :P

Brilliant corporate strategy (1)

drabgah (1150633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547161)

I must say Microsoft + Novell's strategy is absolutely brilliant. Microsoft's announcement that Silverlight would be fully supported on Linux because of their partnership with Novell reminds me of a classic Chess gambit, offering a small sacrifice of material to gain a superior strategic position. Of course 'fully supported' comes with the small print that you have to lock into a distribution system that still feeds Microsoft revenue, and enables them to gradually gain control over a competing platform. Fighting Adobe and GNU/Linux at the same time, with one integrated product/patent package! The architects of this strategy must be Ballmer's favorite employees.

The countless apologists and pragmatists will have the standard laundry list of reasons why its no-big-deal and how the biggest barrier to Free Software is an antagonistic attitude, etc, etc, but the actions of Microsoft and its partners are transparently designed with "control and capture" as their goal, not "collaborate". A hypothetical next step: MS provides proprietary tools for SLED to allow it to read and write OOXML documents, available "free" to all SLED users who are also hold Windows/Office licenses. The model of using patent protected proprietary components distributed under special-purpose licenses to dance around the GPL is being implemented and extended.

RTFL - Submitter is a Jackass (5, Insightful)

DreadSpoon (653424) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547191)

Read the fucking link, instead of ripping on the guy for selectively chosen comments without their supporting context and explanation.

(a) He says OOXML is great not because the specification itself is a work of engineering genius, but because out in the Real World is easier to implement than ODF. That might not be for a good reason (OOXML is similar to existing World formats in structure, and so existing code is easily modified to use it, where ODF requires an entirely new approach and so is far harder to add to existing software), but it's certainly a different story than Miguel just blindly loving the OOXML spec.

(b) The patent protection claim is exactly what it sounds like, except for the fact that there are NO known parents which Moonlight or Mono infringe. It's a simple of matter of, "if something comes up, we won't sue your customers." Those same companies (Microsoft and the MPEGLA group) are still totally free to sue the developers and companies behind FFMPEG, Linux, GNOME, KDE, Apache, X.org, OpenOffice.org, etc. Nothing about the protection Novell offers will increase the risk of those lawsuits - all it does is decrease the risk for people who download from them. It's a nice gesture that some suit-wearing types give a fuck about, and the rest of us are free to ignore just like we ignore the patent minefield for every other project, all of which are guaranteed to be infringing _something_.

(c) The article submitter is a sensationalist jackass.

Re:RTFL - Submitter is a Jackass (3, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547287)

OOXML is similar to existing World formats in structure, and so existing code is easily modified to use it, where ODF requires an entirely new approach and so is far harder to add to existing software

I would rather wait another year or two for tools that implement a good spec than get MORE tools that implement Word's fundamentally broken document model. I would rather work in raw HTML 1.0 using ED than try and write anything sophisticated in a program like Word (or Pages, for that matter, which uses the same structure). Unfortunately since I work with people who use these formats, I must adapt.

OOXML. (4, Informative)

miguel (7116) | more than 6 years ago | (#20547277)

Folks,

I made that comment on my blog because that reflects my personal opinion. You really need to obsess over something else.

And before someone brings up the Microsoft connection, you should know that Novell official policy is to actively endorse ODF and that Novell's position on OOXML is neutral. My employer does not engage in any advocacy for or against OOXML (but folks in engineering work on OOXML support for OO.org).

My opinions are my own, they do not represents the views of my employer.

Now, speaking purely personally.

I consider OOXML to be a pretty good standard all things considered, as I said back in January or February I did not agree with a lot of the criticism that was aimed at OOXML. The quality of the critique was not very high, and it so far has consisted of throwing as much mud as possible and waiting to see what sticks, and what sticks repeat it a thousand times.

If these critiques were aimed at Linux or open source, we would be justly up in arms about the criticism being sloppy and having very little to stand on. I went into some detail back in January:

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html [tirania.org]

Some of my opinions are based on the work that I did in Gnumeric many years ago.

Before there was any agreements between Microsoft and Novell, I was part of ECMA and when Microsoft initiated the OOXML specification process, it was me that got Novell's OpenOffice.org hackers to attend the meetings. At the time my goal was to extract as much information as possible from Microsoft because of the history we had with Gnumeric.

Michael Meeks and Jody Goldberg were some of the guys that went and attended the ECMA meetings. From all the issues that were presented to ECMA, Novell was the second issue raiser (behind Microsoft's own QA of the spec), and it was all largely thanks to Jody's diligent review of the spec. From all the issues raised to date, on the latest status report only one issue had not been addressed (118 or 180, I can not recall anymore). Am personally proud that Jody and Michael made Microsoft add ~650 pages or so to the spec that documented the formulas (one of the things we struggled a lot with in the Gnumeric days). And all of this happened before the Novell/Microsoft agreement. Our interest at the time was: lets get the most information we can get out of this spec to be able to interop.

So from that standpoint, I think that the folks at ECMA have done a pretty good job of addressing the issues raised by those that were implementing it.

The specification can be criticized on various levels, from critical issues, to mild issues, and in a way the distributed effort to stop OOXML helped debug the spec and raise the issues that need to be clarified.

There is certainly a number of critical issues that must be addressed, and it seems from every comment that Brian makes on his blog, that ECMA and Microsoft are committed to resolving those issues. I would not have noticed them, so in that regard the anti-OOXML camp has done a great job in terms of finding problems in the spec.

But the majority of the criticism falls in other categories:

mild, but conflated by a pedantic outrage over it ranging from OH MY GOD THEY USE A BITFIELD THAT IS JUST SO-NOT-XML (am using caps to encapsulate the outrage in an actual discussion when an acquaintance of mine lost it)

misinformed (Stephane Rodriguez shotting himself in the foot and asking "why does it bleed?", his document is making the rounds, and I have debunked it here: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=279895&cid=20363627 [slashdot.org] and someone else on CodeProject or in Slashdot had to explain to him with sticks and balls his mistakes).

misrepresentation, like people claim that you must obtain a license from Microsoft to implement OOXML, that is simply not true, the OOXML specs are under the Microsoft OSP and some other very liberal patent grant license (which am sure you can google up).

FUD. The very thing that we accuse the big corporations of doing is now effectively used by our community (well, am not sure if Rob Weir is part of "our" community or part of the FUDosphere). Like that time when he said "OH MY GOD THE SKY IS GOING TO FALL: DOES THE SIN FUNCTION TAKE DEGREES OR RADIANS? OMG AIRPLANES WILL CRASH TOMORROW, WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE PONIES?". As it turns out, all of the issues that Rob raised could have been answered very easily (which Brian Jones did on his blog, hence preventing the London-burns catastrophe from happening and saving the ponies. Thanks Rob!).

(Rob's panic attack can be seen here http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/formula-for-failure.html [robweir.com] and Brian Jones response http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/Default.aspx?p=2 [msdn.com] )

OOXML has been so politicized that it is dangerous to even bring the topic up. I have decided not to blog in a number of occasions replies to Rob Weir's FUD because I just do not have the energy or the time to compete with a guy whose full time job is to make sure OOXML is blocked. Needless to say at the center of the debate there is a very juicy cauldron with money and there are a lot of economic interests tied to the outcome on all sides.

People claimed that 6,000 pages for 4 office applications was to big, but it comes down to 1,500 pages per application. And someone mentioned that removing the examples and changing the font size to use the same font size that the ODF spec uses the spreadsheet (or word processor, I cant remember) spec goes down to 700 pages.

And 700 pages (or even the 1,500) does not seem like a lot to me. If I were an anti-trust prosecutor in the EU, I would have complained if the spec had any less than that.

Jody left Novell some time ago, and today coincidentally he blogged about his opinion on OOXML and ODF, his blog post is very interesting, as he is an independent developer working now only on gnumeric and not in OOo nor being paid by Microsoft (as I know that many of you consider my opinion completely invalid and tainted):

http://blogs.gnome.org/jody/2007/09/10/odf-vs-oox-asking-the-wrong-questions/ [gnome.org]

It is an interesting read, regardless of your position on the subject.

So there you have it, a mouthful of personal opinions. I bet you wanted to spend your time doing something else, like making out with your girlfriend (haha, just kidding, if you actually reading my opinion on OOXML you have no girlfriend to make out with).

Miguel

Re:OOXML. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20547301)

Go away you fucking loser.

You are a shitstain on the shoe of the open source world.

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...