Why no coverage from Groklaw, Updegrove?

Story: What's up at the OpenDocument Foundation?Total Replies: 33
Author Content
rdtennent

Nov 08, 2007
3:09 AM EST
A mystery indeed. Why has Andy Updegrove at consortiuminfo.org not commented on this? Why has PJ at Groklaw not commented? (Marbux is a frequent contributor there.) I can't believe Sam Hiser et al have sold out to MS as some have implied, but it seems impossible to understand what their message is from what's appeared so far. I'm beginning to suspect that they've pointed out a real problem but don't have a satisfactory solution.
dinotrac

Nov 08, 2007
4:11 AM EST
What mystery? Why would anybody need to comment?

The OD foundation guys wanted to do a document converter. They couldn't get it to work without some extentions to ODF.

As to Papa Joe's story, he cleverly quoted Hiser's comment about the ODF process not being dominated by a single company. Hiser was wrong, though he didn't recognize that at the time.

The folks who control ODF standard are not the biggest fans of Microsoft. IBM has been grinding its axe since Microsoft screwed them royally on OS/2, then continued to screw them WRT Windows licenses. It's very richly deserved turnabout, and I don't blame IBM one iota, but it's not conducive to fair consideration of things Microsoft.

Likewise, Sun is the company that founded OpenOffice. They seem a little more collaborative with Microsoft these days, even supporting adaption of the OOXML standard, but..one wonders. It's easy to say "No" at ODF if your position is that OOXML should be adapted.

Sun and IBM together are not "one company". Really, they aren't even just two companies. They are one supremely powerful player (IBM) and one who still carries lots of technology and psychic weight (Sun). They stand in as proxies for everybody else's last hope against the Redmond raptors.

Microsoft is the nastiest software company this side of other star systems. They also produce the de facto standard Office software.

Of course they dominate the process. They would do that even if they were completely absent from it (which they just about were -- by choice).

Hiser and friends are people who tried to do something that didn't work out. I believe that their failure raises red flags WRT ODF. There may be nothing there, but it is reasonable to take an open-minded look a their failure. Is the problem their own incompetence, just one of the failures that happens because many good ideas turn out to have unforeseen problems, or an actually problem in the ODF standard.







Sander_Marechal

Nov 08, 2007
5:04 AM EST
@dino: Did you read Rob Weir's comments? http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/10/cracks-in-foundation.htm...
Abe

Nov 08, 2007
6:04 AM EST
Quoting:I believe that their failure raises red flags WRT ODF.
It also raises a bigger red flag wrt OOXML. May be their failure is due to OOXML not being suited for interoperability due to lack of specificity, unnecessarily highly complex confusing specification, and also not being open enough.

Inclusions of open binary formats specification into ODF is not an issue, but inclusion of closed binary format is. It seems to me that this is the major feature that the ODF Foundations is complaining about. The MS Office binary format is not openly available and should never be part of the ODF specification. Including it is waste of time and effort and will not help interoperability, instead, it will be a hindrance to interoperability if included.

Companies previously migrated from various proprietary formats to MS proprietary format before. It was hard and painful and will be when they convert to ODF format. The difference now is, when they convert to ODF, they will never have to go through this painful process again since ODF is completely open, free of patents and royalty, and is used, supported, maintained, and governed by a large and diverse group of companies, organizations and governments.

Quoting:...There may be nothing there, but it is reasonable to take an open-minded look at their failure.
I fully agree with that and if it was lack of features in ODF, I believe those will surface as ODF specification are constantly being tested as various developers of office applications continue to adopt ODF and see the need for new additions or changes. Inclusion of proprietary binary format should not be one of them.

dinotrac

Nov 08, 2007
7:38 AM EST
>@dino: Did you read Rob Weir's comments?

I did.
Sander_Marechal

Nov 09, 2007
4:42 PM EST
Quoting:Why has Andy Updegrove at consortiuminfo.org not commented on this?


He just did: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/95404/index.html

His conclusion: The OpenDocument foundation is just throwing chairs...
schestowitz

Nov 09, 2007
8:25 PM EST
If anyone is interested, here is my own take @ http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/09/opendocument-foundation/

There's a lot to say (and been said), but only the Foundation keeps repeating and repeating. See Rob Weir's item.
tuxchick

Nov 09, 2007
8:37 PM EST
Well now, Sam H. and the gang have been emitting vast numbers of words and taunts without adding any clarity, but rather muddying the waters further. Andy Updegrove goes to the source and makes sense.

The remaining mystery is what have the CDF Three done to deserve so much hoorah? Life in the Internet era, where every molehill has mountainous potential.
schestowitz

Nov 09, 2007
11:02 PM EST
The quiet (Groklaw/Andy/Sutor) has in part been an attempt to avoid giving attention (never mind notoriety, which still gives visibility) to the Group o' Three.

It now seems like the better option is the extinguish the fire.
schestowitz

Nov 09, 2007
11:02 PM EST
/s/the/to/
Sander_Marechal

Nov 10, 2007
2:31 AM EST
Quoting:/s/the/to/


You're aware that there's an "edit" button on your posts, right?
schestowitz

Nov 10, 2007
3:39 AM EST
Oops. I'm baffled by the many different CMSes. So much choice!
Abe

Nov 10, 2007
6:21 AM EST
@schestowitz

Quoting:but I hope they’ll get a good slap on the wrist for what they so selfishly did a few weeks ago.
I believe selfishness deserve a lot more than a slap on the wrist, especially when it harms the very good cause they, among many, are working hard to protect and nurture.

Their fiasco is just as bad as what Novell did considering the importance of the ODF standard.

you missed mentioning what the true reason was for their selfishness. I don't believe getting back at others is enough. Being a friend or close associate of the three musketeers, what is it they were hoping to get or accomplish?

Community supporters and enthusiasts are interested in facts not friendships and associations. Finding the facts about wrong doing should apply to all not just Novell.



schestowitz

Nov 10, 2007
12:50 PM EST
Abe, I agree. I never thought about it that way (not quite).
Sander_Marechal

Nov 10, 2007
12:56 PM EST
Groklaw talks about it too now: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200711091130433
schestowitz

Nov 10, 2007
1:23 PM EST
Yes, but that's because Chris (the talk-to-man for CDF) has just extinguished the fire the Foundation had started. :-)
hkwint

Nov 10, 2007
2:48 PM EST
After all, it seems our 'favourite ODF writers' were a bit slow to respond, probably because they needed time to come up with an answer and didn't want to bring more storm to the front; one would believe.
Abe

Nov 10, 2007
3:15 PM EST
Quoting:Groklaw talks about it too now


Being a site where many people look for facts, they are way too late.

The least they could have done early on is to let people know who Open Document FOUNDATION is , how small and insignificant they are and not to be taken seriously. Instead, they chose not to talk about it until others did the clarification for them. Initially, I myself thought they were the people who were involved in establishing the Open Document Format specification.

I don't know what was the reason, but I believe rdtennent, the first poster in this thread, is right on by pointing out "Marbux is a frequent contributor there" as a reason.

Very disappointed with Groklaw.

Sander_Marechal

Nov 10, 2007
3:45 PM EST
Quoting:I don't know what was the reason, but I believe rdtennent, the first poster in this thread, is right on by pointing out "Marbux is a frequent contributor there" as a reason.


Could be. But the fact that this story is a bit outside Groklaw's main subject (litigation) and that PJ has probably been very busy because the SCO litigation is busy, probably also plays some role. It's a shame that they didn't cover this sooner, but I wouldn't do as far as to call it "very disappointing".

Same for Andy. He's usually a bit late because he tries to go to the source, verify and get unique material (which he certainly did in this case).
Abe

Nov 10, 2007
4:28 PM EST
Quoting:Same for Andy ...
I know that and that is why I didn't mention him.

Quoting:But the fact that this story is a bit outside Groklaw's main subject (litigation) and that PJ has probably been very busy because the SCO litigation is busy


Do you really believe that Sander? I certainly don't.

This thing has been on the net for couple weeks already, PJ couldn't be busy for this long without writing something about such an important issue, unless she was on vacation or sick, nothing was mentioned about her being away. Even if she was, is she the only writer at Groklaw? couldn't some one else write something?

I am sure you read her little snippet article, she hardly said anything about the subject. She pretty much repeated what Andy reported. Kind of strange for PJ not to make an opinion other than just repeating the Microsoft stuff that we already know.

It seems to me that PJ didn't want to make an opinion on this matter for some reason.

schestowitz

Nov 10, 2007
5:30 PM EST
Abe,

I sent Rob's item for inclusion in News Picks and PJ /did/ mention (to use your own word) "how small and insignificant they are and not to be taken seriously." It was there, just not as another, separate article.

Sander,

Some of these people are like (former?) friends of ours (I'm not directly associated with anyone, but neither is the 'Foundation'). To use an analogy, when an animal gets too hungry (e.g. for funds), it can attack its own kind.

Re: "Do you really believe that Sander? I certainly don't."

Smear campaign and personal attacks are always hard. Can you imagine the backlash you beg for when spilling the beans on people you once knew? You'd rather cite someone else (Rob in this case) than take the witch hat.
tuxchick

Nov 10, 2007
5:46 PM EST
Will you get a grip? "Marbux is a frequent contributor there" is the stupidest Groklaw conspiracy theory of all time. Just because you think a story is drop-dead important doesn't mean PJ and Andy and everyone else in your vast web of conspiracy do as well, or that they have the resources to investigate every last thing. Joe Barr and Andy Updegrove have set the record straight- what more you want? Yeah, it took an eternity. Oh wait, no, it took two weeks.
dinotrac

Nov 10, 2007
6:28 PM EST
>just because you think a story is drop-dead important doesn't mean PJ and Andy and everyone else in your vast web of conspiracy do as well

You tell 'em, TC.
gus3

Nov 10, 2007
9:23 PM EST
TC, I have a boss at work that your rant reminds me of.

She's a good boss. ;-)
tuxchick

Nov 10, 2007
9:40 PM EST
I blame society.
dinotrac

Nov 11, 2007
3:16 AM EST
>I blame society.

Oh no -- not the great all-wing conspiracy?
schestowitz

Nov 11, 2007
3:16 AM EST
Society? Where is that? I'm still trying to find it.
hkwint

Nov 11, 2007
4:52 AM EST
Quoting:Joe Barr and Andy Updegrove have set the record straight- what more you want? Yeah, it took an eternity. Oh wait, no, it took two weeks.


Still was a small problem, on November 1st. Some OOXML-advocates used the supposed 'schism' to make it look like ODF was losing important members and this was all a big problem, also reasoning this fight was between Sun and IBM (??? ahem). Of course they would like to make this look like this means ODF is coming down, and ODF is worse than OOXML, since ODF is unable to fulfill the customers wishes.

Normally, I assign myself the job to try to stop this kind disinformation; but therefore I need resources. And when there is controversy around ODF, what would be my first place to look? Normally, I would look on LXer, for example to see if Andy Updegrove said anything about it, but he didn't, and not much other news that explained what was going on either. Yes, some articles mentioned it, but they all told the same without explaining who-what-where-why. Then I probably went to Rob Weir's page (cannot remember), nothing either. I was a bit disappointed, were they silent because they couldn't handle this issue or so?

This meant I had to use LXer's 'search' function and Google to find out what was going on, and a while later, I knew what this was all about anyway. I would have liked a quicker response, but certainly my 'favourite' ODF writers wanted to write a good instead of a quick one. That's okay, but I had to find some other resources, which took a little of getting used to.
Abe

Nov 11, 2007
9:50 AM EST
Quoting:Will you get a grip? "Marbux is a frequent contributor there" is the stupidest Groklaw conspiracy theory of all time.
Get a grip yourself TC, I was not accusing Groklaw of conspiracy, I was accusing them with some kind of nepotism, there is a difference.

Quoting:Yeah, it took an eternity. Oh wait, no, it took two weeks.
No you wait, I am not waiting for two weeks since two weeks on the Internet are eternity.

I don't waste my time searching on the Internet reading all kind of junk, Groklaw and Andy's Blog happen to be couple of the very few sites that I rely on and trust to get objective and intelligent analysis. Waiting that long failed and disappointed me.

Groklaw should have said something very quickly to prevent OpenDocument FOUNDATION and MS of having a field day for couple weeks.

This foundation did the unimaginable. Being considered an advocate of ODF, their selfishness lead them to betray F/OSS. That is something that can't be taken lightly especially when it is coming from some org. that was considered one the advocated of ODF.

garyedwards

Feb 19, 2008
10:57 PM EST
In an effort to set the facts straight, the Universal Interoperability Council has published a response to the confusing noise surrounding the OpenDocument Foundation: Putting Andy Updegrove to Bed (without his supper)

Foundation members also responded extensively to David Berlind's discussion concerning IBM's work with CDF, the W3C's support for the Foundation's CDF work, and the strawman Andy Updegrove erected.

These discussions can be reviewed at: Did the W3C acknowledge CDF’s potential as an office format (vs ODF) in newly public e-mail?

The Foundation's disclosure of the W3C conversations is at: Play the tape!!! The W3C eMails to the Foundation tell a different story

A further discussion of interest can be found at moohpoint, where we take up the argument directly with Rob Weir in the comments section: Hypocrisy 101

Hope this helps, ~ge~
tuxchick

Feb 20, 2008
7:39 AM EST
What part of "CDF is not a document format" don't you understand? I quote from the mothership itself:

Quoting: A Compound Document is the W3C term for a document that combines multiple formats, such as XHTML, SVG, SMIL and XForms. The W3C Compound Document Formats (CDF) Working Group will specify the behaviour of some format combinations, addressing the needs for an extensible and interoperable Web.
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/

Why are you still flogging this subject, anyway? You lads folded up your tent and went home months ago.
dinotrac

Feb 20, 2008
9:36 AM EST
TC -

You are SOOOO wrong.

CDF is much simpler than that. It is a fundamental rule of parenting:

I CDF and you are grounded for life.
tuxchick

Feb 20, 2008
10:01 AM EST
Ow. Ow. Owwwwwwww.
dinotrac

Feb 20, 2008
10:09 AM EST
I'm sorry. That was cruel.

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!