08.26.08
Posted in Microsoft, Windows, GNU/Linux, Deception, Mono, Standard, Java, Ecma, ISO at 7:57 am by Roy Schestowitz
The OOXML scandals merely part of a pattern
Microsoft has rigged the ISO vote (the European Commission is investigating and Redmond press acknowledges). ISO too is claimed to have pretty much rigged the vote on complaints against it (and Microsoft/ECMA). Since old articles continue to disappear and Microsoft revisionists put history away along with the ashes, we though we should bring up two old incidents that are no longer covered on the Web. They can be fetched from the Web Archive though.
The first is a convincing accusations against Microsoft gaming a Linux versus Windows poll in a Microsoft-affiliated press, of which there is plenty.
Linux users are accusing the Microsoft-affiliated news site of tampering with the results of an online poll. They believe that the numbers were altered to ensure that a Microsoft-made system was chosen as the winner.
[…]
Reichard also notes that at some point during the poll Linux “magically” lost votes. “At one point Linux had 37 percent of 37,000, which works out to just over 14,000 votes. But when the voting reached 205,000, the poll showed Linux had 6 percent, which is only about 12,000 votes.”
The second example is actually much better because there is damning proof. Read this and be disgusted.
By 21 December, more than two-thirds of the respondents (69.5 percent), said they planned to deliver some applications by Web services by the end of 2002, with a large majority of those (nearly half the total sample) planning to use Java. Only 21.5 percent said they planned to use Microsoft .Net — less than the figure (23.5 percent) planning to use neither.
But by the time the poll closed, on 5 January, the position had dramatically changed, with three quarters of voters claiming to be implementing .Net. This apparent sudden change of heart over the Christmas period appears to be the result of a concerted campaign within Microsoft.
ZDNet UK logs reveal rather obvious vote rigging, and prove that it originated from within Microsoft:
* A very high percentage of voters are from within the microsoft.com domain.
* There is a very high incidence of people attempting to cast multiple votes, even though the poll script blocked out most attempts at multiple voting. The one that wins the prize made 228 attempts to vote. This person was from within the microsoft.com domain.
* Several of the voters evidently followed a link contained in an email, the subject line of which ran: “PLEASE STOP AND VOTE FOR .NET!” We know this, because our logs include the Web address where visitors browsed from; when people click there from a Microsoft Exchange email message, Exchange helpfully gives us the subject line and username. The people who followed that link all had email addresses in the microsoft.com domain.
* There is also clear evidence of automated voting, with scripts attempting to post multiple times.
Why are those links breaking and why do articles ‘dissolve’ over time?
Interestingly enough, the previously-mentioned (and official) Boycott Microsoft site has just disappeared as well. It has been fine for a decade. Today’s IRC log, which will be published tomorrow, has the details.
Microsoft’s dirty fight for .NET continues to this date. Never forget the “Slog” and those ‘extensions’, not to mention secret APIs. Novell is a major part of it now because it owns Mono. When you write about Mono, apologists will show up. They try to shut up critics. That’s just what they try to achieve.
A common excuse they bring up is ECMA standards. Public standards are unrelated to patents; put differently, it is possible to have an ECMA standard with accompanying patents, not to mention the possibility of ‘extensions’ that are covered by new patents (even submarine patents).
Software patents are far from the only issue here. It’s also about the composition of the cloud and whatever it integrates with. It’s about the API. He who control the API….
Mono is not a root to GNU/Linux success and FOSS adoption. It doesn’t replace the competition more than it makes it stronger. You can’t beat Microsoft at its own game, for which it sets the rules (both legal and technical). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
07.20.08
Posted in Formats, Microsoft, Deception, Standard, OpenDocument, Open XML, Ecma, ISO at 5:20 am by Roy Schestowitz
“That would be because we believe in Free Software and doing the right thing (a practice you appear to have given up on). Maybe it is time the term ‘open source’ also did the decent thing and died out with you.”
–Alan Cox to Eric Raymond
M
icrosoft and Openness is like the opening of a bank account. To Microsoft, what’s known as “Openness” (not Freedom) is just a business model, designed to ensure increase or at least maintenance of precious revenue streams. It’s hardly about permitting fair competition; rather, it’s a case of marketing, as Tim Bray recently emphasised.
As we showed yesterday, Microsoft is stuffing while Alex brown is bluffing for a good reason or two. The following brilliant analysis from Groklaw adds some more possible motives:
Bottom line to me? I think Microsoft sees a way to make some money with ODF, but it wants to change it to suit its own needs better. It didn’t participate in the ODF process, although it was free to suggest anything it wanted. Now, when it looks like the world really does want ODF instead of OOXML, surrogates are sending a dual message — first, that ODF has won, so OOXML isn’t worth fighting any more (and anyone who does is an “extremist” anti-Microsoft whiner), and two, that OASIS isn’t able to do a good job with ODF, so the same folks who brought you OOXML should take it over.
[…]
Because Microsoft’s not done until ODF won’t run? By that I mean, run as it does. They are not meeting for nothing, in my opinion. It’s not busywork. There is an agenda, no longer quite so hidden. It’s the opening part of the effort to take over ODF control, I think, so Microsoft can make it less open, probably, so as to make buckets of money from it, without Microsoft having to actually be open. On that page on What is Rick Smoking?, you’ll find a list of who was to go to the meeting of this advisory group, and a commenter says, “So a quick tally shows that there will be 25 participants, of which 12 are Ecma TC45 members (as listed) or Microsoft employees (Brett Roberts, Dave Welsh, Jasper Bojsen, Kimmo Bergius, Shahzad Rana and Wemba Opota).”
Get the picture? Is that who you want in charge of ODF?
The denialists and revisionists from ISO have already tried to hide and rewrite what had happened. They potentially hope to repeat history and destroy ODF (or OASIS), too. They’ll face opposition, which they try to neutralise by being coy.
On a brighter note, Charles had this encouraging news to share: “Adobe’s sequel to Buzzword, the most elegant online word processor, is not just fully integrated into Adobe’s latest online services. It does export to ODF!”
Erwin has some more fantastic news. [via Bob Sutor]
Due to my past involvement in OpenOffice.org and ODF, I was curious to find out if and where the SAP products already support the ISO standard OpenDocument Format. I was happily surprised when I found out that ODF is already supported by the SAP List Viewer component (also known as the ABAP List Viewer or ALV), which is used many many times in all kinds of areas for displaying tabular data in a grid. The SAP List Viewer component allows exporting to ODF spreadsheet files in addition to Microsoft Excel files. This feature is available on systems with release numbers 6.40 and higher and works for all 3 members of the SAP GUI family including the SAP GUI for Java.
For what it’s worth, here is some good new analysis from Rex Ballard.
Message-ID: <d7f43565-1c2b-4b42-bdc9-ddea1d85c5f9@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
From: Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: [Rival] The Microsoft OOXML Circus and Manipulation in Details
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 20, 12:54 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro…@schestowitz.com>
wrote:
> ISO/IEC Recommendations on Appeals & Latest ODF News - Complete document as
> text
>
> ,—-[ Quote ]
> | Bottom line to me? I think Microsoft sees a way to make some money with ODF,
> | but it wants to change it to suit its own needs better. It didn’t participate
> | in the ODF process, although it was free to suggest anything it wanted. Now,
> | when it looks like the world really does want ODF instead of OOXML,
> | surrogates are sending a dual message — first, that ODF has won, so OOXML
> | isn’t worth fighting any more (and anyone who does is an “extremist”
> | anti-Microsoft whiner), and two, that OASIS isn’t able to do a good job with
> | ODF, so the same folks who brought you OOXML should take it over.
Put another way, you’ve one the battle, so let’s break out the whisky
and rum, and pretend that the enemy isn’t just across the valley ready
to attack us while we sleep off our drunken stupor.
Microsoft’s latest attempt to subvert the standards organizations and
corporate bans on Office 2007 and OpenXML has been to put out a
“patch” to OfficeXP which allows it to open OpenXML. Then, if you try
at save an openXML document as an OfficeXP document it gives you lots
of nasting warnings and threats about how you will lose critical data
if you don’t save in OOXML format.
It seems that now that OpenOffice, StarOffice, and Symphony have
become pretty good at decoding .doc, .xls, and .ppt documents and
converting them to odt, odc, and odp formats. Microsoft is making a
last desparate attempt to extend their monopoly yet one more time, by
trying to force everyone to save their documents in formats that these
competitors cannot decode.
And since the OOXML standard is incomplete, none of these applications
will be able to decode such documents, because the structures of the
“binaries” is still under strict nondisclosure, including terms which
forbid the development of decoders for OSS applications. Essentially,
Microsoft will get their pound of flesh no matter how much blood they
have to spill to get it.
> | […]
> |
> | Because Microsoft’s not done until ODF won’t run? By that I mean, run as it
> | does. They are not meeting for nothing, in my opinion. It’s not busywork.
Sure, Microsoft wants to add some “extensions”, the same way that it
added “extensions” like VBScript, ActiveX, and extensions to
JavaScript that broke Netscape and Mozilla.
Eventually, Mozilla fought back, released FireFox, and today nearly
all vendors don’t want to risk turning away a well-funded customer
simply because they chose to use FireFox and refuse to use IE.
> | There is an agenda, no longer quite so hidden. It’s the opening part of the
> | effort to take over ODF control, I think, so Microsoft can make it less open,
> | probably, so as to make buckets of money from it, without Microsoft having to
> | actually be open.
They don’t even have to take Control. All they have to do is EMBRACE,
then EXTEND, and wait for the bones of the carcass to come out the
other end. EMBRACE the way an Anaconda embraces it’s prey, EXTEND
it’s jaws, even dislocating them slightly to be able to swallow the
crushed prey whole, then relax and let the digestive juices do their
work, allowing the crushed bones and remnants of fur to leave it’s
body as a ‘dropping’
> | On that page on What is Rick Smoking?, you’ll find a list
> | of who was to go to the meeting of this advisory group, and a commenter
> | says, “So a quick tally shows that there will be 25 participants, of which 12
> | are Ecma TC45 members (as listed) or Microsoft employees (Brett Roberts, Dave
> | Welsh, Jasper Bojsen, Kimmo Bergius, Shahzad Rana and Wemba Opota).”
> `—-
>
> Get the picture? Is that who you want in charge of ODF?
How do you think they got control of Caldera/SCO?
It’s those “midnight specials”, meetings held when the key opposition
and it’s leaders are away and can’t be reached, including an offer
that looks too good to be true, but must be accepted within a very
short time limit, before the opposition leadership can be contacted.
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080718170044877
>
> Read the whole thing if you can. The Redmond filth are playing dirty, kindly
> smiling while they do it.
Same Stuff Different Day.
I’ve been pointing this type of behavior out in this group for what,
11 years?
Microsoft is not “Evil”, they are just like any other preditor. A
mouse should not trust a rattlesnake, no matter how “harmless” it
might seem at the moment, because the ultimate outcome is as
predictable as the sunrise. If the snake moves into the hole to avoid
the cold, when it warms up, if the mouse is still there, the snake
will strike.
How many times have we seen Microsoft snatch Linux/OSS defeat from the
jaws of victory. Just as we gain a huge advantage, Microsoft makes
it’s lethal blow, and Linux is relegated to Self-installation for
another 3-4 years.
> “We need to slaughter Novell before they get stronger….If you’re going to kill
> someone, there isn’t much reason to get all worked up about it and angry. You
> just pull the trigger. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need
> to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger.”
Which is what they have done, a few times. I’ve shared about the time
that Microsoft killed Novell by giving them “the deal” that if Novell
stayed off the desktop, Microsoft wouldn’t touch their server, then,
when all of the desktop team was fired, Microsoft announced that NT
would have a built-in file and print server (effectively killing
Novell’s growth potential).
Most recently, they seduced Novell into yet another deal, which
ultimately gave Citrix control over the commercial version of Xen, and
then Citrix killed the implementation where Linux was the host in
commercial versions of Xen, especially for the desktop.
> –Jim Allchin, Platform Group Vice President at Microsoft
It’s too bad we can’t get the court records of the original DOJ case
back into public records on a public internet site, including the
highlights of Mr Bill calling the Judge and the prosecutor an idiot
(the Judge’s very accurate observation).
Unfortunately, the new administration will barely have time to get a
new attorney general approved before the DOJ settlement expires. I
wonder if they will be able to effectively argue for an additional 5
year extension based on Microsoft’s blatant disregard for the portion
of the agreement that required Microsoft to stop interfering with OEM
efforts to distribute Linux (including along with Windows).
Perhaps when Apple has taken it’s place as the number one OEM by
dollar volume and unit volume, the OEMs will give Microsoft/Vista the
“heave ho” and let them come back with a more “flexible” offer.
Perhaps the new administration will push for quatas and other
restrictions on Microsoft’s business practices, as well as mandates to
permit Linux machines to be displayed in retail stores.
Maybe the FTC will just file fraud charges against Microsoft for about
200 of the activities that became public during the antitrust trial.
Or, maybe we should just let Microsoft collect the money directly
through our taxes, we’ll just be forced to pay 1 week’s pay to
Microsoft, whether we like their products or not.
Any additional thought are, as always, very welcome. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
07.19.08
Posted in Microsoft, Deception, Standard, Europe, Open XML, Ecma, ISO at 4:49 am by Roy Schestowitz
Buying the elections because the world stays asleep
You would not believe this unless you have already seen the hundreds — if not thousands — of documented cases where the OOXML process had been abused.
Watch this new observation:
Next week on Monday and Tuesday there will be an SC34 meeting, where the maintenance of the inexistant DIS29500 specification will be discussed. Surprise, half of the seats will be occupied by Microsoft and ECMA:
Adam Farquhar (Ecma)
Alex Brown (UK)
Benjamin Henrion (BE)
Brett Roberts (NZ)
Dave Welsh (US)
Doug Mahugh (Ecma)
Francis Cave (GB)
Isabelle Valet-Harper (Ecma)
Istvan Sebestyen (Ecma)
Jasper Hedegaard Bojsen (DK)
Jean Paoli (Ecma)
Jean Stride (GB)
Jesper Lund Stocholm (DK)
Jirka Kosek (CZ)
Keld Simonsen (NO)
Ken Holman (CA)
Kimmo Bergius (FI)
Manu Setälä (FI)
Michiel Leenaars (NL)
Murata Makoto (JP)
Patrick Durusau (US)
Pia Elleby Lange (DK)
Rex Jaeschke (Ecma)
Shahzad Rana (NO)
Wemba Opota (CI)
Some of them, Jesper Lund Stocholm for instance, are Microsoft partners and fans [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. This is a joke, right? And Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]? Should they also bring Fidel Castro in to cast a vote on democracy?
Additionally, be sure to learn who Adam Farquhar is [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Isn’t he also with Microsoft and the British Library? This is ridiculous; it’s a syndicate of money and influence taking over shell establishments like ISO. Some of these people trade Microsoft products for a living!
“Microsoft (and its ecosystem) is set to decide on Microsoft (and its ecosystem).”Let’s pick some other examples. It’s most amazing how Microsoft employees are ‘dressed up’ as ECMA employees. Doug Mahugh at ECMA? He works for Microsoft. Is he swapping hats for cover-up? Again? What is ECMA doing there anyway? ECMA is being paid handsomely by Microsoft. Remember Jan van den Beld, who changed directives especially for Microsoft and then left ECMA to join a Microsoft lobbying arm and behave even more aggressively?
How about Rex Jaeschke? Follow the links at will. It’s all too clear to see what is happening here.
At the moment, Rick Jelliffe [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] accuses concerned people of being “afraid of openness”. He refers to OOXML, which is definitely not open. In fact, the word “Open” in the acronym should be forbidden given all the binary components which are undocumented, not to mention allergy to open source software (Microsoft reserves the right to sue open source implementations over OOXML-related patents it applies for).
One could go on and on analyzing one person at the time, or at least those who attend to serve Microsoft. The motives say it all. Microsoft (and its ecosystem) is set to decide on Microsoft (and its ecosystem).
Remember how Bryan complained and prematurely left ISO after a long career there, having witnessed how his committee got stuffed by Microsoft? He even spoke out about it.
Be sure to view this list of the attendants at the OOXML BRM. It’s equally appalling, just like the BRM itself [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. it was controlled by ECMA, Microsoft and some other OOXML-sympathetic figures.
ISO should be utterly ashamed of itself. Ashamed. And humiliated. Tim Bray, who attended the BRM, had this to say:
“This was horrible, egregious, process abuse and ISO should hang their heads in shame for allowing it to happen. Their reputation, in my eyes, is in tatters. My opinion of ECMA was already very negative; this hasn’t improved it, and if ISO doesn’t figure out away to detach this toxic leech, this kind of abuse is going to happen again and again.”
–Tim Bray
ISO is being abused by Microsoft and its affiliates that exploit ISO for their wallets. To make matters worse, ISO chose to try and bury all of this under the rug. This makes it an accomplice in a sense.
You could take a rich crook and put him in a suit. But it’s still a crook in a suit, who probably made a fortune ‘thanks’ to bad behaviour. This must not be tolerated.
Despite all of these dirty tricks, ODF is going strong. Yesterday we wrote about NATO and ODF without sufficient certainty. It’s finally more official, based on Andy Updegrove’s Web site and even Heise.
NATO has included the International Standardization Organization’s (ISO) certified Open Document Format (ODF) in its list of mandatory standards to promote interoperability. NATO’s standards list includes Rich Text Format (RTF), extensible markup language (XML) and Office XP formats as requirements for the sharing of data.
Don’t ever let dirty tricks and misconduct of biblical proportions take over your precious personal documents. Stand up for justice and digital preservation. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
07.07.08
Posted in Microsoft, Patents, GPL, Europe, Open XML, Ecma, FOSS at 1:24 am by Roy Schestowitz
Here it is almost 2 months late, and for good reasons. Readers might recall that Microsoft, ECMA, and those in-between did not obey the rules. OOXML, as buggy as it is, was not made visible to anyone. Until now.
7228 pages of ISO ooxml
Opendocument Format saves our trees. ISO Open XML has been getting more and more fat.
It comes as a bundle with Windows-specific bits, bugs, undocumented secrets, and a licence/promise combo that was designed to exclude Microsoft’s number-one rival. Nobody will ever implement it, not even Microsoft.
The many problems with OOXML are separate from its considerable length, which may seem a superficial thing to scrutinise. When different versions of Microsoft Office are part of a so-called ’standard’, then it’s only expected to be badly formed and spurious.
From a legal and less technical point of view, Microsoft continues to fight — albeit usually by proxy — to ensure things like OOXML universally come with software patents. They immediately punish Free software, which Microsoft hates so much. Look what the BSA is doing in Europe at the moment.
Leave it to the Business Software Alliance (BSA) to distort the definition of “open standard” in order to serve the interests of Microsoft and its other members. The BSA doesn’t like the European Commission’s increasing interest in open source and open standards to deliver software interoperability.
Behind its pressure groups, Microsoft pulled a lot of dirty tricks in Europe last week. It’s definitely something to watch out for. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
07.03.08
Posted in Formats, Microsoft, Standard, OpenDocument, SUN, Open XML, Ecma, ISO at 6:19 am by Roy Schestowitz
By ruining the system, existing open standards become irrelevant to be replaced by proprietary ones
Microsoft is an empire of lock-in, so it’s clearly no buddy of standards. This simple fact has been proven endlessly for decades. It’s probably to do with the business model of renting proprietary software.
That said, now that standards are required as a matter of policy in some places, Microsoft hopes to lower the barriers to entry and then contaminate a long-lasting system with pseudo ’standards’ which are virtually paid for (or sneaked in via proxies like ECMA). OOXML is just the beginning as ISO refuses to repair itself.
It is a very dirty game of politics, rule-bending and marketing. Even ISO is willing to pretty much lie to the public. In the words of <No>OOXML:
Let’s hope other ISO members responsible for the appeal made by 4 countries are more clever then Mr Bryden when it comes to strengthen the ISO rules, and especially rewriting the Fast-Track rules that were changed probably on purpose for the OOXML process by ECMA ex-secretary general, Mr Van Den Beld.
Jan Van Den Beld is now working for a Microsoft lobbying arm, CompTIA. He seems like more of an insider that does their job under different hats.
Yesterday we wrote about another Microsoft lobbying arm, ACT. Here is Digistan’s take on their latest move.
The EU Commission announced on June 25 that EIF/2.0 (The European Interoperability Framework which defines the rules for software used in e-Government) will hold the line as regards patents on standards.
The announcement is expected to annoy those who wanted a “broad” definition of open standards that would include patented standards. As expected, the Business Software Alliance and the Association for Competitive Technology, both vocal in their defense of software patents and patented standards, have denounced the move as “imposing one business model over another”.
Speaking of Microsoft agents, watch this.
The next ISO SC34 meeting in London will discuss OOXML (non-)future. The meeting will be hosted by the British Library, an ECMA member, supporter of OOXML and advised by Alex Brown.
For background and context, see:
Glyn Moody has just commented on what Microsoft had done.
Given that companies favouring closed-source, proprietary approaches can hardly argue with that logic, the battle has moved on. What we are seeing now is a desperate rearguard action to redefine “open standards” to embrace elements that are decidedly closed.
The OOXML fiasco at ISO is perhaps the highest-profile manifestation of this, where a closed, proprietary standard was gradually made to seem open. Here, the “open standard” label represents simply a box that must be ticked to keep that pesky EU and its communistic member states happy, not a real Damascene conversion to fairness and a level playing-field.
Does that not put in perspective the standardisation of Portable Document Format, which is an Adobe format?
The Portable Document Format (PDF), undeniably one of the most commonly used formats for electronic documents, is now accessible as an ISO International Standard - ISO 32000-1. This move follows a decision by Adobe Systems Incorporated, original developer and copyright owner of the format, to relinquish control to ISO, who is now in charge of publishing the specifications for the current version (1.7) and for updating and developing future versions.
Should “most commonly used” become analogous to “open”? Probably not.
From another article about this very same topic:
ISO Approves PDF as an International Standard
[…]
Microsoft submitted Office Open XML, a proprietary XML-based document format it built for its Office 2007 productivity suite, to the ISO. The ISO approved OOXML on April 1 in a controversial vote that is still being contested by some of the standards bodies that took part in it.
Meanwhile, Sun has produced an ODF validation service.
I would like to announce the availability of a new ODF Validation service at openoffice.org. What is it? It is actually a web page where you can check whether an ODF file meets some basic conformance or validation requirements defined by the ODF specification.
The standards industry is truly in a crisis. With so much money at stake (e.g. in Microsoft’s case), duplicate ’standards’ and bribery are only to be expected. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.10.08
Posted in Microsoft, Europe, Asia, Ecma, Africa, ISO at 4:24 am by Roy Schestowitz
Here are some of the latest developments in the OOXML saga. These are minor developments, but nonetheless, they are noteworthy.
United Kingdom
Below you can find some concrete proof of the deficiencies of the legal system. Only those who can afford to pursue justice will ever actually see it. On the face of it, financial constraints may stand in a way of unmasking the dodgy process carried out by the BSI.
“The decision to publish or not ISO/IEC DIS 29500 as an ISO/IEC International Standard cannot be taken until the outcome of the appeals is known,” said an ISO statement on Thursday. 29500 refers to Microsoft’s standard.
Williams said there was still a case for the UKUUG’s appeal on the grounds that there had been “procedural irregularities” in the BSI’s decision to back OOXML. The BSI had supported the Microsoft standard after clearing a consensus vote in its favour among members. The UKUUG told the court there had been no consensus because one member, IBM’s Ian Larner, had abstained after long opposition to OOXML’s ratification.
For some information about what the BSI did, see:
Based on sources of ours, Alex Brown too was involved in the BSI this time around. Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] is meanwhile planning to deliver the his truth on this subject, so he rightly gets criticised early on.
Your description seems to imply that somehow you, unlike others, can deliver the truth. In all fairness you should recognize that whatever you say is your own view and is subject to the same level of questioning as what anybody else says. You don’t own the truth more than anybody else and what is considered information by one can be seen as misinformation by others.
For example, you’ve generated your own share of misinformation with your claims about ODF compliance that are disputed by Rob Weir.
This talk is due to take place in the UK. What story will he tell? We have seen many times before how Microsoft rewrites history (whitewashing) to bury its embarrassing stories of sheer corruption. The ISO, unsurprisingly, just follows this herd.
South Africa
South Africa was one of the nations that appealed against ISO’s decision. There will soon be an XML workshop over there. Here are the names of those who will attend.
Participants will include representatives from government, universities, research organisations and the private sector. The South African Burea of Standards, which lodged the first official appeal against the ISO process to make Microsoft’s OOXML an international standard, will also be participating.
Microsoft South Africa, IBM, Sun Microsystems and the Meraka Institute are sponsors of the event and entry to all the workshop and tutorial sessions will be free to the public.
Patrick Durusau is the editor of OpenDocument Format (ODF) 1.2 at OASIS, while Rob Weir is the co-chair of the OASIS ODF Technical Committe. Steve Pepper is represented Norway on ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34, the ISO subcommittee for document description languages, since 1995, and convened the Topic Maps Working Group since it was founded.
There may be some more information in this article.
India
The other day we mentioned very briefly the departure of Microsoft’s managing director in India. Possible reasons for this are finally approaching the surface.
Neelam Dhawan, Managing Director of Microsoft India, will leave the company as of 30 June. Some media sources cite the Indian ooxml debacle as a reason.
[…]
In relation to the failure of Microsoft India to get a positive vote outcome Neelam Dhawan’s bail out casts a negative light on the company. If standard setting gets performance based and a standard is not let through due to its technical merits but the fear of managing staff to lose its position it comes at no surprise that the management will fight with all means for the adoption of suboptimal solutions. Microsoft India even filed a complaint against the standard body No vote that caused the outrage.
For detailed information about what happened in India, see the links at the bottom. Here is a photo from a protest which this series of scandals from Microsoft India eventually led to. █
From the Campaign for Document Freedom
Related readings:
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.31.08
Posted in Microsoft, Office Suites, OpenDocument, Europe, Open XML, Ecma, Africa, ISO at 3:13 am by Roy Schestowitz
Formal complaint and familiar old patterns
This could not come at a more appropriate time. Nigerians, as opposed to just the European Commissioners and observant people in the west, are hopefully seeing this. They ought to realise that there is another way.
Nigeria: Microsoft to Pacify Critics of Office
Microsoft has attempted to appease critics who claim the software company is abusing its dominant market position by detailing plans to improve the way its flagship Office product works with non-Microsoft applications.
The word (not “Word”) keeps spreading and it hopefully shows just how misjudged it was to sink OOXML down ISO’s throat (with more yet to come. At the moment, to paraphrase Groklaw, OOXML seems to be in a bit of limbo. There is a degree of uncertainty. Complaints have come from India, Brazil and South Africa (maybe more to be announced past the deadline). But wait! That’s not all.
Under many people’s noses, due to difference in terms of granularity (scale of a nation), one Danish group called OSL complained to ISO as well but almost nobody noticed.
No, it is not the Danish Standards body but OSL.dk that complains about OOXML standardization. Morten Kjærsgaard from OSL has filed a complaint directed to the ISO Vice Jacob Holmblad. Holmblad is also managing director of Dansk Standard.
As you may know by now, there’s quite a bit of trouble for OOXML in Denmark. We covered this earlier in the month [1, 2, 3]. More details about the abuses in Denmark can be found here. The latest complaint you can download/read here [PDF].
Can you remember the following statement from Microsoft?
“It’s hard for Microsoft to commit to what comes out of Ecma [the European standards group that has already OK’d OOXML] in the coming years, because we don’t know what direction they will take the formats. We’ll of course stay active and propose changes based on where we want to go with Office 14. At the end of the day, though, the other Ecma members could decide to take the spec in a completely different direction. … Since it’s not guaranteed, it would be hard for us to make any sort of official statement.”
–Brian Jones, Microsoft
This tactlessness sure seems to be backfiring at the moment.
Uncertainty dogs Office 2007 file formats
Microsoft’s Office 2007 productivity suite is now seeing growth in take-up from business customers, but document file compatibility remains a difficult hurdle to overcome, especially as the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) ratification of Microsoft’s XML file formats is likely to introduce changes to them in the near future.
At the end of the day, OOXML offers neither compatibility not interoperability. Not even different versions of Microsoft Office play nice with each other. It’s just another proprietary format — a binary wolf in XML sheep clothing if you like.
Going back to Groklaw’s terminology, if OOXML is in a limbo, then it’s because OOXML is an 8,000-page-thick bimbo. And that’s just not acceptable. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.27.08
Posted in Microsoft, Mono, GNOME, Patents, RAND, Ecma, FOSS at 11:57 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Post contributed by Slated
As some people here probably already know, I am no fan of Mono - not for technical reasons (mostly [3]), but simply for political ones. Specifically, I’m talking about so-called Software Patents, and even more importantly, precisely who owns those patents. In this case, that would be Microsoft, a convicted monopolist with a viciously anti-FOSS agenda, that employs business methods remarkably similar to that of the Mafia.
IMO the mere fact that .NET/Mono is Microsoft technology should be enough to dissuade any Free Software advocate from going anywhere near it [1], but there is a large contingent of Mono “fans” out there, lead by people like Jeff Waugh and Miguel de Icaza, who (either through ignorance; naivety; apathy or even malice) don’t seem to give a damn about whether or not Mono (or even OOXML) endangers the future of Free Software.
Trying to convince people, and especially distro maintainers, that they should stay away from Mono, is therefore extraordinarily difficult, and usually goes something like this:
[P]oint | [C]ounterpoint
P: Don’t use Mono
C: Why?
P: Because it is patented
C: So is a lot of other software
P: Yes, but this is patented by Microsoft
C: So?
P: Microsoft is a convicted monopolist
C: You’re just biased against Microsoft
P: I believe I am justified given Microsoft’s history
C: What history?
P: See [1]
C: What has that got to do with Mono?
P: Microsoft has a history of abusing their “IP” as a weapon to destroy others, and maintain a monopoly
C: But how do you know that Microsoft will try to do that to FOSS?
P: Because they have already made patent allegations against FOSS; have repeatedly expressed their contempt and hatred for FOSS; have established a protection racket for commercial Linux vendors; have admitted that Linux (they mean FOSS) is their number one competitor; and have a sociopathic tendency to violently attack anyone (read: competitor) who threatens Microsoft’s monopoly, using the most unethical and underhand methods they think they can get away with
[At this point, some heavyweight like Waugh enters the debate]
C: Rubbish. Mono only implements the ECMA parts of the .NET framework, which are covered by a RAND covenant to not sue, so you’re whining for no good reason
P: I don’t trust RANDs, especially those underwritten by Microsoft
C: Why?
P: Because, define “reasonable” … and then prove that Microsoft will never revoke their promises. In fact, prove that Microsoft has good intentions in this, or any other endeavour
[This is usually the end of the discussion, although sometimes it goes off on one of the following tangents]
[Either]
C: My country doesn’t enforce software patents anyway, so I don’t care
P: Maybe some day it will (see [2]). What then?
[Or]
“How many of those patent holders would risk losing 30 Billion USD just to strike a blow against FOSS (see Microsoft’s recent failed Yahoo takeover bid)? How many of those patent holders are convicted monopolists?”C: Probably every piece of software ever written violates some patent or another. If FOSS developers were to abandon packages based on possible patents, then there wouldn’t be any Free Software at all
P: How many of those patent holders have the immoral and aggressive tendencies that Microsoft has? How many of those patent holders would risk losing 30 Billion USD just to strike a blow against FOSS (see Microsoft’s recent failed Yahoo takeover bid)? How many of those patent holders are convicted monopolists? How many of those patent holders have made actual infringement claims against Free Software? How many of those patent holders have described Linux as a “cancer”? How many of those patent holders have created a Linux protection racket that attempts to stifle Free Software and line Microsoft’s pockets in the process? How many of those patent holders use bribery and corruption as a matter of standard procedure [1]? How many of those patent holders regularly and predictably stab their own customers and partners in the back whenever any given venture results in anything less than market domination (e.g. “PlaysForSure” and others)?
[And here the debate always ends, but without any resolution]
Occasionally I might get a parting “you’re just being paranoid”, from those too blind/naive/brainwashed to understand the truth.
Well I don’t know if it’ll help, but I recently discovered an article that (I believe) exposes RAND for the sham that it really is (quoted in full):
So much quarreling about open standards. Jason Matusow advocates for a
document format with RAND licensing conditions for the patents. What
does he mean when he talks about RAND? RAND stands for “reasonable and
non-discriminatory”. But Jason Matusow’s company Microsoft lacks honesty
when it talks about “reasonable and non-discriminatory” conditions.
We need to be precise about what reasonable and non-discriminatory
actually means. A restaurant in apartheid South Africa said it allowed
both Boers and English, so was “not discriminatory”. It even let some
Jews in. However it banned non-whites.
Reasonable and non-discriminatory in patent licensing means “we apply a
uniform fee”. However with respect to Microsoft’s legacy OOXML format,
one party controls the standard and the associated patents. All market
players need to license except the patent owner. For dominant standards
it is a tax on the market. It seems highly unreasonable that such
standards should become international standards, mandatory for
government users.
You may find it unreasonable for an ubiquitous standard. But there is a
more insidious aspect. RAND patent licensing conditions are a tool to
ban Free Software, which is entirely incompatible with RAND licensing
conditions. Now one side of the debate blames it on the patent licensing
conditions, the other side on the software licensing conditions.
“The reason I agree with the statement about patents and Free
Software not mixing is that there have been terms written into GPL
licenses that explicitly conflict with software patents. Okay, that is
the choice of the authors and users of those licenses.”
It sounds a bit like: well, you chose to marry an African woman, so we
cannot let you into the restaurant. Free choice, right?
Yes, Matusow calls his standards with RAND conditions “open standards”
and contradicts the commonly accepted definition of “open standards”. We
should speak about shared standards. These shared standards appear to
discriminate less, but they still discriminate against the only real
competitor to Microsoft’s hegemony.
It is true that ISO, driven by simple pragmatism, allows shared
standards. From the ISO/IEC directives:
“14.1 If, in exceptional situations, technical reasons justify such
a step, there is no objection in principle to preparing an International
Standard in terms which include the use of items covered by patent
rights – defined as patents, utility models and other statutory rights
based on inventions, including any published applications for any of the
foregoing – even if the terms of the standard are such that there are no
alternative means of compliance.”
Generally international standards and patents are like water and oil,
and RAND conditions are the soap that allow them to mix. But as the move
towards Open Standards evolves, shared standards get more and more
unacceptable. Shared standards do discriminate and do appear to be
unreasonable.
It is time to adapt the legal definition of reasonable and
non-discriminatory to common sense.
I would also add that not only are ECMA/.NET patent terms unreasonable (how can it be an Open Standard if you have to pay a fee?), but the non-discriminatory terms have already been broken with Microsoft’s exclusive agreement with Novell:
I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the
excluded products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros
over their distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products,
i.e. they reserve the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an
interesting preview of on what basis they want to fight the free world.
Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not
excluded from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to
sue Novell over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but
true.
All in all, it is clear that the ECMA/.Net/Mono patent conditions are far from either “reasonable” or “non-discriminatory”.
Meanwhile, I stumbled upon some old articles that reminded me of how much de Icaza is in love with the Redmond gangsters, and how dearly he’d love to mutate Gnome into the bastard son of Windows:
Gnome to be based on .NET – de Icaza
Learn to love The Beast
By Andrew Orlowski in New York
Published Friday 1st February 2002 17:56 GMT
[Interview]
How much do you love Microsoft’s .NET? Enough to trust your Gnome
applications to its APIs in the future?
That’s what Gnome leader Miguel de Icaza, believes should happen. Miguel
calls .NET the “natural upgrade” for the Gnome platform, and enthused
about the technology in an interview with us at LinuxWorld this week.
Basing Gnome on the .NET APIs will cut development time significantly,
He also had praise for the new Microsoft security model, dismissed the
notion that Redmond was employing embrace and extend to its web services
protocols, and put the message that the community should get over its
beef with The Beast.
“I’d like to see Gnome applications written in .NET in version 4.0 - no,
version 3.0. But Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET,” he told us. “A lot
of people just see .NET as a fantastic upgrade for the development
platform from Microsoft.
Read the whole article, it’s most revealing.
Miguel loves ActiveX too:
At Microsoft I learned the truth about ActiveX and COM and I got very
interested in it inmediately(sic).
He shows extremely poor taste (in many things).
[1] For anyone still not convinced of Microsoft’s ethical depravity, please see the following:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653
http://boycottnovell.com/microsoft-critique-resources/
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/05/25/eu-crackdown-astroturfing/
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
[2] Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement
http://antitrust.slated.org/censorship/acta-proposal-2007.pdf [PDF]
And finally:
[3] Why did Microsoft invent .NET (I’m assuming they invented it, rather than their usual MO of simply assimilating it from another source) when there is already Java? To answer this question, you may also like to consider why they “(re)invented” OOXML, Moonlight, XPS and other “fscking kill <vendor>” technologies.
Any supposedly Free Software advocate who can still defend or support Mono at this point, is clearly either irredeemably corrupt or terminally stupid (or possibly both). They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. And yes, the “problem” is Microsoft.
De Icaza, are you listening? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
« Previous entries ·
