Gartner: ISO Approval of ODF is a blow to MS
B Gruff
"International standards bodies' unanimous approval of ISO/IEC 26300 moves
OASIS OpenDocument Format to being the official XML document format. It is
now unlikely that ISO will adopt Microsoft's Open XML document format"
Search for G00140101 on:-
http://www.gartner.com/
Roy Schestowitz
Thanks, Bill. Excellent news, especially since I read in a couple of places
that Massachusetts was ready to get lenient and permit the existence of MS
XML. Nothing was finalised at the time, but it seemed discouraging. Gartner,
of all bodies (a company actually), turn out to be somewhat of a friend:
http://www.gartner.com/2_events/conferences/oseu1.jsp
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
2:35pm up 18 days 21:32, 8 users, load average: 0.53, 0.59, 0.49
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
Erik Funkenbusch
I don't think that's true. ISO's job is not to define single standards,
but to define standards in general. There are plenty of examples of
competing ISO standards.
Daeron
> ISO's job is not to define single standards, but to define standards in general.
Could you provide any statement from that organization supporting your
claim.
So in your universe a standard isn't a standard unless it's
incompatible with another strandard.
I guess it should be refered to as the Microsoft Standard. The only
one who isn't - standard that is :)
> There are plenty of examples of competing ISO standards.
Could you provide any citations from that organization supporting this
statement.
Erik Funkenbusch
> on Tues, May 16 2006 3:38 pm Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> ISO's job is not to define single standards, but to define standards in general.
>
> Could you provide any statement from that organization supporting your
> claim.
You want me to prove a negative?
There is nothing in the ISO's "About" page that says anything about
"single" standards.
> So in your universe a standard isn't a standard unless it's
> incompatible with another strandard.
Duh, if it wasn't incompatible, it wouldn't be a different standard, it
would be the first standard.
>> There are plenty of examples of competing ISO standards.
>
> Could you provide any citations from that organization supporting this
> statement.
Again, there is nothing that proves otherwise. Example, why are there
multiple ISO standards for essentially the same thing, transmitting data
over a wire?
Why are there multiple ISO standards for telling a computer what to do?
(programming languages)
They all do them differently, but they do the same thing. After all, it
was Tannenbaum that said "The nice thing about standards is that there are
so many to choose from".
Daeron
"There are plenty of examples of competing ISO standards." - Erik Fud
"Could you provide any citations from that organization supporting this
statement."
- Doug
> You want me to prove a negative?" There is nothing in the ISO's
> "About" page that says anything about "single" standards.
All I asked for was for you to provide evidence for plenty of examples.
Could you also tell how you know what ISO's job is.
-
shuffle shuffle fuddie ..
Erik Funkenbusch
Considering that you just moved sections around and dishonestly moved the
response from one section to appear as if it were a response from another,
i'd say you're shuffling.
I gave my examples. Multiple telecommunciations standards and multiple
programming languages, but you want to pretend I didn't. Well, that's your
choice.
flatfish+++
Go easy on Daeron Erik, he is probably tired from all that traveling and
the time changes between Texas, where he was last week:
whois 216.12.200.106
OrgName: Everyones Internet
OrgID: EVRY
Address: 390 Benmar
Address: Suite 200
City: Houston
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 77060
Country: US
and Korea where he is now can be a killer!
inetnum: 59.0.0.0 - 59.31.255.255
netname: KORNET
descr: KOREA TELECOM
descr: Network Management Center
country: KR
admin-c: IM76-AP
tech-c: IM76-AP
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Sinister Midget
Also WEASEL WEASEL WEASEL.
--
My father told me all about the birds and bees, the liar. I
went steady with a woodpecker until I was twenty one.
-- Bob Hope
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 16 May 2006 21:50:31 GMT,
Sinister Midget <sini...@noidshack.com> wrote:
> On 2006-05-16, Daeron <doug.m...@gmail.com> posted something concerning:
>> on Tues, May 16 2006 4:12 pm Erik Funkenbusch
>>
>> "There are plenty of examples of competing ISO standards." - Erik Fud
>>
>> "Could you provide any citations from that organization supporting this
>> statement."
>> - Doug
>>
>>> You want me to prove a negative?" There is nothing in the ISO's
>>> "About" page that says anything about "single" standards.
>>
>> All I asked for was for you to provide evidence for plenty of examples.
>> Could you also tell how you know what ISO's job is.
>> -
>>
>> shuffle shuffle fuddie ..
>
> Also WEASEL WEASEL WEASEL.
>
Erik's not really that keen on replying when people question his
rediculous claims.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEarkHd90bcYOAWPYRAiHrAKCPK9gKm3R6XdbCBGnCDiN6ALyf2wCdGwEb
W/5DWZK/LhnKf1HACvzhXSE=
=4iXc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I'd explain it all to you, but your brain would explode.
Mark Kent
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
> __/ [ B Gruff ] on Tuesday 16 May 2006 14:26 \__
>
>> Now there's an interesting take - from Gartner of all people!
>>
>> "International standards bodies' unanimous approval of ISO/IEC 26300 moves
>> OASIS OpenDocument Format to being the official XML document format. It is
>> now unlikely that ISO will adopt Microsoft's Open XML document format"
>>
>> Search for G00140101 on:-
>> http://www.gartner.com/
>
> Thanks, Bill. Excellent news, especially since I read in a couple of places
> that Massachusetts was ready to get lenient and permit the existence of MS
> XML. Nothing was finalised at the time, but it seemed discouraging. Gartner,
> of all bodies (a company actually), turn out to be somewhat of a friend:
>
> http://www.gartner.com/2_events/conferences/oseu1.jsp
>
Well, they've set up an event which exhibitors will be charged for
exhibiting and visitors will be charged for visiting, and Gartner will
make a name for itself in the OSS world, at least as far as those CIO
types who can't recall beyond that last analyst's document...
Still, it's a big move from the 'total criticism' which they were
pervading; the lack of vision of most analysts is a little frightening.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Only fools are quoted.
-- Anonymous
Roy Schestowitz
Never forget that analysts are fed by companies with resources, like
themselves. They perceive Open Source as somewhat of a threat where
communities manage software and analysts become rather obsolete. The
client is in charge. The developer has control.
Think vendors. They portray and demonstare a similar perspective: sell,
sell, sell. No matter what people want. Feed the sheep with whatever makes
them come back asking for more: modern computers (the bigger the better),
RAM, games, AV virus, commercial software (as opposed to RPM/Deb
repositories, ISO's, df.net and fm.net).
In summary, vendors, like analysts, love Microsoft Windows. The sufferer
is usually the end user, but what counts to them most is their balance at
the bank. The user, when disinformed, is left out entirely from this myst-
ifying equation.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Falsity implies anything
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:35am up 19 days 18:32, 8 users, load average: 0.34, 0.33, 0.34
Linonut
> My father told me all about the birds and bees, the liar. I
> went steady with a woodpecker until I was twenty one.
> -- Bob Hope
Heh heh. I've got a woody woodpecker Beavis!
Mark Kent
An interesting set of thoughts. I suspect that traditional analysts
probably do not have the best skill set for the emerging OSS and COTS
hardware world, so it'll be interesting to see which ones are able to
get up to speed.
>
> Think vendors. They portray and demonstare a similar perspective: sell,
> sell, sell. No matter what people want. Feed the sheep with whatever makes
> them come back asking for more: modern computers (the bigger the better),
> RAM, games, AV virus, commercial software (as opposed to RPM/Deb
> repositories, ISO's, df.net and fm.net).
The traditional lock-in based business models are most certainly under
threat, a very strong threat indeed, so new ways of obtaining revenue
need to be found. The kind of monopoly which Microsoft created and then
maintained for a couple of decades will not happen again, even if the EU
ever allow software patents.
As far as hardware vendors are concerned, Linux and free software are,
in fact, a very good thing indeed. By using Linux, they can halve the
retail price of their boxes, and offer more capability than they ever
could before, and perhaps more importantly, they will not be beholden to
Microsoft for their future; indeed, their business model is about to
simplify considerably.
Someone recently said (I forget who) that traditional vendors like the
upgrade cycle which windows forces, but if you really think about this,
apart from a few business users, this approach is more or less dead
anyway. The only thing which keeps it going is that Windows, does, in
the end, grind to a halt due to all the malware it gathers in normal
usage.
What really forces people to look at new setups is either new hardware
they want (tv card, say?) or a new game which needs better capability.
People who aren't interested in either of those are unlikely to upgrate
until their computer stops dead. Those who are will upgrade no matter
what OS is running.
>
> In summary, vendors, like analysts, love Microsoft Windows. The sufferer
> is usually the end user, but what counts to them most is their balance at
> the bank. The user, when disinformed, is left out entirely from this myst-
> ifying equation.
>
Such is, and always has been, the nature of business...
Erik Funkenbusch
And, just to accent, this article:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060516062009210
Another major item that reaped a lot attention in ODF circles yesterday was
the fact that Gartner released a report stating that it is now "highly
unlikely" that ISO will approve the Microsoft Open XML specification now
being processed in Ecma. In support of that conclusion, it states: "ISO
will not approve multiple XML document formats (0.7 probability)." The
parenthetical indicates that the authors assign a 70% probability of
accuracy in their conclusion. The entire document comprises only a few
paragraphs of conclusions and recommendations, with no back-up for its
conclusions. While supporters of ODF will be delighted if Gartner proves
to be correct with its ISO prediction, I am aware of no reason at this time
to conclude so firmly that "ISO will not approve multiple XML document
formats."
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Still, it's a big move from the 'total criticism' which they were
> pervading; the lack of vision of most analysts is a little frightening.
Most 'analyst' seem to just look at existing trends and then claim,
'the future will be like today only more so.' There seems to be very
little examination of the underlying market forces that are driving a
trend and what that will logically lead to. Recall the pundits that
got it so amazingly wrong when they declared the death of the
Internet or server Linux.
It is indeed interesting and encouraging that Linux and Open Source
is now so pervasive and the trends so clear, that even the Gartners
of the world are predicting its continued expansion. Makes it a
bit more difficult for the wintrolls in this group. :)
Later,
Thad
William Poaster
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 21:50:31 GMT,
> Sinister Midget <sini...@noidshack.com> wrote:
>> On 2006-05-16, Daeron <doug.m...@gmail.com> posted something
>> concerning:
>>> on Tues, May 16 2006 4:12 pm Erik Funkenbusch
>>>
>>> "There are plenty of examples of competing ISO standards." - Erik Fud
>>>
>>> "Could you provide any citations from that organization supporting this
>>> statement."
>>> - Doug
>>>
>>>> You want me to prove a negative?" There is nothing in the ISO's
>>>> "About" page that says anything about "single" standards.
>>>
>>> All I asked for was for you to provide evidence for plenty of examples.
>>> Could you also tell how you know what ISO's job is. -
>>>
>>> shuffle shuffle fuddie ..
>>
>> Also WEASEL WEASEL WEASEL.
>>
>>
> Erik's not really that keen on replying when people question his
> rediculous claims.
Ah, you mean questioning his claims such as:
Where does NTFS store its journal?
How did the Morris worm spread by email?
What about using MS TT fonts on Linux?
"Enquiring minds wish to know"
--
SuSE 10.1 GM
KDE 3.5.2
PAN 0.14.90
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> In summary, vendors, like analysts, love Microsoft Windows. The sufferer
> is usually the end user, but what counts to them most is their balance at
> the bank. The user, when disinformed, is left out entirely from this myst-
> ifying equation.
The thing is, management often just uses these analyst reports to
justify a decision they've already made (showing due diligence and
all that). Managers need assurance that they are not investing
company dollars in an infrastructure that will be unsupported in a
few years. With Linux a roaring success in the enterprise there is
now a market for analyst reports predicting that Linux will continue
to be a roaring success. :)
This makes it particularly encouraging that the professional
prognosticators are declaring continued expansion of desktop Linux.
That makes it much easier for Big Conservative Company Inc. to go
ahead and roll out that Linux thin client project...
Hey, IDGartforrester said it was OK after all.
Cheers,
Thad
William Poaster
> On 2006-05-16, Daeron <doug.m...@gmail.com> posted something
> concerning:
>> on Tues, May 16 2006 4:12 pm Erik Funkenbusch
>>
>> "There are plenty of examples of competing ISO standards." - Erik Fud
>>
>> "Could you provide any citations from that organization supporting this
>> statement."
>> - Doug
>>
>>> You want me to prove a negative?" There is nothing in the ISO's "About"
>>> page that says anything about "single" standards.
>>
>> All I asked for was for you to provide evidence for plenty of examples.
>> Could you also tell how you know what ISO's job is. -
>>
>> shuffle shuffle fuddie ..
>
> Also WEASEL WEASEL WEASEL.
Another "claim" to add to The List! ;-)
Tim Smith
> Erik's not really that keen on replying when people question his
> rediculous claims.
You normally seem both knowledgable and rational. What is it about Erik
that compels you to abandon that and jump in on the opposite side of him,
even when he is right?
--
--Tim Smith
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
You think Erik is right to call Rex a sociopath?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEbC1Kd90bcYOAWPYRAvV3AJ40WDcZ6x6/y+VQnVoE4yzGZhefRgCcCUYm
dmpa6GrnEwnU5coVDb4M9nw=
=qZPy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The race isn't always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,
But it's the safest way to bet.
DFS
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 07:48:46 GMT,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <71qqj3-...@dragon.myth>, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>> Erik's not really that keen on replying when people question his
>>> rediculous claims.
>>
>> You normally seem both knowledgable and rational. What is it about
>> Erik that compels you to abandon that and jump in on the opposite
>> side of him, even when he is right?
>>
>
> You think Erik is right to call Rex a sociopath?
You challenged me to a fight with axe handles, you lowlife. That makes you
the biggest sociopath on cola.
flatfish+++
> You think Erik is right to call Rex a sociopath?
Compared to all the name calling, lying and mudslinging that goes on in
COLA, calling someone a sociopath is mild.
Just take a look at Culley's weekly LIE-tistics for details.
Personally, I think Rex is just a basic nut.
Harmless, entertaining, somewhat knowledgeable and an interesting read.
That description fits a lot of people in this group including at times
myself.
I just don't take this stuff seriously.
Jamie Hart
you without warning.
Hey, didn't you attack Rex without warning?
Tim Smith
>> You normally seem both knowledgable and rational. What is it about Erik
>> that compels you to abandon that and jump in on the opposite side of him,
>> even when he is right?
>>
>
> You think Erik is right to call Rex a sociopath?
Of course not, which is why, you should note, I did not ask my question of
you in that thread. Rex is not a sociopath, neither under the common usage
of that term, nor under the technical usage: he only satisfies one of the 3
or 4 required conditions to be thus diagnosed.
Note that I said "even when he is right", implying that he is not always
right. Hence, my question: why do you want to be on the opposite side from
him in every argument, even the ones where he is right?
--
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
> You think Erik is right to call Rex a sociopath?
Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I said, that someone that shares
inapproriately with strangers is called a sociopath. Of course there are
other factors as well, but Rex exhibits a ton of other signs of dysfunction
as well. Inability to differentiate fantasy from reality, for instance.
Further, while I don't personally see anything wrong with his
extracurricular habits, socity as a whole seems to, which is also
anti-social.
And no, i'm not a doctor, but my point, which was perhaps a little too
subtle, was that maybe Rex should see someone about all his issues. Not
just the one.
chrisv
>On Thu, 18 May 2006 01:16:10 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> You think Erik is right to call Rex a sociopath?
>
>Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote.
Perhaps we already read it just fine, sociopath.
>I said, that someone that shares
>inapproriately with strangers is called a sociopath.
Which is a lie, even IF Rex did something inappropriate. Occasionally
doing something "inappropriate" does not make one a sociopath,
asshole.
In addition, it has not been established that he did anything
inappropriate - we only have one sociopath's opinion that one story on
his Web site is inappropriate.
>Of course there are other factors as well,
You mean like your demonstrated inability to think logically? You
mean like your routine evasion of questions that show you to be wrong?
>but Rex exhibits a ton of other signs of dysfunction
>as well. Inability to differentiate fantasy from reality, for instance.
How about your advocacy for an immoral corporation, Erik?
>Further, while I don't personally see anything wrong with his
>extracurricular habits, socity as a whole seems to, which is also
>anti-social.
Nice logic, cretin.
This is quite absurd, coming from you, Erik. Do you remember being on
the defensive in the past, for re-posting an embarrassing "personals"
ad that Rex left in another group?
On Mar 8, 2004 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>No, I didn't do anything "bad".
>
>I'm truly sadened that anyone but a closet (or outright) homophobe would
>find anything distressing in Rex's post. I saw nothing wrong with it then
>and I see nothing wrong with it now.
So, back then you were arguing that since YOU didn't think anything
was inappropriate, it was okay to broadcast the message, despite what
society might think and without regard for Rex's privacy.
Today, you think that Rex is "inappropriate" for willfully posting an
embarassing story on his own Web site. Today you argue that since
"socity as a whole" thinks the the act described inappropriate, it
should be kept private, and that only a "sociopath" would not keep it
private.
Why does what "society" thinks important now but not then, Erik? How
are you going to weasel out of this?
Fscking hypocrite. With your willingness to take whatever side of the
issue suits you at the moment, you should be in politics.
>And no, i'm not a doctor, but my point, which was perhaps a little too
>subtle, was that maybe Rex should see someone about all his issues. Not
>just the one.
Maybe you should go fsck yourself, you sociopath.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
I don't, If I think he's right, I usually don't comment, no need, and on
a few occasions, I have supported him.
His pattern of misleading and mendacious statements over the years have
grown tiresome. He's a fairly bright guy, seems to know his way around
the MS stuff, but is woefully, perhaps willfully, ignorant of much of
the Linux stuff he spouts off about. Prone to making broad, sweeping
generalizations that are simply wrong, or false.
Does that answer your question?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEbKhjd90bcYOAWPYRAh1iAJ9y9+w/TuI7a26v+OJSJxuoqHS8aACfYwHX
CxXI3QxarMQWRpBydE7ADUo=
=+nhP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Life imitates art, but does it have to imitate satire?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
That's pretty revealing behaviour of Erik's. When *he* posted aboout
this stuff, and did it here, on cola, it was "apprpriate" but when Rex
did, it's somehow inapporpriate?
hm... the rank smell of self deception lurks below Erik's words.
Erik has fallen pretty low in this.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEbM55d90bcYOAWPYRApGJAKDVxWCq9ulTBRcX+YCyVAlwNPhxsACfcEGO
5v+aHcf8xvIlWvyd+Ro7FwY=
=jIgM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"We have captured lightning and used it to teach sand how to think."
Rick
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 01:16:10 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> You think Erik is right to call Rex a sociopath?
>
> Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I said, that someone that shares
> inapproriately with strangers is called a sociopath.
.. and you are wrong.
> Of course there are
> other factors as well, but Rex exhibits a ton of other signs of
> dysfunction as well. Inability to differentiate fantasy from reality, for
> instance.
... which does not mean the person is a sociopath.
> Further, while I don't personally see anything wrong with his
> extracurricular habits, socity as a whole seems to,
You now speak for society as a whole?
> which is also anti-social.
>
> And no, i'm not a doctor,
Yes, we can tell.
> but my point, which was perhaps a little too
> subtle,
no, just way to dishonest.
> was that maybe Rex should see someone about all his issues. Not
> just the one.
Take your own advice.
Rick
No, it doesn't. It doesn't make him a sociopath, at all. Maybe you should
go do some research.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Amusing that the thread DFS was blubbering about, involves him offering
to fight someone else, then when I took him up on the offer, he went
suspiciously quiet, and dropped the thread.
Figures.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEbOyqd90bcYOAWPYRAvf/AKCCFheWvNXcFJhTLmSSCstid1XbIACfccyU
kqVH1PjMBIwqgq1ji1yJZQc=
=rgjo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I might be crazier than you think
DFS
> Amusing that the thread DFS was blubbering about, involves him
> offering to fight someone else,
Of course not.
> then when I took him up on the offer,
> he went suspiciously quiet, and dropped the thread.
>
> Figures.
It figures you're a liar as well as a sociopath.
arachnid
Hey DuFuS, how many of your Windows apps are 64 bits?
Heh. :o)