What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
195 Comments
- srg13, on 10/10/2007, -16/+61Miguel sold out years ago. He even tried to become a Microsoft employee at one point.
I'm glad that he's not in charge of Gnome anymore - he's said that he thinks they should base the whole desktop environment on Microsoft's .Net API... - schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -16/+55http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_icaza
"In summer of 1997, he was interviewed by Microsoft for a job in the Internet Explorer Unix team (to work on a SPARC port), but lacked the university degree required to obtain a work H-1B visa. "
That's when he started working on GNOME with a long-term goal of implementing .NET and mimicking Windows on Linux. He is an entrepreneur with ambitions of working at Microsoft. He just happens to get his paycheck from Novell now. See what Masie said about Novell's reasons for acquiring Ximian. You'd pass out. This is so obviously a Trojan horse (based on evidence I could gather at least). - Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -11/+44The Office XML specification doesn't even supply valid XML examples.
That's like trying to learn calculus without understanding multiplication.
Calling Office XML a "superb standard" on this fact alone is laughable. - lufthanza, on 10/10/2007, -24/+53First he removes important features from gnome in the name of simplicity, now he sucks up to MS 24/7. Is there anything else he can do to make me hate him more?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -7/+29Yeah, but the rest of us bash just bad stuff. And OOXML is beyond bad into the realm of insanely stupid.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -9/+31The man is a Microsoft shill, of course he's going to say that. The guy lives and breathes everything Microsoft does, believes they can't do anything wrong. If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd say someone at Microsoft planted him in the GNOME platform just to keep us from moving ahead and to give us someone to be continuously pissed at other than Microsoft.
- HerbertScrunge, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23Trust someone to take this important (and desktop-neutral!) piece of news and try to turn it into a GNOME vs KDE flamewar.
PS - I don't think slashdot is run by the "KDE Krew":
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/10/2343256 - cha0sth30ry, on 10/10/2007, -9/+29Miguel is a brilliant engineer with no common sense what so ever.
This makes about as much sense as copying C#. - shakin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24No, it's because nobody who reads and understands the OOXML specs says they are good. It's not even a complete spec. Go and read it for yourself. There are entire areas that are missing or undefined, locales are completely ***** up, portions of the spec refer to proprietary formats, crazy legacy document support rules, accessibility problems, and insane use of old failed formats like VML instead of SVG.
Only brain-dead people or Microsoft lovers want OOXML to become a standard. - Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24Hey now, the OOXML spec is 6000 pages long. Of course that makes it a superb standard. ;-)
This pic is not a forgery: http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2007/05/19/T20_32_07/
Many wish it was. ;-) - natenovs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18.NET is compiled into CLR byte code. It is then compiled into machine code by a JIT at run time, well, more like a JABMIT (just a bit more in time)
- sukimashita, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21... and Mono Developer and Moonlight Developer ...
- ronk, on 10/10/2007, -10/+26He now has a collaboration with Microsoft - http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Sep-05.html - explains a lot!
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Shoving page counts into the discussion isn't helping the cause. I'm an ODF fan as much as anybody, but mainly because it makes more sense, not because it's more complete.
OOXML is basically a translation of Microsoft's existing binary formats into an XML format. It adds nothing of significance beyond that, and the reason it's huge is because it's fairly complete, covering the already existing binary format in entirely.
ODF, on the other hand, is a more or less new format. But, it's a document format, not a complete Office specification. It makes use of XML namespaces to leave some details up to other specifications. The spreadsheet math, for example, is put into another spec, which is not part of ODF. The point here is that XML (and by extension any XML-based format) is supposed to be *extensible*. By leaving that bit out of the format spec, you allow other specs to compete in other areas as well. This way, you don't have to come back and redesign your main document spec every time you need to add new spreadsheet functions.
In short, OOXML is what's currently being used already by Microsoft Office. ODF is what the specification *should* be like in the first place. That's the angle you want to take. - MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22OOXML = 1500 pages per app. 700 if you change the font/spacing to be the same as ODF.
ODF= 867 pages for ALL apps. It even covers more apps than OOXML. - mattscape, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Miguels reply:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=293507&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20547277 - Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/microsoft-office-xml-formats-defective.html http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/08/microsofts-fail.html
http://holloway.co.nz/can-other-vendors-implement-ooxml.html
A LOT of material there but it clearly shows the technical faults of Office XML. - Otto, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20Wow. Now I have officially lost all respect for the man. Not only is he unable to see a bad technical spec when he sees one, but he's also unable to form a coherent response above the level of a 12 year old mindset.
Hint: Bashing your critics by saying that they have no lives or girlfriends is not a way to be taken seriously. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -14/+27This guy has been secretly working for microsoft for like then years hasn't he? He did the same thing with C# didn't he? He builds open source stuff, and pushes microsoft standards into free software like it's not going to cause any problems in the future. I always thought he worked for them under the table. I have to say, I haven't followed any of this for years, I could be totally wrong, but that's what I felt way back when.
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16>>>"face it, this kind of thing needs adoption fast and widespread"
No, it doesn't. That's not what "standards" do. Standards are supposed to be the *correct* way to do things, not the easy or "fast" way. - arjie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14I think I'd believe him if he said, "OOXML is superb because of this, this and that and the problems in it will be worked out by doing this that and that other thing." where this and that are actual reasons. I don't care if Bill Gates himself plugs OOXML, if he addresses all the issues, corrects "lineSpaceLikeWord95" or whatever and removes all that compatibility ***** till they end up with a good format which can be implemented independently without reverse engineering and then he says, "It's a superb format". I'd say, "Yes, it's a superb format". It doesn't matter who says it, it matters what they say and that statement of Mr. de Icaza's is useless without more information.
Of course, if they made all those corrections to OOXML, they'll probably end up with ODF. - yhan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Miguel has the illusion that microsoft with it's flash competitor (silverlight), ooxml, .net, etc are pushing for cross platform compatibility and openess and whatnot.
The truth? Microsoft doesnt give a ***** for any of that.
java: is cross platform, what does Sun do? develops runtimes for all major platforms.
flash: although closed, they offer flash clients for many major platforms.
i could go on and on with examples.
All that microsoft cross platform stuff: designed for windows and only developing runtimes for windows.
Miguel always running behind them and implementing their "cross-platform" stuff only serves for them giving him a couple of minutes at some conferences and then brag about their stuffs "openess". - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15http://www.noooxml.org/
Read all of the bullets under "Issues". Hint: there are hundreds of reasons it's bad. Listing them all here would take an exorbitant amount of time. - LoellAnthony, on 10/10/2007, -13/+25ooxml is SUPERB?!!! , wtf?
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10It's better in that it covers more functionality than ODF right now (and this is probably what Icaza means, I hope). It's bad in that it does it in a stupid, half arsed way and that the ODF extensions to cover that functionality is well under way and will be completed long before this is an issue.
Really Icaza needs to make himself more clear. What about OOXML makes it superb, it has it's advantages but for me the drawbacks are sizeable. - concertina, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11That's because Gnome is about more than just Miguel these days. Gnome is what it is IN SPITE of Miguel's vision. The real damage to free software that he poses is through mono, silverlight, C#, and every inch of technology that mires us more in the Microsoft patent mess.
- luchid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Wow... your logic is totally ass-backwards...
- GaidinTS, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14It's too bad. I think he's done some great stuff for the open source community (mono alone brings a massive amount of talented developers onto linux).
Just because something comes from Microsoft doesn't mean it's bad. It also doesn't mean it's best standard either. In the end the open source community should be about the best, most open solution to a problem, and Microsoft's OOXML is not that solution. - mbradbury, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Miguel de Icaza responds http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=293507&cid=20547277
- andrewmin, on 11/12/2008, -6/+15Which is why I'm a KDE user.
Just joking, just joking! - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Miguel doesn't run GNOME. He's not on the board of the GNOME foundation (Behdad, Glynn Foster, Quim Gil, David Neary, Untz, Jeff Waugh, and Anne Ostergaard are the board members). He's been relegated to a minor part of the desktop because everyone realizes the damage he could have done if he would have been allowed to. Sorry to burst your bubble though.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Pfft, the guy would join Microsoft if Microsoft wanted him. They know he can do a thousand times more damage being a part of the Free Desktop world, and that's the reason they /don't/ want him. Which is sad, because the Free Desktop world really doesn't want him either, making our code more susceptible to patent violations and Microsoft lawsuits because he had the wool pulled over his eyes.
- dualscreenman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12It's an incomplete spec that uses outdated tech. It's also ridden with proprietary *****. Nobody would be able to support it without reverse-engineering Office.
- HerbertScrunge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I wish I had the time/ money to fly around interviewing with companies I had no intention of joining :(
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10OOXML is a more or less complete translation of the existing Microsoft Office binary file formats into an "open" standard. As such, it has all the cruft that these formats have accumulated over the years in the attempt to maintain backward compatibility. It has references to systems like Word95 and so forth due to this, and no real information on how these implementations go. Sure, you're not supposed to use those particular things, but if that's the case, why have them in the spec at all? The point of a *new* spec is to tell people how to implement new formats, not how you did it in the past.
ODF, on the other hand, is a completely new spec, more or less based on the OpenOffice software and such. It's simpler, it's easily extensible by other specifications, and it's a lot more open. If you want to add extensions to it, doing so is relatively easy. It's basically what an office specification should be, leaving out all the backwards compatibility (since there's nothing to be backwards compatible with).
That's the basic difference and the problem. OOXML is bad because it's nothing new. You can only really implement OOXML if you have already implemented all the compatibility with previous versions of Microsoft Office. Implementing OOXML from scratch would be a massive amount of effort. Implementing ODF from scratch is not nearly as tough. - init100, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13"Do you really think he wants to join Microsoft?"
He sounds like he'd want to, as Microsoft is one of his gods. - Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Talk about blindly assuming stuff.
You're such a HUGE fan of Office XML....but have YOU done any research into it?
I highly doubt it.
I can't fathom anyone accepting Office XML after actually reading up on it. - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Hah, I wish. I interviewed for three 6-figure jobs last year and flew myself to each one.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Yes but the ODF extensions are well under way. OOXML does more but it looks like a brain dead 10 year old wrote the spec.
OOXML is more complete but it's like calling a mansion built out of chopsticks complete. - Otto, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10You're missing the point. This is not about Microsoft. This is about the actual format and the spec. OOXML sucks because it's a horrible, horrible design specification. Not because Microsoft made it.
We're turning on him because he's saying very very silly things, not because he's pro-Microsoft. Microsoft is just a company, stop seeing things in black and white. - Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Interesting read:
http://surguy.net/articles/ooxml-validation-and-technical-review.xml - fantasticFlan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Sure, they *can* be both correct and easy, but correct trumps easy, not the other way around.
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Well, I will be now, that's for sure.
No, I'm not joking. - init100, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11"mono alone brings a massive amount of talented developers onto linux"
Yeah, like the ones that wrote Beagle. Not. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I have. The problem with that is he sweeps the major complaints about such as the "Do x like Word 95 does..." under the rug entirely. "I don't think that's important" is not debunking something.
- lufthanza, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You don't have to build an airplane to know the Titanic can't fly.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Hey at least someone is listening and understands. I could say it a million times and still have someone like zybch make claims that this is just "MS bashing".
- Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7If you don't implement it, who knows, you may just find the next version of office using that exact feature. Why? Well microsoft can break compatibility with other implementations and blame the implementer for not implementing the entire spec. I don't trust microsoft any farther than I can throw them frankly, I DOUBT they would do something as rotten as this, but leaving the door open to it is just not good policy.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Listen, you have your boycottnovell website and that's fine, but one person does not "novell" make. Miguel is an ass kiss and he loves to kiss MS' ass as well as his own. However he is only ONE voice in Novell. On the whole, Novell are champions of F/OSS
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9He started the project. It's like asking how Linus Torvalds got so close to the heart of the Linux kernel.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 196 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