GNOME Foundation Helping OOXML?
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Oct 28, 2007 01:24 PM
from the on-your-own-time-please dept.
from the on-your-own-time-please dept.
christian.einfeldt writes "According to long-time OpenDocument Fellowship member Russell Ossendryver, it appears that GNOME founder Miguel de Icaza's widely-publicized praise for OOXML as a 'superb standard' is being followed up with on-going support by the GNOME Foundation in 'resolving' the thousands of criticisms leveled against Microsoft's proposed standard. In an open letter in his blog, Ossendryver urges the GNOME Foundation to halt its apparent support for OOXML as a standard and to put its efforts behind enhancing adoption of the genuinely open standard, ODF, which was approved by the world standards bodies as ISO/IEC standard 26300 on 2 May 2006."
Related Stories
[+]
Linux: de lcaza calls OOXML a "Superb Standard" 615 comments
you-bet-it's-not-out-of-context writes "A blogger on KDE Developer's Journal has found an interesting post by Miguel de Icaza, the founder of GNOME and Mono, in a Google group dedicated to the discussion of his blog entries. Six days ago Miguel stated that 'OOXML is a superb standard and yet, it has been FUDed so badly by its competitors that serious people believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with it.' In the same post he says that to avoid patent problems over Silverlight, when using or developing Mono's implementation (known as Moonlight), i's best to 'get/download Moonlight from Novell which will include patent coverage.'"
[+]
Weigh In On the OOXML Issue During Live Debate 71 comments
lisah writes "Linux.com's Robin 'Roblimo' Miller will moderate a live debate today, Wednesday, December 5 at 1pm US EST (GMT -5), between the GNOME Foundation's press officer Jeff Waugh and fair competition advocate Roy Schestowitz. Both have strong — and opposing — points of view regarding GNOME's involvement with Microsoft's OOXML standard and vehemently defend their positions, so getting them together in the same virtual room ought to prove quite interesting. Although the broadcast will be archived as a podcast and available for free download, you can listen live as it's recorded and also call in to participate and ask questions."
[+]
Linux: KDE and KOffice Rebuke OOXML, GNOME Dithers 398 comments
Peter writes "Free Software Foundation president Richard Stallman and ITWire have praised KDE and KOffice developers for taking a principled stand against OOXML, while raising serious concerns about the GNOME Foundation's decision to give credibility to Microsoft's broken format. This comes on the heels of GNOME co-founder Miguel de Icaza's depiction of OOXML as a 'superb standard', and GNOME Foundation director Quim Gil's stonewalling of the patent-free Ogg Vorbis / Theora format on behalf of Nokia. Will the GNOME Foundation's indifferent response to Richard Stallman's appeal drive him to throw his weight behind KDE?"
[+]
Ask Slashdot: Desktop Environment for Proprietary Applications? 11 comments
nushoin writes "Gnome and KDE are the two major desktop environments used on Linux today. However, Gnome is growing more and more affiliated with Microsoft's proprietary technologies (Mono, OOXML). Targeting the Gnome desktop environment could prove dangerous in the long run, assuming that one would like its applications to run on distributions other than SuSE. On the other hand, TrollTech is being bought by Nokia, whose commitment to the desktop world remains to be proven. Assuming that one would like to develop a desktop application (either free or closed source), which desktop environment would you target, and what widget tool kit would you use?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
What are the possibilities? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is really only a few possibilities:
1) The community is wrong and OOXML is really an open/good standard (heh)
2) One of the heads of GNOME is so inept as not to be able to see that OOXML is far from being an open standard
3) Icaza was bought off
Or is it something else:
4) ???
What the FUCK? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What the FUCK? (Score:5, Informative)
No proof (Score:5, Interesting)
Another reason to use KDE (Score:5, Insightful)
Miguel is wrong, but not without reason (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a reasonable position. I still think it's wrong.
The purpose of an XML document format is to enable other people to do interesting things with the format, not to make life easy for the few people porting existing Microsoft Word compatible software. Furthermore, open source projects need to support ODF anyway because ODF is here and it's here to stay.
Holding their feet to the fire (Score:5, Informative)
The background is really simple: While Jody Goldberg (Gnumeric maintainer extraordinaire) was at Novell, he had been doing rocking work on the ECMA committee to make sure OOXML didn't just slip through, under-specified and uninvestigated. Jody put them through the wringer!
So, when Jody left Novell, the GNOME Foundation supported his participation on the ECMA working group, so he could continue to "keep the bastards honest".
The GNOME Foundation does not support ISO standardisation of OOXML. But whether or not that happens, we're still going to have to support Microsoft document formats, just like everyone else. Should we let Microsoft shove OOXML through ECMA without challenge? Hell no. That's why we have one of our best hackers in there, holding their feet to the fire.
Thanks,
- Jeff Waugh, GNOME Foundation Board
(Given how often it comes up, I suppose it's also important to note that Miguel does not speak for the GNOME Foundation or the GNOME project in general.)
Re:Holding their feet to the fire (Score:5, Informative)
http://blogs.gnome.org/jody/2007/09/10/odf-vs-oox-asking-the-wrong-questions/ [gnome.org]
Basically, he's telling us that OOXML is easier to support than ODF because they're just mapping the old binary format on to the new format. It comes off as an advertisement, which Stephane Rodriguez fortunately pours some cold water on. Microsoft is also using this to claim, extremely incorrectly, that Gnumeric has rich support for OOXML ( http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/08/07/iwork-08-supports-the-open-xml-formats.aspx [msdn.com] ), and is using Gnumeric as a poster for OOXML support:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/08/15/why-there-s-no-microsoft-in-open-xml.aspx [msdn.com]
Yes, we have to support an existing and widely used binary format, because that's the format most documents are in...............it doesn't mean we have to support yet another format that is basically the same as the old one, except different, which very few people actually use. Let's concentrate on getting people off the old binary format and into ODF.
Just because Microsoft uses something, it doesn't mean that anyone else has to support it. The paradox is that if they do start supporting it then they really will end up having to support a new Microsoft format, again, because it's just boosting it's popularity and installed base. Microsoft then starts using this as evidence that OOXML is an open standard that others can fully implement. We need to get out of this ridiculous cycle.
Re:No surprise here... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was just about to say something closely approximating that.
What annoyed me most before this (which is simply unthinkable) was his extremely strong support of Mono. Personally, I feel that Mono, like Wine, should be treated as a compatibility layer to run software intended for other operating systems, not a viable target for open-source application developers. If everyone likes C# so much, then we should take matters into our own hands and implement a language with the features we like that is under our control! (My concern with Mono following Microsoft's language is that in the event that Microsoft changes a significant feature, like Java did when it added assert, Mono would almost certainly make the same change, leaving a bunch of open-source developers to deal with the whims of Microsoft.)
At some point, until Microsoft starts releasing truly open-source code and letting everyone hack on Windows, we have to keep at least some distance from Microsoft. There's nothing wrong with attempting to run their software, but we shouldn't be writing Windows software just because it's more convenient and we now have a way to run it on Linux.
Re:No surprise here... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called "Python" (and also goes by the alias "Java"). Hence the complete lack of need for Mono - we already have that functionality in mature, well-tested languages.
Re:No surprise here... (Score:5, Insightful)
It will work wonders when all the five users of the two programs that actually use what Mono has that
You must have market dominance to play Embrace and Extend. Otherwise, you will follow all those neat enhanced supersets of whatever technology was mainstream at the time into oblivion.
Re:No surprise here... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, because you don't understand how embracing and extending works.
Re:No surprise here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mono is not and should not be treated as a compatibility layer.
People complain that you'll never run Windows
Having a C# implementation in Linux, with a decent C# widget toolkit, is a good way to invite developers into the open source world. Going from [Visual Studio + C# + Windows.Forms] to [MonoDevelop + C# + GTK#] is a lot less daunting than to [emacs + C + GTK], etc.
And it might just blow your mind, but using C# on Linux is sometimes the best language for the job, especially if you have to use C# at work.
Re:No surprise here... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think somebody needs to tell explain him some basics of of human relationships.
If somebody blows you off the way Microsoft blew him off on a job interview the best way to deal with them is to reject them. They will come back sooner or later. In fact if you reject them a couple of time they will keep coming back with a better offer than you really deserve.
The worst thing to do in cases like that is to try sticking your nose up their rectum the way he is constantly trying to do. In life that achieves the opposite. The person who rejected you in the first place will treat you exactly as you should be treated when you are in a naso-rectal interface position. Like shit.
All I can say - what a daft jerk...
Re:No surprise here... (Score:5, Interesting)
For all I know, they offered him a better job outside Microsoft for a nice thirty pieces of silver collectible at some future date. Every time I read his name, it's in connection with something I see as damaging to Linux and the Free Software movement. And surely nobody can describe OOXML in these terms without some sort of bias?
Gnome is GPL, isn't it? Doesn't that make it inherently possible for people to sideline this person no matter his current position, before we risk serious damage? In terms of patents, introduction of copyrighted code, or perhaps other issues, presumably someone in his position acting deliberately, could cause some nasty legal wrangles. And actions so far give reason for distrust, do they not?
Re:No surprise here... (Score:5, Interesting)
GNOME (the GNU Network Object Model Environment) was designed around a COM approach (it actually used that well-known failure and DCOM copycat, Corba). Microsoft is abandoning COM, and using it (usually because the financial director told them that it will save money and is better anyway) costs developers a vast amount of time, money, and reputation as the interface conventions are appallingly unstructured. Suffice it to say, GNOME is moving away from corba and has been for some time.
Generally, it is a good idea to watch for what problem Miguel de Icaza wants to solve and then start solving the problem differently before he can damage Linux' reputation for several years until his plans are ripped out and replaced as they usually are.
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
-
Miguel interviewed for a job at MS
-
However, they could finance him to subvert linux
-
This is all documented information
-
He's the kind of guy they like -- not a US citizen and willing to work cheap
The assertions are plausible, but without just one reference, one piece of evidence, it doesn't really advance the conversation any more than "LOL M$ suxors!!!111!"I've heard that, but without, oh I dunno... a reference, it isn't that informative.
Just one piece of evidence? Possibly an insightful statement... but conspiracy theories without evidence are little more than that.
WHERE???
That sounds like unfounded xenophobia to me. You have to have a reference for a statement like that. How much did he want? Was it less than an American doing his job would earn?
Re:Quit looking for body snatchers (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents are body snatchers. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Novell et the GNOME foundation are so involved is for simple compatibility reasons. What better way to lure Windows users away than to provide support for the formats their existing documents are probably already in?
That sounds nice but it falls down when M$ sends in a clown car full of patent lawyers. That's one of the big reasons OOXML needs to be shot down by ISO. The others are a lack of completeness and 998 other technical problems. OOXML is not doing well in the marketplace and probably never will. If ever there was a case of wasted effort, OOXML is it. Resources are better spent making better ODF applications.
As for a better way to lure Windows users, have you seen Vista?
Re:Quit looking for body snatchers (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at some of [slashdot.org] de Icaza's recent posts on slashdot [slashdot.org], I find them hard to reconcile with that innocent interpretation. His public statements about OOXML are wildly disingenuous; I can't see how anybody who understands the nature of the criticisms of OOXML could fail to see them as pure FUD.
IMO, it would indicate a problem with GNOME if GNOME couldn't tolerate dissent on this issue, but it would also indicate a problem with the community if the community couldn't see through de Icaza's reality distortion field, and understand that he's saying ridiculous things because he has commercial ties to MS.
In the OSS world, it's all about whuffie. De Icaza earned a lot of whuffie by founding GNOME and writing a lot of code. In my eyes, he's lost it all by failing to be forthright.
Re:Who are you kidding? Or are you just trolling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who are you kidding? Or are you just trolling? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to clone Windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should I care about a Linux-based system where your applications are written in
What makes Linux an alternative is that it's an Open Systems environment that happens to be Open Source as well. That applications written for it aren't locked in to Linux, they'll run on any Open Systems platform. If the interfaces and protocols it uses are Microsoft's, then why should anyone care whether it's got a Linux or an NT kernel under the hood?
Look at the score. (Score:5, Informative)
AT&T donated the key patent for UNIX (the setuid patent) into the public domain. The UNIX APIs were designed to be independent of the underlying hardware and implementation, and they never made any attempt to enforce any potential copyrights on the UNIX programmer's manuals. The only product I know of that felt it necessary to avoid using the precise APIs described in the manual, ever, was Idris... presumably because it was by a former Bell Labs employee. There are, so far as I can tell, only two significant operating systems started after the publication of the 1976 Bell System Technical Journal that were not based primarily on the UNIX "software tools" environment: Mac OS, and Windows... and both of those were instead based on the Xerox environment. I'm not counting MS-DOS, because it was an 8086 port of CP/M by Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Systems, and starting with MS-DOS 2.x it was increasingly adopting UNIX APIs.
By 1987 (two decades ago) the UNIX environment had been re-implemented dozens of times, both standalone and hosted on top of other operating systems. By 1997 (one decade ago) there was no operating system in the world that wasn't either UNIX-based, transitioning to UNIX, or shipping with a functional hosted UNIX environment... other than Windows.
And by that time AT&T had sold all their rights in UNIX to Novell, who had publicly disclaimed any intellectual property in the APIs.
If there was any remaining danger in these APIs, the results of the Caldera (the new SCO) suit have completely defanged it.
So far, there is no indication that there is any more risk to Mono from Microsoft than there was to Linux from AT&T.
On the one hand we have a set of APIs that were already in the public domain both because of explicit donation and due to being published without copyright notice before the US joined the Berne convention, and have since been been proven safe to use, and on the other hand we have a set of APIs that are actively controlled by a company that has a history of using submarine patents, and who is currently attempting to monetize them... with some success.
If you can't see there is a difference there you're deliberately not looking at it.
Re:De Icaza has already lost all his credibility (Score:5, Informative)