Home > Standards Blog

Advanced Search 

Welcome to ConsortiumInfo.org
Tuesday, September 23 2014 @ 07:25 PM CDT

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Return to original subject: The Nuclear Option
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 08:40 PM CDT
(Forgot to sign: that last post was from me)
Rick Jelliffe
[ Parent | # ]
Have you read your own post? and more Dutch
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 11:01 PM CDT
"Here is a tip: whenever you feel strong emotion about a standard or draft document or standards organization, you are probably being manipulated."

Have you read your own post?

Btw, to come back to the Dutch situation, all but one of the Dutch NB members were against accepting OOXML in the fast track (no with comments) and had many objections based on their own research. The one objector, Microsoft, forced an abstain  and blocked submission of these comments to ISO. So much for "MS is welcoming comments".

Link in Dutch (sorry, a lot that happens in the world is not reported in English):
http://isoc.nl/michiel/geenbesluitOOXML.htm

Note that I know that Biran Jones has published an all encompasing conspiracy theory on the Dutch NB here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/06/07/wouter-s-updates-on-the-iso-meetings.aspx

Note also that Brian again tells us that it is all IBM's fault. The other members seem to have been just puppets.

Winter
[ Parent | # ]
Return to original subject: The Nuclear Option
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2007 @ 07:02 PM CDT
I could not image a more manipulative and radical Pro-OOXML post until I saw who the author was.

You do the 'Microsoft Manipulation" well, Jeff.  You use enough of the 'platitudes' about 'reasonableness' and 'follow-the-book' that you think it camaflages your 'radical anti-OOXML lefty' reteric that you slip in.  Unfortunately for you, those that followed the voting closely will not be fooled since they will realize that your revisionist history is untrue and they will recognize your attempts to manipulate the emotions of the reader for what they are.  Terms like "Ooooh ________ !  WRONG !" are straight out of psycology 101 propaganda manuals that I studied in the Military.

Looks like your 'sanitizing' of Wikipedia was not totally at Microsoft's instigation.  I have to conclude that your reputation as a Microsoft-backer is well deserved and that your pretense at 'moderate behavior' or 'middle ground' or 'disinterest' is just that - a pretense and a sham.

Clearly you believe in the OOXML standard and believe that acceptance and use of both standard formats such as ODF and the non-interperable non-standard formats such as OOXML is clearly a 'good' thing for all governments to not only allow, but to require.

I guess that in your ideal world, we'd have lots of non-interoperable standards such that one dominant (dare I say monopolistic) vendor can continue its dominance and customer lockin to the detriment of customer, countries' sovereignty, and competition alike despite being found guilty of illegal conduct, monopolistic abuse on several continents and several courts in several countries on multiple occasions.

I realize that this post will probably cause you to label me as one of those 'radical, hippie, communistic, pinko, fascist, cancerous overly-zealous Linux Bigots', but that's the chance I'll have to take.

As a sibling post states, 'read your own post' - please do so and attempt to put yourself in the position of an open-source supporter.

Open-source is built on standards, interoperates because of standards, adjusts as standards change.  Microsoft abuses standards where it can, ignores them otherwise, touts that whatever it's selling this week is a 'standard' and all previous offerings are 'obsolete standards' that are no longer valid.

This is why IT is so expensive for Microsoft shops - these companies must re-invent the wheel every time Microsoft ships a new product since they have to buy all new hardware, all new applications, replace all their desktops, retrain all their users, and re-integrate all their applications with each other, the new Windows version, and with any home-grown code or products that they have.  Fortunately that is happening less and less often lately as Microsoft is missing its promised ship-dates by larger and larger margins with every release.

A move to Linux or MAC - both of which are based on stable standards - would get these companies off the Microsoft Treadmill.  I know this must seem threatening for you and most of the rest of the Microsoft ecosystem, but so is any significant advance in technology.  The concept is called 'disruptive change'.
[ Parent | # ]