Submitted by “The undeclared war between the Microsoft and the European Union has been relatively quiet for the past few months; we haven’t heard much from either party since the EU fined Microsoft USD 1.36 billion. The scarcely settled cauldron between the two organizations, however, is about to receive a good stirring, due to the actions of EU Parliment representative and Green Party member, Heide Ruehle. Ruehle has filed a question with the Parliament, raising the issue of whether the EU’s legal findings against the company preclude it from taking part in future public procurement discussions.”
The European Parliament is a weak body, whose rulings are often bypassed, and the Greens are a relatively small faction in the European Parliament. So at this point, this is a non-story.
Clearly sir, you have not got a clue.
The European Parliament is the deciding body for the European Union.
The European Union is the biggest single market in the world.
You make it sound like the lion with no teeth.
It is NOT the deciding body of the EU. The European head of states have much more influence. Power is quite distributed in the EU.
On the other hand, ignoring the EU Parliament is not smart either.
I guess that in this stage, MS is not in trouble yes. But, like the article in Ars mentioned, it IS a sign that Europe keeps an eye on MS. And with good reason.
Clearly sir, you have not got a clue. The original poster is correct. This is a tiny faction in a large, burocratic organization with limited power making some noise in hopes of getting some news coverage.
Look I’m a supporter of the EU and I really wish it was more effective than it is. But the simple truth is that when it comes down to it the teeth on the EU parliament are limited and largely symbolic. Without the backing of the national governments all it really can do is write angry letters. Look at the number of of times member nations have flaunted EU parliament decrees and see how pathetic the EU parliament has responed.
That could be an tag line from Fox “news”. Since when is it a non declared war against a company if you require them to obey the law and force them to do so if they don’t comply? Is it a non declared war of your employer if he requires you to be on work in time?
… the best way to increase competition (the stated goal of getting compliance from Microsoft) is to eliminate one of the competitors? Hmmmmmmmm…
Criminals are not considered **competitors** once they are convicted. Thats why the law say that they are not permited to enter procurement procedure. This legal move is a way to enforce the rules with political support for the law or look for a Polical pardon to let Microsoft participate.
Your mixing one court case with a political proceding , Microsoft is in so many procedure for breaking the law that it’s understanding that you can’t keep up.
Hyperbole. Nobody has been “convicted” of criminal wrongdoing. This is a civil case. If you don’t know the difference (and you’ve made this mistake before despite repeated attempts to clarify it to you), get some education. Sanctions have been applied, Microsoft was punished, the EC is monitoring its activities. So, really, what we’re talking about here is going above and beyond the sanctions that the EC already asked for — and, worse, creating a situation where there are even fewer competitors in the market. That may appeal to anti-MS continentals, but it’s actually pretty stupid.
You know, as well as I do, that these anti-Microsoft zealots love using “court of law” and “convicted” as if it were to add some sort of legitimacy to their mouth frothing hatred of Microsoft. I think the greater issue at play isn’t this, but the reactions by some who define their whole life on the hatred of a corporation.
If these Microsoft haters spent as much time on fixing up their favourite product (aka Linux) as they do spitting and cursing over Microsoft, Linux would already be a viable option on the desktop. If they spent as much time on producing some decent desktop applications for their chosen operating system (Linux) as they do with spamming this board with their mouth frothing and venting – no one could care about the lack of Adobe Creative Suite (Photoshop/Indesign/GoLive! etc. etc).
As for ‘choice restricted’ – nothing EVER stopped someone from purchasing a Mac or a PC, then loading it with Linux (or some other alternative OS); until the day I see BIOS being setup to refuse to book alternative operating systems – I’ll refuse to believe that Microsoft is some how ‘teh evil’ as zealots here claim.
YOU make the choice whether or not to use Microsoft products. I *CHOOSE* to run Office 2008 on my Mac, I CHOOSE to purchase a Mac, and before that I *CHOSE* to replace Windows with OpenSolaris – I made these choices myself, without needing the Linux illuminati lobby government and demand that Linux is to be wedged onto every device shipped so that people get a ‘choice’. What about my choice of not having linux within a 100km radius of my machine?
Edited 2008-04-15 05:07 UTC
All that you have both have shown is to be pro-criminals and anti just and equal law enforcement.
Look , I have not killed anyone , learn the meaning of the word you use. Or come and make your proof and case that I am a zealot in a CANADIAN court , because obviously murder is important and I killed someone and I was not punished for that crime.
The only one who are frothing at the mouth are those who like you dispute just and legal process as cowards under anonimousity without offering any real proof or shred of the beginning of a factual argument to point to something wrong and that was not doing properly.
My hole life is not defined by you and your false painting and projection of your reverse hatred.
I am not spitting or cursing and I do spend a lot more time saling , fixing , servicing Microsoft product then I do GNU/Linux.
It already is.
That’s why most of the major OEM have GNU/Linux division shipping desktop solutions.
” If they spent as much time on producing some decent desktop applications for their chosen operating system (Linux)”
The application are so good that they are working on all OS where the developper recompile the code on it for …
Another word you don’t know the signification for , Spamming is not being made once in a comment on a forum.
No one care about those software on GNU/Linux , seriously , it’s the user’s who let themself be tied to one single solutions that you name who have a problem with them not being available. They are not vital to anyone anywhere.
Ecept the contracts and EULA.
It’s not a religion , it’s the law , your belief and believing and defining of where that law as to be crossed to make you call something by a name of your choosing to demonize it is not respected or cared by anyone.
Again I haven’t killed anyone …
That’s not what the courts say.
Actually it’s not your Mac … And you did not replace anything you used something else.
No , you did not.
Again usage of another word without knowing the significance.
The funny thing is Microsoft loobied to make Free Software illegal , the government came to agree whit the Free Software movement after having heard and been shown both argument and exemple extensively.
There is no **demand** , people are free to use it unlike wih other proprietary OS.
You need to go in space at 200km from the nearest satelites , Because GNU/Linux is the #1 OS in everything by usage. It’s in pretty much everything by choice of the owners. Your not the owner of the 100KM radius around you either , you are not the owner of the Mac your just a long time user.
Your hatred of GNU/Linux and your insanity is making you endorse that criminals be allowed to break the laws everyone agreed to follow and call just and appropriate.
The problem with that is instead of investing Billions in making something compatible and the best solution around , they spend money on lawyers in order to break the laws , they pay lawyers to keep not making compatible products and they keep paying fines and auditing and being convicted as criminals because they break the laws.
That 500$-2000$/hour on all those lawyers would be better spent on paying developers to make softwares or fixes the bugs and create the missing or broken drivers in Microsoft softwares.
You are the one who is defined by is hatred.
Edited 2008-04-15 06:32 UTC
so your frothing with hate of all the OS based on the Linux kernel is different in some way from zealot frothing about win32/64 based OS?
I’m as likely too question someone so over the top about windows so realize that i’m simply pointing out your choice to behave in the very way you complaine about.
personally, i don’t like reducing competition either. if this causes improved behavior from MS then the end user and technology may benefit. that is what is important but MS won’t change until corporate law does and governments actually enforce it.
It’s a bit late to comment on this.
But do you realise you were the first in this thread to actually mention the word “Linux”?
Very interesting, psychologically.
Microsoft did. That’s the point of the question being asked before the government body of the EU. If they had been an honorable company and followed the law then they would have been found not guilty of breaking the law and not been sentenced/penalized/fined of anything.
No , *This* is a political question asked before a government body. Try to keep up.
I know the difference , Both are crimes , only the punishment and it’s application/applyer differs.
I am not the one who is a mistake , making a mistake , it is a crime to break the law. If you are found to have broken the law you are a criminal , be it judged by the criminal court or the civil court.
I am not the one who always try to re-invent the world and cherry pick the law I choose to follow.
Some sanctions have been applied , in some cases , Microsoft was aquited and convicted in some case and is still pending in other cases.
No , that’s what your talking about , alone. Your also trying to suggest anyone with any self respect and intelligence is going to take your insanity and fabulatory reinvention of reality on Microsoft at face value.
As already pointed out criminals are not competitors and it’s a good thing to remove them from all process , market , business , they participate in.
You forget that in reality you must follow the law of the governement of the market where you are doing business or not be in that market. Some ignorant have this false notion that only one market exist and that what they do there apply in all markets , not only is that wrong it’s punishable too.
Criminals being removed is only disturbing to criminal themselves or there associates and partners in crime , the rest of world actually applaud there removals.
You might want to adjust your racist geo-targeting , your talking to a Real American from CANADA. Your also projecting your hatred and bias in reverse , I don’t hate Microsoft , but I will admit to hate criminals and there actions.
Edited 2008-04-15 05:23 UTC
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/TLDR
Great contributiuon there ( not serious here ) , I am wondering what’s the new penalty for writting : “JUST SHUT THE f–k UP” that you have to use an external link to cover your track.
TI;DR (Too Incoherent; Did not Read)
Look, there’s very little point in discussing these issues with you, when you continually insist on mischaracterizing the civil action taken by the EC against Microsoft as “criminal”. It’s not clear to me whether you are being deliberately dense — or whether it’s inherent. My guess is the latter.
Here’s a clue: Courts don’t file criminal charges against entire corporations; rather, they file criminal charges against individuals. Criminal defendants are booked, arraigned (where they file a plea), and a trial is subsequently held. If you’ve been paying attention, no individual from Microsoft was named as a criminal defendant. So, while it may appeal to you to throw around terms such as “criminal” when referring to the civil action filed by the EC, you don’t know WTF you’re talking about.
Do yourself a favor and reply to somebody else from now on. I’ve wasted enough time educating you.
Tomcat stop fabulating , your not teaching me or anyone else anything. Your wrong and you can’t face reality.
Your racism and ignorance are part of the problem here. But they don’t excuse or make your nonsense right.
Microsoft is a convicted criminal organisation they where convicted as such long before those additionnal proceedings. You don’t accept that , then don’t participate in a Microsoft discussion as your denying reality.
You break the laws you are a criminal. You can’t do the time or pay the fine don’t do the crime.
As if you would know reality even if it jumped up and slaped your face.
Now ignorance thats something you would know about…
Wrong. Microsoft isnt a organisation… and they havent been found guilty in anything criminal. They have been found guilty violating corporate law not criminal law.
[/q]
Now your just being silly… Criminal law arent the same as civil law or corporate law.
Now your just being silly… Criminal law arent the same as civil law or corporate law.
Would mod you up if I could, but well, these two sentences pretty much say it all: you are a criminal if you have broken any criminal laws, if you have not broken any criminal laws then you just aren’t a “convicted criminal”. Microsoft has broken some civil and corporate laws, atleast according to EU (I don’t take a stance here), and they can be judged by those laws but that still doesn’t make them criminals.
Yes , I do , unlike you that’s why I use my real name and thing I said in the past actually happened , we already established that.
Yes , I admited to being ignorant in some subject , your insanity concluded I was ignorant at everything , but that’s a problem you have , but not about the subject I discuss here , there are an infinite number of subject I have little knowledge about. This is not one of those case.
They are recognised as such … That’s why the US DOJ wanted to break them into smaller organizations.
We already established that they did. Witch is why the question about there accessibility to procurement proceeding is put into a question before a governemental body.
[/q] They have been found guilty violating corporate law not criminal law. [/q]
Both.
hamster , your the one who is always silly , we already established that.
You break the laws and get convicted for it you are a criminal. Be they judged by the Criminal court or the civil court.
Your not a criminal when you are aquited of any wrong doing and are exonerated from all charges.
BTW how many fake name do you have and plan on using this time ?
You claming that your using your real name doesnt really show anything. And who established anything? You surely did’nt.
And yet you wanna tell others that they are wrong on the subjects you are the ignorant about.
Is that so… Could it be that they wanted to split the company up in smaller companies?
You know before you can claim to have establised anything you really should show something to backup your so called established facts. And unlike your usual claim backups it should be relevant to this claim and actually something that one would not need to apply your weird kind of logic on.
No…
You still havent establised anything outside your own little weird world.
How unlike you to tell anything thats actually from the real world.
You know i don’t tend to use fake names or hide behind mutible aliases. Unlike some…
What I know is that you lie all the time and reverse reality all the time and try and fail to discredit me all the time , that you do so using fake name and multiple aliases.
In other words your lying coward attacks are giving me credibility even do your trying to do the opposite.
But your too stupid to figure that one out.
Well i would like you to find just one place where i should have told a lie. And you really should join the reality the rest of the world lives in. Then you would know that it’s you that are trying to reverse reality. I don’t have to twist the world to make it fit my arguments like you do.
And if i were as ignorant as you i wouldn’t go around telling other people that they are stupid. But then again i’m not so i can without a problem tell you that you are one of the most stupid people i ever seen online. And do try to back up your claims if you want any credability which you have none off.
>> hamster <<
>> http://www4.osnews.com/user/uid:9573/comments <<
everything about you is a lie …
>> “And if i were as ignorant as you” <<
Oh no the coward liar who as been insulting me and saying shit about me is doing it again …
We established that I am not the one making or doing claims. You keep forgetting that I backed up my facts , but that you discard the source and information given because they oppose your lies.
I don’t need more **credibility** , I don’t even care about that. It’s a news site with a discussion forum. I come here to keep myself informed and dicuss with the real member who wnat to discuss with me , submit tons of inteligent stuff that get rejected too. Not for your comments and compliments but I don’t mind replying to you. It helps practice my poor mastering but perfectly proper writen english.
http://www4.osnews.com/story/19646/A_Year_Later_Sales_of_Linux_on_D…
submitted by Moulinneuf
Moulinneuf’s Accepted Submissions (32)
VS
hamster’s Accepted Submissions (2)
But I am sure your going to classify this as a claim without facts …
Edited 2008-04-17 19:31 UTC
You sure do make a lot of claims and yet again your a unable to show anything to back them up.
Like the claim that a google search will produce a different result if i make the same search as you do..?
If you don’t think you need more credability your doing the right thing because you surely arent getting any by makeing a lot of claims without any backup. And when asked for it you make up som bogus about you allready backup your claims.
Well i’m sure your mother would be proud to know that you have submitted more news then me to this site. But sadly for you it doesnt really give you any credability.
Projecting yourself again … we established I don’t make claims.
Your words not mine and we both know you don’t do search and that you never do what I do aka talk about reality and the truth.
You sure do like to repeat that …
Now the mother comments. You use to be a lot more subtil in your insults. Now it’s down right pathetic.
The hamster credabilty index. twice as important as hamster himself , zero multiplied by itself equals ?
We did’nt establish anything… You claim you don’t make claims. And yet you don’t really to much else.
Actually i do search quite a lot on google. It helps me a great deal when i’m at work.
It seems it needed to get you to understand it.
I’m not trying to insult you. I don’t waste time trying to insult people that are to stupid to see it.
Well i could use your own weird way of showing stuff…
http://osnews.com/user/Moulinneuf
notice this line: Number of Comments: 1166 (193 voted up, 553 voted down)
Is that a sign of credability? I don’t think so mr notparker of the linux world.
Not the same thing as searching what I discuss and compare it to what I said …
I understand your false point , that don’t mean I agree with it , but you seem stuck on a cricle on the subject.
Your right you are not trying you are insulting me , but ti fail to meet it’s objective.
Your comment history really disagree with you on that , you waste a lot of time insulting me and saying that I don’t see it and that I am too stupid to understand it. You have a bad fixation …
With you and your many aliases voting me down , I wonder why your not having as much fun this days with the new system …
“Is that a sign of credability?”
Actually , yes , because when you look up my comment they happen to be truthfull and right but just annoying to some people. Meanly you and others like you.
” I don’t think so mr notparker of the linux world.”
That’s your qualification , mr notparker was banned because of is attack on the server and is spam and lies among other things is constant insult of the moderators and is attack on the editing of the site. Plus I am not single minded and repeatitive of always the same point.
You actually have more in common with mr notparker then me. Your have one single comment.
So when you claimed i never made a search it’s not the same?
The only thing you seem to understand is your own twisted reality.
Why would i waste my time on insulting soneone as untrustworthy like you? It’s a complete waste of time you insult your self with every comment you make.
Care to back yet another claim up with anything remotely from the reality the real world lives in?
Again with the many aliases. I only have one user on this site. If you believe it or not isnt really my problem. But ofcause it would be easier for you to blame your poor comments on me then to realise that your twisted logics wont work in the real world.
Others like me? Your talking about people who correct your misinformation?
You are single minded and you do use your twisted logic on everything. And should people dare to correct you they are liers who don’t understand how the world works. And how notparker was banned for being insulting and your still here i don’t understand. It seems one of the moderators have a softspot for you.
The only thing i have in commen with notparker is that i don’t belive in the beliefes of the church of gnu like you do.
I don’t make claim and those are your words , I said you discard my search without doing them yourself , even do you claim your search dont match mine , that you do other search is irrelevant.
It’s called reality , you call it twisted reality. But that don’t make it so.
Because I am not untrustworthy and that your time as no real value.
Yet one can clearly see your many reply and insults under my comments … You lost track with reality on this one.
Pres on your coward rodent name or here :
http://www4.osnews.com/user/uid:9573/comments
Yes , again that don’t change that it’s a fact.
No , but tell that to someone who believe in cowards who don’t use there real names …
You have a problem understanding the “I don’t care about it part.” It’s only important for you.
I don’t write misinformation and rarely gets corrected , but the I never happen to get corrected from people like you aka lying coward under aliases who don’t know what they are talking about.
In rodent fantasy world sure , join reality then you will see I have divergent fact on many subjects.
Yes reality and facts do get in the way of rodent bulshit and lies …
No the people who correct me happen to be right , it’s the lying coward without fact and connection to reality , namely like you who are wrong.
Notparker aka your other alias did a lot more then that , your like a criminal denying reality when caught red handed and when he is put in front of is alias with DNA and other crimes deny everything.
No , I actually never broke any rules. I make a comment people don’t like and they start insulting me witch I reply in kind , explain why I said so and defend the true point. Not the same thing as being insulting wthout any cause or explanation.
Well denying your other aliases and actions is something for you to live with , I know there is no church of GNU , I am a non pratiquant catholics , that’s what it say on my taxes return anyway.
I am human , your nothing , Try and use your real name sometime , I don’t know why you feel it’s a disgrace and are ashame of it’s hisotry and of your ancestry …. and that it be tied to your written words here ,probably because you know your lying.
Moulinneuf,
You keep claiming that hamster is posting under a bunch of aliases, and modding you down. I hate to have to break it to you, but I’d recognize a NotParker post, presented under any user name, a mile away and in about a half a second. And I can say, without reservation, that hamster is not NotParker.
On the other hand, as offensive, insulting, and fanatical as you are prone to be (and despite the more than occasional good post) it is not hard to see why you would have not just one detractor, posting under aliases and modding you down, but many legitimate detractors, posting as themselves and modding you down.
Rather than tilt at windmills, why not just phrase things a little more carefully and stop going out of your way to offend people?
And what was this thread originally about, anyway?
Edited 2008-04-19 21:50 UTC
First time trying to get him/her to understand stuff? Don’t you just love when people who think they are all that show that they really arent anything..?
Amen, brutha. 😉
If Microsoft were truly interested in “choice” for their users, and in “competition” in the market place … then why don’t Microsoft provide openDocument format as an option for default load/save in Microsoft Office?
That way, Microsoft would actually offer their users a choice in how they stored their own data, and Microsoft would in fact be competing with other Office Suites in a free market.
Since Microsoft refuse to compete on a level playing field, and continue to insist with their attempts at lock-in to Microsoft products, then barring Microsoft from bidding for open tenders (since Microsoft don’t want competition anyway) seems to be the entirely appropriate thing to do where a government of a free market economy actually wants to make that economy work properly.
One can play a CD on a CD drive made by any manufacturer. This fact reflects a basic principle of competition of a free market. There are a number of different manufacturers offering CDs and CD players to play them on for sale, all competing on price & features around the same common open standard.
Similarly, one should be able to read and manipulate an electronicly-stored Office document using Office software made by any manufacturer. There is utterly no reason why the same free market principles should not apply here as they do clearly already apply to the case with the CD player.
Since Microsoft are clearly refusing to operate in a free market, then they should be excluded from operating in the market at all. It is entirely appropriate.
Lock-in to Microsoft products benefits only Microsoft.
There are all of these industry players lined up on the other side of the field all wanting to copmete for your IT dollar:
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members
Everyone on the planet (except for Microsoft) is far better off if all of these players can compete for your IT business. True interoperability is the only way to achieve a free market situation in IT.
A. ODF provides insufficient fidelity for Office document content. OXML does. Read the “Criticisms” section for ODF on the wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument.
B. OpenXML is an open ISO standard.
Failed argument. OXML is an open ISO standard.
Apples and oranges. Clearly, if you knew the history of CD technology, you’d appreciate that you can’t compare the development of CDs to Office document formats. Sony, Philips, and a number of other technology companies created the Redbook standard jointly in 1978. Microsoft invented the Office document formats on its own — without the involvement of other technology companies — and it’s unclear to me why you believe they should donate the fruit of their own investment to their competitors. Microsoft is a corporation. They’re not a charity. They’re responsible for providing a return for their shareholders. If you want an open document format, you have OpenXML.
Clearly, the customers who continue to buy their products disagree.
Again, if you want an interoperability standard, you’ve got OXML. Rather than fighting over ODF vs OOXML, these “industry players” should beat Microsoft at its own game by embracing OXML.
Not valid point.
No it’s not. It’s an “I SOLD OUT” standard and the process of it’s acceptance is probably being investigated right now. Until they explain all the obvious corruption in some acceptable manner (which is of course impossible) the OOXML is just a fluke in regards to ISO.
Nope, see above.
They just made a way to store data. Anyone did that, for different stuff. The point here is that governments as representatives of the people with responsibility to the future require proper standardised formats (see above again) which cannot be locked out in any way.
M.$ is a monopoly, which means there’s no choice and even if they weren’t customers never make choices, ads and “tricks” do (tricks like paying the reseller to only include your goods, or to put competition in the corner etc.). Don’t be naive.
Embracing OOXML is not only almost impossible to do in practice (because it’s a bloated piece of sh.t), but would only make them viable for future M.$ attacks. I’m not sure “how” they will do it but I’m sure M.$ didn’t push OOXML just for the standard. They wanted the monkeys to use it.
You’re either an extremely naive person with a chronic problem of defending a law-breaking corporation, or.. which I think is obvious a payed astroturfer.
I’m going to ignore your replies so you might just as well ignore mine. This was mostly for other people.
Edited 2008-04-15 09:00 UTC
Oh. If you say so. LOL.
Ah, so you’re another conspiracy theorist. Good luck finding the “grassy knoll shooter”.
The format of the data has inherent value; otherwise, we wouldn’t be talking about this right now.
That’s the point of ISO certification. Game over.
That’s funny. Maybe you can point to a court ruling where Microsoft was found to have a monopoly on Office collaboration products? Didn’t think so: None exists.
Yeah, it’s so “impossible” that somehow Microsoft managed to persist all of their Office document formats in it. Crazy. Absolutely crazy.
The OOXML standard speaks for itself. You may not like it, but the fact of the matter is that it no longer belongs to Microsoft. It belongs to the world.
I’d love to get paid to post on websites. Where do I sign up?
Edited 2008-04-15 18:38 UTC
So you think that it was all fine and legitimate, no corruption whatsoever? Man where did you buy your pink glasses? Oh wait let me guess.. M.$ payed for them!
Game? Well if you think it’s one.. that’s your pejorative. The point isn’t the fact that an organization with a standardization process which can be pretty much directly controlled with money gives a stamp on it.
The point is that it’s completely and utterly unencumbered and there’s no way that the originator could force you to pay, or do something just because you use the given format. Plus the fact that the format is documented in a readable and understandable way and it’s feasible.
Doesn’t mean they’re not monopoly. I don’t know the numbers, neither do you but I’d bet on at least 80% if not more office suite market share is held by M.$.
They didn’t? They don’t use OOXML as standardized, there’s not a single full implementation and probably never will be.
That ISO gave it’s stamp only means that the structure is documented “in some way”. Pretty useless.
You tell me…
P.S: I broke my promise, won’t do it again.
Perhaps you aren’t aware that the ISO committee that ratified the OOXML standard is comprised of members that are located all over the world, with different concerns, different interests, and different perspectives. Maybe YOU want to believe that Microsoft paid all of them off but, frankly, that doesn’t hold a lot of water, given the diverse set of perspectives.
That’s really an amusing viewpoint. Completely bogus, but amusing, nonetheless.
MS doesn’t own OOXML anymore. It belongs to the world.
Your anecdotal assertion doesn’t carry the weight of a court of law. That’s all that matters, as far as antitrust is concerned, and until a court rules that MS has a monopoly on Office collaboration products, it doesn’t.
Care to provide specifics of how they don’t use OOXML as standardized? I’ve heard a lot of anti-MS bigots throwing around that assertion, but I have yet to see proof.
Ah, I see. So, “standards” are only useful and meaningful when you guys are promoting something you like (ie. ODF). What narrow bigotry.
Everyone has one goal.. get stinking rich. That’s what the one system working in the world today has done. Yes I’m talking about capitalism. And actually this diversity only makes it easier to corrupt. You pay some funny sums to small nations for their vote. That’s exactly how they did it.
M.$ doesn’t “own” CLI either but they can persecute you for it via patents. Owning isn’t required for control anymore.
I’m not viewing the world from courtrooms, I hope you’re not either, it’s a sad view. I prefer reality.
True, I don’t have them. It’s just some stuff I read, and choose to believe (bible talk anyone?
) that states this. From what I remember, M.$ Office uses a somewhat different OOXML format than the standardized one. But that’s understandable…
This is why I broke my promise again. Show me once when I said anything about ODF. You are ranting here as if I was some sort of ODF proponent but never did I mention the word. I guess that kind of explains why you try to fight reality so much.. you’re getting paranoid. Everyone is an ODF supporter! Evil evil!!
I don’t give a damn about ODF. I didn’t even know when it got standardized and stand behind my remarks and say that in both cases the ISO stamp is completely useless.
You’re entitled to your opinion, however unsupportable it is. Assuming you can ever provide silly things, like evidence, there isn’t much more to talk about.
You’re making a lot of noise over nothing at all. Microsoft has already indemnified anyone who uses any of the open specifications:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx
Not at all. I was merely pointing out that your assertion has never been a finding of fact produced by any judicial or legislative body. Personally, my belief is that aging 19th century antitrust law doesn’t (and shouldn’t) apply to software. There is no way for anyone to completely control the supply of software in any given market. It’s not a physical commodity. There are infinite ways of implementing it. Ubiquitous distribution channels make it practically impossible to impose trade restraints; therefore, it is impossible for any one company to hold monopoly power. But that’s just my opinion.
Be careful where you put your trust and faith. There are a lot of crackpot articles on the web.
This thread started with a discussion of ODF.
Issue here is not *software* but digital communication *format*. There are not infinite ways to format an Ethernet frame, for a good reason: interoperability. And the success of TCP/IP over other more closed network systems can most probably attributed to its full openess from day one.
These days, more and more states have opened their eyes on their need to warrant a better digital documentation interoperability between every public areas in the future. I guess what they had today don’t make them happy enough regarding this issue. Could you help us remember what they have today, BTW?
Here we come.
If MS Office closed format is such a dream, why so many see a problem in the first place then???
Being in denial about a problem won’t make go away.
Now regarding EU stance on its market regulation, once again, it’s EU sovereignty. MS is free to ignore its market. If they don’t, they must play by *EU* rules, not their, not yours, not american market rules, EU rules. Fair enough, isn’t it?
Maybe MS main issue regarding EU market is that they didn’t get used to respect that much market laws previously and managed to avoid being catched when they didn’t.
Things change. Even for Microsoft.
This is not even contested … even ECMA state that there is no reference implementation of OXML (ECMA 376).
http://www.fanaticattack.com/2008/a-deluge-of-facts-kos-ooxml-offic…
Further:
Edited 2008-04-17 01:29 UTC
More on this topic here: “The ISO delta”.
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/04/15/OOXML
…
So there you have it. The ISO OXML standard is not what Office 2007 produces or accepts … but at least we know the difference … but it doesn’t matter anyhow because the documents that Office 2007 produces will be what it produces …
Edited 2008-04-17 07:04 UTC
Try providing an objective, unbiased source that isn’t yet another ODF fanboy blog, and we’ll talk. Because there’s nothing useful in that lame document. It was a complete waste of time.
These are just Microsoft say-so. ODF can support any fidelity level required. If there is anything still obscured in Microsoft legacy formats that ODF does not support … that is only because Microsoft obscured it … no other reason. Microsoft had five (5) years or more to put anything they cared to specify into the ODF format (and they still have that opportunity even now) … but Microsoft chose not to participate. If there are any shortcomings of the current ODF specification (and that is very doubtful because we have only Microsoft’s say-so on this) … then Microsoft have only their own silence to blame for that.
ISO standard? … yes Microsoft has paid for that, probably destroying ISO in the process. Open standard? No. Read Microsoft’s OSP (Open Specification Promise) … there are exclusions. Ergo … not open. QED.
Not a bit of it. Read the OSP … there are exclusions, therefore the spec is not open. OXML is not the MS Office 2007 file format. There are no implementations of OXML in existence. It is “fantasyware”.
The failed argument is yours.
BS.
Microsoft’s file format is a deliberately obscured monstrosity made as torturous as it is for the sole purpose of making it as hard as possible for WordPerfect to open Word files. (The reverse is just as true, sop don’t get your knickers in a twist). Even so … there is no reason (other than to pander to Microsoft) why we should have to put up with that cruft any longer.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080414181840439
Mind you … that is ODF 1.0. ODF 1.2 is actually far more finished, and it beats the socks of Microsoft’s should-have-been-condemned-by-now cruft.
Clearly, the customers who continue to buy their products disagree.
— No, they don’t agree or disagree … they are very often merely unaware that they have any actual alternative.
Again, if you want an interoperability standard, you’ve got OXML. Rather than fighting over ODF vs OOXML, these “industry players” should beat Microsoft at its own game by embracing OXML. [/q]
— No. OXML is not Open … there are bits that Microsoft has reserved as “only for Microsoft” … and there is no implementation of OXML anyway. MS Office 2007???, I hear you ask … well, it doesn’t produce OXML (or ODF for that matter). Sorry about that. There is no actual OXML implementation in existence, so no-one competes with anyone via OXML.
Finally … I note that you utterly fail to even come close to answering the question … “If Microsoft really believes in ‘choice’ for its customers and ‘competition’ in the market … then precisely why doesn’t Microsoft give its customers a real choice of OpenDocument, and why doesn’t it compete in an open market?
Edited 2008-04-15 11:54 UTC
No, this is reality.
Emphasis on can. Not does. You do know the difference, right?
Ah, so it’s Microsoft’s fault that ODF doesn’t support full-fidelity with Office content? Amusing viewpoint.
We don’t just have Microsoft’s say-so. Here’s a test. Create a sufficiently complex document in Office (ie. tables, charts, graphs, bullets, etc). Try opening it in OpenOffice (good luck with that, btw). Then, try saving it in ODF, and then loading it back in. Much of the content will be mangled. Why? Because ODF lacks the ability to represent all the content that is reflected in the criticisms on the Wiki. It isn’t opinion. It’s reality.
No, it is jsut Microsoft’s say so.
Yes, does. Everything that an Office document needs to have stored can be (and is) stored in an OpenDocument format file.
You can of course come up with something that can’t … right?
No?
I thought not.
Amusing? Not at all.
What is amusing is your blind belief that “Office file” and “Office document” is defined by Microsoft’s implementation of same. It isn’t.
You still don’t get it, obviously.
Here is another test:
“Create a sufficiently complex document in OpenOffice (ie. tables, charts, graphs, bullets, etc). Try opening it in MS Office (good luck with that, btw). Then, try saving it in OOXML, and then loading it back in. Much of the content will be mangled.”
No. Wrong. Just plain wrong.
The lack of round-trip fidelity is not caused by any lack of OpenDocument’s ability to store information. This is easily demonstrated by doing the round trip in reverse … the other way around if you will … and starting with creating the document in OpenOffice.
The lack of round-trip fidelity, and loss of information during document conversions, is caused purely by Microsoft’s deliberately obscuring the way that information is stored in their file formats. Nothing else.
Name one thing that you can put in a document that isn’t supported by OpenDocument.
I’m not talking about fidelity of conversions between formats … I’m talking only about the capability of the format to store the information that a document might contain.
PS: I looked at the criticisms of ODF in wikipedia. Those criticisms have indeed been attempted to be raised. There is no valid criticism of ODF 1.2 amongst them. ODF 1.2 is the version that OpenOffice and KOffice and other ODF-compliant applications actually now use.
Edited 2008-04-15 23:59 UTC
The same as in “tomcat can be objective eventually about MS business practices” ?
Good luck with *that*…
Except for LaTeX and maybe FrameMaker, I’ve yet to see a good & stable complex documents software.
But that’s not the point.
EU rules *its* market law. MS should get over it.
*You* should get over it.
Or just move away from EU market. Period.
Both of you.
For some reason, millions of people who use Office everyday to create complex documents disagree with you. They must all be wrong, eh?
I’m not questioning the EU’s ability to administer its own arbitrary rules — and, make no mistake here, its rules are purely arbitrary and nationalistic. Quite frankly, I would love it if those smarmy bureaucrats would ban Microsoft products from Europe. I’d love it! Because, then, we’d get to see the EU’s member economies turn into flaming piles of shiznit. The turmoil would be a wonderful thing to see. Go, EU! Shoot yourselves in the feet!
Pffft. Utter rubbish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordprocessor#History
There is a great deal of history here well before Microsoft (and especially before Microsoft Office) even existed.
The Wang Office Information System (OIS) circa 1976 was probably the progenitor of what could be thought of as a modern Word Proccessor, and hence its document storage format was the original “invention” here.
Of the two current “ISO standard” Office document storage formats, Microsoft played absolutely no part in the development of OpenDocument (ODF) format, and hence own no IP in it … and no-one implements OXML at all, not even any Microssoft product.
Edited 2008-04-15 13:49 UTC
Trying reading for comprehension next time. I wasn’t claiming that Microsoft invented word processing, you dolt. Here’s what I wrote: “Microsoft invented the Office document formats on its own.” Get it? The file formats. That’s what we’re talking about here. Sheesh.
Clue phone: You know you’re twisted when your illogic requires you to believe that the ISO organization — which is comprised of people from many different countries and different interests around the world — has been corrupted by Microsoft. It’s sad. And kind of pathetic, in a way, since you guys were so excited when ODF was approved. I guess it must be convenient to be able to pick and choose your own reality.
It sounds like you have a gripe with the ISO committee that approved the OOXML standard. Maybe you should take it up with them, instead.
You don’t have to. Just use OOXML. Game over.
Do you hear yourself: “ODF 1.2 is actually far more finished”. Microsoft didn’t have the luxury of waiting for the ODF cabal to get its sh*t together to produce a standard that actually covers all of the Office document persistence issues. The folks that worked on ODF were more interested in hobbling Microsoft at every turn than creating a meaningful standard. And you wonder why Microsoft didn’t bend over and just take it up the rear?
Most of Microsoft’s customers are enterprises. Are you seriously trying to tell me that enterprise customers are unaware of the existence of Corel, WordPerfect, StarOffice, OpenOffice? I can’t believe you would even type that with a straight face. No wrong. Does not compute. More likely, the corporates realize that these products (while good and useful and laudable, on their own merits) don’t cover all of their needs.
Edited 2008-04-15 18:55 UTC
I found a post at arstechnica by “gxsmiley” on this issue that I’d like to quote here because it’s both amusing and true.
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/5500…
Originally posted by Runningflame590:
Please give me some specific examples of how the EU has just been a bully and how they are trying to “line their pockets” as you put it. Because I for one think that even if it is a fairly small step the publication and availability of their complete specifications (even at a price) is a positive step.
gxsmiley’s reply:
EU: Complete specs.
MS: How about these?
EU: Sun, IBM, and that Samba guy say not good enough.
MS: OK, how about these?
EU: Your competitors still say no.
MS: How about the source code?
EU: Nope, and this is taking too long, so that’ll be a billion.
EU: Reasonable price.
MS: How about 8%?
EU: Nope, too much.
MS: How about 5.95%?
EU: Still too much.
MS: How about 0.4%?
EU: OK, but you took too long, so that’ll be another billion. BTW, we’re gonna continue “investigating” you until your share drops to 50%.
Schoolyard bully? Please. Bullies dream of being the EU. That’s some lunch money.
Anything that puts Microsoft in a “tarpit” for a while is fine with me…. 🙂
They try to push DRM, overcharge hugely for their software (and then flog it off for about $3 or so in high-piracy markets (e.g. Vietnam) ).
It is *their* OS which is responsible for hosting,running and allowing to propagate almost every virus and worm around on the ‘net.
Go the E.U.!!!