Eric S. Raymond writes on his blog: "There's been a lot of debate in the community about how OSI should properly handle Microsoft's planned submission of some of its licenses for OSD certification. That debate has been been going on within OSI, too. OSI's official position, from the beginning, which I helped formulate and have expressed to any number of reporters and analysts, is that OSI will treat any licenses submitted to Microsoft strictly on their merits, without fear or favor. That remains OSI's position. But I find that my resolve is being sorely tested."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:2005-07-02
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
Well, Ms. Cieslinski, the difference is that I'm not employed by a PR company that counts MS as one of its clients.
"""
I really, really wish that Molly would answer one way or the other on this. Either she is Molly Cieslinski, or she is not. I've asked directly. No response.
Either her job, and the reason she receives paychecks, is to promote Microsoft... or it is not.
Now I'm asking point blank. Is it? Or isn't it.
If I am in error, I apologize in advance.
I'm serious. Are you. Or are you not?
Edited 2007-09-02 21:34
Member since:2006-07-04
"I really, really wish that Molly would answer one way or the other on this. Either she is Molly Cieslinski, or she is not. I've asked directly. No response.
Either her job, and the reason she receives paychecks, is to promote Microsoft... or it is not.
Now I'm asking point blank. Is it? Or isn't it.
If I am in error, I apologize in advance.
I'm serious. Are you. Or are you not? "
----------------------
I'm sorry, sbergman27, I missed all of this "Molly Cielinski" stuff until today. I assume it was posted in threads that I had "quit", or maybe I just missed it.
See my denial here (both beginning and end of the post):
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18555&comment_id=268004
But I might owe archiesteel an apology, as I've been having a bit of fun on this matter at his expense, as I assumed it was he who started this thing (it would fit with his pattern, as he has a long history of "shill" accusations, so it wouldn't surprise me if he went so far as to try to prove such a thing). So can you tell me who begat the "Molly Cieslinski" accusations? Was it he, or was it you, or someone else? (Please say it was archiesteel! 
)
I'm sorry if I'm being too jocular and/or glib. I just find the whole thing tremendously funny! 
But that's it! I don't want to derail the thread any further. Good thing we don't still have karma points, all of these off-topic posts would hurt me big-time!
Edited 2007-09-02 22:37
Member since:2006-07-04
"Well, Ms. Cieslinski, the difference is that I'm not employed by a PR company that counts MS as one of its clients.
Huh? Who's Ms. Cieslinksi?
I don't know who Cieslinski is, but if you think it's me, you're barking up the wrong tree. LOL Anyway, I'm not employed by a PR company, I don't know why you continue to imply such, other than that it's a cheap way to dismiss my arguments, or you're hopelessly confused that I'm this "Cieleniski" character. I'm literally laughing out loud right now. LOL
Wait, it just occurred to me. Have I gotten under your skin so much, that you decided to try to do a background check on me? That's hilarious!! And you concluded that I'm "Cielsinski"? You'll never get work as a detective.
I'll ignore your personal attack. It seems to be a common trait amongst your ilk, but "what can you do".
"The Rodriguez piece is only one particular criticism of OOXML - there are others. "
Hey, you cited Rodriguez piece, so you can either stand by it or not. But if you do decide to stand by it, make sure that you first read Miguel's slashdot post that completely destroys it.
MS could have supported ODF, ...
But WHY? I posted about this in the iWork Pages thread too, where your ilk are up in arms that Apple's not supporting ODF. ODF is based on OO.o XML 1.0. It is built for OO.o. For an app to adopt ODF as its native format is for that app to adopt as its native format, a format of an office suite with < 5% share. There is no logical reason to do that.
Microsoft didn't participate in development of ODF because they never intended to use it. It doesn't meet their needs, and forcing their needs into OO.o's format makes less sense than simply opening up their own format. Same goes for Pages.
Also, check out this blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/07/09/open-xml-timel...
It's main point is that it shows that OOXML was under development concurrently with ODF, but it includes a reference to a blog by Gary Edwards, one of the ODF 1.0 leads (one of the two members of the OASIS committee that attended 75% of the meetings), where Edwards himself admits that Sun blocked attempts to include features in ODF that would make it more compatible with MS Office.
BTW, Sun actively blocked attempts to include features in ODF to make it more compatible with MS Office.
"Everyone on that first TC group supported full interoperability with Microsoft applications and documents, except for one company - Sun.
There are three areas of "interoperability" that Sun opposed then, and continues to oppose today. The only difference being that after their 2004 deal with Microsoft, Sun has been uncompromisingly determined to block the interoperability the marketplace demands.
…
If Micrsoft were to join the OASIS ODF TC today, seeking to adapt ODF to meet the legacy document-MSOffice features-line of business integration needs of their monopoly base, the TC would have to deal with the exact same issues as they have summarily rejected with current compatibility-interoeprability-convergence disussions!
There is no possible way anyone can claim that today's OASIS ODF TC would welcome Microsoft and make accomodating changes to the specification! No way! And the proof of this hostility can be seen in the actual disussions and rejections of Micrsoft specific interoperability proposals. "
Edit: OK, I did a Google for "Molly Cieslinksi", and found two references:
http://netzoomuniversal.com/about/index.php?mid=433
http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/E/B/6EB7AE64-FA6D-4CCA-8EC...
I didn't read the second link (it's a Word document that appears to talk about Visio's file format), but I skimmed the first, and Molly Cielinski does seem to be employed by a PR firm that does work for Microsoft, and here email is, get this, "mollyc@wagged.com".
Molly Cieslinski, Waggener Edstrom, (503) 443-7000, mollyc@wagged.com
LOL That's just too funny. I can see where people might jump to conclusions, but that ain't me! But what's more funny is that people tried to find out who I am (I guess for the purpose of discreditting my arguments, but maybe there's some other reason). Actually, the funniest thing about this is that someone would think that a real PR person would spend time posting here at all. I enjoy this site for entertainment value (and even the occassional technical insight), but were I a PR person, I'd think this site would not be worth spending any of my "PR" time on. I guess I should feel flattered that some have mistaken me for a real life PR person.
Edited 2007-09-02 21:53
Member since:2005-07-02
All right, I'll accept your statement that you are not the MollyC that works for a PR firm having Microsoft as one of its client. That doesn't mean I necessarily believe you, but at least we have you on record as denying it.
As for the rest of your argument, it's more of the same. MS, with all its expertise, couldn't possibly add the missing features to ODF (a file format which it had tacitly approved as part of OASIS), so it just decided to develop an *entirely new* file format instead. Yes, that makes *lots* of sense.
Hogwash. Sun opposed attempts to make ODF more compatible with *legacy* Office document. From the link you gave:
That is actually a very sensible decision by Sun: you don't want to introduce a new file format that includes all types of legacy exceptions - that is what MS tried to do with OOXML, and the reason why the document is such a labyrinthine mess of 6000 pages.
What you do is that you make import filters for applications so they can convert legacy formats into new, streamlined and portable formats.
Brian Jones is being incredibly biased towards MS in his interpretation (probably following some strategic memo about this issue), and you are being disningenuous for misrepresenting not supporting legacy Office formats as "blocking MS Office", when in reality this would not have prevented MS from offering ODF support in Office at all (at most, it makes import filters for legacy documents a bit more complicated).
You may claim not to be a PR hack, but you certainly distort the truth like one.
Member since:2005-07-06
ODF is based on OO.o XML 1.0. It is built for OO.o.
NO IT ISN'T!
How many more times are we going to get this utter crap repeated without any backup whatsoever? KOffice implements ODF. Lotus Workspace implements ODF. Corel implements ODF. Open Office and Star Office implement ODF. GoogleDocs implements it. Stop trying to paint Open Office as IBM's evil proprietary application or something, with ODF as it's evil proprietary format (which is ironic, since that's what Microsoft Office and OOXML actually are for Microsoft ;-)).
Despite what Microsoft may have told you, it doesn't gain any more truth the more times you repeat it.
Microsoft didn't participate in development of ODF because they never intended to use it. It doesn't meet their needs, and forcing their needs into OO.o's format...
No one else has any trouble with it, and it is not Open Office's format. I'm wondering when you and Microsoft are going to stop with this stupidity where you try and claim that Open Office is a closed source application where ODF is it's own proprietary format. It's absolutely ludicrous.
BTW, Sun actively blocked attempts to include features in ODF to make it more compatible with MS Office.
NO THEY DIDN'T. Making ODF more compatible with OOXML would have meant either crippling ODF or adding more to OOXML - which is Microsoft's responsibility. I'd already explained this:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18483&comment_id=264743
Which you didn't reply to. There. I even went and damn well found it for you. Repeating the same stuff over and over isn't going to work.
LOL That's just too funny. I can see where people might jump to conclusions, but that ain't me!
I don't really care who you are. Your credibility is still less than zero. Repeating the same stuff over, and over, and over is a well worked tactic that people like Rick Jelliffe and others have used consistently and it simply doesn't work.
There seems to be a really bizarre belief that repeating the same things over and over and not reading or responding to people who have pointed out why it is crap is going to somehow make it all magically come true, and make all the 'zealots' go away and make everyone believe it. Alas, it only makes you look like idiots.
Edited 2007-09-03 00:08
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Ok, then do it. Compete on features.
When it comes to file formats compete is the wrong word because the whole point of a standard format (and any kind of standard in any industry) is that applications can compete on features and price. When it comes to that, the free one will nearly always win though, and Microsoft probably knows that.
Microsoft really wants to perpetuate the myth (and it has been really trying) that competition means competition between formats rather than applications, and that mandating one format means a lack of competition. It is the exact opposite however, because we can't get any less competition between office suites and applications than we have now.
Edited 2007-09-03 13:41
Member since:2005-07-02
Member since:
2005-07-02
Well, Ms. Cieslinski, the difference is that I'm not employed by a PR company that counts MS as one of its clients.
As far as "competing on features" goes, ODF is extensible, and new features can be added. There's *no* reason to believe that it can't compete. So there goes 90% of your argument.
The Rodriguez piece is only one particular criticism of OOXML - there are others. But the crux of the matter is in fact something that you admit yourself: that governments want open standards for their archives. That is a legitimate issue, and *nothing* is preventing MS from making Office ODF-compatible. Therefore, it is a bold-faced lie (the staple of PR professionnals, might I add) that IBM wants government to "ban MS Office". Rather, it is MS itself that is voluntarily excluding itself through its purely strategic refusal to support ODF and its anti-competitive push for OOXML, perverting the ISO certification standard in the process (something which you tacitly admit when you say that MS should abandon its fast-track efforts).
The issue is really very simple. MS could have supported ODF, but it chose not to simply because it wants to keep the advantage as far as file formats go. After all, and even Bill Gates admitted this in past memos, file formats are the angular stone to Microsoft's near-monopoly.