09.04.08
Posted in Formats, Microsoft, Standard, OpenDocument, Asia, Open XML, ISO at 3:11 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Several officials in several different nations have already called for a possible ISO replacement to serve as a criterion for technical selections. Things appear to be progressing and here are some of the latest reports.
ISO Becomes Irrelevant
The press just can’t leave ISO alone after that latest debacle [1, 2, Can ISO Be Still Saved from Microsoft?, 4]. Those who believe that they have seen the worst of it ought to check out ECT and David Berlind.
The move is prompting some members to question the organization’s very legitimacy.
My post here isn’t to say which ISO standard better or worse: OOXML or ODF. But, with the ISO’s approval of OOXML as a standard for the same thing that the ISO-ratified ODF does, the ISO is now getting outted for the way its practices could plunge it into irrelevancy. ArsTechnica recently published a post under the headline ISO: procedural shortcuts OK, OpenXML appeal denied. Pamela Jones over at Groklaw asks why certain provisos in the ISO’s own directives document are somehow getting overlooked. And there are tons of other posts about the issue amounting to a collective “What the ?” from the Internet community.
At Linux Journal, consensus and transparency are discussed in this context.
But when countries start questioning the entire standardization process, or worse, as is the case with the fight over Open XML, start accusing the standards body of being unduly influenced by corporate concerns, we then have a real issue that needs to be looked at deeper. Standards bodies cannot afford to be even thought of being driving by a corporate perspective, despite the fact that many standards start out that way. Standards bodies, to be of any value must be independent, and must be willing to consider, up to a reasonable point, objections to the standard. If not, then the whole issue of a standard is moot.
It makes the point that if ISO becomes just a ‘front’ for a company, then it’s hardly more ethical or authoritative than the BSA or the RIAA. it’s an illusion of independence and Microsoft’s capture of ISO is a known problem.
Indian Policies Become Incompatible with OOXML
Over in India, claims a reader, “it is a happy moment. One of the demands of FSUG — Bangalore’s campaign for document freedom — was a national policy for open standards.”
“This comes shortly after India’s protest and appeal against ISO’s decision regarding OOXML.”According to the guys who are pushing for change over there, “[t]he government has released a draft version of a Policy on Open standards for e-Governance. It is presently open for Public review.”
“The policy seems to have some really good points,” they argue, citing as examples the following:
5.1) Mandatory Characteristics:
5.1.1)Selected Standard should be Royalty Free for life time of the standard.
5.1.2)Selected Standard should be developed in a collaborative and consensus manner and not led by a single agency or a small closed group of interested parties
5.1.3)Selected Standard should be recursively open; They shall not use unpublished extensions
Here is the policy document [PDF] in its current form.
It’s still open for discussion (here or elsewhere). This comes shortly after India’s protest and appeal against ISO’s decision regarding OOXML. █
From the Campaign for Document Freedom
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
09.03.08
Posted in Microsoft, Novell, Mono, Patents, Standard, Open XML, Linspire at 2:32 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Linspire sold FUD, whereas Novell claims to be selling “intellectual property peace of mind” [1, 2, 3]. They are both in the business of GNU/Linux fear, having become partners of Microsoft (Linspire is dead now).
Since this whole Web site began, E-Channel Line has always provided a lot of Novell coverage. Virtually all of it was positive, so there is likely to be bias there. It is now, after Microsoft’s latest cash infusion, that the site also talks about software patents.
That IP peace of mind being customers need not fret over being sued by Microsoft as the deal also includes a patent protection. The protection extends to Novell’s Linux users and covers any potential infringement of IP that allegedly exists in Linux.
Sadly, many Novell apologists look the other way and pretend that if they don’t know about this, then it has no impact. But ignoring problems or brushing and sweeping them under the rug does not make them go away; au contraire! It helps them grow quietly until it’s impossible to combat them.
“But ignoring problems or brushing and sweeping them under the rug does not make them go away…”So whilst Novell contaminates everything with .NET and OOXML patents, for which it claims to have acquired ‘protection’, a lot of people are asleep at the wheel. Instead of waking up and steering off the groove, they are shouting about Novell’s financial results, which they crave to embellish. They make Novell even stronger this way.
In reality, many patents of Microsoft are toothless tigers because there is no complete duplication of technology and no originality. Take the Page Up/Page Down patent as an example [1, 2, 3]. This latest article explains why the cost of reexamination is the greater concern, not the validity. It’ll never come to court as that would rubbish the patent and make Microsoft’s portfolio less formidable. It’s about perception and inspiration of fear.
Microsoft’s patent claim says that prior to its invention, a computer user couldn’t easily punch the Page Up or Page Down keys to scroll exactly one page down or up; instead, those buttons would move up or down a variable amount within a document, depending on how magnified the document’s text was.
The patent dossier lists Timothy Sellers, Heather Graham and Joshua Dersch, all of Washington state, as the inventors, and Microsoft as the patent owner.
It is not clear whether Microsoft’s patent will be enforceable. Another company could implement the same scrolling method if it can show that the technology was generally available and widely known before Microsoft filed a patent application.
Microsoft will not be able to assert ownership over the scrolling method in Canada because it has not yet filed an application for the same invention with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.
Another argument can be made with respect to the invalidity of software patents in the vast majority of the world. Using lobbyists [1, 2], Microsoft intends to continue its fight for their expansion, which the world must fight against. [via Digital Majority]
Florian Müller’s book tells you the intriguing story of how we all managed to influence policy makers by telling the truth against a plethora of paid lobbyists from Microsoft, Siemens etc.
As a reminder to those who think that standardisation means “no patents”, here is a quick pick from the news. [via Andy Updegrove]
Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed consent order and complaint against Negotiated Data Solutions LLC (N-Data). In that matter, the agency alleged that the technology company engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices in violation of Sec. 5 of the FTC Act by enforcing certain patents against participants in a standard-setting organization employing Ethernet, a computer networking standard used in nearly every computer sold in the United States.
Imagine complying with standards only to get sued. Therein also lies one trouble with the Free software-hostile OOXML. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
09.02.08
Posted in Microsoft, Standard, Europe, America, Action, Interoperability, Open XML, ISO at 11:11 am by Roy Schestowitz
This is consensus?
Computer World: The Beginning of the End for the ISO?
I believe that this marks the beginning of the end of ISO’s reign as the primary standards-setting organisation, at least as far as computing is concerned (for other industries, details of the standards-setting process, or even of the standards that result, may not be quite so crucial as they for the current phase of IT.) This is a view that I and others have articulated before, but one that was not really accompanied by any signs that things would actually change.
The Consegi Declaration, by contrast, is a very real statement of intent by some of the most important players in the international computing community. Collectively, they have sufficient power to make a difference to how standards are set globally. Specifically, they could at a stroke help establish some alternative forum as a rival to the ISO by throwing their weight behind it.
Inquirer: ISO OOXML support criticised
As the INQUIRER previously noted, there are now two incompatible, international document standards on which the world can conduct its discourse, manage its business, and record its archives: ODF, which was designed by the people, for the people; and OOXML, which was created by Microsoft, the convicted monopolist.
Heise: Renewed protest against the ISO certification of Microsoft’s OOXML
In a statement of protest adopted by the Congresso Internacional Sociedade e Governo Eletronico (CONSEGI), the countries charge that the international committees bent their own rules. The emerging nations even argue that these proceedings call into question the future use of ISO standards in their administrations.
Groklaw: CONSEGI 2008 Declaration — Open Letter to ISO Reveals More OOXML Issues
There is an unexpected reaction from major government IT agencies in six countries condemning the ISO/IEC refusal to act on the four appeals against OOXML, which they say “reflects poorly” on ISO/IEC. They have signed and sent an open letter to ISO, which I’ll show you in full. The countries represented are South Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Cuba.
Tectonic: Southern nations frown on ISO
State IT organisation representatives from Brazil, South Africa, Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba and Paraguay have signed a declaration expressing their dissatisfaction with the International Standards Organisation (ISO).
The countries signed the declaration at the CONSEGI conference in Brazil over the weekend in response to news that the ISO/IEC had rejected the appeals from South Africa, Brazil and Venezuela and India to the ISO process to adopt Microsoft’s OOXML format as an international standard.
Reuters: Microsoft decision sparks dissent amid ISO members
“The bending of the rules to facilitate the fast-track processing… remains a significant concern to us,” they said, referring to a process many parties had complained was too fast and not transparent enough for such a complex format.
Consortium Info: The CONSEGI 2008 Declaration: Six Nations “Just Say No” to ISO/IEC
The latest blowback from the OOXML adoption process emerged last Friday in Brasilia, Brazil. This newest challenge to the continued relevance of ISO and IEC was thrown when major IT agencies of six nations - Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Paraguay, South Africa and Venezuela - signed a declaration that deploring the refusal of ISO and IEC to further review the appeals submitted by the National Bodies of four nations. Those nations were Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela, and the statement is titled the CONSEGI 2008 Declaration, after the conference at which it was delivered.
<No>OOXML: Four governments go ballistic over Open XML
South America and South Africa have been aligned for quite some time on many occasions of international legislation and often vigorously oppose government agendas of the “North”. What makes me as a European feel ashamed is that they take the freedom to speak in plain words while European and Northern American standard bodies fail to express the obvious. A reform of ISO would only be possible when all nations work jointly on that matter. Here it looks like the four nations actually consider to leave ISO and set up their own vendor-neutral standard organisation. I guess many standards consortia will try to gather the fortune and get these nations on board.
Standards and Freedom: Teenage Riot?
But who are we to interfere with the Masters of Scholastics of Geneva?
The most interesting part of that letter is not the protest itself: Those countries are outraged. Actually, the most interesting part of that letter is that it clearly shows that they have run out of options -and will- to appeal the ISO decisions. Which does not mean OOXML is a folded case; in contrary, the letter implicitly shows these countries will evaluate other kind of options. After all, the ISO has failed in its mission with OOXML. It has showed to the world that it could only accommodate the will of the mightiest and not reach consensus. Thus conclusions will be reached, and decisions made, and actions will be taken. And I don’t think it will comply with the ISO directions.
There were a couple more yesterday. In the mean time, since Bryden and ISO act like stubborn “teenagers” (to borrow from Patrick Durusau’s vocabulary [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]) who cannot admit a mistake, it’s time to move on and ask authorities to ignore ISO’s recommendations. ISO has proven to be too corruptible to be taken seriously.
Glyn Moody calls for Europeans to
provide input regarding Interoperability Framework v2. It must not consider OOXML as an option. In fact, several European nations, have rejected it already.
I’ve noted before that writing to MPs/MEPs seems to be remarkably effective in terms of generating a response. The naïve among us might even assume that democracy is almost functional in these cases. I’m not sure whether that applies to something as large and inscrutable as the European Commission, but it’s certainly worth a try, especially in the context of open source and open standards.
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
09.01.08
Posted in Microsoft, Standard, Security, America, Open XML, ISO at 8:24 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Starting a new chapter, without 7,000+ pages of OOXML
The previous post about software patents showed a company playing hardball and breaking the law — all in the name of junk patents. Microsoft too has played such games. The following article about OOXML (and its obligatory corruption brings back memories of blackmail for software patents in Denmark.
Last time we had a OOXML ballot, EFFI compared the votes against CPI. Back then we saw a big similarity. But this time the general CPI index seams to be more or less useless. Friday, Danish Standards Association (DS, representing Denmark in ISO) changed the Danish vote to yes even through the committee “voted” 8-4 against. If you look on the current CPI numbers you will see that Denmark is on a shared 1st place, with a rating of 9.4 on a scale from 1 (very corrupt) - 10 (less corrupt). According to informations presented by Leif Lodahl, the order not to vote, and let DS decide should come from the government. Has one of the least corrupt countries been bought by Microsoft? Apparently, yes. Is this the first time? Do you remember the blackmailing a few years ago?
OOXML may be the ideal back-door mechanism, which enables control to be passed to vendors and other authorities. Another deep look at OOXML seems to concur.
That is right, as Office 2007 files that contain macros use just another file extention: .docm (Word Microsoft Office Open XML Format Document with Macros Enabled), xlsm, pptm, etc.
Right or wrung theory?
What if the wringer is just a psychological tool to get users to adopt Open XML as a format? A kind of witch doctor trojan to infect your computer with the Open XML format conversion because you are afraid of viruses? Oh, they would never do that. I trust them. And trust is all about security. They know what’s best for me and work hard to make my computer more secure and benefit my user experience with Open XML.
Today’s biggest OOXML news comes from Brazil, where people from various development countries consider abolishing ISO after its affairs with Microsoft. They don’t want OOXML, no matter what ISO might put its stamp on. Here is the full text
CONSEGI 2008 DECLARATION
We, the undersigned representatives of state IT organisations from Brazil, South Africa, Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba and Paraguay, note with disappointment the press release from ISO/IEC/JTC-1 of 20 August regarding the appeals registered by the national bodies of Brazil, South Africa, India and Venezuela. Our national bodies, together with India, had independently raised a number of serious concerns about the process surrounding the fast track approval of DIS29500. That those concerns were not properly addressed in the form of a conciliation panel reflects poorly on the integrity of these international standards development institutions.
Whereas we do not intend to waste any more resources on lobbying our national bodies to pursue the appeals further, we feel it is important to make the following points clear:
1.The bending of the rules to facilitate the fast track processing of DIS29500 remains a significant concern to us. That the ISO TMB did not deem it necessary to properly explore the substance of the appeals must, of necessity, put confidence in those institutions ability to meet our national requirements into question.
2.The overlap of subject matter with the existing ISO/IEC26300 (Open Document Format) standard remains an area of concern. Many of our countries have made substantial commitments to the use of ISO/IEC26300, not least because it was published as an ISO standard in 2006.
3.The large scale adoption of a standard for office document formats is a long and expensive exercise, with multi-year projects being undertaken in each of our countries. Many of us have dedicated significant time and resources to this effort. For example, in Brazil, the process of translation of ISO/IEC26300 into Portuguese has taken over a year.
The issues which emerged over the past year have placed all of us at a difficult crossroads. Given the organisation’s inability to follow its own rules we are no longer confident that ISO/IEC will be capable of transforming itself into the open and vendor-neutral standards setting organisation which is such an urgent requirement. What is now clear is that we will have to, albeit reluctantly, re-evaluate our assessment of ISO/IEC, particularly in its relevance to our various national government interoperability frameworks. Whereas in the past it has been assumed that an ISO/IEC standard should automatically be considered for use within government, clearly this position no longer stands.
-Aslam Raffee (South Africa)
Chairman, Government IT Officer’s Council Working Group on Open Standards Open Source Software
- Marcos Vinicius Ferreira Mazoni (Brazil)
Presidente, Servico Federal de Processamento de Dados
- Carlos Eloy Figueira (Venezuela)
President, Centro Nacional de Tecnologías de Información
- Eduardo Alvear Simba (Ecuador)
Director de Software Libre, Presidencia de la República
- Tomas Ariel Duarte C. (Paraguay)
Director de Informática, Presidencia de la República
- Miriam Valdés Abreu (Cuba)
Directora de Análisis, Oficina para la Informatización.
This serious development has already been covered by some blogs, such as Open Malaysia.
Over the past month, the team at OpenMalaysiaBlog was really happy to showcase the good work Malaysians have done in government agencies and state governments in adopting OpenOffice.org in their offices. Some were driven from MAMPU’s direction, but most were self initiatives, some even starting way back in 2003.
I personally, have been deliberately avoiding OOXML news because basically, I was sick and tired of it; where the latest ridiculous situation is where the same people who voted for the standard, get to vote against the appeal of the decision. Surely it shouldn’t be an immediate voting procedure (ala BRM), but more of a consensus gathering effort? What happened to the process of working out the sustained objections as espoused by ISO procedures? As far as I know, since the Contradiction documents prepared by all the NBs back in Feb07, there has been no effort by ISO to work that out. Looking at the ISO process, its clear its broken and when there are forces determined to push it through, it will push it through.
Overall, this was somewhat predictable [1, 2]. It’s encouraging to see this actualising. ISO should be ashamed of it self, having ignored complaints from its very own senior staff. █
“This year WG1 have had another major development that has made it almost impossible to continue with our work within ISO. The influx of P members whose only interest is the fast-tracking of ECMA 376 as ISO 29500 has led to the failure of a number of key ballots. Though P members are required to vote, 50% of our current members, and some 66% of our new members, blatantly ignore this rule despite weekly email reminders and reminders on our website. As ISO require at least 50% of P members to vote before they start to count the votes we have had to reballot standards that should have been passed and completed their publication stages at Kyoto. This delay will mean that these standards will appear on the list of WG1 standards that have not been produced within the time limits set by ISO, despite our best efforts.
The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible. I wish my colleagues every success for their future efforts, which I sincerely hope will not prove to be as wasted as I fear they could be.”
–Martin Bryan, Former Convenor of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 [OOXML] WG1
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
08.30.08
Posted in Formats, Microsoft, Windows, GNU/Linux, Standard, OpenDocument, Open XML, IBM, FOSS, Corel at 5:38 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Taking an alternative approach and perspective to handling of gradual migrations
An impulsive and immediate migration to Linux can sometimes lead to disappointment. Ambitious businesses are sometimes led to believe that their data can merely be be dumped from one platform onto another, but the reality is a little more complex than this. In order for a migration to be successful, one needs to be familiar with native Linux applications and the data needs to be stored in a format which is independent from just a single application.
Changing one’s favourite application can be hard. Everyone resists the introduction of new things, especially when they threaten and have direct impact on the force of habit. For a very long time, large and well-established software vendors have capitalized on people’s reluctance to learn new processes such as identification and menu items and familiarity with user interfaces. Some software vendors went further and defended these processes by introducing the notion of ownership, then essentially patenting behavior. Even more software vendors used the idea of obscurity to restrict (or altogether eliminate) people’s ability to change. This is known as lock-in.
Many of these issues can easily be addressed when transparency is embraced. Moreover, sharing of information facilitates more rapid development of knowledge. It speeds up improvement where all peers involved can move forward in harmony, without jeopardising unity and conformity.
“In a world of unified formats, different businesses are able to compete with one another not through restriction or punishment of rival developers and consumers, but rather through innovation, added value, reasonable cost, and a decent level of support.”A single unified format is the key with which various businesses can communicate conveniently. It is also highly essential for the enhancement of the existing formats, which should preferably remain party-neutral, backward compatible, complete, and elegant. In a world of unified formats, different businesses are able to compete with one another not through restriction or punishment of rival developers and consumers, but rather through innovation, added value, reasonable cost, and a decent level of support. To use an example, in the case of documents, one unified format is currently OpenDocument format and for static document, Portable Document Format has become the norm.
The dawn of the GNU/Linux operating system was a time when the software industry had already evolved (or devolved) into a predatory marketplace. This market was fragmented and isolated. Different software vendors strived to capture their costumers using proprietary formats. Corel, for example, was happy enough treating its popular word processor as though it did not need to interoperate seamlessly with rival software. IBM was no exception. In later years, especially in the United States, software vendors added extra protection to their offerings by making not only their application code a property, but also the ideas behind it. Ownership could then be associated even with mathematical notions. That is the effect of software patents. This shields vendors and yields nothing but nervousnous for competitors and customers. Perceived risk and dependency can be worrisome indeed.
To a software startup which wishes to compete or even to a customer, the marketplace appeared like a pseudo-ethical and pseudo-competitive playing field at the stage where monopolies prevailed. In the late 90s, the barrier to entry into the market was associated with the complexity of so-called standards. As far as documents are concerned, standards were chosen not by government bodies; instead, there were virtually no formal standards at all. Existing standards, which were simple, got abandoned or extended unilaterally. De facto standards, which were subjected to unpredictable and sudden changes, became ubiquitous enough to be perceived as the standard. People were no longer able to properly understand the meaning, purpose, and importance of standards, which gradually became more innately closed. These were neither free nor open.
Years passed on and people accumulated data. Inability to access older data, which is related but not identical to digital preservation, opened many people’s eyes. For example, consider the case where a person loses metadata that accompanies photos if moved from one application to another or one file system to another (a common scenario when changing or upgrading an operating system). Suddenly, people’s personal information — including memories with sentimental value — became obsolete and no longer accessible. In some cases, the effort required to regain access to information was just too great to be worth handling. People learned to accept losses, but they also realized that there was a different way — a better way even.
This awakening led to a reform, at least at a mental level. People began bothering to check which formats they can and cannot rely on. Formats were associated with trust and perceived as an important factor. Some people went further and demanded software for which all source code was available.
To enable wider access, various formats such as Portable Document Format (PDF) were formally standardized. Tight control of this these formats was conceded. In turn, new formats were created which also remained independent from applications and companies. One such format is OpenDocument Format (ODF), which is now widely recognized as an international (ISO-approved) standard for documents.
The introduction of a limited set of formats that multiple vendors can work with has resolved notorious and much-loathed (by the customer, not the vendor) issues, most notably lock-in. Backing from international organizations meant that these formats were by no means formalized to benefit one application or one operating system. No company was truly in control of the process. Portability was improved at the application level and the operating system level. People who prefer different platforms — whether an application or the underlying operating system — were able to exchange information at ease and also in a non-lossy fashion. This improved productivity for various reasons.
First among those reasons is personal convenience. There is no one piece of software that suits everyone. There is no mental parity due to level of experience and various backgrounds (including training, education, and skills). Different people think differently and thrive in individual strengths. A programmer, for example, might be able to handle technical complexity, whereas a writer can express himself or herself in a clear and eloquent fashion. Any technical peril you put in a writer’s face might simply become a distraction and obstruction. Contrariwise, simplification enables a writer to be more focused.
The second reason why a unified format solves and addresses many problems is to do with fact that it eliminates the need to transform and translate of data from one format to another. The data is contained in a form which is defined by one Gold Standard. It is a case of abstraction, or separation into layers. Data becomes entirely independent from the application that supports it.
Having identified reasons why no single application suits everyone, one can look at the needs of a business. Businesses must standardize on formats, not software. Formats are verbal and technical specifications, not code. As long as the specifications remain unchanged or evolve in an open, transparent, and carefully-doctored fashion, business information is secure. It preserves its integrity in the long term. The business, moreover, needn’t rely on one particular vendor anymore. It puts the business in charge of its financial destiny and its data in the hands of responsible, supervised, and peer-reviewing industry consortia.
With open standards comes choice. Change becomes easier. Suddenly, barriers that once hindered and hurt one’s mobility are no longer there. An enterprise that planned or endlessly procrastinated a migration to Free software, for instance, suddenly finds that its exit costs — the costs that are associated with escaping lock-in — are lowered significantly. Once lock-in is left behind, no longer need it be coped with ever again. It is a one-time investment in liberation of vital data.
The great attraction of an open standard is related to its ability to open doors to better, less expensive, and better-supported software. It is a strategy shift. Enterprises must realize that their new identity, wherein they are no longer dependent on a single supplier, comes through standards. Blaming the inability of an application to mimic the behavior of another is a classic case where an enterprises adopts the wrong route for its migration. It clings on to the past (legacy) rather than looking into a future where truly open and free standards are increasingly being accepted.
The attraction of open standards is at this point greater than ever. There is a meeting of the minds coming up and there is a crossroad to be reached. Microsoft Office 2007 comes to a larger market and the ISO will vote in favor or against the format that accompanies Office 2007. It is known as Office OpenXML. Its proponents boasts its size and function while opponents protest strongly using the arguments that it is inelegant and too tightly coupled with operating systems and a single application. A major standards group is about to meet and discuss this soon, so perhaps so should you.
There remains a conflict of interests and desire, wherein unified formats are thought to be replaceable by compatibility layers that enable access to data that is stored in proprietary formats. In the case of Linux, some judge its readiness by its ability to simulate non-Linux applications (or sometime virtualise them). This very well exemplifies the misconception about the value of a single standard which is here to stay. Choice of applications, digital preservation, backward compatibility, and sometimes full access to application source code are among the many benefits.
Admittedly, this way of thinking rarely seem to be natural to everyone. It is a paradigm-related and conceptual issue where specifications are confused with code, applications are confused with formats, and standards are taken for granted (or not taken at all). If you foresee your business, or your family, or your friend moving to Linux in years to come, the first step you ought to take is appreciate vendor-independent formats such as OpenDocument. Many companies and even governments are supporting and embracing OpenDocument format. The OpenDocument Alliance, which is an independent body, maintains a partial yet extensive list of its backers. Some are actively promoting OpenDocument while some passively accept or usher its arrival.
The next stage of a migration process should typically involve taking the existing data in a format that is recognised by the same application on different platforms or by different applications that understand (and thus perfectly interpret/parse) the data. This data can then be moved across partitions, across computers, or across operating systems. This is the stage where migrations to Linux can become seamless.
Migrations between platform — whether to Linux, or to any other platform for that matter — should always boil down to the information level, not the application level. Remember that a platform can support multiple applications that achieve the same thing. In turn, each application supports a set of formats, but ideally just one that is universal. Identify that universal format and make the first step towards choice of both an operating system and an application. Your data is your bread and butter. Don not give it away and do not invest in proprietary or
mysterious keys that unlock this data, especially if these keys you can never truly own or control. █
Originally published in Datamation in 2007
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Steve Ballmer, Standard, OpenDocument, Europe at 8:07 am by Roy Schestowitz
In a previous and fairly recent post, the things Microsoft does in Portugal were summarised. This showed a ruthless response to the increasing adoption of Free software in that country. More recently we tried to explain why Microsoft’s CEO is coming to Portugal and there was an ongoing discussion about it.
The relevant and corresponding reports are in Portuguese, but readers of this Web site who live in Portugal have helped. Listed below are two articles that may be handy for future reference. Both articles are in Portuguese, but we quote portions of their automated translation to English.
First article (English translation):
Draft Law No. 577 / X - open standards for computing the state
PCP presented in a draft-HR law for the adoption of open standards in systems of the state. For the CFP, public services - and public documents - can not use private formats (owners), coming from large corporations in computing. This project-law enshrines the protection of the freedom of citizens and technological organizations, the independence of the state before the multinationals and compatibility between systems.
Second article (English translation):
CFP presents draft law for the use of free formats in the State
The Portuguese Communist Party, through Mr Bruno Dias, Bernardino Soares, Miguel Tiago, Francisco Lopes, Agostinho Lopes, has submitted a draft law to the compulsory use of formats free and open systems in the state.
The following requirements are used to classify a CFP by an open standard format:
* is adopted and maintained by a nonprofit organization and its development stems from a decision-making process open, both in decision-making and the participation of all stakeholders;
* the specification is available freely, without any restriction on their use, distribution and copy;
* intellectual property rights and patents of the standard must at least be in the majority, publicly available on an irrevocable and irreversible;
* there must be no restrictions on the reuse of the standard.
Our readers from Portugal, who are Free software-savvy, believe that Steve Ballmer is coming to Portugal in order to intercept these policy changes. “Look[s] like that open source law project is going to be applied soon in Portugal,” said one of them just minutes ago, having researched the subject.
We may have seen this type of reaction before in the Philippines and in South Africa. There are other examples like China. Vigilance remains important. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
08.27.08
Posted in Microsoft, Novell, Deception, Patents, Standard, Europe, Open XML, ISO at 7:55 am by Roy Schestowitz
Novell’s PR Director has made some mistakes recently when he used GNU/Linux patent FUD to market Novell and SUSE [1, 2]. In one of his first postings, he appears to be forgetting (or not knowing) that there is room for more appeals against OOXML. Having witnessed so many scandals from beginning to end, for Novell to take this stance is dangerous. it has already helped Microsoft push/standardise OOXML.
Here is what Ian Bruce wrote:
Accelerating demand for virtualization solutions that cut across Windows and Linux, and the recent ISO adoption of Microsoft’s OOXML standard document format, are just two examples of why interoperability is so vital and our partnership increasingly relevant.
The dissenting comment below this post is interesting. The new PR guy makes mistakes that even Bruce Lowry did not make before quitting the company. At Novell, lying to the public is a standard procedure. For example, they unsuccessfully pretend that a patent deal they gave a nod to has nothing to do with patents, yet their new PR Director mistakenly admits that it is. He says the truth, but saying this truth is treason at Novell.
Meanwhile, another OOXML scandal is being highlighted. It never seems to end.
Physical meetings are the ISO way to exclude participation. Don’t expect public online discussions on how HP and Microsoft will change the ISO rules for Fast Track. Mr ECMA has already been the responsible person to change the ISO Fast Track rules in 2006, remember?
Never let the deniers get away with it. There is a lot more to be learned about how Microsoft uses the press to rewrite history. This is an old example:
Here, only the headlines of the newspaper articles really disagree. You actually have to do some research (about 5 minutes worth) to find web-retrievable documentation that absolutely refutes Microsoft’s orwellian revision of NT 5.0/Windows 2000 release schedule.
This time, I have to say that the Business Editor didn’t slip up. The Bloomberg News wire service slipped up by not checking what it had previously run on the topic, and by not checking rather easy to find citations on the topic.
There are very recent examples of this too. Related external stories:
Don’t let corporate press rewrite history on behalf of its benefactors. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
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
« Previous entries ·
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.