Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 7th Mar 2008 21:38 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Novell and Ximian Open-source pioneer and Novell Vice President Miguel de Icaza Thursday for the first time publicly slammed his company's cross-patent licensing agreement with Microsoft as he defended himself against lack of patent protection for third parties that distribute his company's Moonlight project, which ports Microsoft's Silverlight technology to Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 303825
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Interesting
by kragil on Fri 7th Mar 2008 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
Member since:

IMHO you have to be pro-MS to say OOXML is a superb standard ( Cause the 6000 page blob riden monster obviously isnt! )

Reply Parent Score: 25

v RE[3]: Interesting
by jpobst on Fri 7th Mar 2008 23:20 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
RE[3]: Interesting
by sbergman27 on Fri 7th Mar 2008 23:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
sbergman27 Member since:

IMHO you have to be pro-MS to say OOXML is a superb standard

Miguel seems to have a peculiar bug in his firmware which might be expressed as:

while True:
>>if provider == microsoft:
>>>>technology.category = "cool"
>>>>claim(NO_LEGAL_PROBLEMS, technology)
>>>>ignore(signals, ALL)

('twould be nice if we had [code][/code] tags.)

Edited 2008-03-08 00:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[4]: Interesting
by sakeniwefu on Sat 8th Mar 2008 14:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
sakeniwefu Member since:

He is free to like Microsoft technologies and implement them. Novell is free to throw money at the projects. The developers are free to work on them. And you, the distros, and the other projects are free not to include their code in your Linuxes fearing Microsoft patent claims.
In the end it is beliefs vs practical needs. RMS and Theo the Raadt don't like the binary blobs you use for practical reasons(eg. you want 3d games). You don't like Microsoft technology, but some people will want to write word documents in Linux and compile .NET apps.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Interesting
by google_ninja on Sat 8th Mar 2008 04:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
google_ninja Member since:

if you read his full reasoning on it here, you will see that his opinion on OOXML is well reasoned, and coming from his position as the creator of the most used spreadsheet in the free software world, not as the VP of a company which has partnered with MS.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Interesting
by segedunum on Sat 8th Mar 2008 19:27 in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
segedunum Member since:

if you read his full reasoning on it here, you will see that his opinion on OOXML is well reasoned

Is it?

1. He tries to defend the 6000 pages of OOXML by trying to somehow argue that this gives us more detail than we've ever had before from Microsoft. Alas, those 6000 pages are largely a dump of the huge number of quirks of Microsoft Office, and gives little away in terms of how to actually implement them.

2. He tries to argue that with the information available on formulas in ODF that formulas simply cannot be implemented. However, given that Lotus, Open Office, KOffice, Google and Corel are all implementing ODF formulas, and there is feedback into improving and changing ODF in successive versions, his evidence for this is thin on the ground. I don't see anyone that has managed to implement the functions and formulas system as specified in OOXML, apart from that which has already been reverse engineered from Excel, which ironically makes the job easier. That doesn't make the spec any better, however.

3. He tries to criticise Groklaw for keeping track of problems and inconsistencies with OOXML. He tries to point out that OOXML references seven ISO standards where ODF only references three. While I can't verify that off-hand, that isn't the point. The fact is that OOXML comes up with, and references a lot of Windows-only implemented technology at the moment, where existing ISO or other standards could have been logically used to better benefit. He completely ignores the W3C standards that ODF uses as well.

4. He tries to claim that the information for Windows Metafiles is publicly available. WMF is a one-to-one mapping of Windows API calls. He would vote to add such information to the specification, but of course, Microsoft hasn't and won't do this. The complete lack of any amendments to OOXML after comments have been submitted shows this up. ODF, on the other hand, has successive versions.

5. He tries to give a weak justification as to why SVG shouldn't be used. Basically, he argues that it's too much work and would pull in too many other W3C specs. Incredible. However, other developers are using SVG now, or are at least using a subset of it, and if Microsoft actually had a web engine that adhered to many W3C standards properly then they wouldn't have such a problem.

6. He tries to argue that it is within reach to bring XAML and WPF to non-Windows platforms, but this just shows up where Miguel conceptually just doesn't get it. You can get 20%, 40%, 60% or even 80% of what Microsoft has implemented, but you can never have a situation where you have a 100% drop-in replacement. As Microsoft will also be first with any new implementation, you can never, ever be on a par with what they're doing. That's not what standards are about.

7. Like people like Rick Jelliffe, he brings up the response to OOXML's 6000 pages that seems to be doing the rounds - OOXML uses 1.5 line spacing versus ODF's single spacing! If this isn't straw grasping, I don't know what is.

and coming from his position as the creator of the most used spreadsheet in the free software world

I wasn't aware that he wrote Open Office Calc.

not as the VP of a company which has partnered with MS.

There's no evidence for that I'm afraid.

Reply Parent Score: 16

RE[3]: Interesting
by TLZ_ on Sat 8th Mar 2008 12:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
TLZ_ Member since:

Yeah and have to be pro[something] to think [insert opinion].

I know this is always true. I can see their thoughts!

Reply Parent Score: 1