Slingshot Shooting Rocks At The Goliaths Of The Industry 2008-05-16T23:13:44-06:00 Da King http://blogs.webconnectconsulting.com/pv/pivotblogs/slingshot.php default@webconnectconsulting.com tag:slingshotshootingrocksatgoliathshead,2008:Slingshot Pivot Copyright (c) 2008, Authors of Slingshot Patrick Durusau: Spotting ODF Supporters 2008-04-24T02:45:00-06:00 2008-04-24T08:41:00-06:00 tag:slingshotshootingrocksatgoliathshead,2008:Slingshot.23 Spotting ODF Supporters | Open Document The linked page has another link to a PDF document. Mr. Durusau has quite an impressive background, including Project Editor for ODF and "chair of the committee which is responsible for the technical recommendation for the US [National Body]". I have nothing remotely comparable, and want to make that clear. Durusau says, "Location: Usually seen on ODF committee/subcommittee discussion lists and blogs detailing how to do things with OpenDocument or with the development of the standard." In other words, those who write about reasons to choose ODF and other truly-open and vendor-neutral file formats (and avoid competing "proprietary formats in drag" such as OOXML) do not fall in the group of ODF supporters. Whatever. There isn't room in OASIS for all of us who support ODF and other truly open, vendor-neutral formats. We are found all over the Internet, as well as in homes, schools, colleges, businesses, and government agencies. Many of us are in the IT department, but many others are merely users who believe that openness and freedom go hand in hand, while proprietarism and monopolism tend to extinguish freedom wherever they find it. Many of us who support ODF do so because we deal with proprietary formats on a daily basis. Can you imagine supporting an office full of people who are exchanging documents with people from other organizations, sending the files in whatever file format they happen to be using, including MS Word (.doc), MS Excel (.xls), MS PowerPoint (.ppt), WordPerfect (.wpd), Quattro Pro (.qpw), MS Works (.wps), OpenDocument Format (.odt, .ods, .odp) and more, even sometimes including ancient versions of the formats? Sometimes, one can spend hours trying to find an importer of a particular format before having to give up. Sometimes, it is as simple as calling the IT department of the other organization to have them export the file to a readable format, or finding someone in the office who has software on their own computer that can open and export the document. But once that becomes a significant part of your workday, you no longer want to play format games. I support ODF for many reasons, but one of the most important is the fact that I am the person who gets called upon to help someone open all of these formats. Often, it isn't a matter of different features, since the users really only use a few features (e.g., bold, italics, centering, underline, font, and size). It is a matter of vendors trying to lock users into their own products through the use of "secret sauce" file formats. With ODF-supporting applications, this problem goes away, leaving only the remnants that have to do with how well the format is specified and how well each implementation conforms to the specification. I support ODF because the relevant IP releases are broad enough that nearly anyone can implement it at any time, and release their implementation under any license they choose, at any price they can realistically get in the market. Twenty years down the road, when the vendors have moved on to the next big thing, I can write tools that translate ODF files to the then-current formats without fear of violating someone's license restrictions. I support ODF because the format is implemented in multiple products already, with many more on the way. Besides StarOffice, OpenOffice, and IBM Lotus Symphony, there is KOffice, AbiWord, TextMaker, and many more (see the list of ODF-supporting applications I maintain). I support ODF because there are ODF-supporting applications available on the operating systems I use most, as well as other operating systems that I use less often. There are ODF-supporting applications available for the time it takes to download and install them, as well as some that require a license fee. I support ODF because ODF is a key piece of the openness and freedom that we seek to bring to our nation and hopefully the rest of the world. I oppose OOXML (Office Open XML) for many of those same reasons. The admitted purpose of the format is anything but vendor-neutral. As you well know, Mr. Durusau, when you intend to create something that can be used equally well by multiple parties, you do not build in specific ties to a single vendor's implementation. Instead, you use generic abstractions whose implementation can follow the internal structures of any vendor's products. Anything that is specific is fully-specified, so that all vendors can find ways to implement it. I oppose OOXML because of the "intellectual property" issues that are associated with the format. When SFLC says that Microsoft's OSP is not good enough for FLOSS projects to rely upon, I take that seriously[HTML | PDF]. How will that pledge impact me and my business if a client engages me to provide access to documents in formats covered under this pledge? Remember, vendors regularly leave a line of business, a protocol, a product, or a file format. Many vendors change their file formats every few years. It isn't just big companies like Sun and IBM that have to evaluate its effect on them. It is little five-person shops in cities with less than 250,000 people, dealing with the technical issues for two, three, and even ten or twenty-person shops in their local areas. We cannot afford to be wrong about IP restrictions. I oppose OOXML because it is fully-implementable by only one company. Other implementations will necessarily be incomplete, and therefore inferior in the eyes of users. Just as I would not like a single-party governmental system, but instead would like to see three, four, or even five viable contenders for any office; I wish to see multiple vendors' products that are serious contenders in the office software space. As a user and potential customer, it is better all-around if there are multiple contenders, because it means that I can find minor differences that make one a better fit to my needs. Best of all, those differences shouldn't be in the file format, so that those that I correspond with are also free to choose the products that best meet their needs. I oppose OOXML because only the operating systems that MS Office runs on will ever fully support OOXML. This locks out users of NetBSD, Syllable, GNU+Linux, Minix, and more. Somewhere out there, I imagine a guy with his own home-grown OS, "Three-Headed Chicken" (3HC). Because MS Office doesn't run on 3HC, that guy cannot get full use out of OOXML files, while he could write his own ODF implementation (or try to compile OOo or KOffice) to run on 3HC. Rather than a Babel of standards without a full and accurate conversion, people such as myself wish to deal with one standard, so that the only real issue is in the faithfulness of the implementations to the standard. OpenDocument supporters support OpenDocument. They are too busy installing OpenDocument based applications, teaching others about OpenDocument and extending and adapting it to real use cases to spend time trash talking about other standards. Like you, Patrick, I want to see more attention focused on making sure that every use case is better served with the more open format (ODF). I was a staunch supporter of California's AB-1668 last year, which would have mandated open standard file formats and specified in the definition what would be considered an open standard. The bill did not specifically mention ODF, but OOXML still would not be able to meet the standard. The bill was squashed by your new buddies from Seattle because they saw (and continue to see) truly open, vendor-neutral file formats as a direct threat to their monopoly. Because of the anti-openness hit squads that descend upon the halls of government whenever an openness bill or policy is discussed, those of us that are pro-openness (read: true ODF advocates) have to step in and advocate against formats that promote vendor lock-in and proprietary nastiness. There's more. I am an advocate for openness: free / libre and open source software, open standards, open formats, open protocols, open government, and privacy rights for individuals (enforceable against government agencies and corporations). Likewise, I am an advocate for smaller businesses: the very entities that have the most to gain from switching to a truly-open, vendor-neutral file format. In a previous paper, you argued that approving OOXML as an ISO standard will give everyone a voice in helping to improve it. Reject DIS 29500? The cost of rejection is that ordinary users, governments, smaller interests, all lose a seat at the table where the next version of the Office standard is being written. Approve an admittedly rough DIS 29500? That gives all of us a seat at the table for the next Office standard. Granting that I wince at parts of DIS 29500, it is hard for me to argue with that rationale. Reading reports of the Ballot Resolution Meeting, in which many proposed improvements were shut off with a we've already implemented it this way, so we aren't changing it, how can you truthfully expect that to change? Given that MS Office 2007's file format is not conformant with ISO OOXML (and may likely never conform), how do you expect ISO approval to change things? Mr. Durusau, I respect all you've done, but you are actually harming your cause and ours by pretending that ignoring the serpent in the corner makes everything all better. Yes, we need to dramatically step up the pace of improvements, implementations, tutorials, libraries, and the like. We need more in-depth conformance testing, including a seal of approval. We need promotional materials, software distributions, and news of conversions from legacy applications to ODF-supporting applications. We need full-compliance with standards like SVG to become a built-in part of ODF. We need a canonical scripting language runtime for the format, with the ability to support other formats as well. We need ODF support to be built into Eclipse, NetBeans, Squeak, and other development environments, so that developers can hook into ODF with one or two lines or mouse clicks. But we cannot forget that we also need to make it clear to all concerned why ODF is the superior format, instead of OOXML. Spotting ODF Supporters | Open Document

The linked page has another link to a PDF document.

Mr. Durusau has quite an impressive background, including Project Editor for ODF and "chair of the committee which is responsible for the technical recommendation for the US [National Body]". I have nothing remotely comparable, and want to make that clear.
Durusau says, "Location: Usually seen on ODF committee/subcommittee discussion lists and blogs detailing how to do things with OpenDocument or with the development of the standard." In other words, those who write about reasons to choose ODF and other truly-open and vendor-neutral file formats (and avoid competing "proprietary formats in drag" such as OOXML) do not fall in the group of ODF supporters.

Whatever. There isn't room in OASIS for all of us who support ODF and other truly open, vendor-neutral formats. We are found all over the Internet, as well as in homes, schools, colleges, businesses, and government agencies. Many of us are in the IT department, but many others are merely users who believe that openness and freedom go hand in hand, while proprietarism and monopolism tend to extinguish freedom wherever they find it.

Many of us who support ODF do so because we deal with proprietary formats on a daily basis. Can you imagine supporting an office full of people who are exchanging documents with people from other organizations, sending the files in whatever file format they happen to be using, including MS Word (.doc), MS Excel (.xls), MS PowerPoint (.ppt), WordPerfect (.wpd), Quattro Pro (.qpw), MS Works (.wps), OpenDocument Format (.odt, .ods, .odp) and more, even sometimes including ancient versions of the formats? Sometimes, one can spend hours trying to find an importer of a particular format before having to give up. Sometimes, it is as simple as calling the IT department of the other organization to have them export the file to a readable format, or finding someone in the office who has software on their own computer that can open and export the document. But once that becomes a significant part of your workday, you no longer want to play format games.

I support ODF for many reasons, but one of the most important is the fact that I am the person who gets called upon to help someone open all of these formats. Often, it isn't a matter of different features, since the users really only use a few features (e.g., bold, italics, centering, underline, font, and size). It is a matter of vendors trying to lock users into their own products through the use of "secret sauce" file formats. With ODF-supporting applications, this problem goes away, leaving only the remnants that have to do with how well the format is specified and how well each implementation conforms to the specification.

I support ODF because the relevant IP releases are broad enough that nearly anyone can implement it at any time, and release their implementation under any license they choose, at any price they can realistically get in the market. Twenty years down the road, when the vendors have moved on to the next big thing, I can write tools that translate ODF files to the then-current formats without fear of violating someone's license restrictions.

I support ODF because the format is implemented in multiple products already, with many more on the way. Besides StarOffice, OpenOffice, and IBM Lotus Symphony, there is KOffice, AbiWord, TextMaker, and many more (see the list of ODF-supporting applications I maintain).

I support ODF because there are ODF-supporting applications available on the operating systems I use most, as well as other operating systems that I use less often. There are ODF-supporting applications available for the time it takes to download and install them, as well as some that require a license fee.

I support ODF because ODF is a key piece of the openness and freedom that we seek to bring to our nation and hopefully the rest of the world.

I oppose OOXML (Office Open XML) for many of those same reasons. The admitted purpose of the format is anything but vendor-neutral. As you well know, Mr. Durusau, when you intend to create something that can be used equally well by multiple parties, you do not build in specific ties to a single vendor's implementation. Instead, you use generic abstractions whose implementation can follow the internal structures of any vendor's products. Anything that is specific is fully-specified, so that all vendors can find ways to implement it.

I oppose OOXML because of the "intellectual property" issues that are associated with the format. When SFLC says that Microsoft's OSP is not good enough for FLOSS projects to rely upon, I take that seriously[HTML | PDF]. How will that pledge impact me and my business if a client engages me to provide access to documents in formats covered under this pledge? Remember, vendors regularly leave a line of business, a protocol, a product, or a file format. Many vendors change their file formats every few years. It isn't just big companies like Sun and IBM that have to evaluate its effect on them. It is little five-person shops in cities with less than 250,000 people, dealing with the technical issues for two, three, and even ten or twenty-person shops in their local areas. We cannot afford to be wrong about IP restrictions.

I oppose OOXML because it is fully-implementable by only one company. Other implementations will necessarily be incomplete, and therefore inferior in the eyes of users. Just as I would not like a single-party governmental system, but instead would like to see three, four, or even five viable contenders for any office; I wish to see multiple vendors' products that are serious contenders in the office software space. As a user and potential customer, it is better all-around if there are multiple contenders, because it means that I can find minor differences that make one a better fit to my needs. Best of all, those differences shouldn't be in the file format, so that those that I correspond with are also free to choose the products that best meet their needs.

I oppose OOXML because only the operating systems that MS Office runs on will ever fully support OOXML. This locks out users of NetBSD, Syllable, GNU+Linux, Minix, and more. Somewhere out there, I imagine a guy with his own home-grown OS, "Three-Headed Chicken" (3HC). Because MS Office doesn't run on 3HC, that guy cannot get full use out of OOXML files, while he could write his own ODF implementation (or try to compile OOo or KOffice) to run on 3HC.

Rather than a Babel of standards without a full and accurate conversion, people such as myself wish to deal with one standard, so that the only real issue is in the faithfulness of the implementations to the standard.

OpenDocument supporters support OpenDocument. They are too busy installing OpenDocument based applications, teaching others about OpenDocument and extending and adapting it to real use cases to spend time trash talking about other standards.
Like you, Patrick, I want to see more attention focused on making sure that every use case is better served with the more open format (ODF). I was a staunch supporter of California's AB-1668 last year, which would have mandated open standard file formats and specified in the definition what would be considered an open standard. The bill did not specifically mention ODF, but OOXML still would not be able to meet the standard. The bill was squashed by your new buddies from Seattle because they saw (and continue to see) truly open, vendor-neutral file formats as a direct threat to their monopoly. Because of the anti-openness hit squads that descend upon the halls of government whenever an openness bill or policy is discussed, those of us that are pro-openness (read: true ODF advocates) have to step in and advocate against formats that promote vendor lock-in and proprietary nastiness.

There's more. I am an advocate for openness: free / libre and open source software, open standards, open formats, open protocols, open government, and privacy rights for individuals (enforceable against government agencies and corporations). Likewise, I am an advocate for smaller businesses: the very entities that have the most to gain from switching to a truly-open, vendor-neutral file format.

In a previous paper, you argued that approving OOXML as an ISO standard will give everyone a voice in helping to improve it.

Reject DIS 29500? The cost of rejection is that ordinary users, governments, smaller interests, all lose a seat at the table where the next version of the Office standard is being written.

Approve an admittedly rough DIS 29500? That gives all of us a seat at the table for the next Office standard. Granting that I wince at parts of DIS 29500, it is hard for me to argue with that rationale.
Reading reports of the Ballot Resolution Meeting, in which many proposed improvements were shut off with a we've already implemented it this way, so we aren't changing it, how can you truthfully expect that to change? Given that MS Office 2007's file format is not conformant with ISO OOXML (and may likely never conform), how do you expect ISO approval to change things?

Mr. Durusau, I respect all you've done, but you are actually harming your cause and ours by pretending that ignoring the serpent in the corner makes everything all better. Yes, we need to dramatically step up the pace of improvements, implementations, tutorials, libraries, and the like. We need more in-depth conformance testing, including a seal of approval. We need promotional materials, software distributions, and news of conversions from legacy applications to ODF-supporting applications. We need full-compliance with standards like SVG to become a built-in part of ODF. We need a canonical scripting language runtime for the format, with the ability to support other formats as well. We need ODF support to be built into Eclipse, NetBeans, Squeak, and other development environments, so that developers can hook into ODF with one or two lines or mouse clicks. But we cannot forget that we also need to make it clear to all concerned why ODF is the superior format, instead of OOXML. ]]> lnxwalt Ballmer Admits Vista Not Ready Yet 2008-04-18T16:37:00-06:00 2008-04-18T22:37:00-06:00 tag:slingshotshootingrocksatgoliathshead,2008:Slingshot.22 Ballmer: Vista is 'a work in progress' | InfoWorld | News | 2008-04-17 | By Nancy Gohring, IDG News Service Things are pretty bad when the company's CEO admits that Windows Vista is a work in progress. He probably meant it in the sense that no software is ever really "finished", but Vista isn't really even ready to be released. In terms of the number of deeply-ingrained flaws, Vista is the Windows Me of this decade. As PC users clamor for Microsoft to continue to support Windows XP, company CEO Steve Ballmer called the Vista OS "a work in progress" at an annual Seattle event on Thursday. The thing is, Microsoft needs to go back to Windows XP, slap some security fixes (such as making all users non-administrators and requiring an admin password for administrative tasks without becoming annoying like their "UAC" system) and some minor user interface upgrades onto it, cut out some of the bloat that causes it to need so much memory, and get rid of the unnecessary background processes (such as Windows/MSN Messenger) that make the system slow. If they released such a product later this year, the Vista-caused slide might be averted. Many users that buy computers with Windows Vista then pay to buy Windows XP Professional in its place. Others dual-boot XP and Vista or Linux and Vista. Persistent issues with networking and drivers were the things that caught my attention. I got called to assist a co-worker with his new Vista laptop when we were working in New Jersey last Summer. After we spent over a week trying to get it to connect to the hotel wireless network, I found out that it was a known and common issue with Vista and not just an issue with the particular wireless card. We were able to get him an hour or so each night by using a wireless bridge, but even there, VIsta would disconnect and be unable to reconnect for 12 hours or more. Sadly, Microsoft doesn't yet see that it is self-destructing. And that is why they won't change what they are doing until it is too late. I'm not saying that the company will completely go out of business, but they will probably have just a minor fraction of the market and have to shut down money-losers like MSN/Live and the Zune. Hey, Stevie, listen up! The world is changing, and openness is ascendant. You would do well to study the business models for companies like Red Hat and try to figure out how you can integrate true openness (including opening your source code and open integrity toward your end-users) into your business. I think I can say along with the rest of the pro-open source, pro-open standards crowd that we'd hate to lose you, even as we despise your business practices. Some of the flaws include: Poor driver and software support: Even a Microsoft Mouse labelled Vista-ready required downloading a new driver from the MS site. The one on the CD did not work. Some of MSFT's own software didn't work correctly because it expected the user to have admin rights on the computer and UAC stopped that. Humongous appetite for memory: Vista requires at least 2 GB of RAM before it will work nicely. For XP, it was 256MB originally. Annoying, in-your-face security: The "Get A Mac" ads have this one right. When I was wrestling with Vista over the networking issue, simple things like restarting a network adapter would take multiple UAC popups to complete. Installing a non-MS mouse did not work, either. The driver that was built into Windows could not be used because it was missing a required security section in its INI file. Slow, slow, slow: Vista runs so many unnecessary processes in the background that it often sits there unresponsively while the user clicks and re-clicks. Anti-user technological user restrictions: Vista has all sorts of built-in regulators to limit your ability to copy music and other "content" that you bought. In theory, a record company can spend the money you gave them and then revoke your right to use that music until you send them some more money. Vista would totally take the rich corporation's side and you'd be the loser. (TUR is the true name for what is frequently euphemized as "DRM", or digital rights management. It has little or nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with using technology to restrict the way users can use the content they bought.) Genuine disadvantage: The Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) and Office Genuine Advantage (OGA) snoopware reports home every time you start your computer. Is it only checking to ensure you paid for your copy of Windows? Or is it telling them more about you, your software, and the way you use your computer? Remember that Microsoft is talking about "ad-supported software" for future versions of Windows and Office. Perhaps they are building the world's largest marketing database as we speak. Plus, can you imagine when some government agency wants to know more about you, they can just show up in Redmond WA to find out everything you've done for the past however many years? Pretty scary, if you ask me. The anti-user EULA: If you ever read all the things you agreed to when you started Vista for the first time, you would really have to trust MSFT to use the computer. Who can forget "VistaGate"? There is now a court case in which the company's internal documents seem to say that Microsoft deliberately deceived consumers into buying underpowered computers by certifying them as "Vista-ready". What was that about trusting them? Ballmer: Vista is 'a work in progress' | InfoWorld | News | 2008-04-17 | By Nancy Gohring, IDG News Service


Things are pretty bad when the company's CEO admits that Windows Vista is a work in progress. He probably meant it in the sense that no software is ever really "finished", but Vista isn't really even ready to be released. In terms of the number of deeply-ingrained flaws, Vista is the Windows Me of this decade.


As PC users clamor for Microsoft to continue to support Windows XP, company CEO Steve Ballmer called the Vista OS "a work in progress" at an annual Seattle event on Thursday.

The thing is, Microsoft needs to go back to Windows XP, slap some security fixes (such as making all users non-administrators and requiring an admin password for administrative tasks without becoming annoying like their "UAC" system) and some minor user interface upgrades onto it, cut out some of the bloat that causes it to need so much memory, and get rid of the unnecessary background processes (such as Windows/MSN Messenger) that make the system slow. If they released such a product later this year, the Vista-caused slide might be averted.


Many users that buy computers with Windows Vista then pay to buy Windows XP Professional in its place. Others dual-boot XP and Vista or Linux and Vista. Persistent issues with networking and drivers were the things that caught my attention. I got called to assist a co-worker with his new Vista laptop when we were working in New Jersey last Summer. After we spent over a week trying to get it to connect to the hotel wireless network, I found out that it was a known and common issue with Vista and not just an issue with the particular wireless card. We were able to get him an hour or so each night by using a wireless bridge, but even there, VIsta would disconnect and be unable to reconnect for 12 hours or more.


Sadly, Microsoft doesn't yet see that it is self-destructing. And that is why they won't change what they are doing until it is too late. I'm not saying that the company will completely go out of business, but they will probably have just a minor fraction of the market and have to shut down money-losers like MSN/Live and the Zune.


Hey, Stevie, listen up! The world is changing, and openness is ascendant. You would do well to study the business models for companies like Red Hat and try to figure out how you can integrate true openness (including opening your source code and open integrity toward your end-users) into your business. I think I can say along with the rest of the pro-open source, pro-open standards crowd that we'd hate to lose you, even as we despise your business practices.


Some of the flaws include:

  • Poor driver and software support: Even a Microsoft Mouse labelled Vista-ready required downloading a new driver from the MS site. The one on the CD did not work. Some of MSFT's own software didn't work correctly because it expected the user to have admin rights on the computer and UAC stopped that.
  • Humongous appetite for memory: Vista requires at least 2 GB of RAM before it will work nicely. For XP, it was 256MB originally.
  • Annoying, in-your-face security: The "Get A Mac" ads have this one right. When I was wrestling with Vista over the networking issue, simple things like restarting a network adapter would take multiple UAC popups to complete. Installing a non-MS mouse did not work, either. The driver that was built into Windows could not be used because it was missing a required security section in its INI file.
  • Slow, slow, slow: Vista runs so many unnecessary processes in the background that it often sits there unresponsively while the user clicks and re-clicks.
  • Anti-user technological user restrictions: Vista has all sorts of built-in regulators to limit your ability to copy music and other "content" that you bought. In theory, a record company can spend the money you gave them and then revoke your right to use that music until you send them some more money. Vista would totally take the rich corporation's side and you'd be the loser. (TUR is the true name for what is frequently euphemized as "DRM", or digital rights management. It has little or nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with using technology to restrict the way users can use the content they bought.)
  • Genuine disadvantage: The Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) and Office Genuine Advantage (OGA) snoopware reports home every time you start your computer. Is it only checking to ensure you paid for your copy of Windows? Or is it telling them more about you, your software, and the way you use your computer? Remember that Microsoft is talking about "ad-supported software" for future versions of Windows and Office. Perhaps they are building the world's largest marketing database as we speak. Plus, can you imagine when some government agency wants to know more about you, they can just show up in Redmond WA to find out everything you've done for the past however many years? Pretty scary, if you ask me.
  • The anti-user EULA: If you ever read all the things you agreed to when you started Vista for the first time, you would really have to trust MSFT to use the computer.
  • Who can forget "VistaGate"? There is now a court case in which the company's internal documents seem to say that Microsoft deliberately deceived consumers into buying underpowered computers by certifying them as "Vista-ready". What was that about trusting them?
]]> lnxwalt OOXML ISO-ification Process Continues To Fester 2008-03-14T02:46:00-06:00 2008-03-14T08:36:00-06:00 tag:slingshotshootingrocksatgoliathshead,2008:Slingshot.21 Like a vampire that refuses to die, OOXML's ISO-ification process continues. Or rather like a festering sore that continually oozes pus. As of the end of February, the ballot resolution meeting concluded by recommending changes to the text of the draft text of ISO/IEC DIS29500. The participants seemed to feel that it was the best they could do in the limited amount of time they had available and under the rules that were adopted for the meeting. It might be fair to say that many would have been happier if they had more time to discuss proposed changes to resolve the issues that were raised throughout the process. I would recommend taking a look at Andy Updegrove's ConsortiumInfo site for further information on this proposed standard. Tim Bray also has plenty of information about the BRM and OOXML. Mr. Bray also has information for those speculating on the outcome of the process. Importantly, the SFLC has examined the legal aspects of Microsoft's OSP relative to OOXML and concludes that it is not advisable for FLOSS projects to implement the specification. Sadly, Microsoft could have made the process decidedly less painful. I recall that when Ecma was first expanding the OOXML spec Microsoft delivered into the 6,000 page behemoth it became, that a multitude of comments were made in public fora as well as on sites like Groklaw, advising where their choices were mistaken. Once the spec was publicly presented as Ecma-376 and preparing for presentation to ISO, even more flaws were pointed out. Unfortunately, the Ecma mandate required them to remain compatible with what they were given, something that is still blocking improvements to the specification. Regardless of the outcome of ISO-ification, the rancor could have been avoided. Open source and open standards advocates, along with end-user advocates and even competing companies would have been glad to have a specification that was developed in the open, designed to avoid dependencies on specific hardware or software environments, with international needs as well as handicapped-accessibility in mind, planned from the beginning to be free of all "IP" issues, friendly to all implementers, and designed with end-user concerns and archiving in mind. All would have contributed. Why? Because there really isn't an "anything but Microsoft" crowd. There are those who support other products, technologies, and business models, but they are not necessarily hostile to Microsoft unless MSFT first earned their hostility. Instead, we all want to see Microsoft held to the same standard of conduct that everyone else must follow. We desire to see level playing fields, where products compete on quality and features, rather than on which is more "compatible" with a monopolist's products. I know that I want to be able to exchange documents seamlessly with anyone, regardless of whether they use Microsoft Office, Sun StarOffice, Corel WordPerfect Office, or some clown's BozoOffice. If that goes against the interest of Microsoft in maintaining their monopoly status, I'm sorry. This standard was too big and complex for a fast-track process to work. It needed to go through a full committee evaluation. This standard also points out some deep flaws with ISO and with voluntary standards in a world where compliance may be (and often is) mandatory. See ISO9000 in Europe for an example of this. Since standards tend to become legal requirements, it is important that standards are openly developed, and include members of the public on their committees. They should be free of legal and "IP" restrictions for all time and in all versions, so that anyone can implement any part of the standard for any purpose in any application at any time without permission. Standards should be royalty-free, and should be implementable by those using any licensing or business model, including open source, freeware, shareware, careware, donationware, or the standard proprietary software ultra-restrictive EULA. In fact, I suggest that the reference implementation should always be open source. As it stands now, I don't think OOXML is fit for ISO standardization, especially given the requirements highlighted just above. I would like to take this opportunity to request that Microsoft take a Mulligan and redo this specification. In the mean time, I'd also like to request that they fully-implement the latest version of ODF as a fully-equal format to OOXML and the old binary formats. Look at the flaws in the OSP and see how it can be "patched" to make OOXML acceptable to free / libre and open source software projects, now that you know the flaws are there. SFLC has shown the way, now it is up to you to walk in it. Like a vampire that refuses to die, OOXML's ISO-ification process continues. Or rather like a festering sore that continually oozes pus.

As of the end of February, the ballot resolution meeting concluded by recommending changes to the text of the draft text of ISO/IEC DIS29500. The participants seemed to feel that it was the best they could do in the limited amount of time they had available and under the rules that were adopted for the meeting. It might be fair to say that many would have been happier if they had more time to discuss proposed changes to resolve the issues that were raised throughout the process.

I would recommend taking a look at Andy Updegrove's ConsortiumInfo site for further information on this proposed standard. Tim Bray also has plenty of information about the BRM and OOXML. Mr. Bray also has information for those speculating on the outcome of the process.

Importantly, the SFLC has examined the legal aspects of Microsoft's OSP relative to OOXML and concludes that it is not advisable for FLOSS projects to implement the specification.

Sadly, Microsoft could have made the process decidedly less painful. I recall that when Ecma was first expanding the OOXML spec Microsoft delivered into the 6,000 page behemoth it became, that a multitude of comments were made in public fora as well as on sites like Groklaw, advising where their choices were mistaken. Once the spec was publicly presented as Ecma-376 and preparing for presentation to ISO, even more flaws were pointed out. Unfortunately, the Ecma mandate required them to remain compatible with what they were given, something that is still blocking improvements to the specification.

Regardless of the outcome of ISO-ification, the rancor could have been avoided. Open source and open standards advocates, along with end-user advocates and even competing companies would have been glad to have a specification that was developed in the open, designed to avoid dependencies on specific hardware or software environments, with international needs as well as handicapped-accessibility in mind, planned from the beginning to be free of all "IP" issues, friendly to all implementers, and designed with end-user concerns and archiving in mind. All would have contributed.

Why? Because there really isn't an "anything but Microsoft" crowd. There are those who support other products, technologies, and business models, but they are not necessarily hostile to Microsoft unless MSFT first earned their hostility.

Instead, we all want to see Microsoft held to the same standard of conduct that everyone else must follow. We desire to see level playing fields, where products compete on quality and features, rather than on which is more "compatible" with a monopolist's products. I know that I want to be able to exchange documents seamlessly with anyone, regardless of whether they use Microsoft Office, Sun StarOffice, Corel WordPerfect Office, or some clown's BozoOffice. If that goes against the interest of Microsoft in maintaining their monopoly status, I'm sorry.

This standard was too big and complex for a fast-track process to work. It needed to go through a full committee evaluation. This standard also points out some deep flaws with ISO and with voluntary standards in a world where compliance may be (and often is) mandatory. See ISO9000 in Europe for an example of this.

Since standards tend to become legal requirements, it is important that standards are openly developed, and include members of the public on their committees. They should be free of legal and "IP" restrictions for all time and in all versions, so that anyone can implement any part of the standard for any purpose in any application at any time without permission. Standards should be royalty-free, and should be implementable by those using any licensing or business model, including open source, freeware, shareware, careware, donationware, or the standard proprietary software ultra-restrictive EULA. In fact, I suggest that the reference implementation should always be open source.

As it stands now, I don't think OOXML is fit for ISO standardization, especially given the requirements highlighted just above. I would like to take this opportunity to request that Microsoft take a Mulligan and redo this specification. In the mean time, I'd also like to request that they fully-implement the latest version of ODF as a fully-equal format to OOXML and the old binary formats. Look at the flaws in the OSP and see how it can be "patched" to make OOXML acceptable to free / libre and open source software projects, now that you know the flaws are there. SFLC has shown the way, now it is up to you to walk in it.

]]> lnxwalt Another Ugly Daughter? 2007-10-05T16:57:00-06:00 2007-10-05T22:51:00-06:00 tag:slingshotshootingrocksatgoliathshead,2008:Slingshot.20 I get to see a number of teens in public places. Stores, malls, parks, and even just walking down the street. When you see their behavior, you know that groups like the NAACP and the PUSH/Rainbow Coalition are irrelevant. They were once highly influential, but they cannot compete with the influence of the music and television industries. Thus, while the ethnic organizations try to promote right behavior, the target audience is no longer listening. There is a parallel situation in the software field. Microsoft now has Windows Vista as their flagship operating system. Vista, however, has landed with a thud. Neither users nor IT staffs like it. Even many of the leading voices in the "all for MSFT and MSFT for all" crowd are saying that they can no longer deal with Vista's failings. There is no excitement around Vista. What do you do if you have an ugly daughter that no one wants to marry? Well, you can set prospects up with her older sister, but that is only a temporary fix. She's rapidly approaching the time when no one will want her either. You can take out your shotgun and recruit "volunteers" to take her out. Or maybe you can follow Apple's example and adopt the neighbor's nearly-perfect daughter and build your dreams of dynasty around her. Finally, you can wait until her younger sister grows up. Older Sister It turns out, Microsoft is already doing the first alternative. They recently announced the continued availability of Windows XP into next year. The hope is that people will stick with Vista's older sister instead of looking at other eligible beauties. Shotgun Wedding This was tried through contracts that required computer manufacturers to pay for a copy of Windows for every computer they sold, regardless of whether it was installed on that computer. Now that that scheme has ended, the new way is to tie desirable content to Windows-only applications. A good example is most of the videos on MSN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and NBC stations' sites, which inform non-Windows / non-IE users that they need to install IE on Windows to view the content. The rise of sites like YouTube have deeply cut the effectiveness of the platform-specific tactic. Most viewers go to YouTube, so the desirable player is Flash, not Windows Media or Internet Explorer. Younger Sister If users stay with the older sister, Windows XP, long enough, Windows Vista's replacement will be available. It is scheduled for 2009, about two years away. The issue there is that Windows computers have short lifespans, so most will need replacing between now and the end of 2009. If WinXP is no longer available, buyers could jump to Mac OS X and Linux before then. Adopt Neighbor's Kid This is the tactic that Apple successfully used to create Mac OS X. Using a BSD Unix-based operating system as the core of the system, Apple built its famously pretty interface (GUI) on top. It is no secret that the NT-based kernel is a morass of dependencies, and that Microsoft needs to start over from scratch. Adopting a BSD-based core and building Windows-specific functionality on top of that is one way to make their products. Of course, it appears from this point of view that software vendors are becoming less and less relevant. Sensible buyers are starting to demand that their software should be fairly easily swapped out, just as you swap out a network card or a modem. It means that software, like hardware, needs to be based around open, license-free, patent-free standards (including standards for file formats and protocols such as OpenDocument Format and TCP/IP). I still believe that adopting is Microsoft's best option. I just don't see it agreeing with their corporate pride. I get to see a number of teens in public places. Stores, malls, parks, and even just walking down the street. When you see their behavior, you know that groups like the NAACP and the PUSH/Rainbow Coalition are irrelevant. They were once highly influential, but they cannot compete with the influence of the music and television industries. Thus, while the ethnic organizations try to promote right behavior, the target audience is no longer listening.



Get Linux

There is a parallel situation in the software field. Microsoft now has Windows Vista as their flagship operating system. Vista, however, has landed with a thud. Neither users nor IT staffs like it. Even many of the leading voices in the "all for MSFT and MSFT for all" crowd are saying that they can no longer deal with Vista's failings. There is no excitement around Vista.



What do you do if you have an ugly daughter that no one wants to marry? Well, you can set prospects up with her older sister, but that is only a temporary fix. She's rapidly approaching the time when no one will want her either. You can take out your shotgun and recruit "volunteers" to take her out. Or maybe you can follow Apple's example and adopt the neighbor's nearly-perfect daughter and build your dreams of dynasty around her. Finally, you can wait until her younger sister grows up.



Older Sister

It turns out, Microsoft is already doing the first alternative. They recently announced the continued availability of Windows XP into next year. The hope is that people will stick with Vista's older sister instead of looking at other eligible beauties.



Shotgun Wedding

This was tried through contracts that required computer manufacturers to pay for a copy of Windows for every computer they sold, regardless of whether it was installed on that computer. Now that that scheme has ended, the new way is to tie desirable content to Windows-only applications. A good example is most of the videos on MSN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and NBC stations' sites, which inform non-Windows / non-IE users that they need to install IE on Windows to view the content.



The rise of sites like YouTube have deeply cut the effectiveness of the platform-specific tactic. Most viewers go to YouTube, so the desirable player is Flash, not Windows Media or Internet Explorer.



Younger Sister

If users stay with the older sister, Windows XP, long enough, Windows Vista's replacement will be available. It is scheduled for 2009, about two years away. The issue there is that Windows computers have short lifespans, so most will need replacing between now and the end of 2009. If WinXP is no longer available, buyers could jump to Mac OS X and Linux before then.



Adopt Neighbor's Kid

This is the tactic that Apple successfully used to create Mac OS X. Using a BSD Unix-based operating system as the core of the system, Apple built its famously pretty interface (GUI) on top. It is no secret that the NT-based kernel is a morass of dependencies, and that Microsoft needs to start over from scratch. Adopting a BSD-based core and building Windows-specific functionality on top of that is one way to make their products.



Of course, it appears from this point of view that software vendors are becoming less and less relevant. Sensible buyers are starting to demand that their software should be fairly easily swapped out, just as you swap out a network card or a modem. It means that software, like hardware, needs to be based around open, license-free, patent-free standards (including standards for file formats and protocols such as OpenDocument Format and TCP/IP).



I still believe that adopting is Microsoft's best option. I just don't see it agreeing with their corporate pride.

]]> lnxwalt Microsoft's Ugly Daughter 2007-09-01T16:26:00-06:00 2007-09-01T00:46:00-06:00 tag:slingshotshootingrocksatgoliathshead,2008:Slingshot.19 You know you are ugly when your father has to pay someone to go out with you. Seriously. Microsoft has a new daughter, Microsoft Office 2007. This product uses a new set of file formats. Using Ecma's Buy Yourself A Standard process, Microsoft got Ecma to stamp its format, OOXML, as approved [PDF]. OOXML is designed to be compatible with the file format that Microsoft's ugly daughter uses, without any changes, and to be unimplementable in competitors' products. Since the reason for an open file format is so that buyers and users are in control, not software vendors, formats that promote vendor lock-in are on their way out. The problem for Microsoft is that the governments of the world are going with ODF, which Microsoft's ugly daughter does not support. Few large companies will want to support both formats, and since nearly all large companies are government contractors, they will have to adopt ODF in their operations. (Few small companies will want to support both formats, either.) Once a substantial number, perhaps twenty to thirty percent of organizations, have moved to ODF-supporting applications, even the mighty Microsoft, the Raider from Redmond, will have to join the tide of ODF. Oh, and Mark Blafkin, blogger for the anti-FOSS group ACT, believes that pro-ODF people are anti-Microsoft. The truth is that pro-ODF people are focused on the buyer and user of software. It isn't that vendors are irrelevant (at least not yet), but they and their products have been the focus too long. ODF is about the user's needs and enhancing market competition so that vendors once again have to focus on the user in order to prosper. Office Not-so-open XML, on the other hand, is about trying to maintain control over the market with this proprietary format in drag. We have seen the conflict between large corporations on one side and individuals and small businesses on the other. We choose to support the individual and smaller business without reservation. But you already knew that. ACT has run to the rescue of Microsoft before, sacrificing the interests of small businesses and other buyers and users of software in favor of the interests of one large corporation. You know you are ugly when your father has to pay someone to go out with you. Seriously.



Microsoft has a new daughter, Microsoft Office 2007. This product uses a new set of file formats. Using Ecma's Buy Yourself A Standard process, Microsoft got Ecma to stamp its format, OOXML, as approved [PDF]. OOXML is designed to be compatible with the file format that Microsoft's ugly daughter uses, without any changes, and to be unimplementable in competitors' products. Since the reason for an open file format is so that buyers and users are in control, not software vendors, formats that promote vendor lock-in are on their way out.



The problem for Microsoft is that the governments of the world are going with ODF, which Microsoft's ugly daughter does not support. Few large companies will want to support both formats, and since nearly all large companies are government contractors, they will have to adopt ODF in their operations. (Few small companies will want to support both formats, either.) Once a substantial number, perhaps twenty to thirty percent of organizations, have moved to ODF-supporting applications, even the mighty Microsoft, the Raider from Redmond, will have to join the tide of ODF.



Oh, and Mark Blafkin, blogger for the anti-FOSS group ACT, believes that pro-ODF people are anti-Microsoft. The truth is that pro-ODF people are focused on the buyer and user of software. It isn't that vendors are irrelevant (at least not yet), but they and their products have been the focus too long. ODF is about the user's needs and enhancing market competition so that vendors once again have to focus on the user in order to prosper. Office Not-so-open XML, on the other hand, is about trying to maintain control over the market with this proprietary format in drag. We have seen the conflict between large corporations on one side and individuals and small businesses on the other. We choose to support the individual and smaller business without reservation.



But you already knew that. ACT has run to the rescue of Microsoft before, sacrificing the interests of small businesses and other buyers and users of software in favor of the interests of one large corporation.

]]> lnxwalt BB Is Watching You 2007-08-12T14:51:00-06:00 2007-07-21T03:34:00-06:00 tag:slingshotshootingrocksatgoliathshead,2008:Slingshot.18 http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/fbi_spyware Now, I have to say that I definitely want someone who threatens to bomb someone (or something) to be caught before he or she can commit the act. I also want to emphasize that they did get a warrant. They did the right thing in this case. I have a sense of uneasiness about this, not because they caught this kid, but because so much of our lives are lived online these days. In the old days, if they had figured out how to make your television report which programs you were watching, it would not have meant much. There were three major networks, that tended to play similar programming at any particular time of the day. So maybe you watched Sonny & Cher instead of Donny & Marie, but it did not tell much about who you were inside. Nowadays, your computer and network connection bring much of your entertainment. They bring your news and information. They bring your business dealings. They bring your family communications. A malware attack threatens all of that. This is where it becomes a little scary, because you now have to protect yourself against both criminals and crime-fighters. What happens if FBI spyware winds up on a shared computer or winds up infesting non-targeted computers? What happens if someone "captures" the FBI's spyware and deploys it against other people? These are some of the issues that should probably be openly discussed before we allow government agencies to undermine people's computer systems' security. Blogged with Flock Tags: fbi, spyware http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/fbi_spyware

Now, I have to say that I definitely want someone who threatens to bomb someone (or something) to be caught before he or she can commit the act. I also want to emphasize that they did get a warrant. They did the right thing in this case.

I have a sense of uneasiness about this, not because they caught this kid, but because so much of our lives are lived online these days. In the old days, if they had figured out how to make your television report which programs you were watching, it would not have meant much. There were three major networks, that tended to play similar programming at any particular time of the day. So maybe you watched Sonny & Cher instead of Donny & Marie, but it did not tell much about who you were inside.

Nowadays, your computer and network connection bring much of your entertainment. They bring your news and information. They bring your business dealings. They bring your family communications. A malware attack threatens all of that. This is where it becomes a little scary, because you now have to protect yourself against both criminals and crime-fighters. What happens if FBI spyware winds up on a shared computer or winds up infesting non-targeted computers? What happens if someone "captures" the FBI's spyware and deploys it against other people? These are some of the issues that should probably be openly discussed before we allow government agencies to undermine people's computer systems' security.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: fbi, spyware

]]> lnxwalt A Microsoft statement about GPLv3: Distortion Field 2007-07-07T08:31:00-06:00 2007-07-07T14:27:00-06:00 tag:slingshotshootingrocksatgoliathshead,2008:Slingshot.17 Microsoft Statement About GPLv3: A Microsoft statement about GPLv3. Microsoft has released a statement responding to the release of the GNU General Public License version 3. I am not a lawyer, and it seems pretty clear that lawyers and judges will be debating the exact meaning of the license for years, but I think that Microsoft's statement does not really address the chief aims of the GPL. The GPL exists to prevent corporate "shirts" from taking code from the community and locking it up under proprietary licenses such as the infamous EULA that Microsoft uses. Version 3 adds provisions to patch "tivoization" and patent holes that were found in version 2 of the license. Microsoft's agreement with Novell takes advantage of just such a hole. In the agreement, Novell is in compliance with the wording but not the avowed intent of version 2 of the license. It gives paid direct customers of Novell certain rights to use (but not distribute) software and source code under patent licenses. It does not give the same rights to any other users or distributors of the software. This is much like the local street gang's agreement not to hurt or shoot your kids at the park in exchange for a payment from you. Your kids are still not safe, because any time a gang shoots kids it endangers all kids in the area. Any time a major software company threatens to sue a competitor's customers, all software buyers are in the cross-hairs. Even just threatening such a thing is totally reckless, along the lines of a presidential candidate threatening to invade China if he or she is elected. In the last hundred years, not once but twice, someone has started a war that spread to much of the world and threatened the existence of civilization as we know it. We would not look favorably upon a politician that threatened to repeat this lesson, yet there are those who look favorably upon the same kind of threat to civilization as we know it--the kind of threats coming from the highest levels of Microsoft. In fact, we do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL to carry out any aspect of its collaboration with Novell, including its distribution of support certificates, even if Novell chooses to distribute GPLv3 code in the future. Furthermore, Microsoft does not grant any implied or express patent rights under or as a result of GPLv3, and GPLv3 licensors have no authority to represent or bind Microsoft in any way. Microsoft makes some assertions here: that passing out coupons for software is not distribution (a stance that the Raiders In Adamantium Armor [the RIAA] would disagree with, I'm sure), and that its license grants would not be subject to the "one-for-all and all-for-one" clauses of the GPLv3. It is clear that they are worried, since they are refusing to do anything that might be construed as distribution: At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal debate on this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell support certificates that we distribute to customers will not entitle the recipient to receive from Novell, or any other party, any subscription for support and updates relating to any code licensed under GPLv3. We will closely study the situation and decide whether to expand the scope of the certificates in the future. [Emphasis mine] If they were more sure of their position, they would not have to curtail the scope of the coupons. I notice that they are still talking about "interoperability" without any apparent desire to truly work with competitors to make life easier for customers. How do we know this? Look at OOXML. Rather than use a perfectly good ISO (and OASIS) standard format (one that has been proven in over thirty different products), Microsoft is trying to push Not-so-open XML (OOXML) on us, the users of software. Given that Not-so-open XML is an abject failure at its stated objective, the only purpose left that may be motivating the push for ISO-ification of OOXML is continuing their monopoly. Look also at the continuing threats against all FLOSS that are emanating from Microsoft's headshed in Redmond, WA. It is almost like Harry Potter's Voldemort, a shadowy and malevolent presence. No doubt that we will soon see the resolution of Potter's conflict, but the software conflict will continue for some time. Just remember, as I read on Luis Villa's blog, the GPL is meant primarily to protect the user, but in the process also protects the developer. Past experience has shown that monopolists (and any company that is part of an "opoly") tend to forget about improving their product or service and instead focus on figuring out new ways to package the same functionality so that customers will have to buy it again. Blogged with Flock Tags: gpl, gplv3, microsoft Microsoft Statement About GPLv3: A Microsoft statement about GPLv3.

Microsoft has released a statement responding to the release of the GNU General Public License version 3. I am not a lawyer, and it seems pretty clear that lawyers and judges will be debating the exact meaning of the license for years, but I think that Microsoft's statement does not really address the chief aims of the GPL.

The GPL exists to prevent corporate "shirts" from taking code from the community and locking it up under proprietary licenses such as the infamous EULA that Microsoft uses. Version 3 adds provisions to patch "tivoization" and patent holes that were found in version 2 of the license. Microsoft's agreement with Novell takes advantage of just such a hole. In the agreement, Novell is in compliance with the wording but not the avowed intent of version 2 of the license. It gives paid direct customers of Novell certain rights to use (but not distribute) software and source code under patent licenses. It does not give the same rights to any other users or distributors of the software.

This is much like the local street gang's agreement not to hurt or shoot your kids at the park in exchange for a payment from you. Your kids are still not safe, because any time a gang shoots kids it endangers all kids in the area. Any time a major software company threatens to sue a competitor's customers, all software buyers are in the cross-hairs.

Even just threatening such a thing is totally reckless, along the lines of a presidential candidate threatening to invade China if he or she is elected. In the last hundred years, not once but twice, someone has started a war that spread to much of the world and threatened the existence of civilization as we know it. We would not look favorably upon a politician that threatened to repeat this lesson, yet there are those who look favorably upon the same kind of threat to civilization as we know it--the kind of threats coming from the highest levels of Microsoft.

In fact, we do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL to carry out any aspect of its collaboration with Novell, including its distribution of support certificates, even if Novell chooses to distribute GPLv3 code in the future. Furthermore, Microsoft does not grant any implied or express patent rights under or as a result of GPLv3, and GPLv3 licensors have no authority to represent or bind Microsoft in any way.
Microsoft makes some assertions here: that passing out coupons for software is not distribution (a stance that the Raiders In Adamantium Armor [the RIAA] would disagree with, I'm sure), and that its license grants would not be subject to the "one-for-all and all-for-one" clauses of the GPLv3. It is clear that they are worried, since they are refusing to do anything that might be construed as distribution:
At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal debate on this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell support certificates that we distribute to customers will not entitle the recipient to receive from Novell, or any other party, any subscription for support and updates relating to any code licensed under GPLv3. We will closely study the situation and decide whether to expand the scope of the certificates in the future.

[Emphasis mine] If they were more sure of their position, they would not have to curtail the scope of the coupons. I notice that they are still talking about "interoperability" without any apparent desire to truly work with competitors to make life easier for customers. How do we know this? Look at OOXML. Rather than use a perfectly good ISO (and OASIS) standard format (one that has been proven in over thirty different products), Microsoft is trying to push Not-so-open XML (OOXML) on us, the users of software. Given that Not-so-open XML is an abject failure at its stated objective, the only purpose left that may be motivating the push for ISO-ification of OOXML is continuing their monopoly.

Look also at the continuing threats against all FLOSS that are emanating from Microsoft's headshed in Redmond, WA. It is almost like Harry Potter's Voldemort, a shadowy and malevolent presence. No doubt that we will soon see the resolution of Potter's conflict, but the software conflict will continue for some time. Just remember, as I read on Luis Villa's blog, the GPL is meant primarily to protect the user, but in the process also protects the developer. Past experience has shown that monopolists (and any company that is part of an "opoly") tend to forget about improving their product or service and instead focus on figuring out new ways to package the same functionality so that customers will have to buy it again.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: gpl, gplv3, microsoft

]]> lnxwalt Patent Foolishness Continues 2007-05-28T11:12:00-06:00 2007-05-28T17:09:00-06:00 tag:slingshotshootingrocksatgoliathshead,2008:Slingshot.16 Did you ever sign up for an e-mail newsletter? I have. At one point, I got dozens of them every week. Most of them contain links back to the sender's site, including links that lead to "members-only" features like customized content. So how does the site know that you are interested in Python and Java and Interbase, but not in Visual Basic or SQL Server or Delphi? Simple: in the links back to their site is a code that ties the display to your USERID. Often, sites first take you to a login page, where all of that is decided, but the information CAN be embedded in the original URL also. A company called QuikOrder has patented the use of a coded URL to embed ordering information (such as USERID, shipping information, product selected and quantity, and the all-important credit card information), so that users can reorder frequently-purchased items with a single click. What is new or inventive about that? If you guessed NOTHING, you get an "A" for the day. I have decided to patent the alphabet. Using a system of symbols representing vocalizations that can be assembled in any order to represent the sound of any word in a language, those that license my patent will be able to communicate to people that are outside of hearing range or who come along after the communication has been sent. Because legislators and lawyers use more written communications than anyone else, I will license those groups first (on "RAND" terms, of course) before I decide to shut down anyone who uses written communications without a license from me. For those who are humor-impaired, this paragraph was a joke. Did you ever sign up for an e-mail newsletter? I have. At one point, I got dozens of them every week. Most of them contain links back to the sender's site, including links that lead to "members-only" features like customized content. So how does the site know that you are interested in Python and Java and Interbase, but not in Visual Basic or SQL Server or Delphi? Simple: in the links back to their site is a code that ties the display to your USERID. Often, sites first take you to a login page, where all of that is decided, but the information CAN be embedded in the original URL also.

A company called QuikOrder has patented the use of a coded URL to embed ordering information (such as USERID, shipping information, product selected and quantity, and the all-important credit card information), so that users can reorder frequently-purchased items with a single click. What is new or inventive about that? If you guessed NOTHING, you get an "A" for the day.

I have decided to patent the alphabet. Using a system of symbols representing vocalizations that can be assembled in any order to represent the sound of any word in a language, those that license my patent will be able to communicate to people that are outside of hearing range or who come along after the communication has been sent. Because legislators and lawyers use more written communications than anyone else, I will license those groups first (on "RAND" terms, of course) before I decide to shut down anyone who uses written communications without a license from me. ;-) For those who are humor-impaired, this paragraph was a joke.

]]> lnxwalt