| 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 |
 |
Microsoft must drop its Office politics | |
|
||
| Time: 11:31 EST/16:31 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Microsoft is upset that Massachusetts is mandating industry standard document formats. A simple solution that will satisfy everyone exists The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has decided that all state organisations should use open standards for their documents. Assuming that open standards exist which are capable of supporting the work the state does, this should be an unexceptional decision; accessibility for as broad a range of citizens and organisations as possible is a primary responsibility for any government. Yet this is far from unexceptional. The open standard chosen, OpenDocument from OASIS, is not supported by Microsoft Office. Moreover, Microsoft says that OpenDocument won't be supported in the upcoming Office 12, which has its own Microsoft Office Open XML standard. In effect, Massachusetts is mandating a state-wide migration away from MS Office. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 333 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:29:05 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/2/2005 12:59:43 PM |
|
Cry for poor Microsoft. Silly Massachusetts wants a document format that is open and can be read by a variety of applications from a variety of vendors. Don't they realize that MS would be much happier if Massachusetts embraced MS' proprietary XML 'standard' to perpetuate lock-in? Massachusetts isn't playing ball the MS way. Sure, it's better for the citizens of Mass., but it's not good for MS. And what's good for MS is good for America!
Edit: MS will cry foul and sulk a bit, but then they'll bang out a filter for Office before 2007 that allows you to save Office documents in the format Massachusetts wants. The caveat will be in the Office license that says you can only save documents in this format if they're government documents pertaining just to the state of Massachusetts. Everyone else still gets the proprietary format. This post was edited by Latch on Friday, September 02, 2005 at 13:03. |
| #2 By 9589 (65.191.133.160) at 9/2/2005 1:58:05 PM |
|
This will happen about the same time that Munich completes their conversion. lol
Oh! And by the way, the attorney general will not be the next governor of Mass. either. Hating Microsoft isn't a viable plank in a political platform. Sorry . . . |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/2/2005 2:58:38 PM |
|
#2: If you could detach your lips from Microsoft's butt for just a second, do you not agree that an open document format is preferable for ensuring that all citizens have equal access?
|
| #4 By 1658 (67.183.205.175) at 9/2/2005 3:58:50 PM |
|
Latch -
I've come to expect that most of the supposed 'facts' you speak of are inexcusably inaccurate and I ignore it most of the time. This one got my attention though and in all honesty really demonstrates your perpetual lack of knowledge of both the company, and our products. I work for Microsoft and would love to hear you explain what is so proprietary about our new XML file formats for Office 12? (Reference: "MS' proprietary XML 'standard' to perpetuate lock-in") They are based on fully ratified XML standards, schemas, and document models. They use fully compliant standard ZIP style compression algorithms, and use the NTFS file folder structure for their package layout. They can be generated using any operating system capable of writing text and binary structures to a disk (last I checked, every OS ever created). Elaborate on our attempts to lock the customer in please, I'm desperate to hear this one. |
| #5 By 1658 (67.183.205.175) at 9/2/2005 4:04:39 PM |
|
"Silly Massachusetts wants a document format that is open and can be read by a variety of applications from a variety of vendors."
And while I'm at it, care to explain how you CAN'T use the WordXML and Excel XML file formats that exist TODAY to read and write from a variety of applications from a variety of vendors? I personally know of hundreds of enterprise installations that use our WordXML format to generate Word documents from Linux and UNIX based systems. We work with these customers regularly to generate customized solutions for their needs where required. In house, many of these customers use proprietary document generation mechanisms and some even use applications as old as Lyrix (which can also generate WordXML with an extension library). They're able to read and write Word documents and Excel spreadsheets all day long using standardized XML and our schemas that have been public since just after Office XP's release. More lock-in I suppose... |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/2/2005 4:58:08 PM |
|
#4,5: I don't have access to the latest version of Office that has these features, so I can't verifiy it myself, but I had read that the EULA stipulated that the MS XML schemas could not be freely used by anyone and that a license was required to allow a vendor to generate documents based on these schemas. Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm big enough to admit it when I am wrong (which isn't infrequent). Are you saying that an open source project could read & write MSXML without license? Or was that the original plan, but MS relented under pressure? I don't remember, but I could look it up. And please spare me your righteous indignation. MS has been exposed many times in the past for its anti-consumer, anti-competitive tricks, so don't get all pious on me ok? Maybe you're new there or something.
|
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/2/2005 5:12:39 PM |
|
#4,5: Ok, I found what I was looking for. The MS XML schematas are open, but there is a patent license involved if you want to read or write them which totally 100% precludes anything under the GPL from using them. While said licensed usage is royalty-free, how much does the patent license cost for authors/vendors? What are the terms of licensing the patents? And why do the terms of the patent license specifically stop all GPL apps from using it, for no good reason?
|
| #8 By 9589 (65.191.133.160) at 9/2/2005 6:36:03 PM |
|
With a name/nick name like "latch" I don't think you ought to say much about lips "latched" to whatever.
Nevertheless, you fail to explain why after nearly three years and after ridiculous media fan fair, Munich has failed to convert their Microsoft technology based systems to open sore. In my opinion, it is just a portent of Mass's ability to do the same. Again, the AG of the state has an axe to grind and he and his cohorts are beating the anti-Microsoft drum for what seem to be purely political reasons. Hint: Most AGs think that they could/ought to be governor and while many have aspired and won this political position, this AG isn't one of them. Also, for someone who seems to have a lot to say about all the Microsoft technologies you have precious little actual experience with them. I mean c'mon, you don't have nor can you get in front of a computer that has Office 2003 running on it? The cost of the Office Student/Teacher Edition is little more than a $100 bucks everywhere. By the way, your posts are most often like my description of these so-called tech "journalist." They put Microsoft in the title of their article, start the article with a bunch of lies/half truths, and spend the rest of the article back tracking. You post almost exclusively on these types of articles at this web site, blather on with stuff you usually know little or nothing about, and then oops! end up back tracking on your original statements or just ignoring those that make corrections to what you have posted. Better to keep silent and fool those around you as to your ignorance then open your mouth and confirm to all what was suspected all along, but you knew that didn't you, Latch? |
| #9 By 3653 (68.52.61.116) at 9/2/2005 6:55:35 PM |
| someone should add "ass latch-ing" to one of those cool new-age dictionaries. |
| #10 By 1658 (67.183.205.175) at 9/2/2005 9:25:20 PM |
|
"so I can't verifiy it myself" ... "but I had read that the EULA stipulated that the MS XML schemas could not be freely used by anyone and that a license was required to allow a vendor to generate documents based on these schemas."
Nothing like forming your opinions libased on what you had 'read' somewhere, as opposed to verifying it yourself and generating your own knowledge of the situation. Not only is what you say above almost entirely inaccurate, you fail to substantiate where you read said information. "Correct me if I'm wrong" Don't worry, I will. "Are you saying that an open source project could read & write MSXML without license?" Nope. I'm saying it's 100% free and can be used all day long by open source projects. A license is required for liability and many other legal reasons that even the open source crowd thinks about when distributing bits. I hate to remind you that the GPL is in fact a LICENSE. Having a license come along with your software in and of itself is not inherently a bad thing. Though in this case, I think you're attempting to claim that the Microsoft license is overly restrictive and is indeed a bad thing. But it certainly comes off as if having a license at all is problematic. "And please spare me your righteous indignation. MS has been exposed many times in the past for its anti-consumer, anti-competitive tricks, so don't get all pious on me ok? Maybe you're new there or something." Far from it good sir. I've been here plenty long. Though if you wish to elaborate on how we're "anti-consumer", I'd love to hear it. "Anti-competitive"? No. Competitive to the extent of wanting to cut off the blood flow to anyone who threatens our market position? You're damn right. Lest you forget, we are in the business of selling software and technologies. We are extremely passionate about what we do and love more than anything the creation of new technologies that fit our collective vision. Don't act as if we're the only company in the world that has ever played in the gray areas of competition. There are plenty worse than us. Enron and Tyco to name a couple. As far as my righteous indignation, give me a break. If I'm proud of what I've done in both my life and at this company and I know the facts. I happen to work here and you don't so you'll just have to eat that and move on if you don't like it. "Ok, I found what I was looking for." Not one source provided. "The MS XML schematas are open, but there is a patent license involved if you want to read or write them which totally 100% precludes anything under the GPL from using them." Bzzzz, 100% incorrect. In the first place, the schemas are not patented in any way. "While said licensed usage is royalty-free, how much does the patent license cost for authors/vendors?" Not only does said license not exist in any form, there is ZERO licensing cost. Wrong again. "What are the terms of licensing the patents?" The schemas are NOT patented. "And why do the terms of the patent license specifically stop all GPL apps from using it, for no good reason?" They don't. This post was edited by aamendala on Friday, September 02, 2005 at 21:29. |
| #11 By 1658 (67.183.205.175) at 9/2/2005 9:26:29 PM |
|
See: http://www.microsoft.com/Office/xml/faq.mspx
Q. How much does the license cost? A. The license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas is being made available free of charge. Q. Are the licenses that Microsoft offers under the Open and Royalty-Free Office 2003 XML Reference Schema program perpetual in nature? A. Yes. The licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas are perpetual. There is no term limit on the licenses. Q. Can the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas be used by open source developers? A. Yes. Open source developers who wish to participate in a community development project can enter into the agreements and then work in a collaborative fashion on development of a program or programs. Q. Can I distribute a program that can read and/or write files that support the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas in source code form? A. Yes. You can distribute your program in source code form. But, note that the patent and copyright provisions in the license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas require you to include a notice of attribution in your program. Q. Can I distribute a licensed program under an open source software license? A. Yes. There are many open source licenses available in the developer community. One useful place to review the various licenses that have been approved by the open source community is at Open Source Initiative. The terms and conditions of these licenses differ in material respects. We believe you can distribute your program under many open source software licenses so long as you include the notices described in the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas. On the other hand, some open source licenses may include specific constraints or restrictions that might preclude development under the Office 2003 XML Reference Schema licenses. Q. If Microsoft obtains a patent for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas, does that in any way affect the royalty-free license? A. No, the license is unaffected. Under the patent license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas, Microsoft offers royalty-free rights both to its issued patents and patents that may be issued in the future. Yawn. This post was edited by aamendala on Friday, September 02, 2005 at 21:31. |
| #12 By 15406 (24.43.125.29) at 9/3/2005 1:48:49 PM |
|
#8: with all your talk, you still didn't answer the simple question I put to you. But don't let that stop you from attacking me because I'm attacking your beloved Microsoft. Kepp on waving your pom-poms.
#9: another Parker pops his head out to contribute nothing to the debate, as usual. #10: MS' infamous attempted crushing of all competition is inherently anti-consumer, as less competition breeds less product choice and higher prices. The class action Suits that MS lost over high prices are ample proof of that. And I'm not sure why you're taking this personally. I'm sure you're a nice guy who works hard, but I don't confuse the good people who work at MS with the unethical, morally bankrupt executives who pull the strings. "And why do the terms of the patent license specifically stop all GPL apps from using it, for no good reason?" They don't." Except that they do. Specifically the GPL, you know, the most popular license? At any rate, I stand corrected on a number of misconceptions I had. However, I am still suspicious of MS motives in not donating their schematas to an independant standards governing body. And their ambiguous plans about the potential patents around MSXML cast a cloud over them. #12: because then MS couldn't control the format, and wouldn't have any potential patent rights to leverage in the future. |
| #13 By 12071 (203.206.251.56) at 9/4/2005 7:49:17 AM |
|
#10 "There are plenty worse than us. Enron and Tyco to name a couple."
You must be very proud of that fact! I guess the lesson you want us all to learn from you and the company that you work for is that it's OK to "cut off the blood flow"/be unethical etc as long as there is someone else out there that's worse that you can point to. |
| #14 By 3653 (68.52.61.116) at 9/4/2005 2:59:16 PM |
| kabuki, hopefully you'll have a job one day where you can at least get a glimpse of the nature of business. then perhaps you wont type up such naive posts. |
| #15 By 15406 (24.43.125.29) at 9/4/2005 3:55:37 PM |
|
Ahhh, the sweet smell of vindication...
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170700325 "Kriss said, however, the state's IT administration carefully reviewed and considered both Microsoft's Office XML schemas and OpenDocument but voted for the latter as the standard that would best meet the needs of the citizens of Massachusetts. He said the state had concerns about the openness of the XML schemas and potential patent issues that could arise in the future." What's your response to that, aamendala? "Microsoft Office does not support OpenDocument and company executives said this week they have no plans to support that format in future versions of Office." What a bunch of a-holes. If they can't have their own way with a format they control then they're not going to play nice with anyone. I suspect that this is all just MS posturing at this point anyhow. When they realize that nobody's paying attention to their tantrum, they will come out with support for OpenDocument. The last thing they want is for gov't to realize that they can get along without Office just fine. |
| #16 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 9/4/2005 11:30:17 PM |
|
#15 "hopefully you'll have a job one day where you can at least get a glimpse of the nature of business"
I do have a better understanding of business that you think - my point was more about business ethics than anything else. I do know that we cannot have a perfect world but it would be nice to get things closer to that side rather than the other side. My issue with what aamendala said is that the more you repeat such a thing to yourself the more normal it will seem - things that you previously knew to be completely unethical are now borderline and soon will be acceptable. Things start deteriorating very quickly afterwards - take a look at some of the bigger corporations around - things didn't just get that way, the lines of what is and what is not ethically acceptable in business kept moving as people got adjusted to the norm. Killing the blood flow to a company has been normal for Microsoft for a long time now - it's not about simply beating a company in the market place fairly - it's about doing everything you can to push them out - whether they are ethical or legal or not! So I hope that you don't get adjusted to the "norm" that aamendala is now used to and that whilst you accept the world as having many faults you won't contribute to making those faults even worse. |
| #17 By 15406 (24.43.125.29) at 9/4/2005 11:41:10 PM |
| #17: Is that right? How is it that they're locking anyone out again? By insisting that gov't docs use either PDF, which is ubiquitous, or OpenDocument, which can be read by IE for example and read/written by a variety of free software? How is that locking them out again? The only one being locked out is MS - by MS itself with their own refusal to support OpenDocument. Looks good on them. But mark my words, MS will do one of their famous flip-flops where they'll first huff & puff and insist they won't support OpenDcument and then announce support for it later and spin it as a generous gift to consumers or some such nonsense. Either that, or the MS Bribemobile will roll up to the state capital to deliver free/cheap MS products if the Mass. gov't changes their mind like Munich. |
| #18 By 15406 (24.43.125.29) at 9/5/2005 9:37:09 AM |
|
*cough cough*
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25933 The hilarity. MS claims it will never support the document format it helped create. What a bunch of idiots. This post was edited by Latch on Monday, September 05, 2005 at 09:38. |
| #19 By 32132 (207.81.85.238) at 9/5/2005 7:21:14 PM |
|
"MS claims it will never support the document format it helped create."
Could it be that OpenDocument turned out to be crap? What evidence is there that OpenDocument or even PDF is better or more useful? ASCII is an open standard. I sure wouldn't want all my companies documents stored in ASCII. Oh wait. I know the answer. If its from Microsoft it is EVIL. If its copyrighted by Adobe its a good thing. You ABMrs are morons. This post was edited by NotParker on Monday, September 05, 2005 at 19:25. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 333 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:29:05 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
