What is Digg?57 Comments
- ironeus, on 09/02/2008, -6/+59open-source FTW!
- bixby1, on 09/02/2008, -2/+51Must be nice. The only thing I ever got fast-track approval on was college expulsion.
- samimnot, on 09/02/2008, -2/+49"Microsoft lost a first vote on OOXML -- but won a second vote after a week-long ballot resolution meeting."
Have to admit...it does seem like the ISO (has potentially been bought and paid for by MS) and I tend to agree with the arguing countries, that it IS NOT a vendor-neutral organization any longer. As much as I wouldn't put something like this past MS...proving it to be fact is completely different. - aiten, on 09/02/2008, -1/+33ISO have just fasttracked themselves into a complete waste of space. Well done.
- zman14321, on 09/02/2008, -1/+29The original issue of this whole thing for those that are unaware was that Microsoft was pushing another format (its own) to become an ISO standard. There already existed a standard format that was open source and there was no public reason to have a second standard. It is my understanding that Microsoft used its influence to essential coerce certain members of the ISO into fast tracking the OOXML to become an industry standard, this would give Microsoft another non-free format to control instead of having an open format for everybody. Yet again Microsoft continues to be the 'evil' company it is known for. I think they'll be a large shift away from Microsoft and within five years the majority of people will be using free/open alternatives.
- MWeather, on 09/02/2008, -0/+26It would if anyone had a working implementation, which they don't.
- div2n, on 09/02/2008, -0/+25Which was one part of the uproar. As I understand it, one criteria for standards approval is a working model.
Not even Microsoft has a working implementation of their own "standard" they are pushing so hard. - BuckCynnie, on 09/02/2008, -0/+23Time always corrupts. ISO is certainly not immune to it.
- newbill123, on 09/02/2008, -0/+21My big problem was with the process. All of this was approved along a "fast track" process where the standard was not in a condition to be fast tracked.
When concerns were raised, the response was along the lines "Sorry, we can't respond to that because we're fast tracking" rather than "Oh, this is a valid concern, but to address it we'll have to stop fast tracking."
Fast tracking cuts out a lot of debate so using it for things which are controversial or still incomplete is an abuse of the process to get people to sit down and shut up. - crapuccino, on 09/02/2008, -4/+24Hoo fookin' rah!
These corporate shills need to be treated with the contempt they deserve. - sandygmaharaj, on 09/02/2008, -1/+18Do you really think MS has proposed something better?! Some light:
http://deepakphatak.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-is.h ... - sandygmaharaj, on 09/02/2008, -11/+24Disgusting!! Rename ISO to M$SO.
- smotpoker, on 09/02/2008, -0/+12Have you forgotten what they did to the web with their HTML extensions?
They are not worried about standards, this is another attempt at vendor lock-in.
Step 1: Legitimize it as a standard
Step 2: Start adding neat little "extensions" to their own implementation of it (Word most likely) that are not supported by others and take their time releasing proper specs
Step 3: Use and encourage those extensions whenever possible before other implementers have time to catch up
Step 4: Sit back and watch as everyone denounces the other implementations as inferior and/or insufficient since they cannot use those extensions or the so many docs they need require them
Step 5: PROFIT!! - rchargel, on 09/02/2008, -0/+11I know that in the case of Brazil this is a big deal because by law government and public industries must purchase products that comply with international standards. This is done to prevent vendor lock-in. I suppose however, it may just be a matter of changing the law to no-longer identify ISO as a valid standards body. This would be a huge black-eye for ISO as Brazil is one of the five fastest growing economies and has one of the largest IT industries in the world.
- cawpin, on 09/02/2008, -2/+13M$SO HRNY?
- Zippo, on 09/02/2008, -1/+12Amazing what some money slipped into a few pockets can achieve.
- UncleCrapper, on 09/02/2008, -1/+10Have you been living in a cave? This entire standardization process has been corrupt-- from Microsoft stacking the various ISO bodies with favorable members to the fact that the submitted technical description of the OOXML standard is itself utterly worthless to anyone that actually wanted to implement it.
If the was nothing to the OOXML controversy why would you have various ISO member bodies starting to question the integrity of the process? - rchargel, on 09/02/2008, -0/+9Technically they did break the rules. You need to have a working model before presenting it to ISO. Microsoft does not.
- rchargel, on 09/02/2008, -0/+8That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You're talking about large industrialized nations. All four are becoming wealthy off of their emerging technology markets adding to that Venezuela's oil revenue and Brazil and South Africa's huge natural resources. It seams to me you're talking out of your ass.
- doctechnical, on 09/02/2008, -1/+9The reason the PC became the defacto business machine standard has a hell of a lot more to do with Lotus Development Corp. than Microsoft. The 1-2-3 spreadsheet put machines on people's desks.
- boneit, on 09/02/2008, -0/+8The difference is, ISO accepted MS's "standard" even though the specs are incomplete and cannot be implemented. If the documentation was complete and you could actually use it to build a reference implementation, there would still be the dirty stench of corruption and bribes, but at least there would be no technical reasons to worry about the "standard" itself.
- rchargel, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7doc is right. Before MS the defacto office machine was the Apple II. I remember those puppies, they were great. Lotus blew everyone out of the water. That and Word Perfect for DOS were big factors contributing to the rise of the PC.
- mithrasinvictus, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7ODF is an approved standard with implementations as you would expect from an international standard.
Some organizations require their documents be stored and/or exchanged in an international standard.
Microsoft realized that if they had to support this international standard this would enable real document interoperability which would be the worst thing that could happen to their near monopoly on office suites (and consequently hurt their OS market position). - santasing, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6ODF
- vagarach, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6Good. The ISO can't be standardising proprietary things all willy-nilly. If microsoft wants to create another monopoly on future document formats then it must do so the hard way like it did in the 90s, not with the smart leverage of a governing body.
- reisrocks, on 09/02/2008, -4/+9Would OOXML basically become a competing format to ODS?
- arjie, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5That's quite the problem, no? It shouldn't be about MS winning. The whole point of standards is that all of us win because of increased interoperability and stuff like that. There must be consensus.
- TetchyTony, on 09/02/2008, -3/+6We're getting this wrong, and that matters in terms of 'what to do'.
A 'Standard' is/should be whatever is stable enough (proprietary or not) for procurers to be able to cite as part of their requirement spec. Of course you can have two or more standards for the same thing (unfortunately) or dozens. Fine in theory to have, say, an open Standard and an Msft standard (I could choose to cite either or both when buying). Given that very unpalatable perspective, all we should ask from Msft is that their Standard is stable and that procurement compliance can be assured by independent testing. Ahha! - that is the real snag (not the 'proprietary' feature). Office 2000 (3?) could be a universalised basis for a (suboptimal) stable Standard - but the heap they submitted self-evidently will not do, nor could there be any reliable compliance testing based on it. This is where ISO got so confused.
One way through might now be to ask formally for precise compliance test frameworks, and (ohho) to apply those tests to existing implementations too. And to suspend national publication (the way Standards go) until that has been done (Never-Never land). - 6minuteabs, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3Actually, there's more similarity than difference. If you know anything about IETF then you are familiar with the XMPP(i.e. Jabber) vs SIMPLE presence and messaging fiasco. XMPP won out of the gate. Cisco protested (SIMPLE was their baby) and got a 2nd working group approved for the same damn thing. The result is we forced to live with incompatible standards for messaging which means GTalk users can't communicate with Microsoft OCS users even though they both speak an IETF standard protocol to other networks.
Cisco succeeds because IETF is ruled by the masses, not 1 vote per company. So what does Cisco do? They send literally thousands of people to the meetings, vote themselves into the working group chairs and standardize whatever the hell they want. They're playing by the rules so I can't complain too much. I just wish more people understood these things before hyperventilating over ISO. That doesn't make ISO right, but it's not unique. - truck87bp, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3I just read about "Is Vista turning people to Linux" and now I see MS is turning Office away to OpenOffice.org......MS is hurting their business more than they realize. How can people so smart be so dumb? MS, just advertise your Office as Corporate Bullet Proof DRM Software.
- rchargel, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3You are right. After all isn't the Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) a proprietary standard that has been pretty much accepted by the world at large. Sure, it's slowly being devoured by PNG (as it should be), but that doesn't change the fact that it has served us well for years. What matters is, "can it be implemented and tested". Who did the QA for this thing?
- RabidOrange, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2Don't overlook the impact on sales MS have had by providing bulk deals and cheaper discounts to schools and students the world over. Being taught in an MS environment translates to parents buying MS software for their kids at home and the familiarity factor then kicks in for every upgrade and new purchase afterwards.
You can see this in job adverts for web developers in the UK. There a plenty of scripting languages out there and the most robust are not MS born. Apache/PHP ia an almost defacto standard for doing anything beyond static web development and yet how many times have you seen a job ad for a web developer begin ASP/.NET Developer wanted. ASP and .NET are far from evil or even remotely bad but it does highlight how shrewd product placement has secured MS the place it has in the market. - arjie, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2@EntropyFan: I followed the Indian side of the ISO battle quite carefully. The strongest objections were from institutes of learning and universities, the fastest to accept were the IT companies. At least for India (can't speak for Brazil or the others, I didn't follow them), the people objecting weren't looking for money.
- KaiserArny, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2And you are worthy at being buried
- 6minuteabs, on 09/02/2008, -2/+3Standards bodies get worked over by interest groups all the time. Microsoft did it this time which I agree is BS. But they didn't invent anything new here. Go to an IETF meeting some time and watch what the Cisco armies get away with.
- rchargel, on 09/02/2008, -3/+4Hey I feel yah. I've worked many years in the development of a healthcare standard which shall remain nameless. One of the rules for this standard is you have to pass a certain number of tests in order to claim compliance and display your product at a very large showcase at the beginning of the year (which will also remain nameless). Yet year after year I've seen large corporations that routinely fail their tests be allowed to exhibit anyways and claim full compliance. It's just something you get used to.
- bipolarruledout, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1I could be completely off base but wouldn't Microsoft's format by nature need to be open for ISO approval? How can you have a standard without a specification?
- init100, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1It could be technically open, but incomplete and unnecessarily complex, which would make it much harder for other vendors to implement the standard.
- inactive, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1the same way we are being coerced into using open alternatives?
- BuckCynnie, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1That is called payment for services. "Amazing" if you just walked out of the jungle for the first time in your life, but for the rest of us, well, that is how we are able to buy things.
- ryanhflowers, on 12/23/2008, -0/+0hat he was his own guide and kept going with his weight loss. As long as he still felt okay, he would continue to loss the fat. His own physical feeling was his gauge. He was told by many people working for The Machinist that if he got his weight down to 140 - 145 that that would be okay too.
http://www.advanceddatarecovery.co.uk/
http://www.easyrecovery.co.uk/
http://www.tobrowse.com/browseto
http://www.topBrother.com/Brothertop - EntropyFan, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1@rchargel,
If something that is required isn't there, then they would have gotten bounced. Plain and simple. they didn't, so they must have everything they need.
So ***** off. Seriously. They played by the rules. They pulled it off.
@arjie
i would tend to agree, but the entire process was about people winning. The major objections to MS were from those looking to make lots and lots of money at MS's expense. 90% of those against MS were looking for the next paycheck for doing it. it had nothing to do with increased interoperability or jack ***** like that. $ signs were all that were important. - johnndavis9, on 12/04/2008, -0/+0UK Gambling Directory
If you are looking for a quality Gambling Directory then why not try UK Poker Links. This site includes a Poker Directory, Casino Directory, Bingo Directory, Gambling Guide Directory, Football Directory plus many others which in total makes nearly 8000 entries. Although online for just over a year our directory is now one of the biggest gambling directories online. If you are also looking for other directories then why not try another UK Gambling Directory or even a General Directory.
http://www.ukpokerlinks.com/
http://www.ukpokerlinks.com/Poker/
http://www.ukpokerlinks.com/Casinos/General_Casino ...
http://www.ukpokerlinks.com/Bingo_____/
http://www.ukpokerlinks.com/Guides/
http://www.ukpokerlinks.com/Soccer_Clubs/
http://www.britishgamblingdirectory.com/
http://www.dirics.org/ - dood, on 09/02/2008, -8/+7I don't get it. What's the problem here? Does the approval of OOXML supersede the approval of ODF?
- inactive, on 09/02/2008, -3/+1Um yes but not with ODF
Why why keep on cheering an open source format where another open standard like CDF has few issues with MS's format? - aksn1p3r, on 09/02/2008, -10/+6Open source rox my box!
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is