08.13.08
Microsoft Insults the Intelligence of Malaysians, Choice of ODF
“Deep dev of the core OS is not likely to happen in South Africa today on any large scale. Students at the university still grappling with coding skills are not going to dive into the inner-working of Linux.”
–Jason Matusow, Microsoft (background/context)
The Open Malaysia Blog has posted a couple of eye-opening essays. They detail the levels to which Microsoft reaches in its fight against ODF (yes, Microsoft has always fought against the international standard, very viciously even). In the words of Open Malaysia’s Yoon Kit:
Don’t you think it’s rather presumptuous of this particular foreign company [Microsoft] to question the right of a country’s choice in a certain product? Maybe it’s because all these foreign companies just think that it’s not about choosing but about having a choice, and we poor third rate countries haven’t the brains to think for ourselves.
Microsoft did the same thing in South Africa, insinuating that South Africans are too stupid to take care of themselves without Microsoft. It’s a pattern of vanity. Insulting one’s existing/prospective customer is a poor business strategy and it may have cost them dearly. A wave of complaints from developing countries soon arrived.
As a form of embellishment, if not white-washing, Microsoft spinners (and ISO) continue to redefine English terminology, just as they once did with “contradiction”. Now it’s “consensus” that they try to warp.
Over the last year I’ve noticed that quite a few people are using the word “consensus” in a way which differs from my understanding of what consensus is about.
[…]
For instance, in the case of the BRM for OOXML, it has been stated by several, and ISO/IEC officials in particular, that the decisions were made by “consensus”. Was it so, though? I certainly don’t think so.
[…]
As if that was not enough ISO/IEC officials went on to then recommend to its respective boards of directors (SMB & TMB) to dismiss the appeals filed by Brazil, India, South Africa, and Venezuela. Now, I don’t know what an appeal is if it’s not a clear expression of “sustained opposition”.
Since ISO is a prisoner of Redmond, this hardly surprises at all. To demonstrate the generality of corruption which results from money on the table, watch this good talk from Larry Lessig. There is no trust in ISO anymore. As for Microsoft, it’s same old, same old. It dragged down ISO with it. █
From the Campaign for Document Freedom
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.