[News] [Rival] Has Microsoft Just Corrupted the Swiss System for Voting on OOXML (Monopoly Enabler)?
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| The present spin doctors of Microsoft and ECMA managed to convince Mr.
| Thomann to reject every serious technical and general concern we had
| regarding OOMXL by pointing to compatibility reasons. At the end we had a
| majority _against_ Microsoft but which (giving the unfair rules) results in a
| Swiss vote _for_ Microsoft. Mr. Thomann was fretting and fuming at the end of
| the meeting how it can be that successful international companies (we had
| representatives from IBM, Google, ...) vote against the best interest of
| their customers and theirself!
|
| Yes, this is how the democratic system at SNV / ISO works. After the meeting
| I could not eat as much as I wanted to puke...
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-15521/swiss-cheese
Does Microsoft still fail to realise why the world hates it?
,----[ Quote ]
| Interview with Ecma’s Secretarie General
|
| The following is an interview of Jan van den Beld, the Secretarie General of
| Ecma International.
|
| [...]
|
| (ramble on multiple and proprietary 'standards')
|
| DB: But don’t you think that encourages patent wars?
|
| JvdB: I have never thought so deeply about it (how the pemission of multiple
| standards encourages patent wars). In a way yes, of course, there are hardly
| any subjects in hi-tech where no patents are involved. That is one of the big
| worries about bodies being concerned with patents So, we stay out of it. If
| you have a patent, you get an unconditional right and what you do with your
| patent is your business. You can ask "is that good?" Well that’s an
| interesting question.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?page_id=2259
Related:
No is no, to OOXML
,----[ Quote ]
| I’ve heard several reports of supporters of OOXML trying to get national
| standards bodies to change their votes from “NO with comments” to “YES with
| comments” because “it’s the same thing.” The logic, which I’ll explain in a
| later post, is that any comments will trigger a ballot resolution meeting, so
| there is no need to be so negative and vote NO.
`----
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1762
IBM is still locked out of the Portuguese OOXML meeting
,----[ Quote ]
| In spite of various communications, we [IBM] are still locked out and will
| not be allowed to participate. Microsoft will be there, as well as a special
| Microsoft guest, as will various Microsoft business partners, and others.
`----
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1755
OOXML does not buy its way in Italy
,----[ Quote ]
| Particularly noteworthy is the fact that among those favouring the adoption
| of the standard without reservation a large majority is made of business
| partners of the proposing entity [Microsoft], a law firm retained by the
| latter, the official certified business partners association of the proposing
| entity.
`----
http://www.piana.eu/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=1#0
http://www.openxml.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=7&Itemid=13
,----[ Quote ]
| [PJ: OpenXML.info is reporting (in Portuguese, but a Groklaw member
| translates for us) that the person who is head of the ISO technical committee
| about to vote on Microsoft's Ecma-376 wouldn't let IBM and Sun
| representatives in, claiming there was no room! This, if true, is ridiculous.
| And here is a second source reporting the same thing, also in Portuguese. So
| in the US, we hear reports of packing the TC. Now, it's weeding out those who
| are not likely to vote a certain way desired? Is this how standards
| get "approved"? I don't recall ODF having to play such games. Here is the
| rough translation:]
|
| Portugal, and more concretely, its national organization of certification IPQ
| is a member "O" (observator) of ISO/IEC for the voting of OOXML (ISO DIS
| 29500).
|
| WARNING: the first meeting of the Technical Commission "Language for document
| definition" was on Monday 16 of July. The vote was delayed. Representatives
| of IBM and Sun were not allowed to attend because there "was no available
| space in the room"
|
| Dear G [Sun Microsystems] due of restricted number of members of the CT
| (Commissao Tecnica) that can attend the scheduled meeting room to host the
| meeting, we cannot, in this stage, accept your proposal of integration of the
| CT.
|
| With my best regards,
| D [Microsoft as president of the Technical Commission]
`----
http://mv.asterisco.pt/2007/Jun/cat.cgi?MS%20OOXML
,----[ Quote ]
| * More details are emerging from Portugal regarding the kerfuffle there
| over Ecma-376. If you read Portuguese, here you go -- just click on the
| link. I asked a Groklaw member to do a rough translation, and if you see
| ways to improve it, sing out, but it gives a bit of the history of how
| this committee that has no room for Sun or IBM (see previous News Picks
| item) was formed and how it happened to choose a Microsoft representative
| to be president of the committee that decides whether to "approve"
| Microsoft's submission as a "standard". Unless I'm missing something, it
| appears to have been set up so Microsoft can "approve" itself. Now that's
| handy. Here's the translation of the part about how Microsoft is
| represented on this committeee with no room for IBM or Sun:]
|
| I was present on the meeting of the Technical Commission (CT) created
| to award the ISO standards in the area of structured documents (in
| Portugal)
|
| A Technical Commission (CT) did not exist when ISO 26300 (Open
| Document) was submitted neither when there was a submission of OOXML
| (ECMA 376, potential ISO 29500) for the the fast track, and that was
| the reason why Portugal did not submit any opinion nor had any right to
| vote. We expect that now, with the pressure made and the CT created
| there would be right to vote.
|
| The CT was created by the Computing Institute, in which is delegated
| the responsability for the norms of the IT sector; a delegation granted
| by the Portuguese Institute of Quality (IPQ), the point of contact of
| ISO in Portugal. Its creation is motivated mainly by the pressures and
| availability of some people when the proposal for fast tracking of
| OOXML and a neccessity to avail now the OOXML as standard ISO and as a
| Portuguese National Standard
|
| In the meeting they were present:
|
| * 2 persons from II (Instituto de Informatica [Computing Institute])
| * 1 person from the local government (Alentejo region)
| * 1 person from Jurinfor [Jurinfor is a Microsoft partner]
| * 2 persons from Microsoft
| * 1 person from Primavera [Primavera is a Microsoft partner]
| * 1 person from ISCTE
| * 2 persons from Assoft [reportedly, most members of ASSOFT are Microsoft
| partners]
| * 1 person from the Inst. Informatica da Seg Social [Computing Institute
| of the Social Welfare Department]
| * 1 person from the Inst. Tecn. Informacao da Justiça (eu) [Technical
| Institute Information of Justice (eu)]
|
| The meeting dealt basically with the bureaucracy details of the creation of
| the CT. It didn't go into details of OOXML; that discussion will be held in
| the next meeting, on July 16th about 14:30 in the II [Instituto de
| Informatica, I assume]
|
| The CT, thus, was composed of 8 vocal elements, one representative for each
| of the organizations present. The II [Instituto de Informatica] is arranging
| and hosting the initiative and is a not-named representative.
|
| The 8 vocals will readily follow to the election of the president of the CT.
| There was 1 candidate in the place (Miguel Sales Dias, from Microsoft). I did
| not present my candidature but made myself available in case the rest of
| representatives deemed it neccesary -- informed not adequate since to begin
| with, as a member of the OpenDocument Alliance, I had a conflict of interest.
|
| The vote results were 7 votes in favor of Miguel Sales Dias, of Microsoft,
| who was designated to preside over the CT, and a (1) blank vote.
|
| It was decided to adopt consensus as the form of adoption of any proposed
| norm, following to majority vote in case there is no consensus in the CT and
| if there is a strong opposition to submit any norm.
`----
How the Game is Played: INCITS V1 Narrowly Votes Down OOXML
,----[ Quote ]
| As significantly, Rob reports that a very dramatic increase in the membership
| of V1 was observed in the months leading up to the vote – most of whom were
| coincidentally were representatives of Microsoft business partners, and the
| great majority of whom voted as a block in favor of advancing the
| specification in a manner that would permit, and against any vote that would
| prevent, final approval as an ISO/IEC standard.
`----
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070715200544734
Sock Puppets to VoteSock Puppets to Vote on Monopoly Enablement in Colombia?
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft sets the deck of card and ensures that (at least) 9 of out 14
| chairs in the technical committee are also in its pocket.
`----
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/08/03/colombia-ooxml/
Microsoft is Outmuscling OOXML Opposition in Spain
,----[ Quote ]
| The Andalusian Government has reported recently the manipulation of Microsoft
| in the National Technical Committee 71 of AENOR. On July 10th, just the day
| before the one and only meeting of AENOR to study DIS 29500 and vote on it,
| Microsoft announced officially (via the secretary of the Committee) that that
| Andalusian Government and several other Spanish public entities were asking
| for the approval of ISO DIS 29500 (what finally resulted all a fake!).
`----
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/27/ooxmll-spain/
Packing The Court At The ISO?
,----[ Quote ]
| ...P member countries ('participating member' countries) sending
| representatives, and I am interested to note the majority of
| their representatives are, as individuals, also Microsoft employees.
|
| [...]
|
| How can they not see that OOXML (ECMA 376) is unwanted by anyone outside of
| Microsoft? How about it Brian Jones? Are you really so desperate that you
| have to resort to that?
`----
http://lnxwalt.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/packing-the-court-at-the-iso/
OOXML Fails to Gain Approval in US
,----[ Quote ]
| On Friday July 13th, INCITS V1 met via teleconference for 3 hours but failed
| to reach a 2/3 consensus necessary to recommend an "Approval, with comments"
| position on Microsoft "Office Open XML" (OOXML) document specification.
`----
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/ooxml-fails-to-gain-approval-in-us.html
Guest Commentary: The converter hoax
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft maintains that while it would have been easy to support the Open
| Document Format (ODF) natively, it had to move to MS-OOXML because this was
| the only way for them to offer the full features of its office suite. But if
| Microsoft itself is not able to represent its internal data structures in the
| Open Document Format (ODF) in its Microsoft Office suite, how could an
| external conversion program from MS-OOXML accomplish this task? The answer to
| both questions is that it is not possible because two things cannot be the
| same and different at the same time.
`----
Mark Kent
> Swiss Cheese [for OOXML]
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| The present spin doctors of Microsoft and ECMA managed to convince Mr.
>| Thomann to reject every serious technical and general concern we had
>| regarding OOMXL by pointing to compatibility reasons. At the end we had a
>| majority _against_ Microsoft but which (giving the unfair rules) results in a
>| Swiss vote _for_ Microsoft. Mr. Thomann was fretting and fuming at the end of
>| the meeting how it can be that successful international companies (we had
>| representatives from IBM, Google, ...) vote against the best interest of
>| their customers and theirself!
>|
>| Yes, this is how the democratic system at SNV / ISO works. After the meeting
>| I could not eat as much as I wanted to puke...
> `----
>
> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-15521/swiss-cheese
>
> Does Microsoft still fail to realise why the world hates it?
Standards bodies were never designed to cope with this kind of
manipulation. Of course, some here will just say that we're seeing
"reds under the bed" or "conspiracies everywhere". Doh.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
High Plains Thumper
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
>
>> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-15521/swiss-cheese
>>
>> Does Microsoft still fail to realise why the world hates it?
>
> Standards bodies were never designed to cope with this kind of
> manipulation. Of course, some here will just say that we're seeing
> "reds under the bed" or "conspiracies everywhere". Doh.
I thought these points were apt:
[quote]
(3) OOXML is a specification by one company only. ODF is defined by a
consortium and put in practical use by Open Software communities - and
accepted as EU standard. ODF is also the default file format in most
charitable offerings such as the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project and
the school project in the Spanish Extremadura region. In other words, it
has had real world exposure, use and correction. OOXML is too new to be
trusted, and certainly too new to be then voted as a formal standard with
wide ranging economic and social impact. OOXML could only ever be
considered viable if it had as many years 'in the field' as ODF and could
demonstrate cross-vendor interoperability.
(4) OOXML has extreme deficiencies in the way it handles mathematics (see
<http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/formula-for-failure.html> for a
sample analysis). For a nation whose technology exports are renowned for
world leading precision this should raise questions. Flaws like this have
the potential to lead to economic damage even more than the lock-in to one
provider, and may only have emerged as a result of the pressure for
openness - we will never know if these are new problems or are exposures
of existing ones.
[/quote]
ODF is a true standard supported by a multitude. It puts all players on
an even playing field, even Microsoft. :-)
--
HPT
Mark Kent
I agree; what you didn't mention is that OOXML is also 6,000 pages
long, which is about 5,900 pages too long for any standard.
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I agree; what you didn't mention is that OOXML is also 6,000 pages
> long, which is about 5,900 pages too long for any standard.
Well, then, I assume you object to ODF? That's about 1100 pages, when
printed at the same line spacing as is used to get 6000 for OOXML.
--
--Tim Smith
High Plains Thumper
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> I agree; what you didn't mention is that OOXML is also
>> 6,000 pages long, which is about 5,900 pages too long for
>> any standard.
>
> Well, then, I assume you object to ODF? That's about 1100
> pages, when printed at the same line spacing as is used to
> get 6000 for OOXML.
OpenDocument version 1.0 - specification:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/
12572/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf
ODF is 706 pages total.
http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/
TC45_available_docs.htm
OOXML Part 1 - Fundamentals, Page 2 (PDF page 9), Section 2,
Conformance versus ODF, Part 1 - Introduction, Page 35 (PDF page 35),
Section 1.5 Document Processing and Conformance. Statistics are from
gedit 2.18.1, direct copy and paste of page contents:
ODF OOXML
58 69 Lines
427 416 Words
2883 3205 Characters (with spaces)
2156 2305 Characters (no spaces)
2898 3225 Bytes
427 : 416 = 102.6% expansion.
706 x 102.6% = 725 pages.
6000 - 725 = 5275 pages too many.
Mark, you were off by 625 pages. :-)
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper espoused:
>
>> ODF is a true standard supported by a multitude. It puts
>> all players on an even playing field, even Microsoft. :-)
>
> I agree; what you didn't mention is that OOXML is also 6,000
> pages long, which is about 5,900 pages too long for any
> standard.
Here is a good comparison (photo):
http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2007/07/18/T18_02_54/
--
HPT
Tim Smith
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> I agree; what you didn't mention is that OOXML is also
>>> 6,000 pages long, which is about 5,900 pages too long for
>>> any standard.
>>
>> Well, then, I assume you object to ODF? That's about 1100
>> pages, when printed at the same line spacing as is used to
>> get 6000 for OOXML.
>
> OpenDocument version 1.0 - specification:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/
> 12572/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/dkjop
>
> ODF is 706 pages total.
That's nice. That's at single spacing. When OOXML is counted as 6000
pages, that's when printed using 1.5 spacing.
Roy Schestowitz
See the one from Sam Hiser. It's on O'ReillyNet.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Reclaim your workstation - install GNU/Linux today
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 123 total, 1 running, 121 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper on Thursday:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper espoused:
>>>
>>>> ODF is a true standard supported by a multitude. It
>>>> puts all players on an even playing field, even
>>>> Microsoft. :-)
>>>
>>> I agree; what you didn't mention is that OOXML is also
>>> 6,000 pages long, which is about 5,900 pages too long for
>>> any standard.
>>
>> Here is a good comparison (photo):
>>
>> http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2007/07/18/T18_02_54/
>
> See the one from Sam Hiser. It's on O'ReillyNet.
I did not find the one you mention on O'ReillyNet. However, I
found this article by Mr. Hiser:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2007/06/14/achieving-
openness-a-closer-look-at-odf-and-ooxml.html
I found these particular points in favour of ODF:
[quote]
# ODF is developed and maintained in an open, multi-vendor,
multi-stakeholder process that protects against control by a
single organization. OOXML is less open in its development and
maintenance, despite being submitted to a formal standards body,
because control of the standard ultimately rests with one
organization.
# ODF is the only openly available standard, published fully in a
document that is freely available and easy to comprehend. This
openness is reflected in the number of competing applications in
which ODF is already implemented. Unlike ODF, OOXML's complexity,
extraordinary length, technical omissions, and single-vendor
dependencies combine to make alternative implementation
unattractive as well as legally and practically impossible.
[/quote]
This is counter to an open effort:
[quote]
Ecma International ("Ecma") Technical Committee 45 ("TC45"),
which maintains OOXML, works in an opaque manner with its voting,
balloting, and appeals policies not published. It is unclear if
voting, balloting, or appeals processes are used in the
development of OOXML, since the formats were pre-developed within
Microsoft's Office software development group and Microsoft
retains veto power over any ongoing changes that are proposed in
TC45. Moreover, while there is an after-the-fact reporting by
press release, the meeting activities of TC45, the committee's
work-in-progress, documents, and e-mail are not public.
Barriers to participation in the development of OOXML are many.
Ecma membership requirements are limiting: individuals are not
welcome to participate except by special invitation or through
their corporate membership at Ecma. Only senior corporate members
have the right to vote on a TC. The OOXML specification's over
6,000 pages were reviewed in less than a year by Ecma and were
submitted to ISO in December 2006 without a reference
implementation in software.
[/quote]
This comment supports that observation:
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=84
[quote]
Because open standards are by definition controlled by no single
party, they facilitate interoperation among suppliers, partners,
peers, and customers. Standards such as HTML, XML and TCP/IP
maximize choice, minimize production costs and make competition
work for customers of all kinds. In the long run, market forces
work better, and vital records can be preserved forever — not
just for two or three product cycles. This proposed standard
assures none of these things.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Mark Kent
hehe, fair enough. There is a more fundamental difference, though, in
that ODF Is a real standard, whereas the OOXML which our paid Microsoft
people like to push is a proprietary set of formats which even Microsoft
have trouble dealing with, let alone anyone else.
Has anyone seen how /long/ it takes Microsoft Word to convert between
formats? I recall it taking ages, so clearly the standard is not well
understood.
Hadron
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper on Thursday:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>> High Plains Thumper espoused:
>>>>
>>>>> ODF is a true standard supported by a multitude. It
>>>>> puts all players on an even playing field, even
>>>>> Microsoft. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I agree; what you didn't mention is that OOXML is also
>>>> 6,000 pages long, which is about 5,900 pages too long for
>>>> any standard.
>>>
>>> Here is a good comparison (photo):
>>>
>>> http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2007/07/18/T18_02_54/
>>
>> See the one from Sam Hiser. It's on O'ReillyNet.
>
> I did not find the one you mention on O'ReillyNet. However, I found
> this article by Mr. Hiser:
High Plains Thumper : the COLA link shill. Do you ever post a (Correct)
opinion of your own? Saying "I agree" and then duplicating articles by
industry luminaries is so lame.
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper espoused:
>
That I have not tried yet with MS Word 2003, although testing the
free download from sourceforge might be worth it. Oops! I
forgot, I'd violate the EULA for benchmarking the software!
Heavens forbid that I do that!
This comment regarding OOXML gives a solid argument for ODF:
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=84
[quote]
Because open standards are by definition controlled by no single
party, they facilitate interoperation among suppliers, partners,
peers, and customers. Standards such as HTML, XML and TCP/IP
maximize choice, minimize production costs and make competition
work for customers of all kinds. In the long run, market forces
work better, and vital records can be preserved forever — not
just for two or three product cycles. This proposed standard
assures none of these things.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Hadron
And if we ever needed proof that Mark Kent knows nothing about computers
or SW he has provided it in the last sentence above.
Mark : something "not well understood" does not necessarily convert to
"slow" SW - it converts to buggy SW which does not work.
>
> That I have not tried yet with MS Word 2003, although testing the
> free download from sourceforge might be worth it. Oops! I
Aha. more guesswork on your part based on SW chiseled from granite in
the olden days.
> forgot, I'd violate the EULA for benchmarking the software!
> Heavens forbid that I do that!
>
> This comment regarding OOXML gives a solid argument for ODF:
>
> http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=84
>
> [quote]
> Because open standards are by definition controlled by no single
> party, they facilitate interoperation among suppliers, partners,
> peers, and customers. Standards such as HTML, XML and TCP/IP
HTML was and is a complete fiasco and mess. CSS changes by the day. Any
web professional will tell that the whole thing is a joke.
Hadron
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> I agree; what you didn't mention is that OOXML is also
>>> 6,000 pages long, which is about 5,900 pages too long for
>>> any standard.
>>
>> Well, then, I assume you object to ODF? That's about 1100
>> pages, when printed at the same line spacing as is used to
>> get 6000 for OOXML.
>
> OpenDocument version 1.0 - specification:
Oh dear me. More mindless pasting other peoples work.
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/
> 12572/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/dkjop
>
> ODF is 706 pages total.
>
> http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/
> TC45_available_docs.htm
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/35kqe2
>
> OOXML Part 1 - Fundamentals, Page 2 (PDF page 9), Section 2,
> Conformance versus ODF, Part 1 - Introduction, Page 35 (PDF page 35),
> Section 1.5 Document Processing and Conformance. Statistics are from
> gedit 2.18.1, direct copy and paste of page contents:
>
> ODF OOXML
> 58 69 Lines
> 427 416 Words
> 2883 3205 Characters (with spaces)
> 2156 2305 Characters (no spaces)
> 2898 3225 Bytes
>
> 427 : 416 = 102.6% expansion.
?!?!?!?
2.6% expansion actually.
>
> 706 x 102.6% = 725 pages.
Shock horror (even if this did mean anything)
>
> 6000 - 725 = 5275 pages too many.
>
> Mark, you were off by 625 pages. :-)
Nurse. The strait jacket please.
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/
>> 12572/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf
>
>> orhttp://tinyurl.com/dkjop
>
>> ODF is 706 pages total.
>
> That's nice. That's at single spacing. When OOXML is counted
> as 6000 pages, that's when printed using 1.5 spacing.
>
> <http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html>
This is one reason why I plonked you in my newsreader. It is your
typical selective snippage to twist the truth game.
I wrote:
>> http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/
>> TC45_available_docs.htm
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/35kqe2
>>
>> OOXML Part 1 - Fundamentals, Page 2 (PDF page 9), Section 2,
>> Conformance versus ODF, Part 1 - Introduction, Page 35 (PDF
>> page 35), Section 1.5 Document Processing and Conformance.
>> Statistics are from gedit 2.18.1, direct copy and paste of page
>> contents:
>>
>> ODF OOXML
>> 58 69 Lines
>> 427 416 Words
>> 2883 3205 Characters (with spaces)
>> 2156 2305 Characters (no spaces)
>> 2898 3225 Bytes
Long line on the OOXML page is 108 characters long. Margins are
approximately 1 inch on both sides, giving 6.5 inches not including
indexing numbers to the right. 108 : 6.5 = 16.6 characters per inch,
which is smaller than 12 or 11 font size, somewhere around 9 font
size. Using a smaller font at 1.5 line spacing, this is why there are
69 lines on the OOXML page versus 56 lines for ODF.
--
HPT
Hadron
All of this is meaningless without a functionality comparison and a full
word count.
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> hehe, fair enough. There is a more fundamental difference, though, in
> that ODF Is a real standard, whereas the OOXML which our paid Microsoft
> people like to push is a proprietary set of formats which even Microsoft
> have trouble dealing with, let alone anyone else.
ODF is an outline of a real standard. When the working groups that are
busy working on filling the gaping holes in the current ODF spec finish,
and get their work added to the ISO standard, than it might be real.
It's interesting that all of the anti-OOXML people here appear to have
not done any investigation into the technical details of ODF and OOXML.
They seem to base their opinion *entirely* on OOXML being from MS and
ODF not being from MS.
--
--Tim Smith
Bob Hauck
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> It's interesting that all of the anti-OOXML people here appear to have
> not done any investigation into the technical details of ODF and
> OOXML. They seem to base their opinion *entirely* on OOXML being from
> MS and ODF not being from MS.
That's actually a valid basis for having an opinion though. Standards
are not only about technical merit, but also about whether users feel
comfortable adopting them.
MS has a certain history regarding standards and the way they deal with
competitors. Many people think the burden is on them to demonstrate
that they won't be using OOXML as a club against customers and third
party vendors. Their standard may be technically wonderful, but nobody
cares if they intend to make it difficult for third parties who they
perceive to be competitors.
ODF does not have this burden. There is a full reference implementation
that is Free Software, and there are partial implementations by various
third parties. They clearly intend to be cooperative.
Microsoft has nobody to blame but themselves for this state of affairs.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
-| http://www.haucks.org/
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper writes:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/
>>>> 12572/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf
>>>>
Okay, you asked for it.
OOXML Statistics by Part:
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Total
1.4 1.4 5.8 33.6 0.7 42.9 PDF Megabytes
173 129 472 5219 43 6036 PDF Pages
10553 5953 29011 178280 2345 226142 Lines
45930 34380 132454 1369437 11670 1593871 Words
415582 303980 101623 12558225 100848 13480258 Char (w/spaces)
271619 186980 680016 7525413 69434 8733462 Char (no spaces)
417209 305293 1020355 12581276 101068 14425201 Bytes
265.49 266.51 280.62 262.39 271.4 264.06 Words/Page
ODF Versus OOXML Specification Document Statistics:
ODF OOXML
All Total
3.0 42.9 PDF Megabytes
706 6,036 PDF Pages
52,579 226,142 Lines
218,351 1,593,871 Words
1,942,993 13,480,258 Characters (with spaces)
1,305,062 8,733,462 Characters (no spaces)
1,948,574 14,425,201 Bytes
309.28 264.06 Words/Page
Normalising OOXML to ODF:
6,036 Pages x (264.06 : 309.28) = 5,153 Pages.
5,153 - 706 = 4,447 Pages.
That is still 4,447 Pages too many. :-)
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
>
> Normalising OOXML to ODF:
>
> 6,036 Pages x (264.06 : 309.28) = 5,153 Pages.
>
> 5,153 - 706 = 4,447 Pages.
BTW, normalising ODF to OOXML is:
706 x (309.28 : 264.06) = 827 Pages, not 1,100 alleged by Mr.
Smith. However, I suppose a 39% margin of error is not bad for a
troll.
--
HPT
Hadron
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:34:06 -0700, Tim Smith
> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> It's interesting that all of the anti-OOXML people here appear to have
>> not done any investigation into the technical details of ODF and
>> OOXML. They seem to base their opinion *entirely* on OOXML being from
>> MS and ODF not being from MS.
>
> That's actually a valid basis for having an opinion though. Standards
> are not only about technical merit, but also about whether users feel
> comfortable adopting them.
Come off it Bob. This is COLA - people's feelings are well known to be
based on wild and varied conspiracy theories. Someone like High Plains
Rafael isn't qualified to judge 2 ply over 3 ply toilet tissues never
mind the technical merits of two developing document formats.
Hadron
Did you miss the functionality comparison? All I can see is you posting
more info with zero self interpretation again.
>
> OOXML Statistics by Part:
>
> Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Total
> 1.4 1.4 5.8 33.6 0.7 42.9 PDF Megabytes
> 173 129 472 5219 43 6036 PDF Pages
> 10553 5953 29011 178280 2345 226142 Lines
> 45930 34380 132454 1369437 11670 1593871 Words
*snip*
High Plains Thumper
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> It's interesting that all of the anti-OOXML people here
>> appear to have not done any investigation into the technical
>> details of ODF and OOXML. They seem to base their opinion
>> *entirely* on OOXML being from MS and ODF not being from MS.
>
> That's actually a valid basis for having an opinion though.
> Standards are not only about technical merit, but also about
> whether users feel comfortable adopting them.
True. If you will notice, Tim has deflected the issue by not
doing what he expects of others. He has expressed advocates as
anti-OOXML because it is a Microsoft product, without regards to
the historical aspects as you explain so well below. Yet he
volunteers very little information toward his technical
considerations, which implies he knows very little.
> MS has a certain history regarding standards and the way they
> deal with competitors. Many people think the burden is on
> them to demonstrate that they won't be using OOXML as a club
> against customers and third party vendors. Their standard may
> be technically wonderful, but nobody cares if they intend to
> make it difficult for third parties who they perceive to be
> competitors.
>
> ODF does not have this burden. There is a full reference
> implementation that is Free Software, and there are partial
> implementations by various third parties. They clearly intend
> to be cooperative.
>
> Microsoft has nobody to blame but themselves for this state of
> affairs.
One thing I can say about the ODF document after an informal
look-see, is that the writing style is more direct, i.e., you do
this, you get this. The Microsoft document reads more like a
tutorial except that it is extremely wordy and redundant.
IMHO, the specification should be very well organised, straight
forward, direct and to the point. Basically, it appears that
what ODF was able to express in 706 pages took Microsoft to
express in 6,036 pages.
I find it amusing that proponents call ODF a shell of an outline
needing to be filled in.
IMHO, if this were the type document Microsoft supplied to the
European Commission to document CFS/SMB, I could understand the
EU's dissatisfaction.
I see the fast track approval process for ISO as a way to
railroad a process that should have followed normal course like
all others.
Fortunately, the V1 Committee did not approve OOXML:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Not_Enough_INCITS_Voters_
Recommend_Microsoft_OOXML_to_ISO/1186792876
[quote]
Not Enough INCITS Voters Recommend Microsoft OOXML to ISO
By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews
August 10, 2007, 8:41 PM
With the ballot having closed among members of Technical
Committee V1 of the InterNational Committee for Information
Technology Standards (INCITS) advisory board over whether to
recommend Microsoft's Office Open XML format to the International
Standards Organization as a standard, although more members voted
aye than nay, an abstention by the IEEE forced the committee not
to recommend it without comments.
The 8-7-1 vote deals a setback to Microsoft's hopes to be able to
fast-track OOXML's approval by the ISO without being encumbrance.
Due to the Committee's unorthodox rules, a 9-7 vote would have
meant passage. But the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers' abstention actually dealt a more serious blow than if
it had voted no, by kicking in a provision whereby a two-thirds
majority of the remaining votes would have been required for the
measure to pass: meaning, the vote would have to have been 10-5-1.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Hadron
> Bob Hauck wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> It's interesting that all of the anti-OOXML people here
>>> appear to have not done any investigation into the technical
>>> details of ODF and OOXML. They seem to base their opinion
>>> *entirely* on OOXML being from MS and ODF not being from MS.
>>
>> That's actually a valid basis for having an opinion though.
>> Standards are not only about technical merit, but also about
>> whether users feel comfortable adopting them.
>
> True. If you will notice, Tim has deflected the issue by not doing
> what he expects of others. He has expressed advocates as anti-OOXML
> because it is a Microsoft product, without regards to the historical
> aspects as you explain so well below. Yet he volunteers very little
> information toward his technical considerations, which implies he
> knows very little.
Actually he just pointed out that you, like others often do here, were
spouting all sorts of nonsense with no apparent knowledge of what the
specs CONTAINED. For you the number of words were the defining
criteria. No surprise there. Almost on a par with your guardian angel,
Bob here, still maintaining that Apache configuration for Debian is
"identical" to the Apache process "so long as you're not stupid and
delete all the Debian files and... etc etc etc etc" (snip big list of
things that aren't identical that if you remove them then it will be
identical).
>
>> MS has a certain history regarding standards and the way they
>> deal with competitors. Many people think the burden is on
>> them to demonstrate that they won't be using OOXML as a club
>> against customers and third party vendors. Their standard may
>> be technically wonderful, but nobody cares if they intend to
>> make it difficult for third parties who they perceive to be
>> competitors.
>>
>> ODF does not have this burden. There is a full reference
>> implementation that is Free Software, and there are partial
>> implementations by various third parties. They clearly intend
>> to be cooperative.
>>
>> Microsoft has nobody to blame but themselves for this state of
>> affairs.
>
> One thing I can say about the ODF document after an informal look-see,
> is that the writing style is more direct, i.e., you do this, you get
> this. The Microsoft document reads more like a tutorial except that
> it is extremely wordy and redundant.
So it's better because it has a writing style you appreciate. I
see. More wonderful advocacy from High Plains Rafael or whatever his
current name is.
> IMHO, the specification should be very well organised, straight
> forward, direct and to the point. Basically, it appears that what ODF
> was able to express in 706 pages took Microsoft to express in 6,036
> pages.
You are assuming. Where is your technical dissertation on the relative
merits of the two formats?
> I find it amusing that proponents call ODF a shell of an outline
> needing to be filled in.
Why? You haven't indicated in any shape or form that you even begin to
appreciate whats IN the documents. You prefer one over the other because
its terser.
I rather suspect that there are a few hidden agendas. Note that I am NOT
making wild claims about the relative benefits of either format.
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper writes:
>> Bob Hauck wrote:
>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's interesting that all of the anti-OOXML people here
>>>> appear to have not done any investigation into the
>>>> technical details of ODF and OOXML. They seem to base
>>>> their opinion *entirely* on OOXML being from MS and ODF
>>>> not being from MS.
>>>
>>> That's actually a valid basis for having an opinion
>>> though. Standards are not only about technical merit, but
>>> also about whether users feel comfortable adopting them.
>>
>> True. If you will notice, Tim has deflected the issue by
>> not doing what he expects of others. He has expressed
>> advocates as anti-OOXML because it is a Microsoft product,
>> without regards to the historical aspects as you explain so
>> well below. Yet he volunteers very little information
>> toward his technical considerations, which implies he knows
>> very little.
>
> Actually he just pointed out that you, like others often do
> here, were spouting all sorts of nonsense with no apparent
> knowledge of what the specs CONTAINED.
POT, KETTLE, BLACK.
>>> MS has a certain history regarding standards and the way
>>> they deal with competitors. Many people think the burden
>>> is on them to demonstrate that they won't be using OOXML
>>> as a club against customers and third party vendors.
>>> Their standard may be technically wonderful, but nobody
>>> cares if they intend to make it difficult for third
>>> parties who they perceive to be competitors.
>>>
>>> ODF does not have this burden. There is a full reference
>>> implementation that is Free Software, and there are
>>> partial implementations by various third parties. They
>>> clearly intend to be cooperative.
>>>
>>> Microsoft has nobody to blame but themselves for this
>>> state of affairs.
>>
>> One thing I can say about the ODF document after an informal
>> look-see, is that the writing style is more direct, i.e.,
>> you do this, you get this. The Microsoft document reads
>> more like a tutorial except that it is extremely wordy and
>> redundant.
>
> So it's better because it has a writing style you appreciate.
> I see. More wonderful advocacy from High Plains Rafael or
> whatever his current name is.
POT, KETTLE, BLACK, eh Hadron Quark, Hans Schneider, Damian O'Leary.
>> IMHO, the specification should be very well organised,
>> straight forward, direct and to the point. Basically, it
>> appears that what ODF was able to express in 706 pages took
>> Microsoft to express in 6,036 pages.
>
> You are assuming. Where is your technical dissertation on the
> relative merits of the two formats?
POT, KETTLE, BLACK. Where's yours? Care to share? I dare.
>> I find it amusing that proponents call ODF a shell of an
>> outline needing to be filled in.
>
> Why? You haven't indicated in any shape or form that you even
> begin to appreciate whats IN the documents. You prefer one
> over the other because its terser.
POT, KETTLE, BLACK. Where's your indication? Your shape? Your
form? Your appreciation?
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is a reputable
standards organisation. Yes, there is a hidden agenda, but not
from IEEE. Trying to go fast track approval on a 6,036 page
document in less than one year into a standard is a hidden agenda.
--
HPT
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper writes:
>>> Bob Hauck wrote:
>>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's interesting that all of the anti-OOXML people here appear to
>>>>> have not done any investigation into the
>>>>> technical details of ODF and OOXML. They seem to base
>>>>> their opinion *entirely* on OOXML being from MS and ODF
>>>>> not being from MS.
>>>>
>>>> That's actually a valid basis for having an opinion
>>>> though. Standards are not only about technical merit, but
>>>> also about whether users feel comfortable adopting them.
>>>
>>> True. If you will notice, Tim has deflected the issue by
>>> not doing what he expects of others. He has expressed
>>> advocates as anti-OOXML because it is a Microsoft product,
>>> without regards to the historical aspects as you explain so
>>> well below. Yet he volunteers very little information
>>> toward his technical considerations, which implies he knows
>>> very little.
>>
>> Actually he just pointed out that you, like others often do
>> here, were spouting all sorts of nonsense with no apparent
>> knowledge of what the specs CONTAINED.
>
> POT, KETTLE, BLACK.
You do realise that makes no sense? I am NOT claiming anything over the
two. You are.
it's not me posting loads of drivel about how great the ODF spec is
because it is "less words". You really are scraping the bottom of the
barrel. But you do redefine clueless fan boy.
Yes. And George Bush is a legally elected President. Your point is?
Tim Smith
High Plains Thumper <highplai...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> One thing I can say about the ODF document after an informal
> look-see, is that the writing style is more direct, i.e., you do
> this, you get this. The Microsoft document reads more like a
> tutorial except that it is extremely wordy and redundant.
>
> IMHO, the specification should be very well organised, straight
> forward, direct and to the point. Basically, it appears that
> what ODF was able to express in 706 pages took Microsoft to
> express in 6,036 pages.
The original OOXML submission to ECMA was much smaller. The working
group ask Microsoft to expand it. An example of the kind of thing that
expanded was the specification of spreadsheet functions and formulas.
That grew to 324 pages.
In ODF, it is at most 10 pages (depending on how you count).
Because ODF leaves that out, you CANNOT implement a spreadsheet based on
the ODF specification that will have any chance of interoperating with
other people's implementations, unless you use some source outside of
ODF to figure out how to do formulas and functions, and that is the same
outside source others used.
There are already at least two implementations of OOXML outside of
Microsoft, from people who almost certainly did not get a peak at the
Office 2007 source code for reference, and they interoperate with Office
2007.
ODF can't make that kind of claim--interoperable implementations all
trace back to someone looking at OpenOffice to see how it does things
(or taking a shortcut, and looking at Microsoft documentation (or
OOXML!), and guessing that others did it the same way because they
wanted to be compatible with Excel).
The funny thing here is that if Microsoft wanted, they could *kill* ODF
because of this. All they would have to do is implement ODF support in
Office, following the ODF spec 100%, but in all those places where ODF
has a gaping hole, pick a way that isn't compatible with what OpenOffice
does.
(There is work underway to close this big holes. OpenDocument 1.2 is
expected from OASIS later this year, and will actually specify
spreadsheet formulas. I don't know how long it will take for that to
make it through ISO, though).
--
--Tim Smith
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper writes:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper writes:
>>>> Bob Hauck wrote:
>>>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's interesting that all of the anti-OOXML people
>>>>>> here appear to have not done any investigation into
>>>>>> the technical details of ODF and OOXML. They seem
>>>>>> to base their opinion *entirely* on OOXML being from
>>>>>> MS and ODF not being from MS.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
This is a list of the disinformation tactics that the that the
anti-Linux propagandists who post in COLA have been using. All of
these tactics have been used in COLA by the anti-Linux
propagandists against the Linux advocates and the rest of the
COLA readership to further the cause of the anti-Linux
propagandists. This list has been worded as though you are one of
them, so that you can better see through their eyes how they think.
47. Don't do your own homework. Make your opponent do your
research for you. Depending on who much credibility you still
have will determine how successful you will be at this tactic.
>>>>> That's actually a valid basis for having an opinion
>>>>> though. Standards are not only about technical merit,
>>>>> but also about whether users feel comfortable adopting
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> True. If you will notice, Tim has deflected the issue
>>>> by not doing what he expects of others. He has
>>>> expressed advocates as anti-OOXML because it is a
>>>> Microsoft product, without regards to the historical
>>>> aspects as you explain so well below. Yet he volunteers
>>>> very little information toward his technical
>>>> considerations, which implies he knows very little.
>>>
>>> Actually he just pointed out that you, like others often
>>> do here, were spouting all sorts of nonsense with no
>>> apparent knowledge of what the specs CONTAINED.
>>
>> POT, KETTLE, BLACK.
>
> You do realise that makes no sense? I am NOT claiming anything
> over the two. You are.
29. Unreasonably proclaim your reasonableness. If your method to
deliver anti-Linux propaganda is not among the more article
style, you can try to claim to be reasonable. Of course if you
really were reasonable, you would not be an anti-Linux
propagandists in he first place; however, compared to your more
radical comrades you may seem to be more reasonable. You can not
be certain that the readership of COLA will accept your actions
as being reasonable without your prompting them to think of you
that way. So you need frequently mention how reasonable you are.
>>>>> MS has a certain history regarding standards and the
>>>>> way they deal with competitors. Many people think the
>>>>> burden is on them to demonstrate that they won't be
>>>>> using OOXML as a club against customers and third
>>>>> party vendors. Their standard may be technically
>>>>> wonderful, but nobody cares if they intend to make it
>>>>> difficult for third parties who they perceive to be
>>>>> competitors.
>>>>>
>>>>> ODF does not have this burden. There is a full
>>>>> reference implementation that is Free Software, and
>>>>> there are partial implementations by various third
>>>>> parties. They clearly intend to be cooperative.
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft has nobody to blame but themselves for this
>>>>> state of affairs.
>>>>
>>>> One thing I can say about the ODF document after an
>>>> informal look-see, is that the writing style is more
>>>> direct, i.e., you do this, you get this. The Microsoft
>>>> document reads more like a tutorial except that it is
>>>> extremely wordy and redundant.
>>>
>>> So it's better because it has a writing style you
>>> appreciate. I see. More wonderful advocacy from High
>>> Plains Rafael or whatever his current name is.
>>
>> POT, KETTLE, BLACK, eh Hadron Quark, Hans Schneider, Damian
>> O'Leary.
35. When thing get too hot go away. When all else fails and
things get too hot, disappear from the group. This is not as
drastic as it sounds. You might stay away for a few months and
then return hoping that the other wintrolls have softened up the
field a bit. If you don't want to stay away at all. Create a
new primary identity and drop the use of the other one.
>>>> IMHO, the specification should be very well organised,
>>>> straight forward, direct and to the point. Basically,
>>>> it appears that what ODF was able to express in 706
>>>> pages took Microsoft to express in 6,036 pages.
>>>
>>> You are assuming. Where is your technical dissertation on
>>> the relative merits of the two formats?
>>
>> POT, KETTLE, BLACK. Where's yours? Care to share? I dare.
15. Avoid answering direct questions. Avoid answering a direct
questions that you fear by claiming to not have seen the question
then refuse to address it for other reasons. Keep it up along
with other tactics until your opponent is distracted from the
question.
>>>> I find it amusing that proponents call ODF a shell of an
>>>> outline needing to be filled in.
>>>
>>> Why? You haven't indicated in any shape or form that you
>>> even begin to appreciate whats IN the documents. You
>>> prefer one over the other because its terser.
>>
>> POT, KETTLE, BLACK. Where's your indication? Your shape?
>> Your form? Your appreciation?
>
> it's not me posting loads of drivel about how great the ODF
> spec is because it is "less words". You really are scraping
> the bottom of the barrel. But you do redefine clueless fan
> boy.
2. Distract your opponent from the issues at hand by accusing
your opponents of being "petty", "pathetic", "childish" or any of
a number of other such terms.
3. Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The liberal use
of profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective, particularly
when used against you more dignified opponents. Your experience
as a school yard bully can be handy here.
>> agenda, but not from IEEE. Trying to go fast track approval
>> on a 6,036 page document in less than one year into a
>> standard is a hidden agenda.
>
> Yes. And George Bush is a legally elected President. Your
> point is?
16. Turn a question asked of you back on your opponent Better
yet, turn the questions back on the Linux Advocate with a
question like: "What do you think is the `right' answer, lamer?"
You have now taken the heat off of your ignorance and you have
cast doubt on the credibility of your opponent.
--
HPT
Marshall
> Swiss Cheese [for OOXML]
>
<snip>
Forgive my naivety on this but even though Microsoft is likely to buy
and manipulate their way to the purported winners seat on this, does it
not still come down to the man (and corporation) on the street to have
the final say here?
Are there really that many people left that will blithely go with the so
called declared standard when most people (I should hope) can see right
through this and and recognize that Microsoft is bound and determined to
hold onto seats via any given product lock in that they can manufacture?
Don't get me wrong, if Microsoft is for it, I'm probably against it as I
have no trust in them for much of anything other than their ability to
glom money. But I'm not entirely convinced that this is not much more
than a death struggle for them. They might have a win on paper but I'm
frankly hoping that it is a hollow victory and that the actual users are
smart enough to reject their false, manipulated and bloated standard anyway.
Roy Schestowitz
I doubt it, to be perfectly honest with you. If the CIO decides that ODF is the
way to go and Office does not support it (it does not; in fact, Microsoft
broke Sun's plugin with DLL hell), then there's incentive to change. What's
needed is a mass migration at 'state-level'. Norway is a good example, I
think. Japan also.
Windows is more of a 'teaser' (free sample|) for Microsoft Office, so it's
Microsoft biggest (and one among the very few) cash cows. Many divisions at
Microsoft lose money as the company starts to send its developers off shore or
employ foreigners for long, long hours. The next Windows, for example, will be
developed in India.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | One, Two, Free Open Source Software (FOSS)
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> One thing I can say about the ODF document after an informal
>> look-see, is that the writing style is more direct, i.e.,
>> you do this, you get this. The Microsoft document reads
>> more like a tutorial except that it is extremely wordy and
>> redundant.
>>
>> IMHO, the specification should be very well organised,
>> straight forward, direct and to the point. Basically, it
>> appears that what ODF was able to express in 706 pages took
>> Microsoft to express in 6,036 pages.
>
> The original OOXML submission to ECMA was much smaller. The
> working group ask Microsoft to expand it. An example of the
> kind of thing that expanded was the specification of
> spreadsheet functions and formulas. That grew to 324 pages.
>
> In ODF, it is at most 10 pages (depending on how you count).
>
> Because ODF leaves that out, you CANNOT implement a
> spreadsheet based on the ODF specification that will have any
> chance of interoperating with other people's implementations,
> unless you use some source outside of ODF to figure out how to
> do formulas and functions, and that is the same outside source
> others used.
http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDocument-v1.1.pdf
Page 351
[quote]
Formula
The draw:formula attribute specifies an equation that should be
used to evaluate a value. A formula can make use of other
formulas or modifier values by function and or modifier reference.
number_digit = '0'|'1'|'2'|'3'|'4'|'5'|'6'|'7'|'8'|'9'
number = number number_digit | number_digit
identifier = 'pi'|'left'|'top'|'right'|'bottom'|'xstretch'|
'ystretch'|'hasstroke'|'hasfill'|'width'|'height'|'logwidth'|
'logheight'
unary_function = 'abs'|'sqrt'|'sin'|'cos'|'tan'|'atan'|'atan2'
binary_function = 'min'|'max'
ternary_function = 'if'
[/quote]
Hmmm, seems spreadsheet functions are there.
> There are already at least two implementations of OOXML
> outside of Microsoft, from people who almost certainly did not
> get a peak at the Office 2007 source code for reference, and
> they interoperate with Office 2007.
>
> ODF can't make that kind of claim--interoperable
> implementations all trace back to someone looking at
> OpenOffice to see how it does things (or taking a shortcut,
> and looking at Microsoft documentation (or OOXML!), and
> guessing that others did it the same way because they wanted
> to be compatible with Excel).
Oh, I see, the old trace function, the one that has caused
companies grief to the extent where documents are now shared as
PDF. That is not a value added process, IMHO.
Those most favouring ODF are Governments.
http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=
20070328043534903
And Oregon Makes Five for ODF - With a Twist
[quote]
In what is beginning to seem like a legislative drumbeat, Oregon
has become the fourth US state this year to see an open document
format bill introduced in its legislature (the others, in order
of bill introduction, are Minnesota, Texas and California). Taken
together with pioneer Massachusetts, which led the way with an
administrative rule adopted in 2005, this means that individual
legislators in10% of all US States have thus far taken steps to
require that governments must be responsible stewards of public
records.
[/quote]
Issue is permanent storage of documents for later retrieval.
These are final documents, not development documents. It is
those documents that contain key decisions, finalised, summarised
tabular data, law matters, etc.
One is not going to be concerned about going several years back
and retrieving someone's intermediate edits, deletions,
additions, etc. Those are transient documents. Nor are they
going to be concerned that someone had an embedded spreadsheet
with embedded functions, if data is properly represented in the
document in tabular form.
> The funny thing here is that if Microsoft wanted, they could
> *kill* ODF because of this. All they would have to do is
> implement ODF support in Office, following the ODF spec 100%,
> but in all those places where ODF has a gaping hole, pick a
> way that isn't compatible with what OpenOffice does.
>
> (There is work underway to close this big holes. OpenDocument
> 1.2 is expected from OASIS later this year, and will actually
> specify spreadsheet formulas. I don't know how long it will
> take for that to make it through ISO,though).
Well, it looks like OOXML has hit a snag, doesn't it:
Hadron
High Plains Thumper <highplai...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
> 29. Unreasonably proclaim your reasonableness. If your method to
> deliver anti-Linux propaganda is not among the more article style, you
ODF is nothing to do with Linux you idiot. I have also not given *any*
opinion on which I consider the superior spec because I don't know
enough about them. Funnily enough the IEEE abstained due to conflicts
of opinion.
And yet High Plains Rafael, COLA's resident Einstein proclaims ODF to be
superior because it has "less words".
You are a joke and should never venture opinions of your own as you make
Mark Kent look positively clever.
High Plains Thumper
>> method to deliver anti-Linux propaganda is not among the
>> Of course if you really were reasonable, you would not be an
>> anti-Linux propagandists in he first place; however,
>> compared to your more radical comrades you may seem to be
>> more reasonable. You can not be certain that the readership
>> of COLA will accept your actions as being reasonable without
>> your prompting them to think of you that way. So you need
>> frequently mention how reasonable you are.
>
> given *any* opinion on which I consider the superior spec
> because I don't know enough about them. Funnily enough the
> IEEE abstained due to conflicts of opinion.
>
> And yet High Plains Rafael, COLA's resident Einstein proclaims
> ODF to be superior because it has "less words".
>
> You are a joke and should never venture opinions of your own
> as you make Mark Kent look positively clever.
2. Distract your opponent from the issues at hand by accusing
your opponents of being "petty", "pathetic", "childish" or any of
a number of other such terms.
3. Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The liberal use
of profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective, particularly
when used against you more dignified opponents. Your experience
as a school yard bully can be handy here.
45. Criticize Linux Advocates but ignore anti-Linux propagandist
transgressions. Always criticize the behavior of Linux
Advocates, but, ignore the same and even worse transgressions are
being committed by your fellow Trespassers.
48. Don't let your ignorance stop you from posting. No matter
how little you understand of the issues being discussed in a
thread, post anyway. If you don't know what you are talking about
just pretend that you do.
ODF has everything to do with Linux. ODF is the basis for
OpenOffice and StarOffice, office suites for Linux.
>>>> POT, KETTLE, BLACK, eh Hadron Quark, Hans Schneider,
>>>> Damian O'Leary.
>>
>> 35. When thing get too hot go away. When all else fails and
>> things get too hot, disappear from the group. This is not
>> as drastic as it sounds. You might stay away for a few
>> months and then return hoping that the other wintrolls have
>> softened up the field a bit. If you don't want to stay away
>> at all. Create a new primary identity and drop the use of
>> the other one.
15. Avoid answering direct questions. Avoid answering a direct
questions that you fear by claiming to not have seen the question
then refuse to address it for other reasons. Keep it up along
with other tactics until your opponent is distracted from the
question.
Why did you nymshift?
>>>>>> IMHO, the specification should be very well
>>>>>> organised, straight forward, direct and to the
>>>>>> point. Basically, it appears that what ODF was able
>>>>>> to express in 706 pages took Microsoft to express in
>>>>>> 6,036 pages.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are assuming. Where is your technical dissertation
>>>>> on the relative merits of the two formats?
>>>>
>>>> POT, KETTLE, BLACK. Where's yours? Care to share? I
>>>> dare.
>>
>> 15. Avoid answering direct questions. Avoid answering a
>> direct questions that you fear by claiming to not have seen
>> the question then refuse to address it for other reasons.
>> Keep it up along with other tactics until your opponent is
>> distracted from the question.
See #15 above.
>>>>>> I find it amusing that proponents call ODF a shell
>>>>>> of an outline needing to be filled in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? You haven't indicated in any shape or form that
>>>>> you even begin to appreciate whats IN the documents.
>>>>> You prefer one over the other because its terser.
>>>>
>>>> POT, KETTLE, BLACK. Where's your indication? Your
>>>> shape? Your form? Your appreciation?
>>>
>>> it's not me posting loads of drivel about how great the
>>> ODF spec is because it is "less words". You really are
>>> scraping the bottom of the barrel. But you do redefine
>>> clueless fan boy.
>>
>> 2. Distract your opponent from the issues at hand by
>> accusing your opponents of being "petty", "pathetic",
>> "childish" or any of a number of other such terms.
>>
>> 3. Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The
>> liberal use of profanity and vulgarisms can be very
>> effective, particularly when used against you more dignified
>> opponents. Your experience as a school yard bully can be
>> handy here.
See #15 above.
>>>>>> Fortunately, the V1 Committee did not approve OOXML:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.betanews.com/article/Not_Enough_INCITS_Voters_
>>>>>> Recommend_Microsoft_OOXML_to_ISO/1186792876
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or http://tinyurl.com/2mjpbn
<SNIP>
See #15 above.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Marshall on Sunday:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Swiss Cheese [for OOXML]
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> against it as I have no trust in them for much of anything
>> other than their ability to glom money. But I'm not entirely
>> convinced that this is not much more than a death struggle
>> for them. They might have a win on paper but I'm frankly
>> hoping that it is a hollow victory and that the actual users
>> are smart enough to reject their false, manipulated and
>> bloated standard anyway.
>
> I doubt it, to be perfectly honest with you. If the CIO
> decides that ODF is the way to go and Office does not support
> it (it does not; in fact, Microsoft broke Sun's plugin with
> DLL hell), then there's incentive to change. What's needed is
> a mass migration at 'state-level'. Norway is a good example, I
> think. Japan also.
>
> Windows is more of a 'teaser' (free sample|) for Microsoft
> Office, so it's Microsoft biggest (and one among the very few)
> cash cows. Many divisions at Microsoft lose money as the
> company starts to send its developers off shore or employ
> foreigners for long, long hours. The next Windows, for
> example, will be developed in India.
Interesting, I did not know that Microsoft has broken the ODF
plug-in, until you mentioned it and I searched for it:
http://blogs.sun.com/malte/entry/more_details_about_sun_s
[quote]
Q: Why doesn't it support Office 2007?
A: Well, basically, it does, but there is an issue in Word's 2007
Filter API handling. You can save to ODF, but when you try to
open ODF, Word ignores the installed filters and tries to open
with it's own filters. Of course Word can't, so you get an error
message "The Office Open XML file <name> cannot be opened because
there are problems with the content". This even happens if you
explicitly select the ODF filter! I hope Microsoft will fix this
issue with the next service pack. If not, we will work around
this bug by doing the same kind of integration like in PowerPoint
and Excel.
[/quote]
Fortunately and accordingly, it works for earlier versions of
Office, which is the majority of Office versions world wide. By
breaking compatibility is further illustration that one is better
off looking for alternatives to their 2007 and above series of
products.
--
HPT
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> ODF is nothing to do with Linux you idiot. I have also not given
>> *any* opinion on which I consider the superior spec because I don't
>> know enough about them. Funnily enough the IEEE abstained due to
>> conflicts of opinion.
>>
>> And yet High Plains Rafael, COLA's resident Einstein proclaims
>> ODF to be superior because it has "less words".
>>
>> You are a joke and should never venture opinions of your own as you
>> make Mark Kent look positively clever.
>
>
> ODF has everything to do with Linux. ODF is the basis for OpenOffice
> and StarOffice, office suites for Linux.
Do you know what ODF stands for, you bloody tool? Do you realise that
OpenOffice runs on Windows too?
It has no more to do with Linux than it does with Windows.
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs.html
As Mr T would say : "Fool".
>
> Why did you nymshift?
>
LOL. You guys are nuts. Rafael. Or are you now Google Groups over a mobile
Dumper again? I get confused. Same posting of other peoples work,
different names. More boring than Willy Boaster and his amazing kill
filter prowess.
High Plains Thumper
this senseless debate with Mr. Hadron Quark to a close. It is obvious
that he is only here to troll. Following are active illustrations of his
shameless activity. You would be wise to simply ignore the perp. He is
incapable of sound reasoning or reasonable discussion.
Hadron wrote:
> High Plains Thumper writes:
>> Hadron wrote:
Following are snippettes from the official c.o.l.advocacy FAQ at:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote]
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
This is a list of the disinformation tactics that the that the anti-Linux
propagandists who post in COLA have been using. All of these tactics have
been used in COLA by the anti-Linux propagandists against the Linux
advocates and the rest of the COLA readership to further the cause of the
anti-Linux propagandists. This list has been worded as though you are one
of them, so that you can better see through their eyes how they think.
[/quote]
Please note, the first 9 points in Section 7.6 are not numbered. Numbers
have been added for clarity.
>>> ODF is nothing to do with Linux you idiot. I have also not given *any*
>>> opinion on which I consider the superior spec because I don't know
>>> enough about them. Funnily enough the IEEE abstained due to conflicts
>>> of opinion.
>>>
>>> And yet High Plains Rafael, COLA's resident Einstein proclaims ODF to
>>> be superior because it has "words".
>>>
>>> You are a joke and should never venture opinions of your own as you
>>> make Mark Kent look positively clever.
The above language used by Mr. Quark is an illustration of:
[quote]
2. Distract your opponent from the issues at hand by accusing your
opponents of being "petty", "pathetic", "childish" or any of a number of
other such terms.
3. Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The liberal use of
profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective, particularly when used
against you more dignified opponents. Your experience as a school school
yard bully can be handy here
5. Discredit your opponent or his position through the use of
inappropriate laughter and other non-verbal grunts.
[/quote]
>> ODF has everything to do with Linux. ODF is the basis for OpenOffice
>> and StarOffice, office suites for Linux.
>
> Do you know what ODF stands for, you bloody tool? Do you realise that
> OpenOffice runs on Windows too?
>
> It has no more to do with Linux than it does with Windows.
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs.html
>
> As Mr T would say : "Fool".
See FAQ Points 2, 3 and 5. This is the real reason why Mr. Quark does it:
[quote]
9. Drive as many good Linux Advocates out of the group as possible.
[/quote]
>> Why did you nymshift?
>
> LOL. You guys are nuts. Rafael. Or are you now Google Groups over a
> mobile Dumper again? I get confused. Same posting of other peoples work,
> different names. More boring than Willy Boaster and his amazing kill
> filter prowess.
Notice how the Hadron troll has no sense of respect toward posting
advocates (ref. FAQ Points 2, 3, and 5). Hadron's nymshifting is
mentioned in below link. His statement above is a good illustration of
FAQ Point No. 45:
[quote]
45. Criticize Linux Advocates but ignore anti-Linux propagandist
transgressions. Always criticize the behavior of Linux Advocates, but,
ignore the same and even worse transgressions are being committed by your
fellow Trespassers.
[/quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/7e0d5331305...
From: Peter Kai Jensen <use...@pekajemaps.homeip.net>
Subject: Re: Another failed Linux migration
Date: 25 Jan 2007 13:58:44 GMT
[quote]
Well, it's just his behavior, timing, and posting style. Hadron
announces that he is leaving sometime over the holidays. A few
days later, Hans Schneider shows up and despite having no posting
history anywhere else on Usenet, seems very accustomed to COLA.
Suspicious, yes, hard proof, no. But then came the bitching
about Andrew Halliwell's signature, which I have never heard any
troll raise a word about until Hadron did it shortly before
leaving. This happens on Jan 8, and at around this time
suspicions of his true identity are raised by several posters.
The day after, Damian O'Leary shows up, again with no history
outside COLA, and behaves very similarly. Hans Schneider then
drops off Usenet completely some 5 days later.
[/quote]
The Hadron Quark troll is obviously not here to advocate, but to disrupt
normal, healthy, legitimate communication in COLA. He is a waste of
advocacy time.
Robert Parsonage best summarises Mr. Quark's behaviour in:
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/hadron-quark-troll.html
[quote]
The Hadron Quark Troll
Name: Hadron Quark (aka Damian O'Leary, Hans Schneider)
Traits:
* Microsoft apologist
* Habitual liar
* Sets Organization header pretending to work at CERN, IBM, etc
* Doesn't understand the value of telnet client as a simple network
debugging tool. Thinks using telnet always means sending a username and
password in clear text. Truly ignorant of TCP/IP.
* Troll puppet
* Gets upset when anyone includes their qualification in their .sig.
This along with his pretence of working at CERN and IBM implies, IMHO, an
inferiority complex. Probably a drop out who bears a grudge towards those
who have achieved what Hadron couldn't.
[/quote]
--
HPT
AB
> My apologies to the readers of comp.os.linux.advocacy. It is time I bring
> this senseless debate with Mr. Hadron Quark to a close. It is obvious
> that he is only here to troll. Following are active illustrations of his
> shameless activity. You would be wise to simply ignore the perp. He is
> incapable of sound reasoning or reasonable discussion.
Most of us have him killfiled. Others are coming to their senses, some
more quickly than others.
I guess it's time I add a filter to weed out responses to him so I can
forget he even exists at all. That will greatly reduce any temptation I
might feel to talk *about* him as well.
--
Run Windows? I'd rather pee on an Electric Fence!
Hadron
> My apologies to the readers of comp.os.linux.advocacy. It is time I bring
> this senseless debate with Mr. Hadron Quark to a close. It is obvious
> that he is only here to troll. Following are active illustrations of his
> shameless activity. You would be wise to simply ignore the perp. He is
> incapable of sound reasoning or reasonable discussion.
Your "apologies" might be taken better if you actually address the
points as opposed to mindlessly quoting other peoples work.
Fool.
*snip*
Peter Köhlmann
What "points" should he address, "true linux advocate", "kernel
hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru"
and "hardware maven" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Damian O'Leary?
It was all about *your* behaviour, which is quite unacceptable ("smelly
children" and all that dung you fling so freely)
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...
William Poaster
I'm not surprised HPT can't have a debate with Quack. He has reading &
comprehension problems, & he sure doesn't understand what some words
mean. His interpretation of plagiarism to Jim Richardson, which he quoted
from Websters & then said " It's close enough for me.", showed he hasn't
a *clue*. So what interpretations does he put on *other* words??
He claimed in alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Message-ID: <87y7hxd...@googlemail.com>
that he was a windows programmer too! Hells bells, if he interprets what
English words mean as "it's close enough for me" WTF did he do when he
was coding? No wonder windoze has problems.
--
The universe exploded out of nothingness 14 billion years ago.
14 billion years later, & some of us have 100 trillion
interconnected cells, & a self-aware consciousness.
Others post through GoogleGroups, & insist on installing Vista.
High Plains Thumper
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
I am not surprised either.
IMHO, I don't know what specifically motivates him nor his
reasons for arrogant replies. Perhaps they are a cover for his
lack of technical knowledge? Is he rewarded with cash for every
rude reply?
This is strange to understand in a newsgroup that welcomes
anything related to comparing the benefits of Linux to other
operating systems; and no matter from what system one is posting
from.
--
HPT
chrisv
>>
>> Fool.
Asshole.
Capt Morgan
"High Plains Thumper" <highplai...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:46c1854b$0$11216$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...
Is this the reason that *YOU* are a nym-shifting asshole?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:23:13 -0400,
Capt Morgan <r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is this the reason that *YOU* are a nym-shifting asshole?
>
Coming from you, that's funny.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGwgT3d90bcYOAWPYRApvWAKCEczBnq4sOxgL+8OCQN8dcVbSi6ACgoXGn
LKwKCZQ4N0XwxklqprrZOTI=
=Mrk/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null
word.
-- Lazarus Long
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote...
>> William Poaster wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not surprised HPT can't have a debate with Quack. He has
>>> reading & comprehension problems, & he sure doesn't understand
>>> what some words mean. His interpretation of plagiarism to Jim
>>> Richardson, which he quoted from Websters & then said " It's
>>> close enough for me.", showed he hasn't a *clue*. So what
>>> interpretations does he put on *other* words?? He claimed in
>>> alt.os.linux.ubuntu Message-ID:
>>> <87y7hxd...@googlemail.com> that he was a windows
>>> programmer too! Hells bells, if he interprets what English
>>> words mean as "it's close enough for me" WTF did he do when he
>>> was coding? No wonder windoze has problems.
>>
>> I am not surprised either.
>>
>> IMHO, I don't know what specifically motivates him nor his reasons for
>> arrogant replies. Perhaps they are a cover for his lack of technical
>> knowledge? Is he rewarded with cash for every rude reply?
>>
>> This is strange to understand in a newsgroup that welcomes anything
>> related to comparing the benefits of Linux to other operating systems; and
>> no matter from what system one is posting from.
>
> Is this the reason that *YOU* are a nym-shifting asshole?
It has a lot to say of you:
[quote]
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
This is a list of the disinformation tactics that the that
the anti-Linux propagandists who post in COLA have been using.
All of these tactics have been used in COLA by the anti-Linux
propagandists against the Linux advocates and the rest of the
COLA readership to further the cause of the anti-Linux
propagandists. This list has been worded as though you are one of
them, so that you can better see through their eyes how they think.
19. Present multiple personalities. Change your position with
every few article you post to comp.os.linux.advocacy. Appear to
be supporting all sides of the issues. You can make a statements
or opinion in one posting then follow it up with a another post
with a contrary opinion. You can even get into an argument with
yourself. This could cause readers to dismiss the subject of the
thread.
23. Lie. Lie, lie, lie, lie. If you do it often enough you may
create the appearance of truth.
28. Start trolling threads. Start threads with subjects like
"Linsux Sux", "Linux fonts are bad", etc. Manufacture false
evidence to back up your claims when possible, but don't worry
that that is not important. All that is important is that you
consume the efforts and resources of Linux Advocate as they try
to refute your trolling threads and that you scare the new and
casual readership of COLA.
[/quote]
You could not even leave poor Rafael alone, could you, you nym-thief:
Capt. James Pike
Capt. Morgan
Colonel Ichabod Conk
Dr. Disco
Dr. Fafoofnik
Dr. Feelgood
Dr. GroundAxe
Dr. Hungwell
Dr. Hurt
Dr. Livingston
Dr. McGillicudy
Dr. Pain
Dr. Seymour Butts
Dr. Shlongwell
Dr. Shlongwell (aka your Boss)
Dr. Smooth
Dr. Zhivago
Dr Gang Green
High Priest O'Murphy
Lintard Luser
Meat Plow
Mr. X
Nedd Ludd
rafael
.... and there are many more from the linu...@lycos.com troll.
--
HPT
bob
> High Plains Thumper <highplai...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper on Thursday:
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>> High Plains Thumper espoused:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ODF is a true standard supported by a multitude. It puts all
>>>>>> players on an even playing field, even Microsoft. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree; what you didn't mention is that OOXML is also 6,000 pages
>>>>> long, which is about 5,900 pages too long for any standard.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a good comparison (photo):
>>>>
>>>> http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2007/07/18/T18_02_54/
>>>
>>> See the one from Sam Hiser. It's on O'ReillyNet.
>>
>> I did not find the one you mention on O'ReillyNet. However, I found
>> this article by Mr. Hiser:
>
> High Plains Thumper : the COLA link shill. Do you ever post a (Correct)
> opinion of your own? Saying "I agree" and then duplicating articles by
> industry luminaries is so lame.
>
Why don't you go away? Idiot.
>
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> Swiss Cheese [for OOXML]
[...]
> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-15521/swiss-cheese
.----
| Just yesterday I was sitting in the relevant meeting of SNV/UK14
| (http://www.snv.ch/), that decides how Switzerland will vote. The
| chairman (Hans-Rudolf Thomann) explained the following rules:
|
| - we are here to create standards, not to reject them
| - if we reach consensus (>=75%) to vote for Microsoft, we will vote
| for Microsoft
| - if we only reach a majority (>=50%) to vote for Microsoft, we
| will vote for Microsoft
| - if we reach a majority to vote against Microsoft, we will vote
| for Microsoft
| - if we reach consensus to vote against Microsoft, we will abstain
`----
That's a chilling speech.
So much for the democratic process.
I'm surprised the committee didn't just walk out. Isn't there some way
they can vote the chairman off the committee? In fact, corruption of
that degree should be prosecutable.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.9-91.fc7
23:41:04 up 20:34, 1 user, load average: 0.41, 0.34, 0.37
Roy Schestowitz
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> Swiss Cheese [for OOXML]
> [...]
>> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-15521/swiss-cheese
>
> .----
> | Just yesterday I was sitting in the relevant meeting of SNV/UK14
> | (http://www.snv.ch/), that decides how Switzerland will vote. The
> | chairman (Hans-Rudolf Thomann) explained the following rules:
> |
> | - we are here to create standards, not to reject them
> | - if we reach consensus (>=75%) to vote for Microsoft, we will vote
> | for Microsoft
> | - if we only reach a majority (>=50%) to vote for Microsoft, we
> | will vote for Microsoft
> | - if we reach a majority to vote against Microsoft, we will vote
> | for Microsoft
> | - if we reach consensus to vote against Microsoft, we will abstain
> `----
>
> That's a chilling speech.
>
> So much for the democratic process.
>
> I'm surprised the committee didn't just walk out. Isn't there some way
> they can vote the chairman off the committee? In fact, corruption of
> that degree should be prosecutable.
It's not corruption. It's Microsoft.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Microsoft loves competition.
"Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I’m going to fucking bury that guy, I
have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to fucking kill
Google."
--Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO
Mark Kent
> ____/ [H]omer on Monday 12 November 2007 23:42 : \____
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>
>>> Swiss Cheese [for OOXML]
>> [...]
>>> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-15521/swiss-cheese
>>
>> .----
>> | Just yesterday I was sitting in the relevant meeting of SNV/UK14
>> | (http://www.snv.ch/), that decides how Switzerland will vote. The
>> | chairman (Hans-Rudolf Thomann) explained the following rules:
>> |
>> | - we are here to create standards, not to reject them
>> | - if we reach consensus (>=75%) to vote for Microsoft, we will vote
>> | for Microsoft
>> | - if we only reach a majority (>=50%) to vote for Microsoft, we
>> | will vote for Microsoft
>> | - if we reach a majority to vote against Microsoft, we will vote
>> | for Microsoft
>> | - if we reach consensus to vote against Microsoft, we will abstain
>> `----
>>
>> That's a chilling speech.
>>
>> So much for the democratic process.
>>
>> I'm surprised the committee didn't just walk out. Isn't there some way
>> they can vote the chairman off the committee? In fact, corruption of
>> that degree should be prosecutable.
>
> It's not corruption. It's Microsoft.
>
I would hope that Hans Rudulf Thomann is now cleaning up his CV and
looking for fresh employment. I cannot imagine for one moment that
Switzerland would keep someone like him in the chairmanship of any
committee.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Roy Schestowitz
Watch the last comment (above) and also the one which says something along the
lines of "my wife is lawyer, so we don't have to argue about this."
The vanity. Oh, dear.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Vista: Windows XP with bling-bling, nothing else
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 109 total, 1 running, 108 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine