Comments on: Crunch time for Microsoft's Open XML standards bid

Editor of the rival OpenDocument file format standard calls for "co-evolution" as officials weigh the fate of Open XML as an ISO standard.

[jelloburn]

Work with their OWN software

"Last week, it went further in an effort to show that it is trying to
make its software work well with non-Microsoft applications"

They still have yet to release a convertor for Office 2004 for Mac.

Here's hoping the ISO shoots this standard out of the water...

[Andy kaufman]

The New World Order says no to Open XML

The New World Order is:
Sun, IBM, AOL, Google, and Sony. They control what standards we use. They just voted down HD DVD and now they are voting down Open XML to force us to use their standards instead.

[jelloburn]

There is already a standard...

And that is the OpenDocument Format which has been an ISO
standard since May 2006. There is no need for an additional
office document standard that offers few additional benefits (if
any at all).

HD-DVD was also not voted down. Consumers chose and Blu-
ray ultimately won because it was in the PS3 and therefore had a
larger user base. The fact that Microsoft was involved with HD-
DVD has nothing to do with this discussion, other than pointing
out a certain amount of MS fanboy-ism on your part.

[rcrusoe]

Nothing wrong with multiple standards

the problem is MS doesn't plan to allow Open XML to be a
standard.

Unless Open XML is able to be freely used with Linux & other
GPL software it's just another MS proprietary format that
Microsoft will try use to lock people into Windows.

Everyone knows that which is why MS is meeting so much
resistance.

[cmwendy]

Code ain't a civil right

I cannot read access to code / protocol into the Constitution - it is not a civil right. It most certainly isn't in the so-called "penumbra of rights" (no matter what Larry Lessig might think).

Updegrove's argument's creates a bogus public interest argument, which if extended, would take your freedom to code as you see fit out of your hands.

If you want to code for the state - go ahead. Do it on your own time, however. I shall not, and would not urge that upon others.

[t8]

A Microsoft standard is bad for all except Microsoft

Hello anybody home?

Look at Microsoft's track record with their standards:

. Abused their monopoly position
. Disabled competitors products on Windows
. Drove many companies out of business illegally
. Charge high prices for their standards/stuff
. Not forth coming in written specs for their standards
. Do not work with Open Source
. Are the path for most viruses to people's computers
. Are only interested in making money for themselves
. Have a history of dodgy deals, e.g., Mosaic

And then after all that, there are people actually arguing that Microsoft should have a standard.

Well isn't it obvious? How can we trust them to provide an official standard? Imagine if HTML was a Microsoft standard. Do you think that the Web would be as rich as it is now?

Wake up! Somethings are just plain obvious that they require no consideration. Microsoft can not be trusted, past, present, and most likely future.

[dudelookslikeachimp]

Open Standard Strategy is MS closed

Yes there is a not so-political correct face to Open Software strategy.

It goes like this:
If Microsoft is forced to wait on Open Software to approve all standards - then naturally MS will trail Open Software in all development. Any attempt to follow too close can be meet with standard changes where easiest for leading open software and most expensive for MS. Thus Open Software can faster overcome MS's 90% world user share. Gee what corporation was this idea stolen from and which was derided as a consequence?

The Political Correct face of this ideal is, of course, that rich private money making should follow public dictated standards. On the surface this is to make software more user friendly worldwide. In practice even Open Software people occasionally let slip a particular choice was made to make things more MS difficult than for any other reason.

Yes Open Software generally rules standards nowadays. Standards groups are dominated by variety rather than user popularity. Variety is not MS. Within that broad staement standards boards are dominated first by academics - which is sometimes good for cutting edge outlooks. But show me any academic who does not prefer to get their hands on code for implementing the standard - regardless of its merit. And Linux is getting pretty good, especially at batch and managed combinations realtime tasks. The industrial board is of course dominated by MS competitors.

So I am fairly sure that the standards groups do NOT always produce the best results -- simply because they are weighted against accepting anything from MS. MS is not necessary brilliant. But MS isn't necessarily stupid all the time either.

[dudelookslikeachimp]

For every MS compatible standard

...that is not a problem for Open Software to implement -- there is another standard that is NOT MS friendly which can be adopted by Open Software, and which has more than acceptable, if not nearly equal, long term usefulness.

What most Open Software people really mean.