How Microsoft Fought True Open Standards

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Hungry Man, May 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    How Microsoft Fought True Open Standards V

    http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/op...rosoft-fought-true-open-standards-v/index.htm


    IV
    http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/op...-microsoft-fought-open-standards-iv/index.htm

    III
    http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/op...rosoft-fought-true-open-standards-i/index.htm

    II
    http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/op...osoft-fought-true-open-standards-ii/index.htm

    I
    http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/op...bbied-against-true-open-standards-i/index.htm

     
    Last edited: May 28, 2012
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    Office Open XML (also informally known as OOXML or OpenXML) from Microsoft is an open standard - ISO/IEC 29500.

    All ISO standards are open standards.

    This "true" adjective seems to be marketing gimmick.
     
  3. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    "True open source" is a marketing gimmick. "Shared source" isn't.

    Good to know where you stand on these things lol
     
  4. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Deja vu of sorts?

    'Gates claimed right off that Microsoft "owned the office productivity market" and Openoffice needed to pay the Vole lots of cash in royalties.

    Bill told Schwartz that he was happy to "get you under license" so Sun would have to pay Microsoft for every download of Openoffice.'

    ~ The Inquirer
     
  5. guest

    guest Guest

    Yes. It seems to imply that the others ISO standards (in this case, OpenXML) are "false" open standards, which they aren't.

    No, it isn't. Shared source is shared source, open source is open source. Different names, different things, no intention of confusion.

    @Daveski
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Open_Specification_Promise
     
  6. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
  7. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Didn't I post a Bill Gates memo recently?... found it.

    -http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf-

    It's pretty hilarious.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2012
  8. Bob D

    Bob D Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,150
    Location:
    Mass., USA
    http://www.fanaticattack.com/2008/ooxml-questions-microsoft-cannot-answer-in-geneva.html
    http://andrigoss.blogspot.com/2007/02/is-ooxml-open-as-microsoft-claims.html
     
  9. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Yeah, I think that says it all.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2012
  10. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
  11. guest

    guest Guest

    www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/

    Articles from 2007/2008, both refuted by this promise that was fulfilled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Open_Specification_Promise

    Interesting for historical purposes. Potentially irrelevant for present and future events.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2012
  12. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Irrelevant to you perhaps. I think it's very relevant. At the very least it's hilarious.
     
  13. guest

    guest Guest

    Wake up to the present reality. Even Bill Gates left day-to-day operations at Microsoft since years ago.
     
  14. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I think a companies foundations are relevant to present actions.
     
  15. guest

    guest Guest

    This is a fallacy, which I already told you the name.
     
  16. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I really don't care what fancy name you give it. Actions don't stand on their own and the past isn't just the past.
     
  17. guest

    guest Guest

    The past you picked isn't influencing until you prove otherwise. Are you doing that (showing evidences)? No.
     
  18. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    This isn't a courtroom. I'm not bringing a case against Microsoft.

    I have no idea why people think the burden of proof falls to me in these situations. Prove to me that past actions aren't influencing the latest actions if you feel so inclined. The fact is that neither one of us can prove either side and it really doesn't effect the validity of any statement.
     
  19. guest

    guest Guest

  20. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    They don't show or prove anything.
     
  21. guest

    guest Guest

    They show present Microsoft's efforts and commitments to Open Specifications. Something you are denying with irrelevant history (until you prove its relevance, of course).
     
  22. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Lol Hungry, a few weeks of using Linux and suddenly Microsoft is the devil. :D

    Also, there are two sides to every story. You were objective before, try being so again. ;)
     
  23. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    lol I've always preferred open source to closed. I've just been too lazy to move to Linux.

    @PeterPan,

    Microsoft has a business model that necessitates closed source. Bill Gates in that memo was saying something that is always going to be true - they will patent whatever they can to get the upper hand.

    And that's fine. They're taking advantage of a shitty and broken patent system and it's 100% legal and they're obligated to make money in order to pay shareholders.

    But pretending that MS is about "open source" is hilarious and I'm enjoying the laugh that these articles provides me.

    @mirimir,

    Clearly Bill Gates is a criminal =p doesn't look good for MS
     
  24. guest

    guest Guest

    I don't understand why you are laughing when the info in those articles is accurate and true. Whatever their intentions or motives are (I couldn't care less), doesn't change what they are doing now.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2012
  25. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.