Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
IBM Microsoft

IBM Slams Microsoft, Calls OOXML "Inferior" 238

Posted by kdawson
from the yer-mama's-ugly-too dept.
cristarol sends word that Microsoft's accusation, that IBM has sabotaged Redmond's attempts to have the Office OpenXML format approved by the ISO, has drawn a heated response from IBM. Ars Technica has the story. "'IBM believes that there is a revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all,' IBM VP of standards and OSS Bob Sutor told Ars. 'If "business as usual" means trying to foist a rushed, technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad behavior.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Slams Microsoft, Calls OOXML "Inferior"

Comments Filter:
  • by siyavash (677724) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:01AM (#22305440) Journal
    One big corporation bashing another... Get your popcorns and watch the show. Personally, I prefer Godzilla... yyyyyiii... *sound of Godzilla*
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:42AM (#22305696)
      Godzilla throws chairs?
    • by Ngarrang (1023425) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:59AM (#22305872) Journal
      IBM, despite having lost the OS battle, will win this one. They are the 1600lb gorilla. Their influence in the industry and deep and wide and should never be underestimated. Microsoft would do well not to make an enemy of them.
      • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @10:06AM (#22305960) Homepage Journal

        IBM, despite having lost the OS battle, will win this one. They are the 1600lb gorilla. Their influence in the industry and deep and wide and should never be underestimated. Microsoft would do well not to make an enemy of them.
        Oh, I think it's much, much too late for that. IBM and Microsoft have been at odds since the whole OS/2 joint development agreement fallout. The only thing nobody seems to notice much around here is that IBM has been winning.
        • ...it's time to resurrect the term "IBM compatible?"

          Seriously, this phrase is a throwback and an oversimplification, but it has built-in acceptance among a certain age bracket.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mgblst (80109)
        This all sounds nice, and we all wish what you just said is true, but only a fool would discount the effect that Microsoft has on the industry at large. Most companies out there, are ALL microsoft shops - they won't even consider anything else. Most people out there don't give a damn about anything else, except their core business, and it ain't IT. Sure, there are a bunch of smart people out there who stay away from Microsoft as much as possible (and these people were aound 20 years ago), but they work in U
        • Re-worded quote from the comment above: "Most companies out there are All-Microsoft shops -- They won't even consider anything else. Most people care only about their core business, and that isn't IT."

          True, but IBM is influential with people who understand Microsoft's abuse. See this quote from the Ars Technica article:

          A ZDNet article published late last month quotes Microsoft officials who claim that IBM is solely responsible for ISO's recent decision to deny OOXML fast-track approval. "Let's be very clear," Jean Paoli, Microsoft's senior director of XML technology, told ZDNet. "It has been fostered by a single company--IBM. If it was not for IBM, it would have been business as usual for this standard."

          I'm glad we don't have "business as usual", as defined by Microsoft.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sjames (1099)

          It's perfectly true that many companies only care about the practical aspects of IT. They have accounting and word processing to do and that's the end of it.

          The same applies to fax machines, copiers and telephones.

          However, they DO care about the bottom line. They aren't cellphone experts, but they WILL avoid the provider that "everyone knows" drops more calls than it completes and costs twice as much as the others. Likewise, they will avoid the OS that "everyone knows" is annoying, user hostile, and cos

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by cp.tar (871488)

            Most business people know instinctively that the more dirty tricks a vendor pulls, the more likely their own product is to suck. MS's antics are getting large enough and frequent enough that people outside of IT who don't read /. or groklaw are starting to notice.

            I do hope you're right.

            From where I stand, it doesn't seem that many people are starting to notice anything, and even if they did, somehow I doubt many would be prepared for the cost of migrating to a different platform.

            To anticipate the "Linux is free" response by a random AC: yes, it is. The software people use to run their various businesses usually isn't.
            Besides, a running business can't easily afford to re-train its employees on a completely new environment.
            That's what lock-in really is all about

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by sjames (1099)

              I'm not going to trot out the license costs because, as you point out, retraining is the real cost.

              Instead, I'll bring up that Vists is DIFFERENT and so are the new office suites. Perhaps they're different enough that retraining will happen even to stay with MS. As long as that cost is going to be there anyway, might as well call it an opportunity to step gracefully off of the MS treadmill and get an environment that is more concerned about doing the user's bidding than the *AA's (should be irrelevant in

        • Being an all-MS shop is irrelevant because more and more companies are switching to server-side applications for their needs. It started with Content Management Systems and database front ends, and with google docs the public at large is beginning to get a glimpse of office on the server.

          And this next generation of applications is going to be OS-agnostic-- you can run WAMP just as easily as LAMP, and you can view an html-based application on any browser on any type of desktop/kiosk/cell phone/... . That
  • by CarpetShark (865376) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:01AM (#22305442)
    I'm not really much for liking megacorps, but it's good to see one -- IBM in this case, for the moment -- that's on the right side.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:44AM (#22305704)
      Seems pretty logical to me.

      Microsoft mostly gets money from its software, they thus need to make sure they will keep selling it. Then they can make even more money with consulting when customers are locked in.

      IBM mostly gets money from consulting services, they thus need "open" environments where they can charge high price for advice vs software.

      So what you think is the right side is actually the opportunistic side to them. This is still the right side for us though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dan541 (1032000)
      In the 21st century a standardised file format for Word Processors and other office documents is long overdue.

      I support the .ODF format all the way.

      ~Dan
  • by jacquesm (154384) <.moc.ww. .ta. .j.> on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:04AM (#22305464) Homepage
    When a company that used to be a monopolist is now one of the staunchest defenders of openness, I really do hope there is no hidden agenda here.

    IBM used to make overpriced hardware sold at tremendous profit until that little upstart microsoft came along and elegantly used their own weight against them in a classic game of corporate judo. It may just be that IBM still smarts from that or it may be that they've really 'seen the light'. This is good news, personally I'd like to see the transparency of these committees and their members go up a notch or two, too much potential for procedural trickery still exists.
    • by pegdhcp (1158827) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:11AM (#22305502)
      (Semi) official Microsoft view worded as

      IBM is solely responsible for ISO's recent decision to deny OOXML fast-track approval. "Let's be very clear," Jean Paoli, Microsoft's senior director of XML technology, told ZDNet. "It has been fostered by a single company--IBM. If it was not for IBM, it would have been business as usual for this standard."

      One wonders if Microsoft officials do not recognize their own organization as a "single company". Although there are claims of MS statehood, I prefer such ideas remain in the "jokingly funny" domain.

    • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:14AM (#22305538) Homepage Journal

      When a company that used to be a monopolist is now one of the staunchest defenders of openness, I really do hope there is no hidden agenda here.
      Of course there's a hidden agenda. Except that it's not so hidden. IBM's business model currently revolves around services, rather than products. It's in IBM's best interests to have a diverse set of vendors in the IT industry to choose from rather than a monopoly and a monoculture. Microsoft is also in the services business, but their services revolve around their specific products, whereas IBM is a vendor that takes a more ecumenical view.

      IOW, IBM's 'ulterior' motive is profit, and their profit goals happen to be in alignment with what's best for the IT industry and the greater IT community.
      • by CmdrGravy (645153) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:28AM (#22305608) Homepage
        Exactly and it's my suspicion that a company whos business model is actually in line with their customers requirements is going to be more successful than one whos business model basically relies on customers behaving in a way which suits Microsoft and attempts to enforce that behaviour by removing the customers choices.
      • by rvw (755107)

        Of course there's a hidden agenda. Except that it's not so hidden.
        Let's refrase that: It's open! (Like in Open Document Type!)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Microsoft - not IBM is forcing the initial ulterior motive. Microsoft's biggest money makers are Office and Windows. They've run out of room for Office "improvements" and thus customers don't need to upgrade from the 2000 and 2003 versions. Changing the default file format of the Office programs "forces" users who haven't upgraded to upgrade...note how MS hasn't made a patch for 2000 or 2003 to read the default .docx and .xlsx formats of 2007.

        2007 users who don't know better, send these formats to 2000
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by cp.tar (871488)

          2007 users who don't know better, send these formats to 2000 and 2003 user who can't open them, thereby creating an artificial need to "upgrade."

          Now, everyone repeat after me: Please re-send the file in a readable format, such as PDF, ODF or even Word 97/2000. Thank you.

          Whenever you receive a .docx file, just reply with the above line.

    • by Bert64 (520050) <[moc.eeznerif.todhsals] [ta] [treb]> on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:24AM (#22305584) Homepage
      Actually, It was the likes of Compaq who were responsible for the opening of the PC compatible hardware market. Microsoft are responsible for fighting tooth and nail to keep the software closed, while trying to benefit from the open hardware.
    • by RMH101 (636144) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:25AM (#22305596)
      IBM now sell overpriced services sold at tremendous profit. They'd much rather have open standards that they can use, and profit from consulting you to death wrapping a service layer around them.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:35AM (#22305652)
        " They'd much rather have open standards that they can use, and profit from consulting you to death wrapping a service layer around them."

        Yes, that's very true. But they are OPEN STANDARDS. You don't have to give IBM oodles of money, you can just figure it out for yourself.

        IBM will continue to make money as long as there are people (or companies) around who are willing to pay their rates, I'm guessing because they feel they get their money's worth.
        • by ta bu shi da yu (687699) * on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @10:01AM (#22305908) Homepage
          Yup, and to chime in here - that's the difference in this situation. Let's say IBM gets lots of money for an overpriced service. In this market, there is noone forcing you to use their services. With Microsoft software, however, because they have a virtual monopoly then everyone is forced to use Microsoft's non-open, locked down format.

          The quote that was most telling for me was this one, from Tsilas:

          "[Mandating open standards in government] is a new way to compete. They are using government intervention as a way to compete. It's competing through regulation, because you couldn't compete technically."

          That quote is, frankly, hilarious. Finally they have found that they are uncompetitive in something, and boy do they find this difficult. They've been so used to forcing the market to use their product that when the market finally corrects itself they're not sure what to do. Thus they try to fast-track a technically inferior standard.

          The end result is that the exact opposite of what Tsilas asserts is happening. The ODF format is technically superior, but because it won't work with old Microsoft "features" (read: bugs), Microsoft cannot compete.
    • by Gr8Apes (679165) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:46AM (#22305720)

      IBM used to make overpriced hardware sold at tremendous profit
      True, but so did everyone else in the space at the time. Go look at your history and look at the number of players in the game. It was far more than '1'.

      ... until that little upstart microsoft came along and elegantly used their own weight against them in a classic game of corporate judo.
      Actually, MS was merely along for the ride on the original IBM PC boat. What killed IBM is manifold, from their lack of vision of where PCs would go to the massive infighting among divisions (the above mentioned high profit businesses especially) choking the life out of the PC divisions. Even the open nature of the PC hardware spec wasn't that big an issue. But I really don't want to bring up the entire "what-if" set of threads again.

      It may just be that IBM still smarts from that or it may be that they've really 'seen the light'. This is good news, personally I'd like to see the transparency of these committees and their members go up a notch or two, too much potential for procedural trickery still exists.
      I guarantee you the only the light IBM has seen is the green one from profit in services. Open Specs means everyone can play. More implementations means more bugs to work around. More bugs means gee - we can build you this layer.... which is merely the layer they built 900 customers ago and are reselling yet again for 90000% profit. Those are numbers that make even MS drool.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Tim99 (984437)

        IBM used to make overpriced hardware sold at tremendous profit
        True, but so did everyone else in the space at the time. Go look at your history and look at the number of players in the game. It was far more than '1'.

        Some truth in this, but in the 1970s the computer business was described as "IBM and the seven dwarfs". The other truth was "No one ever got fired for buying IBM"
    • When a company that used to be a monopolist is now one of the staunchest defenders of openness, I really do hope there is no hidden agenda here.

      "One of the Staunchest defenders of openness?" Oh, come now. Can you really use such a superlative for a commercial company? I'm sure the raving Richard Stallman would take that title in a heart beat. I submit to you a recent hardship I have endured involving the Rational suite of tools that IBM now owns and produces.

      Our management forced us from subversion to clearcase. I am not impressed. Most painful was the loss of the goal stat-scm in subversion that allowed me to (with a few keystrokes) we

    • by Ngarrang (1023425)
      Agenda by IBM? Of course there is! IBM is probably still feeling the sting of OS/2, among other software defeats at the hand of Microsoft. We are witnessing 20 years of pent-up anger coming out. What better way to ultimately defeat your foe/friend than be instrumental in the dismantling of THEIR grip on software?
    • by Nursie (632944)
      "When a company that used to be a monopolist is now one of the staunchest defenders of openness, I really do hope there is no hidden agenda here."

      Money. That is IBM's agenda. They're getting better at acquiring it too.

      "IBM used to make overpriced hardware sold at tremendous profit"

      Errr.... i/z/pSeries?
      Not that I know what the profit margin is, or even if it's overpriced, but they still make and sell quite a lot and are constantly inventive.

      Open standards, to IBM, mean that when a (large, deep-pocketed) cust
  • IBM Are Right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CmdrGravy (645153) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:12AM (#22305520) Homepage
    I think IBM are absolutely right when they say that the customers prefer to have documented open standards which can be supported by a variety of different applications from different vendors.

    I can see no case at all to support Microsofts point of view that it's better to use a document format which is supported by only one company that can only be guaranteed to work with their products and where this guarantee is not set in stone and could be subject to change at the whim of the company.

    From a business point of view anything which maintains the lock in to Microsofts Office products is good for Microsoft and anything which is truly open benefits IBM and as I said above I think what the customer wants in this case is also the same thing IBM want which means IBM are going to be getting a lot of goodwill for pushing their point of view.

    It will be interesting to see just how far MS are willing to go to defend their office lock in and whether they will see sense, give in and rely on Office ( which is a good product IMHO ) to compete on a level playing field with it's competitors.
    • Re:IBM Are Right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cp.tar (871488) <cp.tar.bz2@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:25AM (#22305592) Journal

      From a business point of view anything which maintains the lock in to Microsofts Office products is good for Microsoft and anything which is truly open benefits IBM and as I said above I think what the customer wants in this case is also the same thing IBM want which means IBM are going to be getting a lot of goodwill for pushing their point of view.

      Anything which maintains the lock-in to MS Office &c. is good for Microsoft and Microsoft alone.
      Anything which is truly open benefits IBM as well as the rest of the world.

      With two sides such as these, there is really no question as to which side I'm on.
      Of course, should IBM become too greedy, nothing would stop me from loathing them as much as I loathe Microsoft nowadays.

      • by peragrin (659227)
        >>With two sides such as these, there is really no question as to which side I'm on. Of course, should IBM become too greedy, nothing would stop me from loathing them as much as I loathe Microsoft nowadays.

        That's just the point though. Your using IBM Lotus for all your documents and IBM starts screwing around with you. You dump them and switch your office suite to StarOffice by sun. Your files are still your files and you don't lose anything but training time in new software. You don't spend wee
  • Standard reply.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wowsers (1151731) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:14AM (#22305534) Journal
    If only Microsoft concentrated so much on fixing their software as they do in trying to force standards (or with the web - break standards).
  • by o'reor (581921) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:19AM (#22305554) Journal
    Quoth IBM:

    'If "business as usual" means trying to foist a rushed, technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on the IT industry,
    I actually saw "piece of work" written but I read "piece of s**t" instead. Is it time for me to see a doctor ?
    • by rolfc (842110)
      No, in this context it is a normal reaction.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by avdp (22065) *
      No you don't need to see a doctor. I would be willing to bet that you read it the way it was intended to be read. Nobody says "piece of work" without meaning "piece of s**t".
  • by duffbeer703 (177751) * on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:33AM (#22305646)
    Is that Microsoft Office blows OO.org away. Completely. Microsoft could go with ODF and still compete very well against OO.
    • This is microsoft we are talking about. The only way they would switch to ODF in office is part of an embrace, extend, extinguish strategy.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I once agreed to some extent, I'm not so sure any more. I used OO.org primarily for quite a while (before I got a real job and had to conform...) and I'll admit it occasionally gave me this sense that it was on a par with an Office a couple of versions more senior. However having had to start using Office 2007, I can happily say that's a good thing, they've broken so much stuff. There are graphics bugs everywhere, things keep breaking and the behaviour of some of the automatic formatting is entirely unpr
    • This is true to an extent, however many people may decide they don't need all the features of Office, and as a result may learn to word-process on something other than word. This could - in the long term- mean that hiring people to use word becomes expensive relative to hiring people to use the cheaper alternatives, so companies reconsider what they need in an office suite.

      Or put simply, while they copuld compete in the high end of the market, the don't currently compete at all. So why would they want th

    • by Zygamorph (917923) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @10:06AM (#22305968)

      I keep "hearing" the statement but I don't experience it. I use oo.org regularly with absolutely no problems. I use MS Office occasionally with no problems so how is it that MS Office blows away oo.org?

      BTW - I have no interest in "reasons" such as the following:

      1. xx starts up 3 seconds faster = 1 more sip of tea, where's the down side?
      2. The user interface isn't the same = well duh, that just means you're more familiar with one than the other
      3. xx is more compatible with other parts of the xx suite - mega duh, and not always true
      4. xx is more "standard" - whose standard? I lean toward ODF because it is truly open but either way our main problem 10 years from now will be finding hardware to read those funny plastic disks and paying someone to do it.
      • by giafly (926567) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @04:24PM (#22311660)

        I lean toward ODF because it is truly open but either way our main problem 10 years from now will be finding hardware to read those funny plastic disks and paying someone to do it.
        If you store some Dells or HPs in a climate-controlled warehouse today, the hardware will still work in 20 years time. But if you try to boot your equally ancient ancient copy of Windows to run Office, Windows Genuine Advantage and its DRM siblings from 2008 will try to 'phone home, fail, decide you're a pirate, and lock up.
    • OpenOffice is good enough for most tasks and the cool charge you have to pay for each bum on a set using MS Office begins to look more an more like waste, specially with a recession being talked up by the media.

      If there is a real crunch a lot of people will question why they should continue to use MS office if there are plenty of options out there cheaper or free.
      • The idea that people can do what they normally need to do in OO doesn't mean that MSO isn't better.

        Most people can use GIMP or MS Paint for most things they do graphically too but that doesn't mean that Photoshop isn't the superior graphics package.

        When will people stop twisting their needs into being the end-all and be-all of the computing experience?

        And to be honest? How many home users really buy MSO anyway? It's really not a question of economics for 99% of home MSO users.
    • True but that would give consumers a choice. Office is probably the most profitable division for Microsoft. Once they loose control over the format that's one step closer to loosing they lock-in with their customers.
    • Microsoft could go with ODF and still compete very well against OO.

      You're assuming that Microsoft wants to compete. It's much easier and more profitable to dominate a market by lock-in than to compete in the market. Not to mention the fact that Microsoft's main competitor right now is not OpenOffice but its own earlier versions of MSOffice. One way they force people to upgrade is to change the file formats so your old MSOffice won't open documents from a newer version. They couldn't do that if they ha

    • That MS Office kicks OO's butt is very true, but if ODF became the de facto standard instead of a Microsoft controlled format, then it might become much more attractive/viable to business with deep pockets to try to make a legitimate office competitor.

      Right now dumping a lot of resources into building a competing office sweet would be very risky from a business standpoint, since Microsoft can (if they feel sufficiently threatened) significantly alter the format to break competing products. The second th
    • That is such a strange comment.

      How can you "blow away" something which is free and does exactly what I want it to do?
      It just not even imaginable...
    • Microsoft could go with ODF and still compete very well against OO.

      Except that MS doesn't really want to compete at all on the merits of Office 2007. Now that Office products are at a premium some customers might contemplate a switch to cheaper alternatives. If OOXML became a standard, MS would ensure lock-in to Office products and there would be no competition.

      OOXML is another example of MS methodology. At worst, it was a blatant attempt to leverage their monopoly. At best, it's an example of MS's m

    • Is that Microsoft Office blows OO.org away. Completely. Microsoft could go with ODF and still compete very well against OO.

      But Microsoft doesn't want to compete with OO. They would much rather have a monopoly based on a de-facto document standard that is incompatible with other software. After all, you make more money with monopoly sales and monopoly markup than you do in a competitive market, even if you're the market leader.

      If Microsoft fully supported ODF, then it may happen that a great deal of people
    • A recent Danish study into conversion between ODF, DOC and OOXML concluded that MS Office was the best at dealing with all of those formats. So Microsoft need have no real fears that people will leave Office immediately if ODF was widely adopted.

      http://dokumentformater.oio.dk/ [dokumentformater.oio.dk]

      But it still makes sense that Microsoft are unhappy with ODF and want to push OOXML. ODF is controlled by OASIS, and would allow much greater competition in the office software market. In the medium to long term, the Office software
  • by sm62704 (957197) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @09:37AM (#22305662) Journal
    'If "business as usual" means trying to foist a rushed, technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like DOS on the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad behavior.'"

    "Oh wait, maybe we're not. Not yet. Give us a couple of decades or so..."

    IBM has gotten its act together, or at least its rhetoric. When will Microsoft join the rest of us in the 21st century and stop foisting rushed, technically inferior and product-specific work? What will it take, Microsoft's version of the Microchannel?

    -mcgrew
  • by Prototerm (762512) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @10:09AM (#22305992)
    Microsoft appears to have a core philosophy that all things in the computer should be mushed together. Every application and device driver should be allowed (and indeed encouraged) to share their innermost secrets with any process that asks. This is the reason for all of Windows' and Office's vulnerabilities. Notice the utter chaos that has ensued when Vista tightened up a few of those "I'm-ok-you're-ok" sharing paths.

    One of the problems I have with the whole MS Office file design is that it includes both data and executables in the same file. There is no way to separate the two. Now, I suppose I'm out of step with the rest of the world, but those should be in separate files. As long as the data is fully documented, and has all the appropriate pieces for the purpose (style definitions, mathematical formulae), any program should be able to operate on it. IMHO, we should not be encouraging the mixture of (for example) a spreadsheet document that contains the calculations for a company's PL statement with the code (e.g., VBA) used to control data entry into that document. Simply loading the document should not put someone at risk for malware infection, because it should contain no programs in the first place. I like having powerful macros as much as the next guy, but I believe it has gone too far.If you need that much control, then write a separate program that operates on the data, and keep the data separate.

    Here's a wild idea: Replace all the data files (and only data files -- no macros or exe's) on a computer with entries in a SQL database (with appropriate security, of course, to restrict sharing), so any application, from any vendor, can easily read and write it. As Microsoft proved when it tried to put SQL into the OS, this isn't as easy as I made it sound. But this may have more to do with their inability to add the old vulnerabilities into the scheme than making the whole thing work right.

    Microsoft wishes to enshrine all of its past mistakes in the new format, and continue its malware-friendly development philosophy. That is wrong, and the Office 2007 file format is too flawed to be seriously considered as a universal standard (intellectual property issues aside). It's good to see a company the size of IBM fight against its acceptance.
  • IBM 1, MS 0 (Score:2, Interesting)

    I'm definitely liking the stance IBM is taking here. OOXML clearly has some serious problems and its a relief to see that regardless of Micrsoft's perceived power, they can't muscle their way into ISO standards. However, I'm still eagerly awaiting IBM to fully embrace this open ideal they're talking about.

    Free the OS/2 codebase.
  • IBM appears to be one of the few surviving "last generation" companies former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes about. They seem to have some appreciation at the highest corporate level that the long view has real value, and that corporations are to some degree responsible for the well-being of the society in which they operate. IBM's stand against the clearly-inferior OOXML standard indicates that they understand long-term viability sometimes means sacrificing a bit of short-term profit.

    This is a le

  • by WK2 (1072560) on Tuesday February 05, 2008 @11:43AM (#22307114) Homepage

    "Let's be very clear," Jean Paoli, Microsoft's senior director of XML technology, told ZDNet. "It has been fostered by a single company--IBM. If it was not for IBM, it would have been business as usual for this standard."

    Translation: "We would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that pesky megacorp!"

  • This spat is an example of Microsoft's decision to fight too many battles. It always seemed Microsoft picked a target, e.g., Netscape, and then destroyed it. By carefully choosing its battles, Microsoft ensured the odds were stacked in its favor. It seems to have moved away from that strategy. Lots of little and not so little companies are in open, pitched battles with Microsoft.

    IBM is fighting lock-in by OOXML. Google has MSFT on the defense in the internet services arena. Linux has a dominate pres

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Working...