Linked by David Adams on Tue 4th Dec 2007 19:39 UTC, submitted by michuk
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "It may be a brave opinion but I predict that Ubuntu Linux and Windows Vista are going to be the two operating systems that will take over the largest chunk of the desktop OS market during the next couple of years. This comparison is based on my experience with both systems during the last couple of weeks on two different computers."
Permalink for comment 288700
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Silly
by lemur2 on Wed 5th Dec 2007 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Silly"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

How in the world is MS changing their own internal file format anti-competitive? How is opening the majority of it up to the public abuse? Sure, not all of it is open, but how is that worse then NONE of it being open?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OASIS_%28organization%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument

"The OpenDocument standard was developed by a Technical Committee (TC) under the OASIS industry consortium. The ODF-TC has members from a diverse set of companies and individuals. ... The standardization process involved the developers of many office suites or related document systems. The first official ODF-TC meeting to discuss the standard was December 16, 2002"

OK, that is the first point. There was a demand (mainly coming from governments) for an open, future-proof, consensus industry standard for electronic document storage. Microsoft was on this committee, from day 1. Even Microsoft agreed that existing obscure binary formats had to go, and be replaced by an XML-based document format. Here was the god-given opportunity for industry-wide interoperability on this.

Microsoft attended every meeting, and said not one word the whole time.

"; OASIS approved OpenDocument as an OASIS Standard on May 1, 2005. OASIS submitted the ODF specification to ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC1) on November 16, 2005, under Publicly Available Specification (PAS) rules."

Not fast-track rules, but PAS rules. Harder to get passed, and it took longer ...

"After a six-month review period, on May 3, 2006 OpenDocument unanimously passed its six-month DIS ballot in JTC1, with broad participation, after which the OpenDocument specification was "approved for release as an ISO and IEC International Standard" under the name ISO/IEC 26300:2006."

... but pass it did. Unanimously. No unanswered objections. Industry consensus reached.

Microsoft at this point simply said "but we are not going to do it". They also claimed (at that time) "there is no demand for ODF".

Then they produced their own bastard-child XML specification for a document format, requiring as many dependencies on Microsoft-only technologies as they could think of, and essentially mandating that any compliant application had to be written to run on a Windows platform and no other.

If there was no demand, why did Microsoft produce OOXML?

Microsoft changed their tune. They now claimed that "ODF was not designed to support the information in billions of legacy documents".

If that was so, tell us exactly were the deficiency lies? And why did they not speak up before, at any time during the four-year "consensus" development process they attended?

OOXML is worse than none of it being open, because it is written to explicitly undermine the ISO-standard for electronic document formats by PRETENDING to be open, and PRETENDING to be an alternative.

Give it up Microsoft. Just go with the ODF standard that you yourself agreed to.

Reply Parent Score: 6