More double standards

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Tim Smith

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 3:01:50 PM4/30/08
to

Where is the outrage over OpenOffice not consistently producing valid
ODF documents?

<http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/Conformance-of-ODF-documents.aspx>

--
--Tim Smith

Ruben

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 3:24:46 PM4/30/08
to
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:01:50 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

>
> Where is the outrage over

Trolls being paid by Microsoft to flood this forum with crap.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE!

Bubblestick!! Paul!! Why are you not OUTRAGED!

Ruben

--
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software

So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998

http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"

"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."

"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."

© Copyright for the Digital Millennium

7

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 4:37:09 PM4/30/08
to
Tim Smith wrote:


If you are so outraged, and you do seem to be often raging,
then you should get off your back side and start coding boy!

Tim Smith

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 8:30:52 PM4/30/08
to
In article <pan.2008.04.30....@www2.mrbrklyn.com>,

Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:01:50 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > Where is the outrage over
>
> Trolls being paid by Microsoft to flood this forum with crap.
>
> WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE!
>

I see why you were named after a sandwich. You are approximately as
smart as yeast.

If I'm working for Microsoft, how come I was allowed to testify against
them in Federal court in a very large lawsuit?

--
--Tim Smith

Ruben

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 10:30:50 PM4/30/08
to
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:30:52 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

> If I'm working for Microsoft, how come I was allowed to testify against
> them in Federal court in a very large lawsuit?

HAR -

Even better than a paid troll. An admitted paid troll.

Gregory Shearman

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 11:25:36 PM4/30/08
to

S'funny, I've only got OpenOffice 2.4 here. Any conformance tests on
that?

--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Gregory Shearman

unread,
Apr 30, 2008, 11:28:08 PM4/30/08
to
On 2008-04-30, Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>

Tell ya what, when Microsoft's products actually produce a valid OOXML
document, I'll look into it further for you.

cc

unread,
May 1, 2008, 12:12:55 AM5/1/08
to
On Apr 30, 10:30 pm, Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:30:52 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
> > If I'm working for Microsoft, how come I was allowed to testify against
> > them in Federal court in a very large lawsuit?
>
> HAR -
>
> Even better than a paid troll.  An admitted paid troll.
>

I think you need to look up the word "against."

spam

unread,
May 1, 2008, 12:29:23 AM5/1/08
to
On Apr 30, 5:30 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <pan.2008.04.30.19.24.44.128...@www2.mrbrklyn.com>,

Why do you hang around a linux group and promote/defend all things MS?

Tim Smith

unread,
May 1, 2008, 4:22:03 AM5/1/08
to
In article <slrng1ie68.8n...@netscape.net>,

Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On 2008-04-30, Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> > Where is the outrage over OpenOffice not consistently producing valid
> > ODF documents?
> >
> ><http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/Conformance-of-ODF-documents.aspx>
> >
>
> Tell ya what, when Microsoft's products actually produce a valid OOXML
> document, I'll look into it further for you.

Nice evasive answer.

--
--Tim Smith

Linonut

unread,
May 1, 2008, 7:21:30 AM5/1/08
to
* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Where is the outrage over OpenOffice not consistently producing valid
> ODF documents?
>
> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/Conformance-of-ODF-documents.aspx>

The difference, in case you genuinely don't know it, is that ODF is a
genuine standard designed by combining the insights of many different
stateholders, and OOo have stated that any failure to conform is
regarded as a bug in the product. OTOH, Odious Office XML was
designed to reflect exactly and only the features of the Microsoft
Office format, bugs and all, and Microsoft have stated that they make
no promise to remain faithful even to that self-serving standard in
future releases. Get it now?

At least you're not linking to George Ou articles.

--
Bill Gates is a monocle and a Persian cat away from being the villain in a
James Bond movie.
-- Dennis Miller (attributed)

DFS

unread,
May 1, 2008, 7:23:01 AM5/1/08
to

What Linux group are you talking about?


Linonut

unread,
May 1, 2008, 7:23:15 AM5/1/08
to
* spam peremptorily fired off this memo:

> On Apr 30, 5:30 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <pan.2008.04.30.19.24.44.128...@www2.mrbrklyn.com>,
>>
>> Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:01:50 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>> > > Where is the outrage over
>>
>> > Trolls being paid by Microsoft to flood this forum with crap.
>>
>> > WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE!
>>
>> I see why you were named after a sandwich. You are approximately as
>> smart as yeast.
>>
>> If I'm working for Microsoft, how come I was allowed to testify against
>> them in Federal court in a very large lawsuit?

"I'm" indicates present tense. "was" indicates past tense.

Maybe Microsoft likes the way you spin things.

> Why do you hang around a linux group and promote/defend all things MS?

He's fond of 800-pound gorillas.

--
Like almost everyone who uses e-mail, I receive a ton of spam every day. Much
of it offers to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It would be funny if
it weren't so irritating.
-- Bill Gates, "Why I Hate Spam" in Microsoft PressPass (2003)

chrisv

unread,
May 1, 2008, 8:17:09 AM5/1/08
to
Tim Smith wrote:

>Nice evasive answer.

Perhaps he should just cut and run like you and Fuddie tend to do.

Ruben

unread,
May 1, 2008, 8:52:49 AM5/1/08
to
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:12:55 -0700, cc wrote:

>> Even better than a paid troll.  An admitted paid troll.
>>
>
> I think you need to look up the word "against."


Maybe you need to look up the words "paid" and "Troll"

Ruben

unread,
May 1, 2008, 8:54:22 AM5/1/08
to
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:29:23 -0700, spam wrote:

>
> Why do you hang around a linux group and promote/defend all things MS?

Why do you believe anything he says? He's a paid troll. He would need a
triple standard of proof to accept anything he writes, and frankly, is
that worth the time?

Ruben

unread,
May 1, 2008, 8:59:28 AM5/1/08
to
On Thu, 01 May 2008 01:22:03 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

>
> Nice evasive answer.

Not as envassive as your real name.

Tim Smith

unread,
May 1, 2008, 1:53:19 PM5/1/08
to
In article <QHhSj.66346$Q52....@bignews9.bellsouth.net>,
Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:

> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> > Where is the outrage over OpenOffice not consistently producing valid
> > ODF documents?
> >
> > <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/Conformance-of-ODF-documents.aspx>
>
> The difference, in case you genuinely don't know it, is that ODF is a
> genuine standard designed by combining the insights of many different
> stateholders, and OOo have stated that any failure to conform is
> regarded as a bug in the product. OTOH, Odious Office XML was
> designed to reflect exactly and only the features of the Microsoft
> Office format, bugs and all, and Microsoft have stated that they make
> no promise to remain faithful even to that self-serving standard in
> future releases. Get it now?

You are slipping badly. First, ODF was designed to reflect exactly and
only the features of StarOffice, so how is that different from ECMA-376
and Microsoft Office? Another double standard?

Second, OOXML differs in many areas from ECMA-376, because of the input
of many different stakeholders. It was not rigidly tied to one specific
product like Sun did with ODF. That's *why* Office has a few errors
when validating against OOXML in transitional mode, and a lot of errors
when validating against it in strict mode--because OOXML was actually
turned over to an open development process, and so had undergone changes
that Microsoft would not have done if they were in charge of it.


--
--Tim Smith

Linonut

unread,
May 1, 2008, 8:34:51 PM5/1/08
to
* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

> In article <QHhSj.66346$Q52....@bignews9.bellsouth.net>,
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>
>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>> > Where is the outrage over OpenOffice not consistently producing valid
>> > ODF documents?
>> >
>> > <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/Conformance-of-ODF-documents.aspx>
>>
>> The difference, in case you genuinely don't know it, is that ODF is a
>> genuine standard designed by combining the insights of many different
>> stateholders, and OOo have stated that any failure to conform is
>> regarded as a bug in the product. OTOH, Odious Office XML was
>> designed to reflect exactly and only the features of the Microsoft
>> Office format, bugs and all, and Microsoft have stated that they make
>> no promise to remain faithful even to that self-serving standard in
>> future releases. Get it now?
>
> You are slipping badly. First, ODF was designed to reflect exactly and
> only the features of StarOffice,

Bullshit.

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/odf_ooxml_technical_white_paper

This is news to me, I obviously missed it buried in the 6000 or so
pages of documentation. Thanks for pointing this out. You however
epitomized the philosophy of the difference between MS-OOXML and ODF.
MS-OOXML handles Microsoft's own applications natively, while
everyone else needs to use the "custom" settings their, while ODF
places everyone on an even footing.



> so how is that different from ECMA-376
> and Microsoft Office? Another double standard?

Look, you're the one who blows up some fairly mild posts (here, anyway)
about OOXML conformance into a whirlwind of "outrage", just so you can
have a strawman to knock down.

> Second, OOXML differs in many areas from ECMA-376, because of the input
> of many different stakeholders. It was not rigidly tied to one specific
> product like Sun did with ODF. That's *why* Office has a few errors
> when validating against OOXML in transitional mode, and a lot of errors
> when validating against it in strict mode--because OOXML was actually
> turned over to an open development process, and so had undergone changes
> that Microsoft would not have done if they were in charge of it.

Imagine that. Tim explaining bugs in the OpenOffice implementation of
ODF coming about as a result of ODF being an standard tied /exactly/ to
StarOffice. And yet OpenOffice is simply an offshoot of StarOffice, but
with fewer features.

Those guys must be awful developers, if they can emit an OpenOffice that
fails conformance tests with the ODF standard that Tim says is a
feature-for-feature representation of StarOffice.

And, on the other hand, the bugs in Office 2008 are the merely the
result of Microsoft not catching up to some changes made by an open
committee following an open development process creating standards NOT
tied to one specific product such as Microsoft Office.

My god, Tim's spin on OOXML and ODF makes the Funky Shuffle look like
the Sphinx!

You sure you weren't born in 1984, Tim?

--
If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's
ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a
complete standstill today.
-- Bill Gates, Challenges and Strategy Memo (16 May 1991)

Tim Smith

unread,
May 1, 2008, 9:29:45 PM5/1/08
to
In article <YjtSj.21979$DY1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,

Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> Imagine that. Tim explaining bugs in the OpenOffice implementation of
> ODF coming about as a result of ODF being an standard tied /exactly/ to
> StarOffice. And yet OpenOffice is simply an offshoot of StarOffice, but
> with fewer features.

You've confused two things that are independent. My post was about the
double standard of some here who made a big deal of Office not being
100% OOXML compliant, yet apparently thinking it is no big deal that
OpenOffice has similar problems with ODF.

In your response to that, you went off on an irrelevant tangent, with
incorrect claims about the openness of the development process for ODF
and OOXML.

That I choose to try to address that tangent does not mean I think that
it has anything to do with the original point.

--
--Tim Smith

cc

unread,
May 1, 2008, 10:54:58 PM5/1/08
to
On May 1, 8:52 am, Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:12:55 -0700, cc wrote:
> >> Even better than a paid troll.  An admitted paid troll.
>
> > I think you need to look up the word "against."
>
> Maybe you need to look up the words "paid" and "Troll"

Nope, I'm not legally retarded like you.

Linonut

unread,
May 2, 2008, 8:48:09 AM5/2/08
to
* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

> In article <YjtSj.21979$DY1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,


> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>> Imagine that. Tim explaining bugs in the OpenOffice implementation of
>> ODF coming about as a result of ODF being an standard tied /exactly/ to
>> StarOffice. And yet OpenOffice is simply an offshoot of StarOffice, but
>> with fewer features.
>
> You've confused two things that are independent.

Right, Tim. That's why I split your post and answered each section
independently. Yeah, I did that so I could be confused. Riiiiiight.

> My post was about the
> double standard of some here who made a big deal of Office not being
> 100% OOXML compliant, yet apparently thinking it is no big deal that
> OpenOffice has similar problems with ODF.

What a difference being a predatory monopoly makes, hmm?

> In your response to that, you went off on an irrelevant tangent, with
> incorrect claims about the openness of the development process for ODF
> and OOXML.

Lemme see here, ODF makes it through ISO with a minimum of public fuss,
while OOXML is rammed through an inappropriate fast-tack process with
lots of noise, controversy, and gallery-packing.

Yeah, that really smells like the ODF process was the broken one, and
the OOXML process was not. Riiiiiiiight.

> That I choose to try to address that tangent does not mean I think that
> it has anything to do with the original point.

Yeah, your kind of "obtuse" that way <grin>.

--
Programs today get very fat; the enhancements tend to slow the programs down
because people put in special checks. When they want to add some feature,
they'll just stick in these checks without thinking how they might slow the
thing down.
-- Bill Gates

JEDIDIAH

unread,
May 2, 2008, 9:54:15 AM5/2/08
to
On 2008-05-02, Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <YjtSj.21979$DY1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>> Imagine that. Tim explaining bugs in the OpenOffice implementation of
>> ODF coming about as a result of ODF being an standard tied /exactly/ to
>> StarOffice. And yet OpenOffice is simply an offshoot of StarOffice, but
>> with fewer features.
>
> You've confused two things that are independent. My post was about the
> double standard of some here who made a big deal of Office not being
> 100% OOXML compliant, yet apparently thinking it is no big deal that
> OpenOffice has similar problems with ODF.

MS-OOXML more closely resembles what you are attempting to describe
ODF as.

[deletia]

Yes, when you bad things over a period of decades and are repeatedly
caught then yes a "double" standard will be applied to you. Try it in your
own personal life for awhile and see what happens.

--
On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...

When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were |||
meant to be computationally convenient rather than just / | \
arbitrarily assigned.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Gregory Shearman

unread,
May 2, 2008, 7:06:12 PM5/2/08
to

How is it evasive? I only have OpenOffice 2.4 installed here and I
personally don't use it. It is for my other users.

Get back to me when you have a Microsoft Office version that produces a
valid OOXML file. ("Office Open XML... what a bunch of sneaky bastards,
trying to make their format sound like OpenOffice").


You COULD get back to me when you have the results of the OpenOffice 2.4
conformance tests. I'll be around.

Tim Smith

unread,
May 2, 2008, 9:22:08 PM5/2/08
to
In article <slrng1n7j4.8l...@netscape.net>,

Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
> How is it evasive? I only have OpenOffice 2.4 installed here and I
> personally don't use it. It is for my other users.
>
> Get back to me when you have a Microsoft Office version that produces a
> valid OOXML file. ("Office Open XML... what a bunch of sneaky bastards,
> trying to make their format sound like OpenOffice").
>
>
> You COULD get back to me when you have the results of the OpenOffice 2.4
> conformance tests. I'll be around.

ODF became an ISO standard on November 30, 2006. At that time, the
current version of OpenOffice was 2.0.4. Since then, they have released
2.1.0 (December, 2006), 2.20 (March, 2007), 2.2.1 (June, 2007), 2.3.0
(September 2007), 2.3.1 (December 2007).

Finally, on March 27, 2008, the first version of OpenOffice that *might*
fully conform to the ODF standard, was released.

OpenOffice 2.4, the first version of OpenOffice that *might* fully
conform to the ODF standard, was released on March 27, 2008. So, it
took OpenOffice *six* releases after the standard was finalized and
approved, and almost *16 months*, before they got a version that
*possibly* conforms.

OOXML, because the standardization process was actually open (a novel
concept in office format standardization...), actually underwent changes
between the time ECMA-376 was submitted, and the final standard was
approved. Changes that were *not* suggested by Microsoft. Yet
Microsoft gets slammed because Office did not somehow anticipate those
changes and have them implemented *before* *they* *were* *even*
*proposed*!

You don't call giving OpenOffice 16 months, and Microsoft -5 months, a
double standard? If Microsoft and OpenOffice were to actually be held
to the same standard, there would be no complaints about Office
conformance to OOXML until late 2009.

(And despite that, Office comes very close to conforming to transitional
OOXML. The errors Alex Brown found in his test were all due ECMA-376
using "on" as the attribute values for settings that could be on or off,
and OOXML transitional changing that to "true", not "on").

--
--Tim Smith

Linonut

unread,
May 3, 2008, 9:46:34 AM5/3/08
to
* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

> (And despite that, Office comes very close to conforming to transitional

> OOXML. The errors Alex Brown found in his test were all due ECMA-376
> using "on" as the attribute values for settings that could be on or off,
> and OOXML transitional changing that to "true", not "on").

Nice way to spin that there wasn't much chance to work on the OOXML
standard, given how quickly it was rammed through a committe that could
deal with only a small percentange of the comments.

--
Before Paul and I started the company, we had been involved in some
large-scale software projects that were real disasters. They just kept
pouring people in, and nobody knew how they were going to stabilize the
project. We swore to ourselves that we would do better.
-- Bill Gates, Programmers at Work by Susan Lammers (1986) ISBN 0914845713

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages