다음을 통해 공유

IBM’s Rob Weir makes it clear… he wants war

  • 아티클

Last spring, we saw some positive developments in the file format world. We started to reach a critical mass of tools that support open formats. There were millions of downloads of the compatibility pack which allowed existing Microsoft Office customer to get full support for Open XML for free. There was a lot of progress in the ODF <-> Open XML translator project which meant that MS Office users could open and save ODF files as well. On the other side you had builds of Open Office that allowed their customers to open and save in the Open XML format. And there was the start of a project at DIN (the German national standards body) where they were going to create a full report about translation between ODF and Open XML.

There were all big positive steps for the industry, and it caused me to make a claim that if there had been any type of "file format war", it was certainly over (and both sides had won): https://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/03/02/openoffice-support-for-the-openxml-formats.aspx

Well, apparently IBM didn't like that message. Even today they still believe they are in a war. A couple days ago I had a blog post where I voiced my surprise that IBM's Rob Weir (head of the ODF technical committee), was attacking the ISO and Ecma for their discussions about setting up a plan for maintenance of the Open XML format after it's adopted (assuming the National Bodies are happy with the proposed resolutions this spring). It was odd to me, because ODF is now a year removed from their ISO standardization, and they currently allow no involvement at all from ISO in the development of ODF. There are folks in ISO issuing reported errors in the ODF spec, and it's not even clear how these will be dealt with: https://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0942.htm

Lower in the comment section Rob and I had a discussion and I just asked Rob straight up why he wanted to continue this smear campaign:

"There is so much positive news right now and you're trying to confuse people and not allow them to focus on those positives. Look at where we are now compared to where we were just 3 years ago. There are multiple open formats for people to choose from, and there are even open source translator projects that go between them all (ODF, Open XML, UOF, DAISY, HTML, etc.). I said back in the spring that the war was over, and I really had thought it was true. You guys just won't let it stop though. If ODF is a better format, let it win for that reason. Don't hold onto the ISO thing with such a jealous grasp that you block any other true progress from happening. Maybe if you spent as much time improving ODF and OpenFormula as you do trying to bring down Open XML you guys would actually have a final draft ready.

There are clearly a large number of people out there who want to see Open XML ratified by ISO, why do you want to stop that? Now you're taking the approach you used of Ecma bashing to actually bashing the ISO and trying to bring everyone into OASIS (gee, that's convenient).

We really aren't going to make any progress with this mudslinging though. I'd much rather we talk about the actual technical issues and the advantages/disadvantages of the different approaches we've taken."

And to it Rob Weir replied:

"Its called a "standards war". Look it up. Whining about it won't make it go away."

It's really a shame that it's come to this. This approach is just harmful, to everyone. Again, I'd like to ask that this view of "war" stop, and instead focus on technology. We're engineers, we're supposed to build things, not tear them down (or maybe I'm just being super naïve).

Look at the propaganda he's spouting on his own blog:

"But that scary part is that with even 1/3 of P-members, a number they clearly outright own, they can block anyone else's standard. It probably hasn't sunk into your realization yet,but Microsoft can essentially already erected toll bridge in ISO and demand payment or other concessions from anyone who wants to work with International Standards. If ISO rules get in the way, Microsoft can change them. If ISO administrators get in the way -- no worry. With this number of NB's Microsoft can control directives, staffing, paychecks, etc.

They've raised an army. You don't think they will use it?"

That's just crazy. Rob, which format floated through ISO with zero resistance? Yours!

Rob, which company has over 300,000 employees around the globe ready to be mobilized at a moment's notice to block anything they don't agree with? Yours!

Microsoft owns ISO and should be feared? If that's the case someone should let us TC45 members know, because we've been busting our humps the past few months trying to come up with good resolutions to the National Body comments that came pouring in back in September. I can't believe you feel comfortable throwing around crazy statements like this Rob… sounds like the type of propaganda you hear from someone looking to wage war. It needs to stop.

-Brian

Comments

  • Anonymous
    December 08, 2007
    Brian, the trouble is, Microsoft has a long history of monopoly and anti trust convictions in the US, Europe, and Asis and your CEO keeps spouting idiotic threats about Linux twice annually.  So every time people within the organisation who may have genuine desires for openness exist, and I believe they do, 70,000 NO OOXML community supporters simply point up your organisation's ongoing track record. Chris

  • Anonymous
    December 08, 2007
    > Microsoft has a long history of monopoly and anti trust convictions in the US... As does IBM.

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    Hmmm, this debate gets hotter and quite so.  William Isaacs has an interesting approach to dialogue that recognises in order for progression to be made between parties often a 3rd stage of 'conflict' needs to be navigated before arriving at a 4th stage of 'relfection'. It is neither surprising nor comforting that this is regarded as 'war' so I did not find the title particularly sensational and quite apropos - for most CEOs that is exactly what business is - war.  Many business leaders have taken an interest in military strategy and much of modern asian business strategy is modeled on the teachings of Sun Tzu. So, a format standard war is obvious where there is territory up for grabs.  What is that territory, who is it's rightful owner and who has the right to dictate in those grounds. Regardless of which posture one takes I still find Microsoft lacking and while a blog title that claims the other party wants a war I think Microsoft has taken that view all along. When was the last time IBM paid some one to set up false accusations, indirectly or otherwise - or was that all just some silly business where an over-zealous Boston Globe reporter lost control? Once upon a time technology was a luxury, now it's a commodity - perhaps IT's business model will evolve the way the agricultural, media and energy industries have.  Sometimes a format is just VHS/BETAMAX, other times it's something that affects everyone of us whether we participate or not. The problem this debate has is that it is stuck with technology evangelists arguing for openness on behalf of the wider community, mostly ignorant to the impact these standards have and businessmen telling the public to put their trust in them looking after us.  The evangelists know the wider cost implications  - most notably in archiving, retrieval and integration costs implicity whereas the public are happy to ignore this for a simple life. The problem however, is that thanks to stuff like these blogs more and more of the public are becoming bemused and confused as to why these businesses don't collaborate on obvious things like formats because of the proof of the exponential benefits openness brings to innovation yet we have the juxture position of antiquated thinking around property rights. This debate is so much more than formats, it delves into the right to benefit from one's innovations and what belongs to the 'commons'. What we have here is the 'commons' trying to ensure they have ubiquitous access while business tries to ensure they control the access. What do you think is best, use the Berners-Lee approach or allow an industry behemoth to guide us, their way, not our way. Amazing times, I just wish more people were following this 'battle'.

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    And here it goes again. Brian Jones wrote: "It was odd to me, because ODF is now a year removed from their ISO standardization, and they currently allow no involvement at all from ISO in the development of ODF." After promising that the standard would be developed through ISO! The nerve! Right? I mean, right? Not right? They never said that? They are consistent and open in their actions? Unlike Microsoft, who promised e.g. here[0] and here[1] that ISO would have total control over OOXML, but now submitted a proposal where ISO wouldn't? Notice the second link where Microsoft specifically stated: "Would the maintenance of the standard be carried out by Ecma (assuming OpenXML became an ISO/IEC standard) or would it be carried out by JTC1? No question, JTC1. But would the detail be delegated to Ecma? No, it would all be beyond MS’ control in JTC1." Brian, you keep ignoring this. You keep misrepresenting IBM's position on this. Why are you doing this? Don't you see that you are discrediting your whole position with behaviour like this? How are people supposed to take you seriously when you pull stuff like that? [0] http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/01/19/passing-the-openxml-standard-over-to-iso.aspx [1] http://doyoulovems.com/archives/33

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    brian said: >Microsoft owns ISO and should be feared? having seen: . Microsoft employees becoming NB chairs . Microsoft certified partners stuffing NBs . influenced NBs suddenly ( and a couple of days before ballot closing ) upgrading to P-Members and voting "inconditional yes" to +6000 pages of a specification with lot of errors and omissions. . some INCITS members changing 180 degrees its vote, after misterious lobbying at White house level . etc, etc i will say: Yes, Microsoft owns ISO and must be feared. People, keep the quality in standardization. We ( final users ) don't want "standardization by corporations" ( read the SC34 convenor report: http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0940.htm ) We are the ones who "suffer" the result of your games ( the ISO stamp game, funny for you but nor for us ). Grow up people, grow up Microsoft, and Brian, wake up!  --carlos

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    Brian: I attended the NCC meeting in London that Rob refers to in his blog and remember hearing Stephen and Stijn neutralise dissent on maintenance by asserting OOXML would be maintained at ISO (as John Scholes reported at the time). I thought that was a great thing and I'm very disappointed Microsoft is reneging on the commitment. While it's a fun technique to criticise Rob's rhetorical flourishes and focus on a sub-issue in the posting, the substantive point he makes remains unanswered. @mgm: Actually, I don't believe IBM has ever been convicted as a monopolist - I think they settled and agreed to a "consent decree" after years of stalemate. There could be some other incident I'm overlooking, though.

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    Not to nitpick, but people seem to like throwing around the term "convicted". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can only ever be "convicted" in a criminal case. I don't believe MS' case was ever considered a criminal case. Any lawyers in the house feel free to correct me.

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    knowing IBM reasonably well, the idea of them being able to mobilize their 300,000 plus workforce into anything concerted is laughable. By my calculations IBM's entire development project for Symphony and the productivity editors paid for itself in Microsoft license savings within IBM. The project was a success before it was released. IBM have released Symphony for free, they are not charging extra for the productivity editors in Notes. IBM are not going to make money from ODF, they have little to win. Microsoft on the other hand has lots to lose because their monopoly position has allowed them to overcharge the world for years for the Office suite. I don't really know why it has turned into a Microsoft vs IBM mudfight to be honest. It is in everyone's interest that the monopoly on Office suites is broken and a free market is restored. At this point Microsoft would be best off looking for a graceful exit strategy from the ISO mess, deprecate OOXML and get on with the job of implementing ODF as a native format.

  • Anonymous
    December 09, 2007
    <blcokquote>IBM are not going to make money from ODF, they have little to win.</blockquote> @Alan Your must have missed that IBM have launched Notes 8 in 2007 which uses ODF as it main Office document format. If ODF does not gain ground fast Notes 8 might become a big turd. Many organisations have switched to the MS Office environment in the past five years and if an upgrade to a new version of Notes also means that the format used is not very popular very fast IBM Notes customers wil not upgrade or consider upgrading to and MS Office environment in stead. On the other hand if ODF is an ISO standard and OOXML isn't it could actually see Notes make up ground on MS Office. Symphony is just a way to spread/support ODF but the application generating the income is of course the Notes 8 suite which wants to compete with MS Office groupware. That is a multi billion dollar marketplace. The descision on OOXML could generate hundreds of millions for IBM as it might well be descisive on the future of their Notes division which as an applicationsuite on it's own does not seem to compete against MS groupware Btw, I think Rob within IBM actually originates from Lotus Notes.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    "Your must have missed that IBM have launched Notes 8 in 2007 which uses ODF as it main Office document format." You can rest assured that Alan, who gave a presentation on integrating Notes 8 with both Symphony and MS Office at last year's Lotusphere, is quite clear on what kind of support for ODF is built into Notes 8. "If ODF does not gain ground fast Notes 8 might become a big turd." The success or failure of Notes 8 has absolutely nothing to do with the success of the productivity editor format.  Notes 8 is perceived by the vast majority of the market as an email client, and it is in that realm that it's make-or-break. Yes, it's the case that Notes 8 & Symphony are specifically designed to use ISO standard formats because they're ISO standard formats.  They also can both work with the old Office BIFF formats.  Notes has a LONG history of interoperability with the MS Office suite. I'm not really sure how you figure that Notes "does not seem to compete against MS groupware."  Notes defined the category, and even if you take MS's own marketshare numbers for granted, Notes is a strong competitor in the global messaging & collaboration space.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    @Brian >> the following companies spent an enormous amount of time within Ecma >> improving the specification ... Please don't insult their hard work Their hard work resulted in a spec that:

  • thinks 1900 was a leap year

  • can't reliably handle dates before 1904

  • indicates paper sizes via arbitrary numbers pulled out of the Windows registry, instead of re-using an existing ISO standard that has abbreviations that people can actually understand, such as A4 and so on, and so on. If that was "hard work", then Lord only knows what the result would have been if they'd been slacking off on the job! Cheers,

  • Mike

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    Rob, your analogy is really bizzare: in the real world people are free to eat organic cheese if they can afford the related expenses. Or they can eat conventional cheese if they don't see that extra special value in organic products. What you are trying to push with your NOOOXML agenda equates to a government mandate that everyone must eat organic and pay a conversion tariff for the producer's inability to compete on the overall value of their organic product.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    Mike, what part of "compatibility with legacy binary documents" don't you understand? Dates in MSO binary formats were made to be compatible with Lotus 1-2-3, OOXML was made to be compatible with MSO binary formats. You can thank Lotus for this little gem. Oh, wait, you'd have to thank IBM now. Ironic, isn't it? :)

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    @Alex, Oh I understand it completely, Alex.  Unfortunately for you and Microsoft, ISO standards are not designed to perpetuate the long standing bugs of a single vendor.  And therein lies your problem, doesn't it? Yes, I know where the date problems originated, and why Lotus (and then Microsoft, later on) made that design choice.  (It was largely down to memory constraints in the PCs of the time). The fact that the date problems originated with Lotus 1-2-3 (long before IBM bought Lotus, by the way) may, indeed, be "ironic" to you.  It is also completely irrelevant.  Because Lotus 1-2-3 itself is now irrelevant, and has been for what, five years?  Probably more like ten years. Whichever figure you choose, Microsoft has had an awful long time to fix such problems, free from the burden of Lotus 1-2-3 compatibility, and simply didn't do it.  Instead, they're trying to perpetuate them in OOXML, and it won't wash. The fact that bazillions of such error-strewn documents have been created over the last 10+ years is no excuse for carrying on creating them.  There comes a point where such nonsense has to stop. Cheers,

  • Mike

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    Brian: "'Dumbing down' ISO standards? Please don't insult their hard work." The real question is, under what conditions did the organizations you mention contribute their "hard work"? Did any of them have any role whatsoever in shaping the requirements analysis, or the subsequent design, or the language of the original spec? Did they have any rolee in shaping the TC charter, which of course provides tight constraints on the kind of work the TC can even do? Or did they simply help with essentially editorial cleanup? Did any of them happen to say when they first looked at OOXML "it makes no sense to be defining new vector graphics and math formats; let's instead use existing standards like SVG and MathML?" If they did, how did MS respond? And where is the public record of that discussion? Ditto with all the other cases where OOXML invents new ways of doing things that could have been done with existing standards (including ODF), and which then lead to a larger spec, with more room for editorial and other problems. So again, you're conveniently missing the forest for the trees.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    @Brian >> the following companies spent an enormous amount of time within Ecma >> improving the specification ... Please don't insult their hard work mmm.. with "hard work" like this, who needs "easy work" ! ;-) the next time, at least check the XML of your "hard work" , it was plagued of errors and omissions.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    @Alex, Doesn't a government have the right to make the choice to use open standards if they determine that this in their best interests?  Would you deny them such a choice?  I find the concept bizarre that a government would be obligated to run multiple operating systems, multiple phone systems, or multiple file formats, in the misguided belief that only by doing so would they have choice. Remember, choice is an abstraction unless you have the ability to finally make a choice among the alternatives.  There is value in choice, certainly, but there is also value in standardizing on your choice.  

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    Luke, Office can load and save many file formats. However, any native file format must support all Office features with full fidelity. As Brian explained it many times, ODF 1.0 (current ISO standard) does not support even basic Office features, such as formulas in spreadsheets, localized lists and tables in presentations. I'll refer you to this blog archive for more research on this topic.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    Rob, there is a clear advantage in standartizing US on SI metric system and Euro. However, it doesn't carry clear benefits for "legacy users" - US population ;) Of course, the government should have the ability to pick standards for their people, since the government is the representative of the people. However, the interests of those same people are paramaunt. I'd refer you to the Mike's statement above: "The fact that bazillions of such error-strewn documents have been created over the last 10+ years is no excuse for carrying on creating them.  There comes a point where such nonsense has to stop." Well, here you have a champion of the people :) "Nonesense has to stop" and we don't care what's the cost to those who'd have to change their document libraries to our new cool (and, mind you, incompatible) file formats. Working on a smooth and robust transitional path from the binary legacy formats to new open formats is great for those who currently use legacy formats. Promoting an incompatible solution over a compatible one benefits only one party - consultants and solution specialists.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    Thanks for that answer, Alex, but it is not satisfactory. Microsoft Office natively can open and save to TXT, and we all know that's not a so-called complete format. Why can't it support opening and saving ODF in the same fashion it does RTF, Wordperfect, CSV, HTML, and so on?

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    Luke, I misunderstood your question: do you mean why ODF is not listed among the "Save As" file formats? I don't know, perhaps, because there is no code to save and load ODF inside Office.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    Exactly. ODF is one of the most common file formats these days. The fact that MS Office can't open or save to this format is ridiculous. Microsoft Office is a great piece of software, yet this incomparability seems to be intentional. I haven't gotten an explanation for this missing feature after asking it here and elsewhere many many times.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    @Nathan You seem to contradict yourself "Notes 8 is perceived by the vast majority of the market as an email client, and it is in that realm that it's make-or-break." or "Notes is a strong competitor in the global messaging & collaboration space." If the market sees Notes just as a email cliens it has little future against integrated office solutions. And it is also amusing that if Alan was actually presenting at the Lotussphere he suggests that IBM does not have a finacial stake in making ODF and Notes a success by in his comments leaving out the Notes office software suite that IBM actually earn money with but only mentions the free Symphony suite which is basically just an old OOo version with some Notes integration.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    [quote]ODF is one of the most common file formats these days.[/quote] Certainly you mean one of the most rarest file formats. In a week more PDF files are produced than there are ODF files in existance

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    Carlos, "People, keep the quality in standardization. We ( final users ) don't want "standardization by corporations" ( read the SC34 convenor report: http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0940.htm )" Isn't it funny how two people can interpret the same sentence differently? What he said, amongst other things, was: "The influx of P members whose only interest is the fast-tracking of ECMA 376 as ISO 29500 has led to the failure of a number of key ballots." It is clear to me that you think, that he was referring directly to those corporations supporting OOXML-acceptance in ISO, but my impression was, that he was speaking in general terms of both "sides", that is OOXML-supportes as well as OOXML-opposers. You could naturally say that your interpretation is as good as mine (which is true), but I actually had the advantage of actually being in the room when he made his final remarks. I tried to find you in the attendance list at http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0969.htm to see, if you were also there - but I couldn't find your name. BTW: Rob, I missed you at the Kyoto opening plenary. I'd have liked to finally meet you :o)

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    >>Multiple implementations of one standard = choice.  The market wins. Multiple standards = chaos - everybody but the monopolist loses.<< Thats only a good argument if that one standard solves everybody's (often wildly divergent) problems. Hence we have .gif, .jpeg, .png.

  • Anonymous
    December 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    @Jesper "I actually had the advantage of actually being in the room" I would also have been happy to be there with you, but I cannot afford to spend the money of my own, and I have no generous sponsor to pay for me. I'm, like Carlos, a simple user of office software, not affiliated with any big company, suffering to see the mess created since ECMA 376 arrived in the ISO arena.

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    Reading through these comments, it sounds like a case of sour grapes. The word in these comments that stick out in my mind is "monopoly". I am so tired of hearing the tired phrases like "If Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, maybe the world would be a better place", "If it wasn't for the Microsoft monopoly, world peace would arise and world hunger would be solved." Please. I can hear the fiddle now feeling sorry for all those poor souls who have suffered because of the Microsoft monopoly. I guarantee you IBM and every other software company wishes they were in the position that Microsoft was in from a software perspective; and it is because they are not that we hear these whinings and ramblings. Ask yourself this question and try to answer it honestly...if your company was in the same position that Microsoft was in, would you be on this forum complaining that your own company was a monopoly. Of course not, and that is why this is all a case of jealously and sour grapes. And it is important to remember, even if you don't want to admit it, that companies like IBM and many other technology companies in the world would not be as successful as they are if it wasn't for Microsoft. Period. You may not like it that they own the desktop and are strong in the server market, but I guarantee that many of you would not have jobs if that wasn't the case. Instead of whining and coming up with absurd cheese analogies, how about focusing your energies on innovating, marketing and convincing the 99% of the world that runs Windows and Office to convert to your solution. Because in the end, all this standards stuff means diddly squat if products that don't provide added value to the consumer (both individual and business) aren't developed. Because it is the the consumer that pays the money, and, in turn, your salary.

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    @Jesper I'm not implying anything else than what I've written : I would have be happy to attend the meeting in Japan, because it is a subject I'm interested in, but I cannot pay for it.  You were lucky that your company sponsored you. Please don't take this as a personal attack, it was not.  We often disagree, but I have no reason for attacking you. @Sour Grapes FYI, I'm not in the Office software business, and my salary doesn't depend at all on OOXML nor ODF, in any way.

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    @Luc I bet though, whether directly or indirectly, your job or life is impacted in a positive fashion by Microsoft. Whether it is you running Windows at work or home; whether you are motivated by what Microsoft has and you push yourself to do it better. Whatever. My point is, that Microsoft's existence, and what they do, have made the technology sector the robust entity that it is and has been for the last 20 years, whether you or anyone likes it or not. Everyone wishes they had what Microsoft had; everyone wishes they were the ones who developed and marketed Windows. I don't buy for one minute the facade from many of these "anti-Microsoft" folks that Microsoft has caused the whole world harm. If these people were put in a time machine, knowing what they know now, and able to go back 20 years, and work for or buy Microsoft stock, they would without hesitation.

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    I would not leave millions of dollars on the table.  But I would play last week numbers at EuroMillion or another lottery rather than enjoying to be part of an abusive monopoly  :-)

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    Luc, I apparently misunderstood you - I appologize for that. :o)

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    Without somebody suing IBM in the '80s, Microsoft probably would have been crushed by IBM, and nobody would have had a chance to benefit from any Microsoft product. Are you sure that without being unfairly driven out of business by MS (MS has been convicted in court for this), Netscape would not have produced better products than MS ?

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    Hi! I need the file format of NSF-files. I want to decrypt properitary encap2.ond attachments (they are tiny NSF-databases and the equivalent of TNEF for MS-Office which has been reverse engineered very well) on an embedded linux system and I cannot place notes.dll or the whole Notes client onto that appliance because of licensing issues. Because I can read everywhere that IBM is so open I want to ask if someone knows to read the NSF-file format? Many thanks, especially for Rob if he makes this properitary file format available, I really need it. Christian

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    @Christian, Your point is that the Lotus Notes file format is "properitary" (sic).  Well, point scored mate, because yes, it is!  And so are the file formats for:

  • DB2

  • Oracle

  • Sybase

  • MS SQL Server

  • MS Access and about a zillion other database systems. None of those formats is currently up for ISO standardisation, by the way. Cheers,

  • Mike

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    @hAl That's a strange angle you've taken - you're basically saying that all the anti-MS posters are correct, MS would indeed embrace, extend, extinguish ODF. You imply that it can't be trusted, and wonder why we would want it to have anything to do with the spec. Nobody is asking for MS to extend ODF in a direct way, or for them to muddy the IP waters. What we're talking about is the concept that the gaps in the ODF specification could be targeted and plugged, by work within the ODF TC, in a way that conformed to the OASIS rules on IP assignment and collaborative, open standards development. MS would clearly be involved, but within the TC process, and could choose to be an honest and active contributor. Your comment about adding in all the various *ML's was a bit glib. I imagine you know very well that ODF already specifies a huge amount of office software functionality. The debates around OOXML vs ODF polarise us, but the basic reality is that StarOffice/OpenOffice etc. are decent pieces of software that already do thousands of the things users need them to do. I'm trying to make a serious and focused point here - what exactly are the things they can't do, but OOXML can, that would need to be fixed so ODF can represent an MS Office 2007 document? In fact, I've just realised that courtesy of the work done on the OpenXML/ODF Translator Add-in, we have a list of items in each spec that can't be represented in the other. A useful starting point - MS just needs to turn up at the OASIS TC with that list, ask to be part of the process, and start discussions...

  • Anonymous
    December 11, 2007
    Gavin, Thanks for this post.  I think it is a nice summary of the whole point, and of the obvious solution. Microsoft claim that they want to offer choice. I would applaud them if they put actions behind their words, and allow users to choose between OOXML and ODF in MS Office, via a "save as ODF" option.

  • Anonymous
    December 12, 2007
    I don't want to make an argument about NSF, I just want to get this file format description, I don't care about any standardization. Of course this is off-topic!

  • Anonymous
    December 13, 2007
    Jesper: Congratulations. You now join the enormous list of people slandered by these bullies. It happens to anyone who disagrees with them. Unfortunately, now their enthusiasm for the mud bucket has lead them to the logical position where almost the entire world is corrupt: ISO, every NB who disagrees with IBM, every NB who change their vote to yes after a successful BRM, and so on. So why are they so keen to alienate participants in the process if they want their position to prevail? The only answer I can come up with is that the bullies have little real interest in standards or the actual result. Their thing is all about marketing their brand (whether the brand is Open Source or IBM) and blackening the other guy's brand. If ISO's process is fair and allows through an MS-derived technology as a standard regardless of its source, just as with other standards, then ISO needs to be mauled as part of this attack-dog marketing. Attack dogs only see things in black and white, and they want everyone else to do so too. So don't be resentful, it isn't personal: these guys don't care about people. Just as anyone who comes to a different conclusion to them is ipso facto corrupt, anyone who complains about being attacked by them is "bleating." When I get death wishes, it clearly shows the kind of environment that Weir and co have been happy to foster. (I am fortunate to have friends in the ODF camp who are utterly dismayed by this kind of behaviour, by the way.)

  • Anonymous
    December 13, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 14, 2007
    @Jesper, Yet again, I say to you that lobbying and rallying allies, and offering up a large number of comments on a spec are perfectly legitimate tactics, however much you don't like them.  (You offer no evidence for IBM "packing the NBs with their allies"). How can you possibly compare that to Microsoft's behaviour in, for example,  Sweden, where they had 20+ of their business partners sign up to the MOOXML committee at the last minute, so turning the Swedish vote into a farce? Microsoft even admitted the attempted bribery - a strong word, but really, what else can you call it? - of their Swedish partners to do this, after being exposed by a leaked email.  (The company explained this away as the fault of a single local employee, who had contravened the company's policy).  And yes, they also told the Swedish committee of the mistake, at the time.  But they didn't ask any of their allies to resign from their new voting positions, did they? Cheers, -Mike

  • Anonymous
    December 16, 2007
    Mike, "You offer no evidence for IBM "packing the NBs with their allies"" Well - I didn't think that it was necessary ... what you are referring to as facts is also just hearsay. "How can you possibly compare that to Microsoft's behaviour in, for example,  Sweden where they had 20+ of their business partners sign up to the MOOXML committee at the last minute" It is interesting that you say this - because what would you consider "appropriate effort" when joining an NB and voting? When joining on the last day is - in your view - not sufficient ... what is sufficient? Btw: Please check out http://idippedut.dk/post/2007/08/Ja%2c-man-tager-sig-jo-til-hovedet.aspx where I wrote about the incident in Sweden. It is in Danish (sorry) but the last sentence says: "Microsoft Sweden, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves" Maybe you can have someone translate the article ... somone like Leif Lodahl, perhaps. http://lodahl.blogspot.com/ /Jesper :o)

  • Anonymous
    December 26, 2007
    First of all Merry Christmas to everyone who reads this blog and happy upcoming New 2008 from me and

  • Anonymous
    December 29, 2007
    First of all Merry Christmas to everyone who reads this blog and happy upcoming New 2008 from me and

  • Anonymous
    January 11, 2008
    Earlier today the Burton Group released a free (registration required) report authored by Guy Creese

  • Anonymous
    April 16, 2008
    When you tell a lie often enough, it takes on a patina of truth each time it is uttered, and after a

  • Anonymous
    April 16, 2008
    When you tell a lie often enough, it takes on a patina of truth each time it is uttered, and after a