What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
83 Comments
- cday, on 10/04/2008, -5/+114Let's hope Norway's protest snowballs into a VERY noisy worldwide revolt. It's long overdue. Microsoft's fake "standard" never belonged on the fast track in the first place.
- vibrokatana, on 10/04/2008, -4/+86- An already accepted standard does the same exact thing (ODF).
- Has legacy (binary) implementations in what should be a new XML standard.
- Does not use existing standards for drawing or markup (ex. MathML, SVG).
- Some of the algorithms used will not transfer over to other platforms.
- Some of the measurement units have no established metric, so other programs may not be able to render a document as MS Office does.
- Bug workarounds are carried over from older versions of Office, despite the fact that they can't even read the format.
That is all I remember off the top of my head. - Irco, on 10/04/2008, -2/+47"Standard Norway chose to defy their own technical committee and vote yes to a specification that is immature, useless, and unworthy of being called an ISO standard."
damn...I don't think anyone can say any clearer and louder how much ooxml sucks.
How are they going to pretend now, that it was a transparent process? more than 50% of the technical committee resigned - santasing, on 10/04/2008, -2/+43I'm a PC! And I love standards!
:-D - smotpoker, on 10/04/2008, -4/+44There are several reasons. Some are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Criti ... . Besides these there are allegations of bribery and such. People fear since MS will be primarily responsible for the format they might try to extort people with it in the future
- atgmac, on 10/04/2008, -8/+42In a nutshell: it sucks. It's extremely complicated and there are much simpler and better formats out there. It's also quite bloated.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/04/2008, -0/+29@levithesmith: Microsoft "convinced" a lot of companies suddenly to join iso organizations with the sole purpose of voting MSOOXML in , a lot of small countries decided to join ISO in order to vote on this, and several chairmen have been behaving very suspect trying to push through acceptance while silencing criticism.
- Rolcol, on 10/04/2008, -0/+29LeviTheSmith, The article explains that the people resigned because the organization didn't follow their own rules and pressure from Microsoft. Due to corruption, it was accepted.
- LeviTheSmith, on 10/04/2008, -0/+25is that the only reason people are rejecting it?
I think someone else will have a better answer for me.. - santasing, on 10/04/2008, -2/+27It is kind of like the bailout bill that just passed. Nobody but MS wants it. And it used bribes and influence to get it passed e.g. in Norway, 21 members voted no on the standard and only 2 voted yes. Yet the ISO passed it. The ISO is the UN of the software world.
- Smudded, on 10/04/2008, -3/+28Hey look, the Norwegians know how to protest. Pull out your pen and paper class. It's time to take notes.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/04/2008, -0/+24@notnoisy: Norway is an example of a curious decision of the chairman to go against a 19 to 5 vote by the members. I have not been able to find ANY evidence or even claims that your accusation is correct. I have not been able to find a list with join dates for committee members. Can you back up your claim? (i don't think so)
- miggyb, on 10/04/2008, -2/+24I'm guessing (again, _guessing_) that it's an "open" standard, but not an open "standard." That is, it's probably open and accessible by everyone, but it probably has ambiguities that makes it useless/annoying to try to access it from a non-Microsoft program.
The article refers to the "immaturity" of the standard, so there's a chance Microsoft half-assed it and said "Well, we'll fix it as we go on." That is, they're saying "Any version of OOXML can be incompatible with any other version of OOXML. Deal with it."
EDIT: Vibrokatana, below me, gives specific examples. - burketo, on 10/04/2008, -0/+21and THAT doesn't change the fact that he's right.
- LeviTheSmith, on 10/04/2008, -4/+25Can someone explain what is exactly wrong with MS's new format?
I'm not trying to be a douche but I don't know anything about formats and standards. - Gudeldar, on 10/04/2008, -0/+18The most important one is that it is 6000 pages. That is right 6000 pages, the thumbnail for this article is the standard in printed form. How in the hell are supposed to correctly implement a 6000 page specification especially when it has things like FormatLikeWord95 in it?
- Sammi84, on 10/04/2008, -0/+18If you want an account of how the Norwegian vote for OOXML happened, and what the irregularities were:
http://topicmaps.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/the-norw ...
I've lost all faith in ISO. - Blacksoth, on 10/04/2008, -1/+18Microsoft has a history of bullying or paying off standards boards so they can control the market. You don't have to be a Linux fanboy to know that. The fact that Norway has at least rejected the standard based on the obvious irregularities might 'cause other countries to look at what's going on inside their own borders.
- Darkhacker, on 10/04/2008, -0/+16This is the most detailed explanation of why OOXML is inferior. It's very very specific and lists dozens of reasons. So it's more than "omfg, M$ sucks." Even a Microsoft fan would have to admit that OOXML is basically a *****.
http://www.noooxml.org/local--files/arguments/ODF- ... - santasing, on 10/04/2008, -0/+16@notnoisy
See that's how we know who the trolls are. Good for you that Digg does not have a mark as troll button. ***** apologists. - fas2, on 10/04/2008, -3/+18gcnaddict: blocked for being a douche.
- LeviTheSmith, on 10/04/2008, -2/+16Wow thanks, why did they 'accept' MS's standard?
From what you wrote it seams stupid for them to accept a format like that. - atgmac, on 10/04/2008, -1/+14I suppose the biggest problem with it is that it is unnecessarily complex. Take a look inside a ooxml file. It is made up of dozens of files and several directories. Why? Because Microsoft did their usual of over-engineering a solution.
This complexity makes it very difficult to write implementations. Do you see many applications that can read and write OOXML files? No! Because it's ***** difficult! I suppose this was one of Microsoft's goals. Difficulty of implementation means less competition.
It's also pointless. Where rich text is concerned, we've already got many superior file formats. We don't need another. For example, XHTML is easier to generate, can be viewed by dozens of applications and is heavily standardised. The biggest problem with XHTML is that the people who write it are idiots, the file format itself is fine when generated by computers. It also links in with other open standards like SVG, CSS, etc. ODF is also a perfectly fine file format.
I hope that's enough detail. Sorry, I wrote my previous post at 8am. - SealandRes1, on 10/04/2008, -1/+11You make it sound as if there weren't any legitimate concerns as to why the standard was being fast tracked. (one of the requirements for the passing of ISO standards is having a working model of the purposed format, something that microsoft didn't have when the standard was passed)
- bobbknight, on 10/04/2008, -0/+10If you wish to know what is going on with this odf ooxml thing then here is some heavy reading for you.
Put your critical thinking cap on and make up your own mind.
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page= ...
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page= ... - relayer2112, on 10/04/2008, -0/+9I'm a PC and I run a mediocre operating system made by a monopolist convicted of abusing its power. I had no other choice at the time.
My creators won't even use me to make their latest commercial.
I feel so abandoned. ...sigh. - mithrasinvictus, on 10/04/2008, -2/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Of ...
and that's just some of the irregularities. - inactive, on 10/04/2008, -0/+7OOXML is purely a MS creation, the name is a misnomer, and you can find the pros and cons with a little research. Also no, stuff like Open Office won't have to "start over again". Open Office uses ODF, they don't aim to mimic Microsoft Office. Although there is a crippled conversion tool for OOXML to ODF for compatibility purposes.
- billwild, on 10/04/2008, -0/+5Bill?
- MacParrot, on 10/04/2008, -1/+6Isn't this all really just a formats grab by Microsoft since OO and most the other Office alternatives have pretty much caught up feature-wise on the things that most people use an Office suite for? By pushing a new standard (if accepted), don't most of these alternatives have to start over again?
Last question...was OOXML created by MS or is it really as claimed an open standard and what if any benefits would it provide over ODF? - bugsy187, on 10/04/2008, -1/+6"Fanboy?" Can we raise the discourse above pre-teen insults?
- EarlOfLade, on 10/04/2008, -0/+5Ahhh... From Microsoft Norway.... Who could have thought?
- Blacksoth, on 10/04/2008, -0/+5I get what he's saying. I like the PC too. I just don't like the built in uncompetitiveness of Microsoft products that create all kinds of errors for me when I try to use anything not Microsoft approved.
- HonoredMule, on 10/04/2008, -3/+8Ironically, you can't actually have windows without walls, figuratively or literally.
At least the MS walls aren't lined on both sides by thick, thorny bushes. *cough* Apple *cough* - RoboDonut, on 10/05/2008, -0/+41. The specification is thousands of pages long.
2. There are tons of ambiguities in the specification; it doesn't define a macro language, for example.
3. They use their own data structures for certain things (such as color codes), instead of using formats that are already standardized.
4. We already have ODF
5. Microsoft has a history of creating their own pseudo-standards, or breaking existing ones ("embrace, extend, extinguish"), in order to maintain their control of the market.
6. In an attempt to create confusion, they're using terminology from open-source projects (i.e. using the name "Office Open XML" when their primary competitor in the office software market is "Open Office") - larsga, on 10/04/2008, -1/+5> only one resigned because the decision
> was not to his liking.
That's wrong, although you weren't to know, since this is what the media has been writing. In reality, he left for different reasons two months before the OOXML vote. - RoboDonut, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4PC is an acronym for "personal computer"
Microsoft does not have a trademark on the term and it has nothing to do with Windows in any way.
It can, in fact, refer to any desktop computer, usually x86, that runs any operating system. - magus_melchior, on 10/04/2008, -0/+4Microsoft is trying to steal ODF in case OOXML isn't accepted:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200808251 ... - SealandRes1, on 10/04/2008, -2/+6"windows without walls"
- jpkeisala, on 10/04/2008, -0/+3Wow! Thank you for a link. It is hard to believe that OOXML got through even though it so hard lobbying in all countries. Not only I have lost faith on ISO. Microsoft lost a lot respect on my eyes doing things like this.
- sx66gns, on 10/04/2008, -0/+3Some fools got paid , obviously.
MS trying to dismantle our whole thing from the boards then unilaterally , someone hold me. - sarixe, on 10/04/2008, -2/+4awesome, i'll be there in 5 minutes.
- inactive, on 10/04/2008, -4/+6OOXML uses such a binary implementation of XML that it's no where near vendor neutral and it shouldn't be approved due to that fact alone. Also, Microsoft's methods, in their drive for approval, have been somewhat dubious overall. And ISO's approval of the standard should definitely be challenged. But other than that, I have to agree that this article is mainly fluff. They make everything sound so devastating, although I doubt Norway has suffered any type of irrefutable harm from this event.
- santasing, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2Good point robo
I'm a PC and I run Linux. - clone206, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2And the global battle against hubris continues. Hubris that tries to bully it's way into standards developed for the common good; hubris that votes in favor of what obviously flies in the face of those standards; and hubris in our businesses that really believe going with MS platforms is the right choice despite their obviously flawed code base. Kind of reminds me of the hubris that lead some idiots on wall st to believe they could make a quick buck off junk debt despite flying in the face of well established economics principles.
- dhughes, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2 I'm all for standardization but this raises doubts about the ISO's neutrality, can any corporation sway them? Who else has influenced them?
- Rocco03, on 10/04/2008, -1/+3The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
- santasing, on 10/04/2008, -1/+3WTF! Just in case anyone is confused, I was being sarcastic in my first comment.
- MacParrot, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2While they might not aim to mimic MSO, in order for their product to take the place of and be compatible with Office they also have to match file compatibility. I have MS Office 2008 for the Mac along with iWork and Open Office (I also have Open Office on my XP partition) and really only use MSO when I need maximum file compatibility. Otherwise I use the alternatives mentioned.
- inactive, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2Sorry to say, but they don't. That path was initially warranted as MS held a significant hold on the office software market. However, now that there's a new format, ODF, they can forgo support for future Microsoft products. They're beginning to cut their own groove and the whole OOXML vs. ODF argument is exactly that.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 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