Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Programming IT Technology

Two Open Document Standards Better Than One? 308

Posted by Zonk from the snarky-lil-megacorp-aren't-they? dept.
tsa writes "Microsoft says that the consumers should have the choice between multiple open standards for documents." From the article: "Microsoft's Yates said that OpenDocument and Open XML come from very different design points. 'In the future at some point there will be convergence,' he said. In the near term, the transition period from proprietary document formats to Open XML-based ones will be 'messy and complex,' he added. 'Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Two Open Document Standards Better Than One? More

Two Open Document Standards Better Than One?

Comments Filter:

  • Divide and conquer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @11:52AM (#14264505)
    We might not be able to beat one good format, but we can easily defeat two.

  • the old saying goes.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by jspectre ( 102549 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @11:54AM (#14264520) Journal
    "standards are great, everyone should have one."

  • I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15, 2005 @11:54AM (#14264525)
    If there are two standards, how can they be called standards?

    Isn't that like having competing monopolies?

    Regardless, competetion in standards is only good for a short period of time, after that there is a waste of man hours on one project to the detriment of whatever the standard is for.

    • Re:I'm confused (Score:2, Insightful)

      by RogL ( 608926 )
      If there are two standards, how can they be called standards?


      That's right - who could possibly need more than one standard?

      Just as there's only one graphics-file format... GIF! I mean bitmap... or was that JPEG? Oh, PNG - that's the one! Except for the nuts using TIFF or RAW...

    • Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Pudusplat ( 574705 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:42PM (#14264988)
      Nope.

      Multiple ideas can be thought of as a "standard", they just aren't necessarily compatible. PAL vs NTSC, 120 volts vs 220 volts, AC/DC, DVD-R vs DVD+R, Letter size vs Legal vs Postcard. They're all standards, all used for various purposes, and sometimes (DVD-R vs DVD+R) interchangable. As long as a lot of people conform to using it (not necessarily ALL people), it can be deemed a standard. Multiple standards can be a good thing. Of course, multiple standards can also be a bad thing, as it leads to unneccessary incompatabilities.

  • Of course! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday December 15, 2005 @11:55AM (#14264532) Homepage Journal
    As soon as Microsoft releases a fully documented, non-patented format, or at least creates a perpetual license for F/OSS projects to use a patented format, I'll welcome them with open arms.

    Since they haven't done that yet, the rest is just speculation. It looks like legal issues will be keeping the Free world on OpenDocument for the foreseeable future.

    • Re:Of course! (Score:5, Informative)

      by cduffy ( 652 ) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:13PM (#14264734)
      As soon as Microsoft releases a fully documented, non-patented format, or at least creates a perpetual license for F/OSS projects to use a patented format, I'll welcome them with open arms.
      Will you do that even without considering the merits of their patented-yet-standardized format?

      They've promised to create exactly that perpetual license, and there's pretty much no question at this point that they will indeed do so. The problem is this: Their proposed format sucks, and ECMA probably won't do anything about it.

      Compared to ODF, the format Microsoft is proposing is vastly less suitable for XMLT transforms. It fails to leverage preexisting standards, so other implementations can't take advantage of existing code to render and manipulate SVG, MathML and the like.

      Please see the OpenDocument Fellowship's introduction [opendocume...owship.org] to the technical merits of Microsoft's proposed format to better understand the extralegal objections to the same.

  • I've upped my standards... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SunPin ( 596554 ) <slashspam@cyberT ... com minus author> on Thursday December 15, 2005 @11:55AM (#14264543) Homepage
    so up yours.

  • Now that is funny!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gasmonso ( 929871 )
    "Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing.

    If Microsoft had to actually compete, they would cease to exist.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
    • Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing.

      More importantly, isn't that the entire reason for a "standard"? So you don't have competing formats? Hence the use of the word "standard". Maybe he needs to look up the definition of standard (and, while he's at it, oxymoron).
    • Right. Because if there's a "standard" way of doing something and you think of something better, you should bite your tongue, suck it up and continue using something you believe isn't as good as it could be.

      I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but I'm quite surprised that everyone here seems to think that competition is evil, just because MS is the competition.

      Take USB 1.0 vs. Firewire for example. Would we have seen USB 2.0 as soon as we did if Firewire didn't offer "faster competition" to USB 1.
      • The reason microsoft is evil competition in this case is because of motive. Microsoft's goal is to undermine the open process and any "open" proposals it puts forth will have been designed to ultimately allow microsoft to do so.

        Perhaps they will leverage their monopoly to cause an inferior open format to win. It goes like this.

        1. Government and some industry requires open format support in word processing application.
        2. Microsoft proposes terrible open format that is vastly inferior to word doc.
        3. Microsoft
    • If Microsoft had to actually compete, they would cease to exist.

      Microsoft does compete - every time they release a new Windows/Office version they have to compete against the installed base of older Windows/Office versions.

    • "If Microsoft had to actually compete, they would cease to exist."

      I'd find this more insightful if Microsoft's monopolies weren't de-facto.
    • To shut them up, we demand they support all the standards.

  • Good idea? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ceeam ( 39911 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @11:56AM (#14264553)
    <html>

    <head>
    <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
    <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered)">
    <style>
    <!--
    /* Style Definitions */
    p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0cm;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman";}
    @page Section1
        {size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
        margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm;}
    div.Section1
        {page:Section1;}
    -->
    </style>

    </head>

    <bod y lang=EN>

    <div class=Section1>

    <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Idiot</span></p>

    </div>

    </body>

    </html>

    • Re:Good idea? (Score:5, Funny)

      by BushCheney08 ( 917605 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:03PM (#14264629)
      <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
      xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
      xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

      <head>
      <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
      <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
      <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9">
      <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9">
      <link rel=File-List href="./Hehehe_files/filelist.xml">
      <title>Hehehe</title>
      <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
        <o:DocumentProperties>
          <o:Author>Goatse</o:Author>
          <o:LastAuthor>Goatse</o:LastAuthor>
          <o:Revision>1</o:Revision>
          <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
          <o:Created>2005-12-15T15:59:00Z</o:Created>
          <o:LastSaved>2005-12-15T15:59:00Z</o:LastSaved>
          <o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
          <o:Company>ProbeCo</o:Company>
          <o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
          <o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
          <o:Version>9.6926</o:Version>
        </o:DocumentProperties>
      </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
        <w:WordDocument>
          <w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>6 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
          <w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>2</w:DisplayH orizontalDrawingGridEvery>
          <w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>2</w:DisplayVer ticalDrawingGridEvery>
        </w:WordDocument>
      </xml><![endif]-->
      <style>
      <!-- /* Style Definitions */
      p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
              {mso-style-parent:"";
              margin:0in;
              margin-bottom:.0001pt;
              mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
              font-size:12.0pt;
              font-family:"Times New Roman";
              mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
      @page Section1
              {size:8.5in 11.0in;
              margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
              mso-header-margin:.5in;
              mso-footer-margin:.5in;
              mso-paper-source:259;}
      div.Section1
              {page:Section1;}
      -->
      </style>
      </head>

      <body lang=EN-US style='tab-interval:.5in'>

      <div class=Section1>

      <p class=MsoNormal>Hehehe. Good One.</p>

      </div>

      </body>

      </html>

    • offtopic? Surely you jest (Score:4, Insightful)

      by porkThreeWays ( 895269 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:15PM (#14264743)
      offtopic? I guess some people need things spelled out for them. The above was a reference to Microsoft's blatent disregard of html standards. In effect, when we've got more than one standard out there, the above is the result.

  • MS strategy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JoeCommodore ( 567479 )
    Let's just forget the embrace thing, we'll just muddy the market by extending.

  • Just excellent (Score:2, Funny)

    by KlomDark ( 6370 )
    Ah yes, the 'Tower of Babel' defense - Completely screw up the ability to communicate clearly by introducing another competing way.

    Also known as "StirStick of Muddy Water +5"

    So much for historians trying to figure out the years 2006 to 2012... How very non-altruistic of Microsoft. How very against the basic tenets of Information Systems.

  • Competition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuaintRealist ( 905302 ) <quaintrealist AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday December 15, 2005 @11:57AM (#14264568) Homepage Journal
    "Competition between two standards we believe is a very good thing"

    From past experience, Microsoft only believes this when the leading standard is someone elses. Once Microsoft's standard holds the most mindshare/marketshare, then they don't like competition anymore.

    Just what I've observed

    • Re:Competition (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eil ( 82413 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @01:06PM (#14265199) Homepage Journal
      MS realizes at this point, that it's going to be quite hard or impossible to beat out OpenDocument. So what do they do? Well, they simply suggest that there will be two standards, and that they will at some time converge into one. But taking these statements apart and considering Microsoft's prior attitudes and actions toward difficult competition, we arrive at some very strong assertions from a Microsoftian point of view:

      1) We will sooner curl up, die, and/or join the open source movement before letting a non-MS Office document standard become any sort of official or de facto standard.

      2) There will be two incompatible standards in popular use. Yes, that does defeat the entire purpose of standards in the first place, but you have to realize that we're Microsoft and that we will never stop pushing our own solutions, even if they're inferior, evil, or expensive. Even if everyone on the planet rejects them, it will not hinder us. But we will succeed eventually.

      3) Our standard will converge with the competition's in response to market forces. And if the market doesn't force it, we will, and we'll just make it sound like we didn't.

      4) We plan to be in charge of this convergence. And by "converge," we mean "effectively replace that one with ours." We'll be in full control of the result.
  • Last time I checked, TWO ain't a standard. It's a competition.

  • For who? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @11:58AM (#14264578) Homepage
    Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing

    Yeah, for microsoft.

    You can expect this kind of horse shit from MS because they are on the weak end of the document format wars. Allow me to explain:

    Competition between programs is a very good thing. No arguments. Standards are just that, standards. There has already been a shake down period, and people have agreed this is an agreed set of rules. Hence, "standard". By instigating a whole new standards "war", they hope to create confusion and chaos. And those of you who work with PHB already know the next bit: They panic and go with the safe option.

    Fuck 'em. I hope against logic that they get eaten alive on this one.
    • I have seen lots of posts saying it is some scheme for dividing and conquering, or creating more work for open source people, etc, but the real story is that the Office codebase is so convoluted and fragile that they need a document format that favorable to how Office works... friendly to its data structures and whatnot.

      Basically the only innovation to Office in the last 4+ years has been in the UI, and I don't think that is an accident. An interface just issues commands to the document engine, so it's fai

    • Re:For who? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by picaro ( 871495 ) *

      Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing.

      Competition between the English and the metric systems, for example, has provided an endless stream of benefits [bbc.co.uk] over the years.

      And while we're at it, the different standards for power plugs and telephone adapters are really great, too, stimulating the ingenuity of international travelers everywhere, and doubtless provide jobs and livelihoods for tens of thousands of adapter manufactures around the world.

  • This is one of the funniest stories I've heard for a long time.
    Are microsoft sending themselves up?

    This reminds me of the old joke about the advantages of standards, that there are so many to choose from.

    That old joke was supposed to be in the Tanenbaum book, but I couldn't find it in the 3rd edition. Was it removed? Or can someone give me a reference for this?

    "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. And if you really don't like all the standards you just have to wait anothe

  • Open XML? (Score:5, Funny)

    by john82 ( 68332 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @11:59AM (#14264592)
    Seriously, is that what Microsoft calls their format now? I can hear the PR guys.

    "We've got to come up with a name that at least sounds like we're the good guys. You know, open to new ideas. I've got it! We'll use Open XML!"


    It's just marketing BS. Bleh!

  • Open Standard? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fallen Kell ( 165468 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:00PM (#14264598)
    I still do not know how they can call their "Open XML" open to begin with. It was basically MS dictating what the "standard" would be with no comments accepted from anyone in the community (asside from MS's internal community).

    The process was, this is the standard.

  • Microsoft's bastardization of the word 'OPEN' (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OwlWhacker ( 758974 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:00PM (#14264601) Journal
    Open doesn't mean what it should anymore.

    Like in this article for example [eweek.com].

    QUOTE:

    Thanks to Microsoft, users will face the "unsavory prospect of two supposed standards. The truth is that only one of them is free of intellectual property encumbrances. Only one reflects multivendor support, and only one reflects openness. That standard is OpenDocument Format,"

  • Not again... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Taevin ( 850923 ) * on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:01PM (#14264604)
    Let's see, embrace, extend, extinguish.

    Embrace: Do a complete reversal; say that open standards are a great idea, far better than our own proprietary asshattery.

    Extend: So yeah, we're all about open standards now and look we've got our own version OpenXML. It's obviously better (or at least that's what people will believe thanks to our unstoppable marketing department) so we'll add extra tags and change the format of existing ones. Oh by the way, this means that only Microsoft products will create this and only Microsoft products will understand this but that's not our fault, honestly.

    Extinguish: Well everyone seems to be using our version of the open document format since 90% of all computer users use our software so only masochists use that 'other' standard. We'll repeatedly change the standard by making each version of our software understand only a new version of it. After everyone is frustrated by the lack of stability in a so called standard, we'll do another 180 and point out how much better and stable closed source/standards are and move everyone back to safe, trustworthy Microsoft standards that Just Works(tm).

    Thanks for playing!
  • Microsoft says that the consumers should have the choice between multiple open standards for documents.

    It's Beta vs. VHS all over again.

    Or HD-DVD vs. BluRay for those of you with short memories.

  • Isn't it missing the point a bit saying that there should be many open source formats for the same thing, when the point of open formats is to make it easy for everyone to implement them?

    How about Microsoft instead making it easier for everyone and joining forces with IBM, Adobe, Corel, and Sun among others behind OpenDocument, and trying suggest improvements to it to do whatever they so badly need to make their own format for?

    • "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence?"

      Lemme put it this way: this cannot be adequately explained by incompetence.

      They're not simply missing the point, they're brushing it aside as they forge ahead with their own plans to convolute the "OpenDoc" information space. Then, when everyone's confused, they try to make theirs look as good and reliable as possible compared to that other, "lesser" standard to snatch what market share they can.

      They get their all-important

    • It's obvious, isn't it? Microsoft has exclusive control over the ECMA standard. Only Microsoft can release another OpenXML standard and the "standard" states that clearly. On the other hand, anyone from the ODF group could update the Open Document format, and release a new standard through the normal OASIS procedures. If Sun became disinterested in maintaining the standard, the remaining members could. If Microsoft becomes disinterested in maintaining OpenXML (say, for example, they successfully killed

  • MS craftier than you think (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spycker ( 812466 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:03PM (#14264625)
    I got a new laptop and it had MS works installed. I used Word until the trial period expired then when I could no longer open documents I downloaded OpenOffice. Lo and behold when I try to open an MS document now it does open using Word except it does ask me to license the product.

    I get the impression that Word looks for OpenOffice and if it finds it decides to go ahead and open the document!!!!

    • Re:MS craftier than you think (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:15PM (#14264744) Journal
      Is anybody else seeing this? I wonder if that was due to OO being seen in the registry via MSOffice, or if it occured by information being sent to MS AND then back again?
    • Very interesting! May I ask which versions of MS Works, Windows and OOo you were using?
  • Consider: if the Open Document standard is widely adopted, that means the end of proprietary document formats - who wants to go through their professional career knowing that M$ has the software equivalent of a gun to their heads?

    IF, however, M$ can create a second "open" standard (one which presumably is not compatible with the existing open standard), end-users will be frustrated by what they perceive as a failure of the open document standard. I can see some poor cubicle inhabitant trying to open a M$

  • "Additional standards give you more choice over a period of time," Alan Yates, general manager, business strategy with Microsoft's information worker group, said Wednesday. "Governments should be open to both [Open XML and OpenDocument] and whatever else is rolling down the street. Choosing both is really wise."

    Translation: We at Microsoft were really disappointed when we heard the State of Massachusetts was not 'agile' and were not going to 'realize their full potential' by going to the Open Document

  • For Some Definition of "Open" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:05PM (#14264656)

    Multiple, competing open standards are fine, and being open it is usually not too difficult to translate between them. Unfortunately MS's "Open XML" standard is not open, so they are not really giving us the choice they are claiming. Open XML is format that is patented and that is licensed with a variety of important restrictions. For example, only the current version is covered by the license, it expires immediately should a new version come out. According to the letter of the license this means the benefits of backwards compatibility and even the ability to distribute a program from one day to the next are subject to MS's whim. Should MS release a new version that is intentionally broken, they could legally restrict competitors from continuing to sell or even give away a word processor.

    Redistribution is completely forbidden by the licensing, leading many to believe that it was specifically designed to exclude GNU licensed applications, like Open Office, their primary competitor. How can anyone call "Open XML" and open format when the license under which that format is offered means it can't be implemented by OpenOffice?

    All of this is MS marketing FUD. Closed is open. Bad is good. Ha ha we made it really hard for you to explain shit to your managers by naming our product the opposite of what it is. This is like GM calling the next iteration of their traditional cargo van "Hybrid Luxury Mobile" despite it not having a hybrid engine or any luxury features. Don't fall for their crap.

    • I find it interesting that you are so meticulous about interpreting Microsoft's license, yet you seem to ignore entirely Sun's license and patent covenent which contains very similar "loopholes". For instance, Sun's patent covenent promises not to sue anyone *SO LONG A SUN IS PARTICIPATING* in that version of OpenDocument.

      So, for example, if Sun decided they didn't like the direction of OpenDocument 1.1, they could stop participating and then sue anyone for "suddenly discovered" patents.

      Additionally, the "

      • Re:For Some Definition of "Open" (Score:5, Informative)

        by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @01:48PM (#14265535)

        find it interesting that you are so meticulous about interpreting Microsoft's license, yet you seem to ignore entirely Sun's license and patent covenent which contains very similar "loopholes". For instance, Sun's patent covenent promises not to sue anyone *SO LONG A SUN IS PARTICIPATING* in that version of OpenDocument.

        First, MS has applied for and been granted patents on the format itself in multiple jurisdictions. Sun has not patented the Open Office format. The license you are referring to discusses technologies that may be utilized by the format, not the format itself. Second, Sun has promised not to sue anyone for using any of their patents that might cover technology in the Open Office spec, because that is what OASIS requires. It does not imply that any such technologies exist. Third, regarding the participation clause, no company in their right mind would cede all their patent rights for all technology arbitrarily. The participation clause allows Sun to decline the option to participate in a new version of the standard, thus preventing someone from arbitrarily inserting random patented technology in a new version of the spec, and thus gaining access to any of Suns patents, license free.

        There is a big difference between an agreement that says if any patents conflict with a format they won't be enforced and a patented format, licensed with restrictions. There is a huge difference between the ability to not release a new version of a format from patent protection and the ability to arbitrarily rescind a license to a format. If Sun decided not to participate in a future version of Open Office any company that has implemented old versions are still free to do so and new programs are free to implement them for backwards compatibility. If MS releases a new version of the "Open XML" spec no one is free to keep distributing old word processors or implement new word processors that can use that format for backwards compatibility, save at MS's whim. If you don't see the practical difference then you're either dense or being paid not to see it.

        So, for example, if Sun decided they didn't like the direction of OpenDocument 1.1, they could stop participating and then sue anyone for "suddenly discovered" patents.

        Sun can only sue if they have patents covered by a new version of the spec that they are not implementing (none are known) and if other companies then go ahead and implement that spec. The reason for this restriction on their patent protection license was already explained above.

        Additionally, the "openness" of something has nothing to do with whether or not it's GPL compatible. There are many open source (and even Free, according the Free Software Foundation) licenses that are not GPL compatible. The Mozilla Public License, for instance.

        You're confusing "open" and "open source." Open source means you can view the code. Open means the format is unencumbered and freely implementable by all. An open standard is one that can be implemented by anyone. A closed standard is one that must be licensed and is subject to restrictions. The Open Document standard is open. No license is needed to implement it, and the various companies that submitted the standard have pledged that if any of their patents cover items within it, they won't enforce them (to prevent submarine patenting). MS, on the other hand, admits to having patented the "Open XML" spec, and further has placed restriction on how that spec can be used (singling out certain software licenses for specific exclusion).

        I'm also skeptical that Sun's license is GPL compatible either, since they impose the additional requirement of granting Sun reciprocal patent rights (explictly Sun, not necessarily others), which violates the "no additional restrictions" clause of the GPL.

        A document format cannot be (by definition) GPL compatible. The GPL covers source code and redistribution of binaries. That is copyright law, not patent law. Nothing prevents GPL programs from implemen

  • "... is a very good thing."

    apparently he never owned a betamax.

  • Am I the only one... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by squoozer ( 730327 )

    ...that thinks two competing document standards isn't a good thing? Yes, I know all the arguments about the competition spawning features and a better product and quite frankly I don't really believe them. As far as I am concerned it will just lead to a situation where I am always playing off the benifits and draw backs of the two formats and trying to guess which one a potential client will want. At least at the moment it's a no brainer. Send it in the latest .doc format or .pdf depending on whether you wa

    • That would be like having two incompatible versions of HTML and having to choose your browser based on site.

      Oh, you mean like it has been in the past, and sometimes is even now?

      I use Firefox for most standards-based HTML sites, and IE for those sites which demand it
  • I think the difference between open and closed standards is simply the ability to easily migrate your data to a new standard with open standards. That's what Microsoft does not want.
    Narf.
  • Before: "Open standards harm competition"
    After: "Two open standards are better than one".

    C'mon, Steve, you can do better than that.
    • Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument [foxnews.com]

      Written by Jim Prendergast, executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership. Microsoft Corporation is a founding member of ATL.

      This article is filled with so much bullshit it's difficult to know where to begin rebutting it:

      OpenDocument applications would have to be built from the ground up.

      Pure FUD. Applications already exist that implement OpenDocument. In fact, OpenOffice is mentioned in the article right in the next paragraph! Anyways, adding a ne
  • I'm sorry, but where did they get that conclusion? If it was something stated by an official at Microsoft, can we somehow sue them for lying or something?

    What is being said and what is being demonstrated are two completely different things. Do I need to go into detail able how ferociously they fight and undermine the use and deployment of non-proprietary software and data solutions? (Even to the point of having laws created and changed and having decision-making power shifted from experts to politicians?
  • Some animals are more equal than others.

  • Grind, grind, grind (Score:5, Informative)

    by FishandChips ( 695645 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @12:12PM (#14264723) Journal
    If you are Microsoft, what you have at stake are billions of dollars and your monopoly. Therefore Microsoft will do absolutely anything to protect both. They are a monopoly and this is what monopolies do.

    I guess all the rest of us can do is plot our course - in this case OpenDocument - and stick to it through thick and thin.

    Microsoft will contine to wriggle and bluster around this for months and months. It's part of the game. There's no point wasting any more energy on the subject. Microsoft would like nothing more than to exhaust people they will always regard as competition.

  • Two Standards? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by theJML ( 911853 )
    The last time I remember two standards really working out well was VHS and BetaMax... Oh wait, that didn't work out well did it.. We all ended up tossing our superior BetaMax decks for big, lower quality, VHS ones. Just think my pile of VHS tapes could have been so much smaller if Beta won... But I digress. Honestly, in the VHS vs BetaMax, they're both still in use (well, maybe not as wide spread as they were a few years ago), just some on the professional side of the fence and some on the home side. So is
  • Here [groklaw.net] is this story.

    It goes like this.
    MS has a recipe with marzipan as an ingredient.
    MS allows us to use this recipe for free.
    But MS does not tell us what kind of marzipan is used for this specific recipe.

    ==> We are allowed to use this recipe but can not use this recipe because we don't have all the details about all ingredients.
  • Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing.
    So is learning to admit defeat when beaten by a superior standard.
    The race is already over and Microsoft is begging for a restart.
  • MS didn't mean 'two' standards, they meant 'double' standard.

    You know, like when she forgets to do the laundry, it's ok, but when YOU forget, it's hell to pay.

    That 'pair' of standards...same as they've done all along.
  • "Microsoft says that the consumers should have the choice between multiple open standards for documents."

    There are two standards already. ODF and PDF.

  • Groklaw article (Score:2, Informative)

    by Jason69 ( 661789 )
    Groklaw has a good article http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200512150 14700305 [groklaw.net] on this story including the transcript of Alan Yates.
  • This seems like a pretty predictable move to me. Microsoft's entire Office business model is based on vendor lock in; word processors in general are starting to plateau, since they have reached a point where new features are giving diminishing returns. Other than opening legacy documents, there is no reason for companies to use MS Office over one of the alternatives, so Microsoft is counting on vendor lock-in to keep selling licenses. Office currently represents one quarter of Microsoft's total revenue [com.com], and
  • Well MS Office is still unable to open OpenDocument documents...
    If they don't add quicly import/export features, MS Office will become irrelevant. Not because it is a bad product but because their users will be unable to open the documents they receive. Because companies/agencies are switching massively (from what I can see).
  • Wasn't crashing a probe into Mars proof enough that competing standards only introduces unforseen problems? I think some amusement park had a ride derail for pretty much the same stuff.

  • NASA Proved Two Standards are Bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @01:10PM (#14265243)
    One only has to look at NASA to see just how bad using two standards can be. NASA used two standards of measurement (english and metric), the result is a pile of parts strewn across the red planet.

  • Competition between standards: good?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by egarland ( 120202 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @02:11PM (#14265715)
    Take for example Betamax vs VHS. That was very good thing. Oh wait, no, the other thing. A major catastorphy. It caused consumers tons of pain, cost everyone tons of money and set the industry back years.

    Competition is good. Standards are good. Competition between standards: very bad.

    "And we go round and round and round in the circle game."

  • competition (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SebNukem ( 188921 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @02:48PM (#14266025)
    "Competition between two standards we believe is a very good thing"

    What a ridiculous statement.

    If there are multiple standards then there is no standard by definition.

    Competition between products using a common standard is a good thing.

  • Unintended side effects for Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Thursday December 15, 2005 @02:58PM (#14266125) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft "opening" their XML format has an unintended side effect. Sure, they may end up winning the purchasing agreement for office software for the Massachussetts state government ... but by opening the format, they've also opened the door to allowing the OpenOffice.org software to read/write Microsoft's format -- legally. This will allow the free world to continue using OpenOffice.org in a Microsoft-centric world.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close