Jeremy Allison On Microsoft, OOXML and Standards 102
An anonymous reader writes "OOXML is already Microsoft's "de facto" standard as implemented in Office 2007, so when would any changes arising from the Comments Resolution meeting in February 2008 be put in place? According to Jeremy Allison's latest column, when last minute changes were suggested for the CIFS standard, which Samba exists to disentangle, "the response came back from Microsoft that although the fixes were valid, unfortunately the code was already written and was going to be shipped in the next service pack. End of discussion. It wasn't even in a shipping product yet, but the specification was determined to be unchangeable as they didn't want to change their existing code.""
I must have missed something HUGE (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I must have missed something HUGE (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I must have missed something HUGE (Score:5, Interesting)
Two ways? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, if the metric shows Linux gaining ground its valid, but if the metric shows Windows dominating, the numbers are suspect? And we can find all sorts of explanations?
This is like the metrics for the Anthro Global Warming crowd. Any study that suggest geo, solar, and other causes is dismissed. Any bad math is dismissed.
Yes, MS is dominating and not really losing ground. Downloads of Linux are up, but that does not indicate use, it indicates curiousity. Everytime there is a significant release by any of th
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't that he is dismissing what he doesn't agree with. It is that he thinks the linux servers are under reported because the role they take on actually replaces several windows servers. So it isn't the metrics, it is the value of the metr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows servers need larger clusters so if one BSOD's then it will have minimal impact.
Re:I must have missed something HUGE (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah 70% of servers might be, but most of them support the 93% desktop infrastructure ONLY.
While Unix'es are usually there for processing, service delivery and other higher value non-infrastructure services.
Re: (Score:1)
If you count not just web servers, but e.g. intranet Exchange servers and AD controllers, 70% sounds plausible.
LAN numbers are not really on M$'s side, even within dumb companies. Outside of dumb companies, gnu/linux rules. If you count every desktop with a "shared folder" you might get to 70% within a specific company. M$ does not want to go there because they would like you to believe in asymmetrical computing, where others have power and you do not. If you include embedded devices with web servers, the M$ share goes to ten percent. Within every big dumb company running a windoze server with all the lock-in trimmings, you will find six or seven system administrators who run a normal *nix computer because they can, hundreds of WAPs, printers and other devices that people expect to be able to talk to because they must. In the world at large, free software rules because no one in their right mind would blow all sorts of money of a M$ solution when they can get a free one. The kinds of junk hardware these servers run on and their superior reliability completely deflates the M$ meme of asymmetrical computing and most other non free propaganda.
First you call Microsoft "M$" and Windows "Windoze" since you don't like the business nor the product, now you call anyone who uses Windows or anyone who disagrees with you stupid? That is just as immature as someone calling Linux "Linsux", Open Source "Open Sores", and anyone who disagrees with them some sort of retarded sheeple.
First of all, IIS 7.0 is very secure. The choice of using either Windows with IIS or Gnu/Linux with Apache is really like a choice between Coke or Pepsi, it all depends on someon
That's true in India. (Score:3, Informative)
However, many of the universities and technical institutes to use only Microsoft products. So you end up with these Indian schools generating many thousands of graduates each year who only k
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
where is the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:where is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that Microsoft (in an implicit admission that its software is sub-standard) is using the profits from its cash-generating Windows monopoly to buy votes in favor of its submission.
In other words, to paraphrase Ballmer, Microsoft could submit a ham and cheese sandwich for ratifcation, and it would be approved.
Re:where is the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
That sounds like a much better standard than OOXML, and it's much easier to implement for everybody. And if Microsoft tries to sneak bits of a 10 year old ham and cheese sandwich in there, like they did with OOXML, people will know the second they bite into it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No. The standard would say:
To make an ISO standard Ham and Cheese Sandwich, make it like Bill Gate's mother used to.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yeah and all the browsers that support css. And some features of css2 css3 etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If the ISO standards process is so irrelevant, then why is Microsoft buying votes to get their mediocre software approved?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The ISO process doesn't works like the W3C process.
Where does that leave the standardization process? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where does that leave the standardization proce (Score:5, Informative)
Actually I thought so too myself, but apparently this is forbidden by the ISO! However the spec itself must be complete, self-contained and authoritative... this bit I am quoting from a related link from a Groklaw article, in the comments section of Mr. Alex Brown's blog:
http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=07&m=09&entry=entry070909-104641 [adjb.net]
and the Groklaw article is here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070910110639612 [groklaw.net]
The relevant answer:
That said, in SC34, we follow the practice of informally requiring that our "home-grown" standards (RELAX NG, NVDL, Schematron etc) are proved efficiently implementable during standardisation. If my time wasn't so taken up with DIS 29500 I would be working on an implementation of DTLL in Java to accompany the draft standard, for example!
Re:Where does that leave the standardization proce (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice question. 3 answers:
1. Technical answer: Yes, the spec as currently documented, would be technically unacceptable, unless detailed explanations are provided over the next few months; covering all 'proprietary' and legacy behaviour.
2. Viable answer: A half-hearted attempt will be made to explain these 'quirks' and resubmitted for consideration.
3. Financial answer: The Office market is worth billions to Microsoft. Countries like Ruritania, Fuckmenistan, Utopitamia, Timbucktoo etc. are available for a few millions. If not the earth, even places on the moon can be declared independent nations for ISO purposes... a trip to the Moon is just a few millions; while a trillion dollars are at stake. These new P-members will pee on the sanctity of the ISO processes, and the OOXML will be on a fast track to nowhere.
Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
a trip to the Moon is just a few millions; while a trillion dollars are at stake
Actually, a moon shot is a few billion [wikipedia.org] dollars a pop. Remember to account for inflation.
And MS, as an entire company, is only worth about 272 billion [google.com] dollars, and had gross revenue of about 50 billion last year.
For OOXML to be worth "a trillion dollars", it'd have to somehow be worth twenty years of Microsoft's 2007 total revenue. Or, four entire companies the size of microsoft.
Much more likely: you're just not from America, and use a nonstandard "Trillion." (This is a US site, default to US measurement
Re: (Score:2)
Much more likely: you're just not from America, and use a nonstandard "Trillion." (This is a US site, default to US measurements or state otherwise, please.) Yes, OOXML being a standard is probably worth about one thousand-million dollars. Or, about 5% of what Microsoft makes from Office anyway.
A non-US trillion is larger than a US trillion. In the UK at least it gets complicated because traditionally a British billion was a million million (a US trillion) but these days most people (and the media) use the US definition
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Much more likely: you're just not from America, and use a nonstandard "Trillion." (This is a US site, default to US measurements or state otherwise, please.)
This is an international site, so I will happily stick to universally accepted standard units like the "real" trillion (a quadrillion for you), celsius, 24 hours format and meters. For non-standard folks there is still this fine Firefox extension [mozilla.org].
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where does that leave the standardization proce (Score:5, Informative)
Requiring implementations is different from requiring "reference implementations". Since their network standard, ISO changed its procedures to encourage people to ask for functional implementations (from different vendors) of the standards they create.
But a reference implementation is "do it like Office 2007". ISO doesn't accept that, the specification should be on a document, not a software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where does that leave the standardization proce (Score:4, Informative)
It's RFCs [wikipedia.org] and Internet Standards which need to have multiple implementations. See RFC 2026 [faqs.org] for the meta-standard (explanation of what standards an RFC needs to meet)
Internet standards are also required have been tested in real-world scenarios for long periods, plus they should be as simple as possible to implement, plus all discussion needs to be in public, which might explain their popularity compared to ISO computing standards.
Interestingly, if there's a patent needed in an RFC, then the two reference implmentations even need to have used "separate exercises of the licensing process"
Re: (Score:1)
See 4.1.2 "Draft Standards" of RFC 2026 "Internet Standards Process".
Re:Where does that leave the standardization proce (Score:2)
Personally, I think they need to go one step further beyond just 'documenting the standard' and demand that the standard and all reliant technolog
Re:Where does that leave the standardization proce (Score:2)
I think you're confusing the ISO process with the IETF Standards Process [ietf.org].
Can't claim Office 2007 is ISO? (Score:3, Interesting)
Presumably that would mean that Microsoft couldn't legitimately claim that Office 2007 followed an ISO standard, which is the whole point of this exercise?
Well, I guess it wouldn't stop them from trying, or at least issuing confusing public statements on the subject.
Rich.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"we submitted our new file format for ISO standard certification" is just an extra bullet point in their presentations to convince the, generally conservative, decision makers that switching to a new file format might actually be a good idea. It suggests vendor independance, easily accesible data etc.
Of course when the new file format has taken over a significant portion of the market there c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It blows me away how ignorant people are about Microsofts motives after over 15 years of anti-competitive business practices/methods. But then again, someone voted for Bush in 2004 even after no WMD's were found and most of them believed Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks... Boy does the US education system suck. IMO.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, problem is such circle. Parents are tired and overworked and can't educate their children about how to live in this world. Such children are very frequently ends up learning good simple things aka facts, but without big insight about world. They usually tend to see that their parents don't have time bec
Money Quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has been found guilty of many things. But how many of them have they actually been sentenced on? And of those, how many times was the sentence actually carried out?
There's a lot of legal wranglings when it comes to the definition of Right and Wrong when it comes to that Corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any problem with any company that does business in the US being forbidden to exploit children anywhere in the world. I imagine most EU nations would have similar policies. Ditto for sla
Re: (Score:1)
He's a crafty little bugger, you know.
Re: (Score:1)
And if Microsoft paid bribes to the Cubans to get their vote, doesn't that mean Microsoft is in violation of the export embargo (which makes it illegal for Americans or American companies to give money to Cuba)
Yeah... Right... and they are the only ones that are dealing with Cuba!?!?!?!?
It's the people and small enterprises that are banned to deal with them, big enterprises are free to do whatever they want. Since they are actually in control of US.(In Russia the government controls the commerce... work out who controls who in US)
History note: IBM had business in USSR during the war in Afghanistan. Witch I am pretty sure was not allowed by US government.
Re: (Score:1)
Why does it need Microsoft to say yes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why does it need Microsoft to say yes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why does it need Microsoft to say yes? (Score:5, Insightful)
But back to the point of who manages an open spec. So ISO has a spec they are managing and it's called ODF. Now, Microsoft wants them to also spend their time/efforts on the MS OOXML spec and it would be ISO's job to maintain both specs. The thing to realize here is that never has Microsoft intended to do this for open access to their file formats. This whole thing has been devised as a scheme to block acceptance of ODF and is a reaction to ODF. Remember, ODF took years to get through the process. Not to mention that Microsoft has been fooling the public+dog with it's open XML talk for over 10 years now. It is all bull shit. It is Microsoft. Need I say more?
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the ISO is following the rules of the organization with regard to this. Unfortunately, that's all it is doing. Even after it has seen how the rules are being manipulated to further push a very bad specifi
That's where it gets political. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if Microsoft's implementation doesn't follow any of the published "standard".
Just as IE was the "standard" when you were designing a web page. Sure, you could follow the official WWW standards, but if IE couldn't render it, it was considered "broken" by the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It seems that you forget that this fast-track is taking place in Wonderland [itn.liu.se]
It is logical (Score:1)
MSFT will take a while to come up with a fix to that security hole that is covered by some patent or something. That way only the MSFT implementation would be free of that hole while samba team would be handicapped. I am tempted to say MSFT intentionally created the hole in protocol, but they it is not likely. Secur
The sooner viable alternatives are provided..... (Score:4, Insightful)
And that is even more blunt, to the point, that anything coming out of MS's mouth.
I'd strongly promote switching to Linux at work if only the applications I use had realistic alternatives on Linux.
Namely Autocad, Illustrator, a cad/cam package with non-buggy cnc post processors that would plug into a linux version of autocad,....
And what ever the alternatives are, they have to be file compatable as we have a large store of cad drawings to deal with.
There are other programs as well, like filemaker and the resources we have built up in that, etc..
Its not just a matter of finding a similar program but one that have realistic support for existing files and resources.
I have no doubt that many more would change away from Windows if such a realistic change was possible.
Whether or not MS knows this...... or have they become so arrogant to be stupid?
Stupid seems to be the direction that have been taking....
The sooner viable alternatives are provided-Macs (Score:1, Interesting)
What does a file format in Office 2007 have to do with apps for Linux? Microsoft isn't going to write them. Mainstream companies aren't either. Your feelings towards Microsoft notwithstanding. What incentive does the commercial industry have to support yet ANOTHER operating system? Especially considering even Macs have trouble getting the apps they want, and the argument is even stronger there in moving to that platform instea
OT: CAD, etc. (Score:1, Interesting)
AutoCAD, while almost ubiquitous, is rather limited design software. There are many alternatives on Linux, some of which are listed on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], including the proprietary/commercial application Pro/E. (F/OSS have some way to go, but Ope
Re:The sooner viable alternatives are provided.... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.varicad.com/ [varicad.com]VariCAD - supports DWG files via the http://opendesign.com/ [opendesign.com]"Open Design Alliance"
http://fastcad.com/ [fastcad.com] fastcad - Created by none other than the original developer of AutoCAD, Mike Riddle. Apparently version 8 will run on Linux
note: I have only researched these products because I want to start a Linux solutions company. I have not used them myself (yet). Also IANAE (I am not an engineer)
Rarely Asked Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has laboured hard to create an impression that a 'secure' system is one that needs daily patching, and must be 'closed' and 'proprietary'. Allison & co. KNOW FULLY WELL that an open, documented and properly implemented system provides true security.
The recent unwarranted update of Windws Update is a case in point. Users who would trust only themselves, and who use Windows only to run their applications, would not like to destabilise their environments by introducing new untested undocumented additions. If it works, they reason, no need to touch it.
In Microsoft's view, their present proprietary document formats have been an enormous cash cow, they will not break that by opening up the formats and inviting needless competition. Which is why, even if the OOXML spec undergoes lots of changes and lengthy explanations; there will not be a single faithful implementation. Including in Office 2007.
Can someone ask this "Rarely Asked Question" to responsible folks at Redmond, and see how they respond?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that this was standard practice before now is no excuse. Microsoft has been caught red-handed, doing things in the background counter to user intuition. If I say "No Auto Updates" I mean, No more touching with system files including auto update files
And I did not believe Slashdot posts
Quality is Job 1.1? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or the second (Service Pack 1).
*Maybe* the third (Service Pack 2), but don't count on it. If you recall, Microsoft released the first version of NT as version 3.1 in an effort to combat this effect. And after they slip-stream the new OOXML changes into Office 2007, obsoleting old documents, sheeple will groan and moan, but they'll still drink the Kool-aide.
(Sigh!) Sometimes, I wonder why FLOSS even bothers.
what a mess IT is! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what a mess IT is! (Score:4, Interesting)
There have been many disasters caused by bad code, bugs or other glitches in systems and yet for some reason it's more important that development costs are saved by using crappy programmers with crappy programming practices. Thousands of people will have to suffer and die before things will change I guess... that's what it took for all those listed above.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, (Score:1)
they have no intention of making an open standard (Score:5, Insightful)
All this stuff about openness is about keeping Open Office and its ODF fileformat from being chosen as a government standard.
So don't kid yourself an believe there is any other motive or that they would consider implementing those comments to clean up the spec. Hey, there's nothing in their history to suggest they want to compete in this sector. They own it now, it's worth billions in profit annually, and they will not give it up. So let's stop fooling ourselves into thinking it is anything else.
LoB
Re:they have no intention of making an open standa (Score:1)
I believe that MS is not too bad on the tech side, but the business side is plain EVIL and OMG "think of the children"!
They could produce an office suite that is ODF and could be really competitive, but that would COST them now. And the cost would be somewhat financial, but mostly in confidence of profits. But they are NOW overconfident.
Ship Dates (Score:3, Interesting)
That's how software in the commercial world works. Software has to ship, and changing code at the last second means complete test runs which both pushes the schedules back as well as costing and organization a lot. Releasing patches is an expensive ordeal as well. It's not like you just can put up a .patch file and expect everyone to download, integrate it, and re-compile their app.
Of course a company isn't going to change their software at the last second. Just because something hasn't shipped yet doesn't mean it isn't done.
Re: (Score:1)
This is the least compelling excuse for why they arent improving the spec and implementation of OOXML I have heard.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's still an option if the spec has to change. But the spec was still going through the standardization process (well, sorta) when Office 2007 was shipped. They certainly weren't going ot hold up Office 2007 for the potentially long (as it will be now) standardization process.
MS doesnt have to care (Score:2)
I hate to a
This demonstrates why (Score:3, Insightful)
MS submits a standard expecting it to get fasttracked. MS bribes decision makers to make this so.
The the standards committee comes back and says, "we need these changes", MS says, "Too late. We've shipped. Take it or leave it."
This is not good behavior.
This seems to be very common near money (Score:2)
One of our suppliers has a large infrastructure application. We are defining standards for communication.
We wrote the standard in the best way possible according to our parent standards body, which provides a meta-standard which should make messages comprehensible even if you haven't read the standard. Our supplier pouted, sulked, whined, and eventually we were forced from above to rewrite them to comply as closely as possible with the existing API, which contain
Good comment and research (Score:2, Interesting)
I am going to let users know, and have them bail out of Office 2007 by the thousands.
Defy all challenges (Score:3, Funny)