- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
My resolve to treat Microsoft like any another license submitter is being sorely tested.
|
|
|
Comments (65)
polite expression ...
26 earlier comments in the full thread.
Isnt it nice how we can be having a dsicussion over license issues and then all kinds of things just pop up. Nice distraction gus.
> That's what we're trying to do here, except that the addiction at hand is Microsoft.
No, you're talking about punishing Microsoft because they do things you don't like.
Educating others to avoid Microsoft is not the same thing.
There is no one contradicting that Microsoft is a corrupt, greedy and destructive organization.
The best anyone has said is that _if_ Microsoft submits a license that fits the OSI license definition, _then_ that license must, by definition, receive approval.
Otherwise, the definition is worthless. Microsoft has already tarnished the ISO, shall we help them do it to the OSI as well?
No, you're talking about punishing Microsoft because they do things you don't like.
Educating others to avoid Microsoft is not the same thing.
There is no one contradicting that Microsoft is a corrupt, greedy and destructive organization.
The best anyone has said is that _if_ Microsoft submits a license that fits the OSI license definition, _then_ that license must, by definition, receive approval.
Otherwise, the definition is worthless. Microsoft has already tarnished the ISO, shall we help them do it to the OSI as well?
Azerthoth:
Bob_Robertson:
To say that their actions with the ISO and the OSI are unrelated, or acting from different purposes, strains my credulity at best. Say what you will about ESR, and some (or all) of it may be true, but I think he points out the larger picture well in this case.
Quoting:Isnt it nice how we can be having a dsicussion over license issues and then all kinds of things just pop up.I was responding to an earlier point, by saying that such a comparison was not as far off the mark as the earlier commenter indicated, and I provided a link to buttress my stance.
Bob_Robertson:
Quoting:There is no one contradicting that Microsoft is a corrupt, greedy and destructive organization.Don't forget convicted monopolist, and Bill Gates is a convicted perjurer.
Quoting:The best anyone has said is that _if_ Microsoft submits a license that fits the OSI license definition, _then_ that license must, by definition, receive approval.If Microsoft is a destructive organization, as you say, why is the OSI required to allow Microsoft to play them for puppets and fools, and ultimately discredit and destroy them? Microsoft's whole purpose in this fiasco is the elimination of competition coming from FOSS. Anyone thinking Microsoft now wants to "play nice" is only being naive.
To say that their actions with the ISO and the OSI are unrelated, or acting from different purposes, strains my credulity at best. Say what you will about ESR, and some (or all) of it may be true, but I think he points out the larger picture well in this case.
> Would it ease your pain if I restated the case just a scoonch?
Not really, Dino. This is the immature, childish part of me that wants to see Microsoft treated the way they've treated so many others.
The mature, responsible part realizes that we're winning (at least in part) because we're better than that.
But that doesn't shut down that small inner voice. :(
Not really, Dino. This is the immature, childish part of me that wants to see Microsoft treated the way they've treated so many others.
The mature, responsible part realizes that we're winning (at least in part) because we're better than that.
But that doesn't shut down that small inner voice. :(
>You made a nice attempt at distraction, but I don't care that Microsoft didn't invent these tactics. That is immaterial to the discussion. Just because someone else did it first, makes it no more "OK" for Microsoft to do it now.
Oh please. You are the distracted one. The question is whether or not the OSI should follow its own policies and principles, not whether Microsoft is a heavy-handed lout of a company. Should we disdain the GPL and GNU software because RMS can be total jerk? Hardly.
Oh please. You are the distracted one. The question is whether or not the OSI should follow its own policies and principles, not whether Microsoft is a heavy-handed lout of a company. Should we disdain the GPL and GNU software because RMS can be total jerk? Hardly.
>Bill Gates is a convicted perjurer.
I think you're wrong about that. Care to provide some evidence?
I think you're wrong about that. Care to provide some evidence?
> If Microsoft is a destructive organization, as you say, why is the OSI required to allow Microsoft to play them for puppets and fools, and ultimately discredit and destroy them?
How can you possibly discredit puppets and fools?
If the folks at OSI are puppets and fools, this whole conversation is pointless because OSI itself is pointless. If they are not puppets and fools, this whole conversation is pointless because OSI will do the right thing.
Personally, my little fantasy has ESR passing out pieces from his gun collection with instructions that no Redmondite is to get within earshot of the process until it's done.
Hmmm...Knowing ESR, that might not be so far into the realm of fantasy. ;0)
How can you possibly discredit puppets and fools?
If the folks at OSI are puppets and fools, this whole conversation is pointless because OSI itself is pointless. If they are not puppets and fools, this whole conversation is pointless because OSI will do the right thing.
Personally, my little fantasy has ESR passing out pieces from his gun collection with instructions that no Redmondite is to get within earshot of the process until it's done.
Hmmm...Knowing ESR, that might not be so far into the realm of fantasy. ;0)
Quoting:polite expression for :" shove it up ur ass"..... ;-P
And what has the poor donkey ever done to deserve such treatment?
>And what has the poor donkey ever done to deserve such treatment?
You ever been around a donkey?
You ever been around a donkey?
It seems to me that the worst thing that could happen from MS getting a license approved by the OSI, is that they may release opensource software. But if the OSI denies a perfectly legitimate license because MS submitted it then MS wins.
If MS gets a license approved and then proceeds to claim they are an opensource company to try to get people from switching to open programs, without releasing anything under their license, then they will get burned bad.
There is a big difference between saying "We have an OSI approved license" and "We have these opensource programs".
As long as the license guarantees freedom, who cares who submitted it?
If MS gets a license approved and then proceeds to claim they are an opensource company to try to get people from switching to open programs, without releasing anything under their license, then they will get burned bad.
There is a big difference between saying "We have an OSI approved license" and "We have these opensource programs".
As long as the license guarantees freedom, who cares who submitted it?
boomboom -
By Jove, I think he's got it!
As Bob pointed out earlier, it's a win-win for Microsoft. They simply cannot lose in this proposition. The same is not true for OSI. They win if they follow their principles and procedures. They lose if they don't.
By Jove, I think he's got it!
As Bob pointed out earlier, it's a win-win for Microsoft. They simply cannot lose in this proposition. The same is not true for OSI. They win if they follow their principles and procedures. They lose if they don't.
>And what has the poor donkey ever done to deserve such treatment?
@tracyanne : ...i know...the word 'ass' is sometimes 'inappropriate language' ....but it seems... the word 'linux' also ... :-P --> http://ut2004.titaninternet.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=22...
@tracyanne : ...i know...the word 'ass' is sometimes 'inappropriate language' ....but it seems... the word 'linux' also ... :-P --> http://ut2004.titaninternet.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=22...
@dino:
Quoting:>Bill Gates is a convicted perjurer.Sorry, it was Jim Allchin, not Bill Gates. During the MS antitrust trial, Allchin provided video evidence, which turned out to have been fouled. He was fined for this by the judge.
I think you're wrong about that. Care to provide some evidence?
> He was fined for this by the judge.
Allchin may have been fined, but he was not convicted of perjury, which is a criminal offense unto itself.
Allchin may have been fined, but he was not convicted of perjury, which is a criminal offense unto itself.
> ...but he was not convicted of perjury, which is a criminal offense unto itself.
Can be, Dino, can be. As I recall, our esteemed former President was convicted of civil perjury, not criminal perjury. So it apparently can be either a civil or criminal offense. I don't remember the details of the Allchin testimony, so I can't say exactly what transpired.
Can be, Dino, can be. As I recall, our esteemed former President was convicted of civil perjury, not criminal perjury. So it apparently can be either a civil or criminal offense. I don't remember the details of the Allchin testimony, so I can't say exactly what transpired.
I think there is far, far too little prosecution for perjury. There is the 5th if one does not wish to answer, but if one does answer then answer the truth.
>As I recall, our esteemed former President was convicted of civil perjury, not criminal perjury.
I think you're confusing the underlying action with the act of perjury itself. While true that perjury in a civil case is very rarely prosecuted, it is a criminal act, just like perjury in a criminal case.
Perjury is a crime against the state -- it is, essentially, an attack on the court. It is prosecuted by the state...ummm... prosecutors.
I think you're confusing the underlying action with the act of perjury itself. While true that perjury in a civil case is very rarely prosecuted, it is a criminal act, just like perjury in a criminal case.
Perjury is a crime against the state -- it is, essentially, an attack on the court. It is prosecuted by the state...ummm... prosecutors.
> While true that perjury in a civil case is very rarely prosecuted, it is a criminal act, just like perjury in a criminal case.
I yield to the voice of experience. :) All I know is the press and the court made a big deal of the fact that it was a civil decision and not a criminal one in Clinton's case.
I yield to the voice of experience. :) All I know is the press and the court made a big deal of the fact that it was a civil decision and not a criminal one in Clinton's case.
>All I know is the press and the court made a big deal of the fact that it was a civil decision and not a criminal one in Clinton's case.
I could be wrong, but I'll bet the press was talking about the nature of the case from which the perjury stemmed, and not the perjury itself. It's entirely possible that nobody considers perjury in a civil case to be as serious as perjury in a criminal case, but that's a question of severity, not nature.
I could be wrong, but I'll bet the press was talking about the nature of the case from which the perjury stemmed, and not the perjury itself. It's entirely possible that nobody considers perjury in a civil case to be as serious as perjury in a criminal case, but that's a question of severity, not nature.
> ...but I'll bet the press was talking about the nature of the case from which the perjury stemmed, and not the perjury itself.
Probably, but if so they were being purposely vague on the matter. Which shouldn't really surprise me any, given the noted media biases.
Hmm, a Google search indicates that he was actually convicted for contempt of court for (presumably) giving false information under oath. His law license in Arkansas was suspended as a result. Whether that qualifies as perjury or not could probably be debated. Unfortunately, real information (as opposed to opinion) is sparse among the results.
Probably, but if so they were being purposely vague on the matter. Which shouldn't really surprise me any, given the noted media biases.
Hmm, a Google search indicates that he was actually convicted for contempt of court for (presumably) giving false information under oath. His law license in Arkansas was suspended as a result. Whether that qualifies as perjury or not could probably be debated. Unfortunately, real information (as opposed to opinion) is sparse among the results.
missing the point
ESR and the OSI and the WTF and the BBQ and anyone else involved here are letting themselves be distracted from an important issue- OSI license proliferation, which the OSI itself has made noises about being a fairly urgent problem. Of all the dozens or however many OSI license that exist now, I'll wager the majority of them are virtually identical, and the main reason for their breeding like Tribbles is either ego (My license! Look at me!), or redundant lawyers trying to appear useful and thus keep their jobs (No, my license differs in several very important jots and tittles. Now run along to your meeting at the hooter bar and let me do the hard important work.)
So rather than holding their respective noses and going "ew! We don't want to play with Billy and Stevie! They have cooties!" (which is perfectly understandable) all they need to do is stick with their established policies, watch for fast ones, and don't worry so much. There are four possible outcomes:
1. MS submits an acceptable, but redundant, license. The OSI says "forget it, you're duplicating foo, feh, and futz. Just use one of them."
2. MS submits something that is typically overly-complex, ambiguous, and incomprehensible. The OSI does a return-to-sender with a polite request to try again.
3. MS submits something with a fatal defect, some sort of tricksy deceitful guff they luv so well. Again, "thanks but no thanks."
4. MS submits something that is actually fairly novel and acceptable. In that case, what's wrong with accepting it? Sure, they're going to take that tiny little OSI stamp of approval and enlarge it into a blimp-sized banner, and milk it for all it's worth. But in doing so they tell the dimwitted PHBs who think Microsoft is teh hawt and FOSS is dirty hippies that a dirty hippy FOSS license is actually cool.
As some columnist pointed out recently, for something that so insignificant and inferior and meaningless, as well as a cancer and a virus (according to Redmond), MS sure is paying a lot of attention to FOSS.
Oh, and why pay attention to ESR anyway. He loves infesting Linux with proprietary software, or least he did as long as his Linspire checks didn't bounce, so he's the last person who should be criticizing Microsoft.
So rather than holding their respective noses and going "ew! We don't want to play with Billy and Stevie! They have cooties!" (which is perfectly understandable) all they need to do is stick with their established policies, watch for fast ones, and don't worry so much. There are four possible outcomes:
1. MS submits an acceptable, but redundant, license. The OSI says "forget it, you're duplicating foo, feh, and futz. Just use one of them."
2. MS submits something that is typically overly-complex, ambiguous, and incomprehensible. The OSI does a return-to-sender with a polite request to try again.
3. MS submits something with a fatal defect, some sort of tricksy deceitful guff they luv so well. Again, "thanks but no thanks."
4. MS submits something that is actually fairly novel and acceptable. In that case, what's wrong with accepting it? Sure, they're going to take that tiny little OSI stamp of approval and enlarge it into a blimp-sized banner, and milk it for all it's worth. But in doing so they tell the dimwitted PHBs who think Microsoft is teh hawt and FOSS is dirty hippies that a dirty hippy FOSS license is actually cool.
As some columnist pointed out recently, for something that so insignificant and inferior and meaningless, as well as a cancer and a virus (according to Redmond), MS sure is paying a lot of attention to FOSS.
Oh, and why pay attention to ESR anyway. He loves infesting Linux with proprietary software, or least he did as long as his Linspire checks didn't bounce, so he's the last person who should be criticizing Microsoft.
Thank you TC, that pretty much nutshells the decision box as I see it too.
TC, how about a small adjustment to your option #2:
The OSI does a return-to-sender with a polite request not to try again.
Your penultimate paragraph puts it perfectly: Microsoft is led by hypocrites. They have been called out on this so many times it's no longer even news, which is why it takes "cattiness" and "blow it out your @$$" comments from ESR to get any coverage on it anymore. They have shot themselves in the collective foot, pulled the rug out from under themselves, and generally hoisted themselves by their own petards on this issue.
Microsoft is a convicted monopoly, and Bill Gates perjured himself by submitting a fouled video deposition during the trial. These are established facts. Between Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, the culture of lies, deception, and outright thuggery has left Microsoft beyond hope for any notion of "doing the right thing" in the public arena.
Trusting them to deal fairly and legally with an OSS license is like trusting Charles Manson to tell you that 1+1=2. You might think you know it to be true, but you'd better be skeptical until you can get some other verification from a more trustworthy source.
The OSI does a return-to-sender with a polite request not to try again.
Your penultimate paragraph puts it perfectly: Microsoft is led by hypocrites. They have been called out on this so many times it's no longer even news, which is why it takes "cattiness" and "blow it out your @$$" comments from ESR to get any coverage on it anymore. They have shot themselves in the collective foot, pulled the rug out from under themselves, and generally hoisted themselves by their own petards on this issue.
Microsoft is a convicted monopoly, and Bill Gates perjured himself by submitting a fouled video deposition during the trial. These are established facts. Between Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, the culture of lies, deception, and outright thuggery has left Microsoft beyond hope for any notion of "doing the right thing" in the public arena.
Trusting them to deal fairly and legally with an OSS license is like trusting Charles Manson to tell you that 1+1=2. You might think you know it to be true, but you'd better be skeptical until you can get some other verification from a more trustworthy source.
Quoting:They have shot themselves in the collective foot, pulled the rug out from under themselves, and generally hoisted themselves by their own petards on this issue.
That sounds more like schizofrenia than hypocrisy...
>They have shot themselves in the collective foot, pulled the rug out from under themselves, and generally hoisted themselves by their own petards on this issue.
Sounds like wishful thinking, but we can hope.
As to the OSI stuff, it seems to me that Microsoft is in a position it can't possibly lose.
From a PR standpoint:
If it's license gets approved, it's serious about open source. If it's license gets rejected, those free software types are just a bunch of hypocrites.
That presumes, of course, that the license really does meet OSI criteria.
Microsoft can even win with an unacceptable license by modifiying it to be acceptable. More likely is that their lawyers have studied current licenses very carefully and also studied the OSI's published criteria to make sure they fit.
These are legal beagles, after all, who managed to find a patent protection opening in GPLV2.
Sounds like wishful thinking, but we can hope.
As to the OSI stuff, it seems to me that Microsoft is in a position it can't possibly lose.
From a PR standpoint:
If it's license gets approved, it's serious about open source. If it's license gets rejected, those free software types are just a bunch of hypocrites.
That presumes, of course, that the license really does meet OSI criteria.
Microsoft can even win with an unacceptable license by modifiying it to be acceptable. More likely is that their lawyers have studied current licenses very carefully and also studied the OSI's published criteria to make sure they fit.
These are legal beagles, after all, who managed to find a patent protection opening in GPLV2.
Would have to mostly agree with tuxchick here
With FOSS there is a high to fully-complete degree of transparency (open source, open standards, ODF). With MS's strategy of "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish", transparency is rarely (if ever) maintained or desired for. Anyone care to recall MS's 35 IP Patent FUD threats of this past year?
Any possible and temporary MS compliance with the transparent submission policies of some of its licenses for OSD certification can only succeed to the extent that MS holds itself fairly transparent for the time-period of OSI approval (case 4). Ah.... but we all know that MS cannot maintain this for long. The instant MS cannot hold back from pulling "the tricksy deceitful guff they luv so well", GAME OVER over and not even the GPLv3-FUDding shills can do anything about it.
Quoting: 1. MS submits an acceptable, but redundant, license. The OSI says "forget it, you're duplicating foo, feh, and futz. Just use one of them."
2. MS submits something that is typically overly-complex, ambiguous, and incomprehensible. The OSI does a return-to-sender with a polite request to try again.
3. MS submits something with a fatal defect, some sort of tricksy deceitful guff they luv so well. Again, "thanks but no thanks."
4. MS submits something that is actually fairly novel and acceptable. In that case, what's wrong with accepting it? Sure, they're going to take that tiny little OSI stamp of approval and enlarge it into a blimp-sized banner, and milk it for all it's worth. But in doing so they tell the dimwitted PHBs who think Microsoft is teh hawt and FOSS is dirty hippies that a dirty hippy FOSS license is actually cool.
As some columnist pointed out recently, for something that so insignificant and inferior and meaningless, as well as a cancer and a virus (according to Redmond), MS sure is paying a lot of attention to FOSS.
With FOSS there is a high to fully-complete degree of transparency (open source, open standards, ODF). With MS's strategy of "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish", transparency is rarely (if ever) maintained or desired for. Anyone care to recall MS's 35 IP Patent FUD threats of this past year?
Any possible and temporary MS compliance with the transparent submission policies of some of its licenses for OSD certification can only succeed to the extent that MS holds itself fairly transparent for the time-period of OSI approval (case 4). Ah.... but we all know that MS cannot maintain this for long. The instant MS cannot hold back from pulling "the tricksy deceitful guff they luv so well", GAME OVER over and not even the GPLv3-FUDding shills can do anything about it.
>MS holds itself fairly transparent f
Did everybody leave their thinking caps at home today?
SHEEEESH!!!
The OSI process is not about Microsoft or any Microsoft technology. It is about a license, the terms of which are plainly visible to anybody who reads it. OSI has access to legal advice and need not rely on transparency, niceness, earnestness, or anything else from Microsoft. The license is ok or it isn't.
How Microsoft proceeds to use the license is a different matter, but nobody is being asked to pass judgment on that.
Did everybody leave their thinking caps at home today?
SHEEEESH!!!
The OSI process is not about Microsoft or any Microsoft technology. It is about a license, the terms of which are plainly visible to anybody who reads it. OSI has access to legal advice and need not rely on transparency, niceness, earnestness, or anything else from Microsoft. The license is ok or it isn't.
How Microsoft proceeds to use the license is a different matter, but nobody is being asked to pass judgment on that.
Actually dino there is a trend, there is freedom and the there is Freedom. We almost all can agree on freedom, but it takes a strong stomach and being able to set aside certain prejudices to embrace Freedom. Freedom applies to all, equally, freedom on the other hand applies to everyone who follows the guides (subjective) we feel are important and only them.
As people hold up Ghandi as an example of what (subjective again) we should exemplify in our pursuit of FLOSS principals many people forget that what that man did time after time was reach out and embrace those who would oppress him. He risked risked a heck of alot more than getting ticked off about a piece of code when he did it too.
Personally I think Ghandi is a horrible choice to hold up as a role model, but thats just me. Nor am I suggesting we go in blindly, but rejecting a license based wholly on its author? Where then are we different from them?
As people hold up Ghandi as an example of what (subjective again) we should exemplify in our pursuit of FLOSS principals many people forget that what that man did time after time was reach out and embrace those who would oppress him. He risked risked a heck of alot more than getting ticked off about a piece of code when he did it too.
Personally I think Ghandi is a horrible choice to hold up as a role model, but thats just me. Nor am I suggesting we go in blindly, but rejecting a license based wholly on its author? Where then are we different from them?
Thinking a bit more I realize that that post could be taken as more confrontational than I meant it. Don't think of it that way, nor as some random schmuck ranting about I'm more free than anyone else. Rather more as a question that you could ask yourself in private.
"Where do I draw the line for other people's freedoms in regards to how it might affect my own?"
Best done in private and remember to wash your hands afterwards.
"Where do I draw the line for other people's freedoms in regards to how it might affect my own?"
Best done in private and remember to wash your hands afterwards.
> that post could be taken as more confrontational than I meant it.
Join the club. Of such things are nuclear flame-wars made.
> "Where do I draw the line for other people's freedoms in regards to how it might affect my own?"
At the point where their actions prevent the equal freedom of others. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose" for example.
> Best done in private...
Oh darn, that's what you get for asking a linear thinker a rhetorical question.
Join the club. Of such things are nuclear flame-wars made.
> "Where do I draw the line for other people's freedoms in regards to how it might affect my own?"
At the point where their actions prevent the equal freedom of others. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose" for example.
> Best done in private...
Oh darn, that's what you get for asking a linear thinker a rhetorical question.
azerthoth, reading your first comment put the thought in my mind... which you then eloquently expressed in your second comment. In fact, that is exactly why I am opposing their so-called "open source license." It will turn into one more billy club for MS to wield against both the enlightened and the not-so-enlightened.
Ah, Freedom........ the first part of France's tripartite motto
Liberté, égalité, fraternité (see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberté,_égalité,_fraternité]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberté,_égalité,_fraternitÃ...[/url])
But then again, the controlling pigs in George Orwell's famous political classic 'Animal Farm' ended up turning égalité pour les animaux into "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm)
The indomitable MS is certainly and theoretically just as "free" to promote its own OOXML format as a standard as supporters of ODF are to promote the truly "Open" format. At the same time, let's get real: MS's intense money and lobbying efforts between now and March '08 will help ensure that the national bodies participating in and voting in ISO/IEC JTC 1 will remain much more "free" to approve OOXML over ODF, unless other events and changes should [hopefully] reverse this trend between now and then. For the most recent news on MS's enhanced freedom to heighten its spin and influence, see http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2178917,00.asp.
But then again, the controlling pigs in George Orwell's famous political classic 'Animal Farm' ended up turning égalité pour les animaux into "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm)
The indomitable MS is certainly and theoretically just as "free" to promote its own OOXML format as a standard as supporters of ODF are to promote the truly "Open" format. At the same time, let's get real: MS's intense money and lobbying efforts between now and March '08 will help ensure that the national bodies participating in and voting in ISO/IEC JTC 1 will remain much more "free" to approve OOXML over ODF, unless other events and changes should [hopefully] reverse this trend between now and then. For the most recent news on MS's enhanced freedom to heighten its spin and influence, see http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2178917,00.asp.
>MS's intense money and lobbying efforts between now and March '08 will help ensure that the national bodies participating in and voting in ISO/IEC JTC 1 will remain much more "free" to approve OOXML over ODF,
In some cases, sure. In other cases, home-grown interests will trump Microsoft. In still other cases, the technical merits will matter.
I don't think Microsoft wins this one without making some changes to OOXML. The question is: can they win it without making meaningful changes?
In some cases, sure. In other cases, home-grown interests will trump Microsoft. In still other cases, the technical merits will matter.
I don't think Microsoft wins this one without making some changes to OOXML. The question is: can they win it without making meaningful changes?
Meaningful to whom?
>Meaningful to whom?
Good question, although I was thinking in terms of changing the nature of OOXML to get a little closer to justifying the "Open" in the acronym.
Good question, although I was thinking in terms of changing the nature of OOXML to get a little closer to justifying the "Open" in the acronym.
> changing the nature of OOXML to get a little closer to justifying the "Open" in the acronym.
But if instead they buy votes, they get both the binary in-compatibility _and_ the "standards" stamp of approval.
I do not believe Microsoft will do anything deliberately that will endanger their "lock-in".
But if instead they buy votes, they get both the binary in-compatibility _and_ the "standards" stamp of approval.
I do not believe Microsoft will do anything deliberately that will endanger their "lock-in".
>I do not believe Microsoft will do anything deliberately that will endanger their "lock-in".
They have a little problem, however.
The United States, where there lock-in is well-established, is a more or less saturated market. The real action is happening elsewhere. Elsewhere, however, standards seem to be more important.
If they can't get some kind of standard approved, they may just lose more than their lock-in buys.
Personally, I don't know how the numbers work out, but Microsoft doesn't seem to be in the driver's seat. Their heavy-handed actions in the ISO process highlights their lack of control: if they really had the power FOSS folks tend to think they do, their actions would have been far harder to see and far more effective.
They have a little problem, however.
The United States, where there lock-in is well-established, is a more or less saturated market. The real action is happening elsewhere. Elsewhere, however, standards seem to be more important.
If they can't get some kind of standard approved, they may just lose more than their lock-in buys.
Personally, I don't know how the numbers work out, but Microsoft doesn't seem to be in the driver's seat. Their heavy-handed actions in the ISO process highlights their lack of control: if they really had the power FOSS folks tend to think they do, their actions would have been far harder to see and far more effective.
I had a brain fart last night before going to sleep. Since when has MS actually given two shakes about standards of any sort? They have merrily made up their own and expected the world to agree with them for years now, ECMA and ISO be damned.
Just a thought, and has nothing to do with the initial topic.
Just a thought, and has nothing to do with the initial topic.
Quoting:Just a thought, and has nothing to do with the initial topic.Huh? That is the general-case statement of the current topic. MS's behavior with the ISO is merely the latest example of:
Quoting:They have merrily made up their own and expected the world to agree with them for years now, ECMA and ISO be damned.And let's not forget Sun Microsystems, who had to sue to get that stupid busted Java out of IE. MS kept saying "compatible, compatible," when they knew it wasn't.
And of course, when it's in their interest (but certainly not the consumer's), they'll cry "incompatible!" Remember DR-DOS? You could run Windows 95 on top of it, except for that cryptic little startup "error" that wasn't really an error, but just enough FUD to scare people away.
Secure-as-Swiss-cheese ActiveX? That one backfired on them. It was supposed to simplify GUI control and creation (and lure devs to Windows, Office and IE), but it morphed into "necessary evil" for developers. I witnessed some of that first-hand. Add to that the ongoing security nightmares from poor engine implementation and poor developer usage, and we can be thankful that one never became a "standard" with traction.
And now we have this schizophrenic beast called OOXML. It is only Microsoft's attempt to beat down the ODF platforms, especially those from FOSS, becoming popular in government. MS's own implementation is shaky, and claims of "interoperability," even with their own software, are dubious at best. All the "rah, rah, me, too!" is only empty pseudo-enthusiasm bordering on vaporware.
MS likes to think they determine what is a "standard," but those days are numbered. Thanks to the Internet, people can compare notes and see what kind of stupid shenanigans MS engages in, and push back. (And thank God teh Intarweb was invented by Al Gore and not Microsoft! ;-)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post