| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Cisco Calls In Reinforcements Against Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 01:02 EST/06:02 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Cisco Systems is showing no mercy in the unified communications market. CEO John Chambers wants to bury Microsoft and Nortel. Now, he’s calling on a massive software partner to help knock out the competition. Indeed, Cisco is partnering with SAP to develop network-aware SOA business applications. That’s jargon for “we’re ganging up against Microsoft and Nortel,” according to The VAR Guy. Sure, Microsoft and Nortel are partnering to develop unified network applications. It’s a pretty compelling relationship. Microsoft picks Nortel’s brain about the networking market, Nortel potentially gains access to Microsoft’s channel partners and the two companies develop unified applications for Windows. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 337 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:58:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 4/24/2007 2:20:47 AM |
|
Smart move, but its gonna take much more. SAP only have a presence in the VERY large corporations. Anybody with less than 5000 employees has zero SAP applications in use.
ps... I hate nortel. that raping outfit has bled their customers (myself included) dry for the better part of a decade. Wanna reset the clock on your phone? That'll be $256. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/24/2007 10:07:54 AM |
| Hahaha... I thought raping was the business plan for all phone vendors! |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/24/2007 10:53:15 AM |
|
It's no secret that there is a global conspiracy to make MS look bad and thwart their every plan. Here's an article that details everything about the anti-MS global conspiracy:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/04/sometimes-i-need-to-remind-myself.html |
| #4 By 54556 (68.35.103.153) at 4/24/2007 12:02:19 PM |
|
#1
"Anybody with less than 5000 employees has zero SAP applications in use. " Wrong. "I hate nortel. that raping outfit has bled their customers (myself included) dry for the better part of a decade. Wanna reset the clock on your phone? That'll be $256." If you spent less time gracing us with your misinformation, and more time studying, you would be doing doing basic phone system maintenance and ACM orders yourself, especially on systems as IT friendly as those manufactured by Nortel. |
| #5 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/24/2007 12:50:25 PM |
| I love the links provided by Latch to buttress his arguments. They are always opinion pieces written by people with agendas. This guy is a member of the OASIS ODF TC, and the OASIS ODF Adoption TC. No agenda here!!! |
| #6 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/24/2007 12:59:23 PM |
| I started buying Nortel equipment for some of our networks in 1998 and found their ASR's and ASM's to be great. I still use their managed switches and have found them to be better than many Cisco produces [Nortel's make up our main switch fabric to this day]. We've also used a lot of their phone equipment - where its modular design allowed us to grow systems quickly, in response to the growth of smaller call centers [10 - 250 people] for less cost. While their interface manager was basic, we were used to working with less and once we learned the language used, we never used it in any case, and just as with Cisco gear, ended up using the command line and writing our own configs anyways. Of all the gear we have used [HP, Nortel and Cisco], the only gear we have had fail materially, is HP and the occasional Cisco WIC [but who hasn't]. We have yet to see any piece of Nortel gear ever fail us or a customer [grant it, our volume is super tiny compared to many]. The issue here is of course, different, but from what we have seen, Nortel makes some good products, and they are a brand we trust in that context. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/24/2007 1:20:49 PM |
|
#5: Everyone has an agenda. Does that mean everything should be discounted or dismissed? Now that you're done shooting the messenger, perhaps you could point out where he's incorrect? Or should I just ignore you because you have some kind of pro-MS agenda?
|
| #8 By 32132 (142.32.208.234) at 4/24/2007 1:35:53 PM |
|
Considering the huge deficiencies in the ODF spec, anyone advocating it is extremely suspect.
From Wikipedia: "The OpenDocument ISO specification does not contain a defined formula language. This means that ISO conforming files do not have to be compatible [21]. OASIS is working on creating a standard formula language for use in future versions of the format." "The OpenDocument ISO specification does not allow for tables in presentations. This is being worked on for a later version of the OpenDocument specification, but was not included in the ISO submission version" "Different applications using ODF as a standard document format have different methods of providing macro/scripting capabilities. There is no macro language specified in ODF. It is arguable whether there should be or not ." "The ODF standard is insufficiently detailed, requiring excessive application specific namespace extensions to record document features. These application specific namespace extensions are not necessarily interoperable between ODF compliant applications." "Java applets are described as native objects in the OpenDocument specification (§9.3.4). This means any full implementations will require a java virtual machine present from within the application." "The Sun OpenDocument Patent Statement [25] applies to a future version of ODF only if Sun participates in development of that version. If Sun does not participate, then the assurance not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation will not apply." ODF is a joke. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/24/2007 1:52:23 PM |
| #8: I'm not sure how posting some Wiki opinions on ODF's supposed deficiencies is a valid response to the article I posted. Care to refute anything in the article? |
| #10 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/24/2007 2:10:58 PM |
|
#7 I know it is difficult to find actual news pieces that give quotes and sources - that's the nature of the web. We all present ourselves as experts based on our own experiences so we've got to be careful when giving weight to other people’s blogs just because their opinion may agree with our own. For example, the author you cite, Rob Weir, states that IBM is was the only member to review the OOXML spec. How can he possibly know that? Even if he is privy to such info, then it would be nice to share his sources with his readers - it’s called basic journalism. I know opinion pieces have different rules – that’s why opinions are not news and should not be taken as fact. How can we trust any writing that does not provide sources for the things it states to be fact?
And yes... I am pro MS. I use many of their tools and for the most part they all work extremely well. Not to say MS doesn’t make plenty mistakes, but I think they are far from the evil empire you paint them to be, in my OPINION. |
| #11 By 32132 (142.32.208.234) at 4/24/2007 2:23:38 PM |
|
#9 What should I refute ... "blah blah blah Microsoft sucks blah blah blah"?
Ok. I'll quote: "Yes, IBM was the only voting member in Ecma who cast a voted against OOXML. But guess what, we're probably the only company who actually had someone perform the due diligence of reading the specification.he others voted on OOXML without reading the spec." Did IBM read the ODF spec? Did IBM approve the ODF spec even with its huge deficiencies? ODF is a disaster. All Sun has to do is not participate in developement, and Sun can sue anyone using the ODF spec. Did IBM sign off on that?? How embarrassing to be IBM. This post was edited by NotParker on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 14:24. |
| #12 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/24/2007 2:28:46 PM |
| #9 Whenever Parker or Ketchum quote a Microsoft source, you say they are full of BS (to paraphrase). But here you come quoting an IBM source, and we are supposed to take it as Gospel? |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/24/2007 2:44:03 PM |
|
#10: This guy's opinion that the other members didn't read the spec is a guess for sure., but perhaps it's a guess based on history. This guy is on the inside for some of this. Plus, if what he said about ECMA is right then it doesn't really matter that anyone read the spec since it's all a sham anyway.
#11: What about the other 99% of the article? What about coming up with something that wasn't already posted by someone else an hour before? #12: Parkkker still posts generally irrelevant links out of context from years ago to try and bolster his position. Parkkker should know better than to do that anymore after I slapped him down a few months ago. He posted a link that basically contradicted what he said and confirmed what I said because he didn't read more than 2 sentences into the article. I know we can't expect multi-source confirmation on anything or we'd never do anything but argue about everything. Ketchum never posts links but often makes more sweeping generalizations than Parkkker. And, if you notice, when they do post MS links, I will try to read between the lines or debunk instead of just dismissing it outright. Of course, when it comes to their paid-for studies, that's a different ballgame altogether. |
| #14 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/24/2007 2:48:06 PM |
|
#13: You remind me of the old Steve Martin Grandmother's song:
Criticize things you don't know about Be oblong and have your knees removed. |
| #15 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/24/2007 2:48:33 PM |
|
#13: "What about coming up with something that wasn't already posted by someone else an hour before?"
If you had been paying better attention, you'd have realized that Parker was actually quoting himself, not just "someone else". This is another of his choice debating tactics. |
| #16 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/24/2007 3:26:36 PM |
|
#14: wtf? I know a hell of a lot more about MS than you know about me.
I'm still waiting for refutation of the major points of the article. Hello, anyone, Parkkker? #15: Yes, the mantra is the true believer: "I'm right because I say I'm right, and I'll just double-check by asking myself." It doesn't really matter as I expect none of the apologist crowd to refute anything in that article because they can't. Rule #2 of the manual says that, if you can't debunk or discredit it, ignore it and hope it goes away. Good thing for me there's a never-ending supply of this slime from MS. |
| #17 By 32132 (142.32.208.234) at 4/24/2007 3:38:48 PM |
|
What major points?
This is the way I see it. 1) ODF is deeply flawed. 2) IBM passed ODF because it is a proxy for attacking Microsoft, not because it has any merit. 3) "Open Standards" are not what this is about. IBM detests open standards unless they can be used to attack their rivals. 4) OpenXML is a much more complete spec than ODF. Latch has never refuted the crticisims of ODF that exist on the Wikipedia website. ODF is a failure as a spec. |
| #18 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 4/24/2007 3:46:27 PM |
|
Latch, et al, I post based upon what I use, sell and support and from the experiences we [as a company] witness as a result of that. While I respect the opinions of many, it is much easier to speak to that which we have direct experience with.
The majority of my posts adhere to this and where outside sources are used, they are clearly identified and weighted as such. Parkkker builds his opinions based upon both personal experiences and outside sources, and presents stronger arguments than my own - I just don't have time for that and mostly use portions of other work, emails, and memos as the basis for my posts. Your posts, while interesting, don't often present recommendations or alternatives - which may cause many to discount them. If there are good choices that you have to offer, it would be nice to know what they are and what the benefit/competitive advantages are. Thanks. |
| #19 By 32132 (142.32.208.234) at 4/24/2007 3:59:02 PM |
|
Remember folks, when Latch touts an article, you must check every statement for lies. Because almost all of them will be lies:
"I see that Microsoft likes to throw around names like the British Library and Library of Congress, as if the mere mention of their holy names brings sacramental blessings. But please show me a public statement where either of these bodies has endorsed, adopted, recommended adoption or recommended approval of OOXML. " http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbreader.asp?ArticleID=16059 "Adam Farquhar, head of e-Architecture for the British Library, commented: "We think it's fantastic that Microsoft is opening up the MS Office formats to standardization."" "The British Library's Farquahr said: "I think that it is significant that Microsoft is taking this step. Microsoft is listening to customers who want to ensure that they have full access to the content that they have created. The route that they are following—standards-based followed by standardization—is a very positive one, and I anticipate that the resulting standardized formats will have excellent preservation properties. There are many alternate routes that they could have taken!"" |
| #20 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/24/2007 4:08:18 PM |
|
Interesting that Latch, of all folks here, is criticizing others for not providing substantive information to back up their claims.
As Parkkker has already pointed out re: the British Library... and here's another link, direct from their own site: http://www.bl.uk/about/annual/2005to2006/connectingdigital.html |
| #21 By 32132 (142.32.208.234) at 4/24/2007 4:20:32 PM |
| WOW. Latch is such a dishonest loser!!! |
| #22 By 15406 (74.104.251.89) at 4/24/2007 10:05:29 PM |
|
#18: Well, in this situation my alternative would be for MS to not actively subvert the process in the ways that the article claims. If they believe in competition and in their offering, let it compete in the market on its own merits instead of trying to strong-arm everything in their favour.
#19: You read but you don't understand. They are approving of the process, not the product. They are congratulating Microsoft for opening up the formats, but that is not an endorsement of MSXML per se. |
| #23 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 4/24/2007 10:05:38 PM |
|
In my opinion, the better approach would be to impliment both standards in Microsoft Office and OpenOffice, and let the users decide which format they wish to use for their own documents. That would truly give choices to the users.
Of course, the best approach would be for all stakeholders to come together, forget the political / business agendas, and create a single unified open standard that is free of patents, or any other licensing requirements, and used by everyone concerned. But I don't see that being very likely in the current climate. Why do I see another VHS / Beta or Blu-Ray / HD-DVD type format war brewing? |
| #24 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/24/2007 10:20:01 PM |
|
#23 Clearly the British Library looked at the ODF spec, nearly vomited, and then begged Microsoft to save them from the ODF disaster by opening up Office.
"to not actively subvert the process in the ways that the article claims" Clearly the author is an employee of IBM, telling whoppers because his employer paid him to, and nothing he says can be believed. IBM voted against OpenXML because they are a Microsoft competitor. They can't be believed on this issue. |
| #25 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 4/24/2007 10:58:12 PM |
|
"ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 recently had its annual plenary. This is the same group of ISO National Body (NB) members who voted in favor of ODF last year, and over the next few months many of them will be recommending positions on Microsoft's OOXML to their national standards bodies. I was on the delegates list for attending this meeting, as a representative of the US NB, but had to cancel at the last minute because of a family emergency. When I saw the attendance list, I was surprised to see that Microsoft had sent five people, this to a meeting of only 37 people. They practically darkened the skies with their employees. And what about the conspiratorial army that is hounding them at every corner? Zero people from IBM. Zero as well for Google, Sun, RedHat, Adobe, Oracle and Novell."
Hmmm. Zero people ... One way devious and underhanded people slow down a process is to NOT participate in meetings, hoping that no quorum will occur, and the meeting will have to be rescheduled. On ther other hand, maybe not one of these companies had a legitimate reason to try and slow down the adoption of OpenXML. Rather than show up and look like dishonest shills, they stayed away. This post was edited by NotParker on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 22:58. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 337 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:58:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
