 | Jamie McCracken (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7){kind=small} jamiemcc) wrote, |
Same old Microsoft
I have been watching the Odf vs OpenXML drama with some trepidation and wondering where the catch was with microsoft's apparent support for open standards.
I simply dont have the time to read the monstrously verbose OpenXml spec so I'm very grateful someone else has done the hard work and exposed the patent bombshells, the flaws, the omissions and the whole semi-propropriety nature of it (undisclosed blobs). The article in question can be found here and everyone who cares about open standards should read it.
What is most worrisome is the fact that no one other than Mirosoft could ever implement it in full. This means that open source software would never be used by companies who are risk adverse for office docs (the same reason said companies will not use OpenOffice for their doc/xls files as it cannot guarantee to read or open them 100% even though it currently does an excellent job)
Of course Micrsosft has been exploiting risk adverse enterprises for ages by spreading patent FUD against Linux and open source as it seems to be the only effective startegy they have. (its sadly an approach that works far too often as well). Nothing has changed...
The injection of patents into practically all microsoft standards is also the prime reason to avoid them especially now as it seems that smoke and mirrors are being used to hide them at first glance in the hope of snaring the unwary. Its quite cunning yes but then a leopard cant change its spots can it? Sigh - nothing has changed...
I agree whole heartedly that open standards must be vendor neutral and be controlled by representable committees and must never be in the exclusive hands of a callous convicted monopolist. Remember the Halloween memos where MS laid out their strategy of hampering OSS by creating new standards that they could not adopt or use? It seems nothing has changed...
As with any corporation, if the people at the top are evil (or utterly ruthless, selfish, psychotic and power mad if you object to the word evil) then so is the corporation. Again nothing has changed...
Anonymous
August 19 2007, 18:22:16 UTC 4 years ago
Same for any standard
You do realise that it is the same for any sufficently large standard? The thing about the standards is that no-one ever really needs to implement it in full.August 19 2007, 18:42:12 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Same for any standard
Im not saying its the complexity or size of the spec that prevents others from implementing it.Any large spec is bound to have errors and ommisions - that is true. But when these are identified the spec should be updated
Also Im reffering to actual barries that MS could help alleviate
EG it could:
1) Give enough info on all blob fields that it knows about
2) Extend patent promise to cover those areas
3) Update the spec as needed where errors and omssions have been identified (and promise to answer question about missing stuff in a reasonable time)
by the look of things it looks like MS is trying to railroad an incomplete and legally dodgy spec through prior to putting in place procedures to solve these issues.
August 19 2007, 18:43:32 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Same for any standard
The other issue is there is no open source implementation so you cant see source code to help fill in the blanksthis is not an issue with ODF of course.
Anonymous
August 20 2007, 07:42:21 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Same for any standard
and this is of course a stupid point to raise.Holes in the spec are holes in the spec. "Look at the source" is not a substitute for "look at the spec", especially since source has a nasty habit of being even more fluid than standards documents.