What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
144 Comments
- Sarki, on 10/10/2007, -30/+261This is inaccurate. The ISO did not reject OOXML, it declined to fast track the standard. There's a big difference.
- repoE, on 10/10/2007, -29/+182One step closer to a free world. Not one owned by Micro$oft
- prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -4/+114Win or lose, Microsoft's manipulation of the ISO standards process has opened eyes and drawn attention at a level they could never have imagined. Hopefully pressure from not just standards bodies, but (even more importantly) business managers and individual users who are completely fed up with having their data locked into formats that only one vendor can properly read and write will finally free us all of this insane inability to truly take our files to whatever company has the best value software, not the one we have to live with because we're stuck with them.
It's OUR data Microsoft! Not YOURS! Just because you can get some country like Equatorial Kundu to upgrade from "Observer" to "Participating" status 15 minutes before the ISO votes and stuff the ballot box we're not going to give up control of our "data destiny" to you! I can't tell you how much I miss the old Microsoft. The one that used to be so confident that their products were better than Lotus, or WordPerfect, or whatever that they knew they'd win in the market on FEATURES alone! Now you're just a shivering shadow of your former self, depending on "data lock-in" to maintain market share, not real innovation. Don't stoop to these pathetic manipulative methods. Return to Greatness Microsoft! - openguru, on 10/10/2007, -10/+85This is great !!!
I hope this will make Apple to add support for ODF in iWorks-08 - Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -1/+41This is what happens when money makes you completely lose sight of your overall goal: to implement the best, most accessible, and optimized standard possible.
I have no doubt that Microsoft has incredibly intelligent people working on Office XML, but its fundamentally flawed because it's built around the basis of maintaining marketshare of a particular proprietary product.
It's simply impossible to make a good open standard on this basis. Microsoft is basically handicapping themselves because there are bits an pieces of the specification they DON'T want you to have access to.
Also, the fact that MS chose to create their own standard instead of assisting with the creation of ODF is troubling.
To MS I would say - you're your own worst enemy. - nickj6282, on 10/10/2007, -3/+38Yeah. My car is open right now out in the parking lot! If by open you mean the windows are rolled up, the doors are locked, the alarm system is on, and the stereo faceplate is locked in my desk of course ;) But hey, it's open. You're welcome to use it (for a large fee of course). In fact, you can use the car as much as you want, but key rental is $150/day and you must agree to my End-Driver License Agreement.
- disappointed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+36The title comes from the article, not the submitter. The current proposal HAS been rejected. Microsoft will have to submit a revised proposal for consideration next year.
- Quix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+34"I can't tell you how much I miss the old Microsoft. The one that used to be so confident that their products were better than Lotus, or WordPerfect, or whatever that they knew they'd win in the market on FEATURES alone!"
Hmm, I don't remember this Microsoft. Did such a creature ever actually exist? I'll bet Lotus and WordPerfect have plenty of juicy stories about Microsoft's approach to "competition," even way back then. - MasteRR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+32Just because something is labeled open doesn't mean it is. And OOXML defiantly is not open.
- arjie, on 10/10/2007, -4/+34To allow the news to get noticed? Because people who frequent this section actually care for standards and open formats?
- Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -25/+54Thanks for posting this in the correct section...."Anti-Microsoft".
/sarcasm - DirtySnachez, on 10/10/2007, -6/+33This gives me hope for humanity yet.
Seriously though, if this went though, it would have been MS spoon-feeding us ***** again for the next 15 years. Hooray it didn't, and Hooray for those Country's with balls enough to say "***** No", unlike my Country's lame-ass 'abiding' embarrassing non-vote.
Now, when the REAL vote comes, I hope every-one does what they know to be in the best interests of the people as a global village, rather than MS's bankroll. - cplusplus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25Sadly its not over yet. They will try again in Feb. And with a less obliviously horrible doc and more time to buy support.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23No, it isn't Microsoft news either. Since this concerns the entire industry, I'd put it in "Industry News".
- Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Yeah, I just think it's funny that iWork is the most compatible application with office '07, I have to use it instead of office '03 when I get a file from '07.
- revthwack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22I'm glad that it didn't get passed. The fact that Microsoft was allowed to "strongly encouraged" partner companies to sign up as voters at the last minute in various countries is a shame. Once you add in the fact that they were able to entice 11 new countries to sign on as P-members, you've got a classic example of Microsoft using their monopoly-gained position, cash, and influence in a way they should not be allowed to. ISO standardization shouldn't be there to be bought.
- dasunst3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19To prevent this ballot-stuffing crap from happening again, I think that "new" members should not have the privilege to vote for the first six months.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Don't tell me you're the moron who also thinks people with internet nick "HotGirl" are actually hot and are girls..
- drlha, on 10/10/2007, -10/+28Also, why did the poster put this in "Unix/Linux"?
- willcoll, on 10/10/2007, -6/+22you're so naive, it kills me.
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -7/+23I just figured this is where the most ODF-OOXML advocates hand out.
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26In other words, it is rejected...for now. Hardly worth commenting about.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15"expect microsoft to now play really dirty."
Dirtier than they already played to ram this spec through the standardization process? Is that even possible? - jeffgtr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15It's not over yet, but there is hope that true open standards will prevail.
- Ansible, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Pssh. Microsoft never lost sight of the goal of a clear and open international standard because that was never their goal in the first place. Microsoft would be handicapped by the existence of a good standard - how are they supposed to maintain their monopoly if anyone can write software that uses the standard.
Supposing ODF gets to be the standard instead, you'll see microsoft embracing and extending that to make it proprietary as well, if possible. - mvent2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I can't believe some people are saying that the opponents of OOXML are merely "M$ bashers". OOXML is vague, incomplete, buggy, and yet still somehow manages to make their spec nearly 10 times as long as ODF's. Its fundamentally broken and yet it would be a tragedy if it was approved because only MS products would be able to implement it. Not only that, but nothing is stopping MS from subtly changing their own implementation of the format in future versions of Office; .doc anyone?
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Considering this story made it to the front page in under 2 hours, I'd say there was enough interest in the Linux/Unix forum. This issue does affect more than just one demographic.
- muszek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I am forced to use it when everyone I exchange documents with uses a format that's only useable via Microsoft's software.
- pandasonic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12This is definitely good news, but it won't change a thing. MS is MS because people keep using their stupid products, the media should be all over this.
- Quix, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14And the covert Digg-trolling Microsoft MVP horde stomp their feet and gnash their teeth in rage and frustration...
- HairyPoter, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13if it was 10 years ago, M$ would win but today, the power of internet increases the flow of news and the level of awareness of people, so, it is more difficult to implement traps and scams, as it appears to be the business model of the crappy company from Redmond.
- DirtySnachez, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Holy ***** Sarki, did you even read the fkn description. The headline is correct (although slightly sensationalist) in stating they rejected it as a standard. The description clearly states they only declined to fast track it, yet you still have to whinge, then sit on the most diggs as of this post. top effort.
- foreplay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9don't be surprised if the requests made by France and Britain are unfixable in Microsoft's eyes.
The reason we are fighting here is that ooxml is not an open standard like odf. The spec on numerous occasions states things like "implement it like word 97". How exactly does one go about implementing something like word 97 when its closed source and the eula of the software specifically states its illegal to reverse engineer. This would end up with Microsoft being the only fully compliant software vendor since they have access to the word 97 source code. - foreplay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Im just waiting to see what comments got kicked up. remember countries can change their mind on the vote if they are satisfied that changes have to been made to the specs that satisfy the comments they made. expect microsoft to now play really dirty.
- jackcall, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11And all countries with "democratic" or "peoples republic of..." in their names have been that?
- ssam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9there are dupes in (Microsoft)
http://digg.com/microsoft/ISO_votes_to_reject_Microsoft_s_OOXML_as_standard
http://digg.com/microsoft/ISO_votes_to_reject_Microsoft_s_OOXML_as_standard_2 - amoeba, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Here's the real contender:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument - mvent2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Apple is on OOXML's side and as you can see quite a lot of people are bitter about that. This is not about MS vs Apple vs whoever else, this is about making sure truly open standards prevail so there can be true choice and interoperability in Office suites, instead of it staying as an MS Office world. OOXML is broken and is not a well-written standard.
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12It's Microsoft news not Linux. But I guess the slant you apply to it could go either way.
- lispy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Well, I am glad they wait for approval until something comes around that actually works. You see, that's the point of standards. If we'd have 17 different vendor based wifi standards noone would (be able to) use it.
- TechBharat, on 11/08/2007, -2/+9MS should shed the ego and go with ODF. Nothing to lose.
- wariola, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Its not just because of Micro$oft is monopoly or whatever (although they are close to it) but this turn of events also show us the dark side of ISO voting where rich and powerful companies like M$ can rig the vote and influence the International standard body to swing to their favour. Luckily we have the Internet now as the check and balance for those greedy corporations out there. What happen if we still didn't have the Internet now to rally opposition for OOXML? some food for thought...
I vote for a more transparent voting and better changes to the International Standard & Certification Body... - prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+61. They created the .doc/.xls/.ppt binary formats about 15 years ago. It's not exactly cutting edge work anymore. Yes they deserve credit for the work they've done, but the emphasis here is DONE. As in, that was DONE a long time ago.
2. As to the current problem and their efforts to migrate into an XML format, I'm not even entirely clear on what argument you are making here. There's NO "need" whatsoever for the new XML format that becomes standard (be it OOXML or ODF) to incorporate "the errors of the past" into it. You seem to be confusing the actual need that the APPLICATION (be it OpenOffice or Microsoft Office 2007, etc.) must be able to read the old binary (but then save into the new/clean XML) for a mistaken perceived need to maintain all idiosyncrasies that used to be built into the OLD format that we are escaping from in the first place. Perhaps you might restate your concern because I'm genuinely not following it. As written, you are saying the new "data format" needs to be compatible with "existing applications" which obviously must be a misstatement on your part of some kind. (Surely you are not saying you expect Word 95 to be able to read either an OOXML or an ODF file right?) I'm honestly not sure what you are saying... - Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Their specification is over 6000 pages long. It has only had 5% of the normal time for it to be reviewed compared to other standards that go through the process. Their specification is buggy in many places and it also includes binary code that they will not release. The code probably is to make sure that it doesn't work with any other office product. According to their license for OOXML it appears that their open policy is probably only for this version and not future revisions.
The ODF is 800 pages long and it's truly open. It is smaller for one reason in that this format uses previous standards set for things such and storing the date.
This track that Microsoft if pulling is nothing more that putting the name open on a proprietary format, (Wolf in Sheep Clothing). They have no intention of giving up their proprietary format that forces everybody to be locked into Microsoft forever. - luchid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Out of curiosity, how much is Microsoft paying for astroturfing these days?
- Rolamoto, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7To M$: Source or GTFO
- luchid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7You really don't get it... do you?
This is not Apple vs. Microsoft, or Linux vs. Windows. It's a matter of not being bound to Microsoft's rules. - IanLynch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Its over bar the shouting. MS has done itself no good with a general consensus that there have been obvious attempts to rig the ballot. Unless they make some radical changes to OOXML its very unlikely to get approval. If they do make such radical changes so its acceptable maybe it won't matter if it is then approved. The fact is that approving what is currently on the table would make ISO a laughing stock since it so obviously violates some of their basic criteria. Where are the multiple vendors with real applications using the proposed standard, for example. This company that has been the master of PR has managed to not only spend millions in a failed attempt to fast track the ISO process but has exposed its excessive behaviour to all in the process. Someone at the top should be fired.
- luchid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Uhmm unless rules are open and clearly documented and everyone is able to implement the standard on their products, which is obviously not the case with Microsoft's OOXML. You REALLY should read more about the issue. You're over simplifying things.
- janeuner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6This is the Microsoft of the mid-to-late 90s. It had a clean operating system, a office suite with a relatively shallow learning curve, and it all came at a slightly-inflated yet commodity price. It was around this time that MS stopped focusing so heavily on their product, and instead started to dig into politics and propaganda.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 146 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is