Microsoft Joins OpenDocument Alliance 256
Jim writes "Microsoft has joined a committee that has a key role in the ratification of OpenDocument as an international standard, leading to accusations that it intends to sabotage the process. Microsoft has denied this accusation, claiming that the only reason why Microsoft employee Jim Thatcher has joined the group was to get involved in the ISO standardisation of its own file format." From the article: "'There sits Microsoft, waiting, like a spider,' wrote Jones, in a posting on her site. 'I am imagining ODF plodding along, with Microsoft asking questions, fine-combing through the comments, did you mean this or that?, getting bogged down in minutia until, lo and behold, either Microsoft's XML makes it as an ISO standard first, or they arrive neck and neck.'" More information here on a subject we touched on in a recent Slashback.
update a few readers have asked for the clarification
that MSFT has not joined ODF, but rather the "INCITS/V1
Technical Committee"
eerily familiar (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if Microsoft's motivation is sabotage by joining ODF, but from the article, an eerily familiar description:
(BTW, isn't there a Donovan song about Pamela Jones?)Ahem, back to the topic... I worked on a group from our company and Microsoft on an e-commerce soon-to-be-standard (related to xml), and Microsoft's attitude, performance, and etiquette was embarrassing, annoying, and unprofessional. Aside from the unsurprising Microsoft employees' strong-arming the agenda, it was clear they had no affinity or appetite for any of our ideas. It was also equally clear that their intent was the final result would be their way or the highway.
Also, having worked briefly at Microsoft, the description resonates with the "triage" meetings at Microsoft -- at the time, the hot topic was IBM's MCA bus architecture, and ideas to make sure it would not be important in the emerging PC technology.
Superficially, it may be a good thing having Microsoft join ODF, but I wouldn't let them bring in or take out any pencils, paper, or recording devices of any kind of the meetings. Just my hunch, I don't trust them.
Re:eerily familiar (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:eerily familiar (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm beginning to think that an adequate punishment for Microsoft's monopolistic practices would be to forbid them to submit any standards, sit on any standards committee or have anything to do with drafting of standards. It's punitive and it would fuck up one of the big ways in which MS has been able to screw the industry.
Re:eerily familiar (Score:2)
They don't ignore standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They don't ignore standards (Score:2)
Re:They don't ignore standards (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They don't ignore standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They don't ignore standards (Score:4, Funny)
"You can connect OK but can't get any web sites?
Tries pinging
DNS is hosed
"OK now, open network properties. See TCP/IP? Delete it. Go ahead and delete everything in this window. Click OK all the way back out. Now restart when Windows asks you to. If it doesn't, restart anyway."
Minutes pass
"OK now, let's go back to network properties and readd TCP/IP. Windows is asking for the CD? Just put it in the drive---you don't have the CD? I'm sorry, I'm sure that I asked you that before we started. Be sure and call back when you find your CD, OK? Bye now"
Re:eerily familiar (Score:5, Informative)
I am not so sure about that. They made a fine [newsforge.com] friggin mess [messagingpipeline.com] of the SPF [openspf.org] standard by introducing patents on several key parts of the standard while delaying and filibustering until the IETF working group (MARID [circleid.com]) became defunct as a result. I am sure I could find other examples of MS strong-arming, delaying, and otherwise being a general pain in the ass to standards bodies.
Re:eerily familiar (Score:2)
Re:eerily familiar (Score:4, Informative)
Can't join CSV? (Score:5, Funny)
Can't join CSV eh? $ ruby -e 'p [1,2,3,4].join(",")' :-P
Can you say OpenGL ARB? (Score:5, Interesting)
I call BS on your BS remark (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft claim shakes graphics world [zdnet.com]
3D graphics world shaken by patent claims [zdnet.co.uk]
Standards stalled over royalty disputes [zdnet.com]
Microsoft clarifies OpenGL position ... sort of [geek.com]
OpenGL 1.4 unveiled [builder.com]
Re:eerily familiar (Score:2)
I think you're thinking of Pamela Jo [lyricsdownload.com], not that I'm a big Donovan fan or anything.
But Microsoft isn't joing the ODA, they're joining the ISO group that's responsible for ODF's ISO certification.
Interestingly enough, despite Microsoft's protests to the contrary, as the person who is quoted in the article (Groklaw's PJ) has stated on her site [groklaw.net], the specific committee on which Microsoft sits just happens to be the one that's responsible for tallying up all the
Re:eerily familiar (Score:5, Funny)
Dr. Weird: GENTLEMEN! I give you - MORE STANDARDS MICROSOFT IS INVOLVED WITH!
Assistant: Well, gee, I dunno, last time...
Dr. Weird: THIS TIME WILL BE DIFFERENT!
Assistant: Well, OK, we could use Microsoft's support after all, and -
Microsoft starts adding in .Net components and ActiveX controls
Assistant: AEEEIEEE!!
Dr. Weird: It's not different at all, is it, Steve?!
Ballmer: Steve smash! Throws a chair at the assistant
Dr. Weird & Ballmer: Maniacal Laughter
Re:eerily familiar (Score:2)
Well, Microsoft didn't have to do anything about that since IBM wanted royalties for MCA and back royalties for ISA for anyone implementing the MCA bus.
What's wrong with someone getting into minutia? (Score:2)
What's wrong with someone getting into minutia? If it's a spec shouldn't it be perfectly clear, no ambiguity, so that different impementors with compliant code will naturally interoperate?
"and everyone else ..." is creepy (Score:3, Funny)
I appreciate what you are saying but the "and everybody else on Slashdot" just sucks the life out of your argument. It's creepy, it feels like "and everyone else at the church of scien
Re:eerily familiar (Score:3, Funny)
you better make sure the chairs are bolted to the floor as well. just in case.
Imperial March (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Imperial March (Score:5, Funny)
Because you're a hopeless nerd who has trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality, and is prone to exaggeration and paranoia?
Are you suggesting... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Imperial March (Score:2)
Re:Imperial March (Score:2)
Obvious (Score:2)
You must be new here.
Re:Imperial March (Score:2)
Or because he understands the concept of a metaphor, perhaps.
Re:Imperial March (Score:2, Funny)
Because you have been trained like a Pavlovian dog instead of thinking for yourself.
Re:Imperial March (Score:2, Insightful)
But, hey, may the shwartz be with you.
Jesus Christ (Score:5, Informative)
They joined the INCITS/V1 Technical Committee. They're not even remotely the same thing and don't even look remotely similar (ODA vs INCITS). Way to go on the asinine headline Zonk.
Re:Jesus Christ (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Jesus Christ (Score:2)
Re:Jesus Christ (Score:2, Funny)
--
It's all a joke... one. big. joke.
Not sure how my post (Score:2)
why would they sabotage it? (Score:5, Funny)
Minor correction (Score:2)
hmmm (Score:3, Informative)
PDF is more standard than
We're stuck with
Not much to do (Score:2, Insightful)
If anything I'd say they put him there to observe the progression more than anything else.
Or maybe I forgo
Re:Not much to do (Score:3, Insightful)
Standard, schmandards. The real question is who's productivity software (word processing, spread sheets, etc) does business use? A related question is what are the *costs* to business of switching to ODF? I used to use WordPerfect (I have since version 4.1) but I got tired of file format conversions with co-workers (yes, I did need clean c
Re:Not much to do (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not much to do (Score:2)
Then business users can keep using word and for people who are sending ODF documents they can still open the files from them.
Re:Not much to do (Score:3, Insightful)
Because one of Microsoft's big arguments in favor of sticking with MS software is the cost and hassle of converting all those Microsoft-format documents into the other software's formats. If customers don't have to convert documents, there's not much argument in favor of MS when license renewal comes up and Finance says "Why should we spend $BIGNUM on MSOffice licenses when we can spend $BIGNUM/10 on OpenOffice instead and be able to do everything we need?".
This is the real reason Microsoft is worried abou
Re:Not much to do (Score:3, Insightful)
Often Office is used
Re:Not much to do (Score:2)
The best part of a formal standard is that or you support it, or you don't. There is no middle ground, so if MS Office claims to support ODF, it must support it all, and only it (no embrace and extend).
Re:Not much to do (Score:2)
This is why I can't imagine MS every adopting ODF. If ODF documents could be read without loss into MS-Office and written without formatting loss by MS-Office then much of the world wouldn't buy MS-Office anymore. Free vs $300? $99 vs $300?
I guess MS could lower their price on MS-Office but then th
FUD? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone have any info on whether MS has truly laid off with OASIS and the ODF process there? Not to say that non-interference there means non-interference with Open XML, but it's a start.
They'll fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Not any time soon, unfortunately (Score:2)
Most of whom wouldn't know a truly open standard from an industry con-job if they sat on one. We used to have this problem with poor business processes, and now we have ISO 9000 and Tick-It, which don
Re:They'll fail (Score:2)
Until their staff bitches about having to learn new software. Small companies have huge problems with training staff to use new software... hence the reason my company still pays for Lotus, since there are two employees who refuse to learn Excel. Moving over to OO would cause conniption fits and too big a disruption of business.
Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
If MS joins the alliance, they're seen as sneaky, underhanded, factious and self-serving.
Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS doesn't join the alliance, they're seen as factious and self-serving.
If MS joins the alliance, they're seen as sneaky, underhanded, factious and self-serving.
If Hussein doesn't join the alliance, he's seen as factious and self-serving.
If Hussein joins the alliance, he's seen as sneaky, underhanded, factious and self-serving.
Maybe if you don't build up a reputation as a sneaky, underhanded, factious, self-serving, criminal, people won't suspect the worst of you all the time. If MS completely chan
Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. /.'rs, by and large, see MS as facetious, self-serving, and sometimes sneaky and underhanded... This is because by and large MS *is* facetious, self-serving, and sometimes sneaky and underhanded.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I think we have very good historical reasons [wikipedia.org] for keeping a very, very wary and suspicious eye on MS's behaviors.
Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:2)
Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:2)
If MS joins the alliance, they're seen as sneaky, underhanded, factious and self-serving.
So... you're saying I hate MS either way?
I can live with that.
They didn't join the alliance, wrong headline (Score:2)
Here's some good reading for you (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft managed to stall OpenGL 2.0 and other improvements for the longest time by claiming potential patent infringements with its vertex and pixel shader technologies. As a result OpenGL stalled for some time. Microsoft has since left the OpenGL ARB (Architecture Review Board) after doing the damage it needed to do. Deja vu.
Quickly accused to be BS by an Anonymous Coward. [slashdot.org]
but then another AC to the rescue with the smackdown. [slashdot.org]
Honestly, do you really think Microsoft is interested in collaborating with a standard that threatens to deprecate the MS Office format? Is that what you seriously believe?
Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:2)
So yea, if you act like a dick to people, then no matter what you do one day later, you'
Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:2)
Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
If MS joins the alliance, they're seen as sneaky, underhanded, factious and self-serving.
I know! It's sooo unfair. I mean, seriously. The worst they've ever been found guilty of was abusing their monopoly position. And that has only happened in several countries. The other dozens of allegations, like those relating to their interference with past standards such as OpenGL and Kerberos, have never even been tried in a courtroom. These assumptions of ill intent are based on nothing more than Microsoft's chronic and well-documented behavior over the past ten or fifteen years. It's soooo unfair.
Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:2)
Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:2)
Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't (Score:2)
Tell me I'm wrong, but back up your argument with fact, or you're a bigger troll and M
Microsoft was already a member of OASIS, too... (Score:2)
http://www.oasis-open.org/about/ [oasis-open.org]
is this a joke? (Score:2, Informative)
This is just a badass joke, isn't it?
Re:is this a joke? (Score:5, Informative)
Da point (Score:2)
Trolling? ;-P
Conspiracy theories too soon (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/#scope [jtc1sc34.org]
The Slashdot heading is VERY incorrect and biased against Microsoft.
Re:Conspiracy theories too soon (Score:5, Funny)
Here? On Slashdot? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Re:Conspiracy theories too soon (Score:2)
Well, not that shocked.
Re:Conspiracy theories too soon (Score:2)
Re:Conspiracy theories too soon (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice, can you explain, since you don't accept members whith problems with antitrust laws [incits.org], why was Microsoft accepted?
Also, don't your group make decisions based on consensus, instead o majority? How do you think Microsoft (that assumed plublicaly to be against ODF) won't disturb the acceptance process?
Re:Conspiracy theories too soon (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Conspiracy theories too soon (Score:2)
Re:Typical Growlaw (Score:2)
I assume you mean "up in arms".
but I've yet to see her do anything important
Err, Groklaw? (BTW, that is the correct name of the site I think you are talking about: if you mean another site called "Growlaw" that is also run by PJ, then accept my apologies...)
Re:Typical Growlaw (Score:2)
Re:Typical Growlaw (Score:2)
One is a father of the Open Source movement, the other is instrumental in disseminating anti-FUD regarding legal threats to OSS. I'm sort of wondering what it'd take to impress you.
Re:Typical Growlaw (Score:2)
Let's put porkThreeWays in there instead. He is so much wiser.
Patent Disclosure? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd hate to see Microsoft secretly steer the committee towards something that, five years later, they would shut down as a patent violation. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened *cough*Rambus*cough*.
Re:Patent Disclosure? (Score:2)
Re:Patent Disclosure? (Score:2)
In that case I'll ignore them.
Not a dupe (Score:2, Insightful)
but seriously, what is the issue in whose format is the standard, as long as it is standard? The standard needs to be something easily defined, can be adhered to without loss in functionality and is extensible. If MS's XML satisfies that, good enough..just make sure balmer guy does not sabotage that once it becomes the standard
Re:Not a dupe (Score:2)
Several issues:
1. The Microsoft format is patent encumbered
2. The Microsoft format does not integrate well with other existing standards (e.g. SVG can seamlessly be used within ODF markup, the current version of MS OpenXML cannot do that, as it breaks their markup).
3. The Microsoft format does not exist yet, while ODF has already been implemented in OpenOffice.org, KOffice, Abiword, and support is coming to Gnumeric as well. There
Why which standard it is matters (Score:2)
If you've looked at ODF and MSXML, you'll see why it matters which one's the standard. If you look at a comparison of ODF and MSXML [groklaw.net], you'll see the differences. You'll notice that the XHTML and ODF examples read like document mark-up: you have the recognizable text of the document and things like paragraph and italic marks occur at the obvious places. This makes it really easy to manipulate ODF via XSLT to turn it into other formats. MSXML, by contrast, reads like an XML encoding of the internal object repr
This is a positive step for MS (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft is....... (Score:4, Funny)
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and foam at the mouth and throw some furniture.
Deja Vu - JAVA (Score:5, Insightful)
There was some reluctance from members of that JAVA organization back then too, and their worst fears proved correct.
Other examples of the same M$ infiltration method are out there and they earned a reputation that they cannot be trusted on a standards organization.
they will do like they always do (Score:5, Insightful)
People, look at HTML, CSS, and various other web standards, MS has their name all over these standards and look at how IE implements them. MS does this with all standards, so why should this be any different.
Mod this down if you wish, flame it, etc, but I'm right and you know it!
Huh?? (Score:2)
who is Jim Thatcher and why did MSFT pick him (Score:2)
Re:who is Jim Thatcher and why did MSFT pick him (Score:2)
No, like many Microsoft representatives, he cannot be photographed. Also, his reflection does not appear in mirrors.
Re:who is Jim Thatcher and why did MSFT pick him (Score:2)
It was brought up before by Microsoft stooges in the Mass. debate. But, the problem isn't with the document standard (which the MS-Office XML format does not address, either), but with products; there is a dearth of accessibility products for the visually impaired for Free software operating systems in general.
The ironic thing is, Microsoft doesn'
Re:who is Jim Thatcher and why did MSFT pick him (Score:2)
LoB
Re:who is Jim Thatcher and why did MSFT pick him (Score:2)
Re:who is Jim Thatcher and why did MSFT pick him (Score:2)
LoB
Re:Unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft really wanted to support ODF, they could stop screwing around and start doing their job: programming! I want MS Word to natively support the ODF.
Re:Unfair... (Score:5, Informative)
To badly paraphase Forest Gump, "Damnable is as damnable does". If Microsoft is either quiet or makes positive contributions to the ODF standard, more power to them and maybe they will become a good corporate citizen.
But if history is any guide, they will do everything in their power to beat the standard into the ground and anyone who supports it. They will do everything from dirty tricks (remember DRDOS?) to patent litigation (OpenGL), just ignore your patent (Stacker), to "growing the polluted environment" (Java) to "cutting off the air supply" (Netscape) to making incompatible versions (Kerberos, CHAP, DNS, TCP) to "put the competition on a treadmill" (everyone) to FUD (Linux and GPL are a cancer).
Not unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
We damn Microsoft if they do, and damn them if they don't.
Actually, we damn Microsoft for their general attitude about standards bodies. The company has a deserved reputation for ignoring standards when it helps them, and subverting standards when they can't ignore them. Microsoft has engendered ill will through past behavior, and it takes more than an announcement that they are acting in good faith to get me to believe them.
Actions speak louder than words.
Re:Can't believe it hasn't been said yet... (Score:2)
And then exterminate.
That's kinda the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally, the folks sitting the committee wish to come to a real consensus. We can hope that Microsoft is merely hedging its bets by testing the ODF standards waters. It could be that Microsoft ends up adopting ODF in an MS-Office generation or two.
I believe Microsoft is finding it harder and harder to buck