OOXML From Microsoft, Scares Living Shit Out of Open Source Community
August 30th 2007 09:55
I find it strange how Microsoft’s bid to create a new standard for document formats is causing the Open Source community to respond with empty claims and false accusations. It sure isn’t that different to how Microsoft was acting not too long ago in regards to supposed Linux patent violations.
So what is OOXML? For the uninitiated it is a set of standards set up by Microsoft to allow documents to be portable across the board of software. It’s nothing new, even Open Office has had its document type standardized by the ISO.
You would think given the history of Microsoft’s closed document formats that completely shunned out competitors from being even able to touch it this move would be welcomed. Apparently not, because, well, it’s Microsoft. Can’t trust them, they want to rule the world and they will do it one way or another, even if it means creating Xbox 360 Decepticon.
But lets see why the Linux Foundation doesn’t like OOXML, they list their reason as follows:
OOXML is simply not ready to become an ISO standard
Wait a second, you guys don’t like it because there’s already an ODF? Can’t we just conclude from that you don’t want a competing format with the ODF? If that’s the case then the entire Open Source community is founded on hypocrisy, we already had software, such as DOS, Microsoft Word and many more long before the Open Source community created its own versions.
If we say that ‘we have ODF so we don’t need another one because it would cause unnecessary confusion then why do we have Linux? I mean doesn’t it cause unnecessary confusion that there are multiple operating systems available to the consumer?
There’s good reason for competition, and all their first claim shows is that they are simply afraid Microsoft’s product will take control. But hey what the hey, when in Rome do like the Romans.
They go on, running to their big brother,
So because Google said there is no need for OOXML Microsoft should just cease and desist. There’s already ODF, why make another standard file format? Hmm, why bother competing with Windows Vista? Or Microsoft Word? Or pretty much anything Microsoft produces, I mean, if we have one version of something do we really need another to compete?
Then again, competition is a principle factor of the economy.
So what of the technical problems with OOXML? Yes, they exist, but the ODF isn’t free of them either.
In the end no product is perfect, and it’s competition that drives perfection. The Open Source community needs to adopt this policy, rather than running around crying like little babies, if they think OOXML is useless they should create a superior product, failing that they should shut up and work with OOXML. If it means the end of Linux (doubt it) it only is that because the community that created it stopped supporting its creation and instead decided to attack their competition like children.
So what is OOXML? For the uninitiated it is a set of standards set up by Microsoft to allow documents to be portable across the board of software. It’s nothing new, even Open Office has had its document type standardized by the ISO.
You would think given the history of Microsoft’s closed document formats that completely shunned out competitors from being even able to touch it this move would be welcomed. Apparently not, because, well, it’s Microsoft. Can’t trust them, they want to rule the world and they will do it one way or another, even if it means creating Xbox 360 Decepticon.
But lets see why the Linux Foundation doesn’t like OOXML, they list their reason as follows:
OOXML is simply not ready to become an ISO standard
The Linux Foundation supports the adoption of open standards as a catylist for innovation and to define common frameworks for new development. With ODF (Open Document Format) as an existing ISO document standard, we do not consider it beneficial to introduce an alternative document standard. Since ODF and OOXML are both designed as formats for editable documents, computer users would greatly benefit from multiple implementations of a single standard rather than suffer the confusion, conversions, and incompatibilities involved with multiple standards
If we say that ‘we have ODF so we don’t need another one because it would cause unnecessary confusion then why do we have Linux? I mean doesn’t it cause unnecessary confusion that there are multiple operating systems available to the consumer?
There’s good reason for competition, and all their first claim shows is that they are simply afraid Microsoft’s product will take control. But hey what the hey, when in Rome do like the Romans.
They go on, running to their big brother,
The Linux Foundation also supports the activities of the Desktop Architects and they have spoken out on why DIS29500 “Office Open XML” (OOXML) does not meet the criteria defined by ISO and others for an International Standard. In a Grocklaw posting, Google provided their position on OOXML as a Proposed ISO Standard. They suggest that if Microsoft wishes to create a document format that is better able to address the problems of the many editable legacy documents created in their older proprietary formats that they are welcome to help extend the existing ODF ISO standard in order to add the capabilities they require.
So because Google said there is no need for OOXML Microsoft should just cease and desist. There’s already ODF, why make another standard file format? Hmm, why bother competing with Windows Vista? Or Microsoft Word? Or pretty much anything Microsoft produces, I mean, if we have one version of something do we really need another to compete?
Then again, competition is a principle factor of the economy.
So what of the technical problems with OOXML? Yes, they exist, but the ODF isn’t free of them either.
In the end no product is perfect, and it’s competition that drives perfection. The Open Source community needs to adopt this policy, rather than running around crying like little babies, if they think OOXML is useless they should create a superior product, failing that they should shut up and work with OOXML. If it means the end of Linux (doubt it) it only is that because the community that created it stopped supporting its creation and instead decided to attack their competition like children.
| 48 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
It's all marketting, companies competing with each other. If we were all going to just say. Having more diversity isn't bad, I mean, Microsoft wants more money as does every other company. The more competition the better for the consumer. Most companies lie through their teeth claiming they 'welcome competition', they want to put on a good show for their customers. NOt the case with the Linux Foundation which just complains.
It seems that every time Microsoft makes a move in the name of competition the open source community cries foul. It's getting old, and annoying. I think just when Linux and the like were starting to make headway microsoft really hit the after burners and now the quality of products on both ends are pretty much on the level, in many ways Microsofts software is better than open source equivalents which are just ripoffs to begin with.
Comment by Anonymous
MPEG3 is a good example of that Fraunhofer did all the ground work, placed it as a open standard in which they referred to their property which they had rights to. So for a limited time the standard MP3 was 100% free as in free money to implement then once it became popular they levied a small tax. Of course, that doesn't stop others from illegally distributing technology which contains their property rights embedded in it.
The Open Source Initiative camp has been shooting for no licenses and open standards. Meaning the ODF documents can be read or created in an application of any license type and there are no property technology related to implementing the standard.
Not to mention Microsoft has already been caught in a few payoffs which were initiated by national level Microsoft representatives. Microsoft dealt with it by removing their employees which were involved in the buyoffs. And the nations which were involved abstained from a vote. OOXML may have failed because of the scrutiny of the OSI but shouldn't everyone scrutinize such activity?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Microsofts behaviour is typical of a large corporation, as is the behaviour of the open source community towards microsofts behaviour. Granted it doesn't have the money to fight fire with fire so it falls back to piss weak arguments about a few flaws OOXML has. Not like ODF is free of flaws. It's business and competition.
Comment by Anonymous
I would liken this to say networking standards. Apple was a early supporter and contributor of the 802.11 committee. Result, Apple made money on the Apple Airport. Hype ensued. 802.11 committee went from a small beans to almost as big as the 802.3 committee. Mind you, no matter who, where and what you are you can create these open standards based products with no royalties due. And if you attain success then you may choose to fund and support open change meaning you have some control of the process.
I would compare ODF to OOXML to something like the Rambus wars. Rambus contributed to DRAM open committee which had included disclaimers which prerequisited the standard components in the communication layers of DRAM be unpatented public property. Rambus made many submissions, along with many other companies. Then when the DIMMs were being pressed at high rate and Rambuses own RDRAM was being placed on the market. Rambus tried to close the DRAM market by initially collecting on their patents, then suing those who wouldn't pay and finally upping the cost for licensing their patented tech which was integrated with DRAM so high it wasn't practical for those who were paying to competitively produce DRAM. Luckily, DRAM lived, RDRAM died.
Now lets fast forward to today. ISO has no such rules preventing patented or copyrighted tech from being integrated into an ISO standard. ODF is clearly defined standard which refers to no licensed technology (no CDDL, no GPL, no BSD, etc) It's license free, no license, to adhere to. Anyone may produce products by the ODF standards under any license. OOXML on the other hand refers to Microsoft copy written and patented technology. You are using Microsoft patented and copy written technology and must adhere to their license provisions.
Next up, part of the OSI argument was Microsoft's criminal behavior. No full scale investigations have began rather those who were caught taking money for votes abstained from voting and the Microsoft employees who were handling the payoff scheme were relocated.
It was voted down by the ISO because the standard was ill defined. Yes, read the papers from the ISO not wikipedia or blog sites. It references embedded undefined components. Meaning the standard is defined as something which may or may not be defined later.
My favorite thing to note is Microsoft is already developing an ODF plugin for Office 2007. OOXML converters can't legally be designed per spec without licensing it. They are reverse engineered instead, funny.
Please read the papers not the forum arguments.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
The argument you're presenting is that OOXML is quite possibly a trojan horse.
The question is, so what? ODF is still there, if a company doesn't want to use OOXML they can still use ODF.
What OOXML presents is problems for the open sourcec ommunity in that other companies can and will adopt them (Apple has integrated OOXML instead of ODF into their latest software). IF this creates division it's only in the name of competition.
You can't fight free with paid in this case, especially if companies start using OOXML which will put the open source community into discomfort. BUt thats competition, even if it may seem unfair it still is the same.
As for microsoft breaking the rules, thats another matter entirely.
Comment by Anonymous