What is Digg?62 Comments
- latova, on 10/12/2007, -13/+35If microsoft really wanted us to all have an open standard, they'd use ODF. Unfortunately Microsoft avoids anything open for consumers as if it were a plague.
Screw you Microsoft. Thank you IBM. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25"Too bad IBM doesnt have any clout anymore. They're a technology consulting company now. They sold of eMachines, they sold off the Thinkpad line. They lost in the 80s and now they consult other companies. While they are a massive company, it will be hard for this vote of no confidence on Microsoft's format to carry any significant weight. IBM's cash reserves are running low, and Microsoft is on the edge of launching a milti-billion dollar grossing piece of software."
This has got to be the most /hilarious/ post I've ever read, in my entire life. Thank you Microsoft Astroturfer.
IBM is _THE_ most respected computer company on the face of the planet. They've done more for computers than you'll ever imagine, virtually touching and inventing something in every aspect or field of computing there is. IBM retired from the super-competitive business of building PCs because it was pointless to be in the game, competing with companies like Dell who don't give a damned about quality and try their best to undergun every other company around for the lowest price; it's a foolish business, even if you brand your company as selling only business machines.
Meanwhile, IBM still dominates just about every other aspect of computing. Their processors are used in all three next gen consoles, and I dare you to find a car in America that has electronic fuel injection and /not/ a single IBM processor on-board (it would be hard to find one in the /world/, except for Japan, damned Mitsubishi). They build a huge number of super-computers and currently hold the #1 slot in that market (outside of build-your-own), in both performance and sells. And while yes, they do a lot of consulting now, it's mainly because they've got the experience and know-how to consult; this company is influencing a World Standard's body, what other computer companies can say they have the clout to do that? Intel, IBM, Apple, Google, Microsoft, AMD, maybe a few others depending on what aspect of computing the standard deals with.
_Any_ no-confidence vote against Microsoft at this point in time is a huge hit against Microsoft. No time in its existence has Microsoft been up against as much opposition as they are now. Launching a new product makes Microsoft vulnerable, not exempt; the new product has to be accepted by companies before it can start generating any real revenue, and Microsoft OSes already have a slow acceptance rate (most companies won't start migrating until the last minute, or at least a year after the OS has been out and can see a steady stream of security patches fixing what should have been fixed in the past 5 years of development). Microsoft's format not being accepted as an Open standard would deal a huge blow against Microsoft Office Vista, and could very well slow its uptake in companies and states like Massachusetts, and in many European countries who have mandated their document formats to be standardized and Open/Free.
Meanwhile, IBM has money galore: no debt because, well, they're IBM, they don't need any (they're not doing anything to incur debt). They're manufacturing millions of new processors which is flooding their bank with income (just look at the numbers for the current console sales), and their work with AMD and Chartered with producing AMD's current and next generation chips is making them a ton of money. IBM hasn't shown much in growth (because they've done most if not all of the growing a company can do in their position), but they've shown very steady revenues and have plenty of money in the bank, so your argument about the company not being worth anything falls down too.
It's starting to look like Microsoft really is going to have to bend on their document format, and that is terrific news, especially on the inception of ODF as an ISO standard. - fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18IBM is much bigger than you realize. They still supply a lot of big-iron hardware, pushing their own OS or Linux to run it. They also still have a presence in almost every country on Earth.
They have something that MS doesn't have: maturity. MS is still a young company comparatively, and they have yet to actually learn from their mistakes. Think of them like a teenager that volunteers for everything in school. The only problem with this is that they aren't really good at any particular thing, just mediocre at best. They've suffered from bloat big time without the smarts to manage it properly.
IBM, on the other hand, learned from their mistakes. That's why they shifted out of the consumer market, and became business oriented. They trimmed off some of their bloat to make resources for a solid core. It was smart for them to do for the survival of their business. - msikma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16The only reason Microsoft want standards by their definition is so that they can control it. If Microsoft makes a format like OpenXML and it /does/ get globally accepted and used in document editors around the world, then that'll be a win for Microsoft since they ultimately get to decide what OpenXML really /is/.
"Open" just seems to be a buzzword here. OpenXML isn't open. It's a binary stream of rudimentary information concealed in an XML wrapper. It doesn't do anything but serve Microsoft's ongoing monopoly. - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@DigiRaven
You are mistaking word processors with file formats. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to use all the features of Word and then save it as an odf document, should Microsoft decide to allow its customers to do so. - mulling, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16"Too bad IBM doesnt have any clout anymore."
Yeah, it's not like they've received more patents than any other company for 13 consecutive years or anything.
They're the hero today, but aren't they lobbying for software patents in Europe? That's a big fat turd in the pool. - GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Good for IBM!
Sutor's blog includes interesting discussion: http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1264
So, is there news about what the rest of the votes where like? - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13What couldn't be accomplished working with ODF?
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Sure, but that doesn't make them like Microsoft.
IBM is one of the most pro-Linux companies out there. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9...you did NOT just say PNG was developed by Microsoft. PNG was developed by a loosely connected group of people on a bulletin board, and was designed to replace GIF, which was currently being patent-bullied by Unisys who owned the patent on LZW, the main compression algorithm used in GIF. The result of these people working together made a product that not only offered better compression, but did so in a way that supported many features that GIF was promised to support and didn't. It's one of the earliest Open Source innovations (took place around the time Linux was posted in a similar fashion to a user-group).
There has also been work to add motion to PNGs, such as MNG and APNG, but neither has really caught on to date (as animated images are starting to go the way of the dodo, being replaced by scriptable/programmable images such as SVG/Canvas and Flash).
As for PDF; Adobe develops PDF, but it's a standard. They also own a lot of the patents behind the technologies of PDF, but have not really used them to protect PDF (which is probably the reason it had a slow adoption rate from Software developers outside of Adobe; the Adobe reader was, and still is a centerpiece on desktops everywhere). Adoption has increased dramatically, however, Foxit maintains a great reader, and Apple uses PDF technologies in its Quartz engine, along with the FreeDesktop group with Poppler and Cairo, even OpenOffice.org has an excellent PDF exporter now.
One of the reasons Adobe doesn't want Microsoft to go through with OpenXML is because Office Vista can read PDFs (by Default) and export Microsoft's format (by Default), thus subverting a well-understood standard to embrace their own. This is the equivalent of me taking something you made, repackaging it, and selling it as my product; I'm sure you'd be a little pissed about that too.
Consider yourself corrected. - TanNg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I commented on the blog, he choose not to diplay my comment and respone by email with the following text.
TanNg |nxxxx@yahoo.com | IP: 58.187.29.181
IBM! You are talking about standard document format and calling for Sun to open source Java. Now it's your turn to do with your own product to prove IBM's commitment. Please open source your DB2, Websphere and Lotus notes. We want it free of charge. Will you? I'm sure you won't.
-----------------------------------
I have seen this comment several times before and it is always worded exactly the same. I wonder where it comes from, therefore.
After you look at everything we have done and understand that we have participated in more standards and open source efforts than anyone in the world, I hope you will see how silly your comment is. We don't have to prove our commitment to anyone with open source, that was done a long, long time ago. We continue to contribute in very meaningful ways, so we are proving our commitment every single day.
--
Bob Sutor
Website: http://www.sutor.com/newsite/
Blog: http://www.sutor.com/blog/ - fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Someone's been getting into the coolaid again, huh? There's nothing, and I do mean nothing, that MS OpenXML can do that ODF can't.
The problem that most developers have with OpenXML, besides it being patent encumbered, is that the official specs are confusing and there's just too much of it. In true MS form, they made it extremely difficult (if not impossible) for any competitor to make a fully OpenXML compliant reader/writer.
The problem I have, personally, is that MS took the easy route and went with the ECMA instead of the ISO. They knew it would be a shoe-in because the ECMA works that way; they allow multiple "standards" that do the exact same thing. Seems like a cheap-shot to me. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I really don't agree with how microsoft approaches standards. To them they see in standards ways to expand Microsoft's agenda. Even in the 90s they were doing things like sending in janitors to vote on standards, that loophole was fixed. I'm happy that IBM and others, although never perfect, tend to do the right thing when it comes to standards.
- Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Intersting that so many people care about Microsoft OpenXML to digg down the pro ODF comments. What's that smell?
- fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12I believe that smell would be "MS fanboi 06"
Otherwise known as *****. :) - loconet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"To a large extent, a standard is a declaration that conformity is now considered more important than innovation."
You keep throwing this flawed argument around. I've said it before and I'll say it again, open standards actually help innovation as well as fair competition!
The little guys, the future Googles, IBMs, MSs, the current and future innovators will be free to develop software without fear of the standard being controlled by a single entity whose sole purpose is to look out for their own interest.
Just because MS wants to release an XML format which is basically a dump of their already established data structure it does not make it open. What MS is basically doing here, as the blogger noted, is abusing the terminology. Sure, reading XML is easier than reverse engineering the binary formats but it does not mean it's open. Specially when a single vendor created it for the sole purpose of keeping their software echo system at the center of it all. When the OpenXML "standard" specs are 6,000+ pages, pages which will only be fully and cleanly implemented by MS products (who have over a decade of lead) and any quirkiness beyond the specs will only be known to MS (as history has taught us), it is already an unfair "standard", and definitely not open.
Just because the format is human readable, it does not make it open. ODF was created by a long effort of several industry organizations with the interest of truly making the format open so that vendor barriers may be destroyed in favor of a form of development without having to worry if it is going to work on X platform using X office package. Do you think MS really wants this? What is MS's bread and butter? Windows and Office!
Finally from a more cynical personal point of view, I ask you this, do you really think MS will truly let me read/write/publish/share/develop-for OpenXML documents freely on my Linux work station using OpenOffice or some other third party package that I or a different vendor created? Of course not, what would be the benefit for them! MS needs something that will always keep them in control and their sales up. Being open (and by open I mean vendor neutral and not pseudo-open marketing sugar coated open) is not in MS's best interest. They lose control, people can move away from Windows and MS Office. This really scares them and are once again clouding the industry and the thought process of people like you into thinking that their intentions are benefiting the customers and that ODF and open standards are nothing more than political tactics hindering innovation. Open standards DO NOT cripple innovation, on the contrary, they help innovation. Monopolistic tactics in the other hand cripple innovation and consumer choice.
Although I'm glad that you recognize the importance of standards in communications, wake up! OpenXML is not what MS is putting it out to be, it won't help anyone else other than themselves (unless you are on their payroll?). - Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5GnuTzu, according to the blog that you refer to, IBM was the only 'NO' vote.
Also, read this and weep, MS bashers:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/12/07/ecma-standard-376-office-open-xml-formats.aspx
Ecma Standard 376 – Office Open XML formats
It's finally official. Today the Ecma General Assembly voted almost unanimously to approve the Office Open XML formats as an official Ecma standard. They also voted to submit the standard to ISO for fast track certification. The official press release from Ecma International can be found here: http://www.ecma-international.org/news/PressReleases/PR_TC45_Dec2006.htm
Here's a quote from Jan van den Beld, the Secretary General of Ecma International:
"The broad spectrum of sponsors from the industry and public institutions ensure the creation of an open standard that can create a wide range of possibilities for document processing, archival and interoperability" said Jan van den Beld, Secretary General of Ecma International. "The Open XML standard recognizes the benefit of backward compatibility preservation of the billions of documents that have already been created while enabling new future applications of document technology."
So you can celebrate IBM's act of grandstanding, but the bottom line is that Open XML is now an ECMA standard, and will become an ISO standard as well.
BTW, Apple (digg's favorite company) was among the YES votes. - TanNg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@count_z @shakin.
Rejecting OpenXML means that IBM wont provide support for customer who use OpenXML or will not take effort to make OpenXML work best with their product. - fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@geminitojanus:
Damn you for saying it better than I did! lol! Thanks for expanding my reply. :) - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"What more can you really expect?"
Working with other companies to develop a working standard? Years have been put into SVG, ODF. Many companies have worked on it. Then MS comes along with Open XML which basically is like binary MS documents but with XML, coming in at 4,000 pages. That's not a standard. Standards are slow true, but MS could work with the community over the next few years to make sure everything including other formats like SVG are supported. Plenty of companies seem to work with other companies to come up with standards. - count_z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@TanNg
IBM won't have a choice in the matter. The customer is always right (at least as long as they have alternate options) and Microsoft has a lot more clout and relevance to most business than IBM (with that near-monopoly thing).
Unless Office 2007 flops (which it won't), IBM will have to support Open XML because if an organziation users Word 2007 and IBM says, "Nope, we don't support that, so if you want to use our stuff you have to ditch Office or use an older version" what do you suppose that most companies would do?
If Microsoft didn't have the dominant market position, it wouldn't be an issue. They'd use ODF and be done with it. But that isn't the case. - plgonzalez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What I am saying is that the industry needs to start using an open source standard across the board... not just make up a new file type whenever a company wants to hijack the world into buying new products.
- AWidgetIHaveNot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Good. Anything to stop MS controlling yet another area of computing has to be a good thing. There is nothing open about any MS product and never will be. They are agenda driven. What's their agenda for OpenXML? It's pretty easy to see. Control. As always.
- count_z, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@latova
Micorsoft doesn't NEED an open format. In fact, it's not in their best interest because they'd couldn't do as they please, even if it'd help make a better product (i.e. our customer really wants this feature and it's super cool... but not part of the ODF standard). Open Standards sacrifice flexibility for compatibility (
Rejecting OpenXML is just stupid because Microsoft will use it anyhow (and it's not like they have a near monopoly on Office applications for anything) and MAKE it the defacto standard (i.e. everyone will use it).
Open Standards are about universal compatibility, since Microsoft is in the driver's seat and will be a while, they don't need to play quite so nicely with everyone else. Just like how Apple doesn't give a hoot about opening up or licensing FairTunes because they rule the pmp market (though DVD Jon is trying to do something about that).
So if Open XML is Microsoft's standard for producing Office 2007 compatible documents, what do you get by rejecting it? Microsoft takes their ball and goes home? You can and, ultimately, will, have multiple standards... ODF for universal compatibility and Open XML has the defacto standard for Microsoft (unless no one buys Office 2007). - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm reading this guy's arguments against Open XML and they seem pretty ridiculous. It's basically along the lines of "It's not really Open that's just a marketing gimmick, I saw the spec man it's like, 4000000 pages long, there's tons of weird MS Word stuff in it, like anyone could ever implement it but M$"
- plgonzalez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I am glad that IBM voted against this... Microsoft shouldn't be able just to roll out these standards because they are the designers of the software. It is time for open standards across programs and operating systems.
- jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Very true, dont say Adobe does use their patents and power against anyone. They hurt consumers by trying to prohibit Microsoft from including their open format (and for those who dont know, Adobe releases the necessary information to make PDF files), because they dont care about the consumers, they just care about their bottom line.
- moisie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Just because Open Office doesn't have all the whizz bang features of Office isn't because of the format it uses, it's because it's not as developed. Of course, you could argue that you don't need all the features that Office has but that's different.
- DoodlesMcPooh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I fail to see what difference it makes if The European Carton Makers approve it as a standard. Who will listen to them?
http://www.ecma.org/ - moisie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4How open or good their proposal is will be subject to much debate but ultimately Microsoft is all about doing stuff on their terms. If they can't have their standard what do you think the chances are that they'll adopt ODF?
- Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Since IBM was the only NO vote, it shows that IBM doesn't wield much clout at all. Sorry, IBM fanboys.
- loconet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Conforming to a standard is not innovation. Cloning or duplicating existing features is not innovation. ......"
There doesn't seem to be much that can be said to make you realize how important standards are. They are not just "cloning/duplicating existing features". It goes beyond that but I'm not sure you are capable of comprehending that.
How important/useful are standards? Do you know what the Gregorian calendar is? Why it became a law and why you and I and most of the world uses it? - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"In other news every thing IBM creates is proprietary."
Yes, IBM likes to play both sides against the middle. Just like a politician, they cuddle up with Open Source as they file patent applications. - TheRealDeal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"ODF is about the future, Open XML is about the past. We voted for the future."
Love it! Score one for Big Blue! - GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Escamillo,
Thanks for the count.
Now we get to speculate on the motivations behind the 'yes' votes. - Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"The problem I have, personally, is that MS took the easy route and went with the ECMA instead of the ISO. They knew it would be a shoe-in because the ECMA works that way; they allow multiple "standards" that do the exact same thing. Seems like a cheap-shot to me."
======================
Oh, please.
The ECMA process was much more rigorous than the ISO process that approved ODF. ISO spent about two weeks "deliberating" before rubberstamping what OASIS gave them, which was a half-baked spec (doesn't even specify how to store spreadsheet formulas). Because of that rush job (and the rush was just to make ODF a "standard" before Open XML), there are three efforts to clean up ODF to make it ready for prime time. Open XML, despite IBM's BS, was approved by the ECMA (IBM was the only NO vote), and it's a complete spec. No revisions and updates are necessary. That's because the ECMA process took almost a year, and objections, suggestions, proposals were all raised, debated, and approved or disapproved accordingly.
ECMA also voted to submit the spec to ISO on the "fast track". If ISO gives the same treatment they gave ODF (i.e. the rubberstamp treatment), Open XML will be both an ECMA and ISO standard (which ODF can't say).
BTW, MS was on the ODF ISO committee ( http://news.com.com/Microsoft+joins+OpenDocument+group/2100-1013_3-6054215.html ) and did nothing to block its adoption as an ISO standard. Too bad IBM chose to be petty regarding Open XML. - rajulkabir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@DexicanDave:
Nothing you said makes any sense at all. PNG came from unix programmer Thomas Boutell (not sure about the spelling, it's been a while), Microsoft had nothing to do with it. And it's not a competitor for PDF; they store completely different types of image data. - Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm pretty sure that the designers of software get to choose what standards get rolled out with the release of their application.
A lot of these comments are so anti-progress. The existence of docx does not destroy ODF. If you want to use ODF use OO or whatever you want that supports it. If you want to use docx you better get Office 2007. If you really want compatibility you better get in on txt. - gildude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@giminatojanus: Well, you got the PNG part right. However there is no such thing as "Office Vista", and even if there were it can't read PDF by default. Neither Office 2007 or Windows Vista can read PDF at all. MS TRIED to allow Office 2007 to WRITE to PDF, but Adobe whined about how their PDF standard isn't really something that MS could use if they gave away the writer for free. So MS made the WRITER a download and it isn't in the actual install. The actual writer for the MS format is a download too, leaving the two formats on equal ground there. You really want to get this one right, as it was the one time I saw most people were on MS side on this one with Adobe.
- yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9In other news every thing IBM creates is proprietary.
- TanNg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@count_z. In real world business IBM will do less support than needed, because they have MS to blame or they can charge customer with more support with this excuse. I think that this blog article is very calculated move by IBM, not simple a fight for freedom as they said. IBM have many product that they can open if they truly believe in open source and open standard, but I'm sure they won't. Try to convince them open source Lotus Domino and you will know how sincerely they are.
---------------------- from yahoo news
Alan Yates, general manager of Information Worker Business Strategy at Microsoft, told eWEEK that the vote on the standard was 20 in favor and one, IBM, against.
That, he said is an indication of how IBM is isolated from the other members in this regard and "is an indication of where they stand."
"It is just unfortunate that IBM has taken this position. Clearly OpenXML and ODF serve different requirements," he said. "ODF takes more of a Greenfields approach, while OpenXML takes more of a practical approach toward documenting compatibility and interoperability." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@TanNg,
You seem to be confused about which "free" definition we're talking about. We're talking about the speech definition of free, not the "free beer" definition.
People are calling on MS to open up their document formats to increase interoperability between competitive products (i.e. if I choose to switch to Open Office tomorrow, I should have to lose all my data I stored in MS Office) and also make the format suitable for archiving purposes, not to give away the Office suite for free.
To address your point with DB2 and Java, the difference is that Java is a means of expression, whereas DB2 is a means of manipulation. Whilst everyone would like to see DB2 opened (again -- data I store here shouldn't be locked away forever), the argument you assail the author with isn't quite in the right direction. - churchers, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10As much as I like standards, the problem I see here is that for microsoft to support odf as the default format, they would need to cap their functionality to match that of the format. This would put the functionality of their product at the same level as open office (seeing as each product can only implement features supported by the format). Why pay for office when you get the same functionality out of open office? Also, for microsoft to add new features not supported by the odf spec, they would need to ask the community for for the spec to be adjusted, when isn't like microsoft. Of course this also means any new features would then be implemented by open office before microsoft have a chance, detroying their ability to release an innovative product.
I like the idea of an open format, but asking microsoft to use odf by default is like asking adobe to use png as their format instead of psd. It detroys their ability to innovate ahead of the competition.
Microsoft have already started work on the ability to save as odf and convert between odf & dox. (http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter).
What more can you really expect? - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yeah it's really odd that IBM wouldn't back a COMPETITOR'S file format.
- gildude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No, they did NOT add or try to add a READER. It was always a writer only (so would have obviated most companies needs for Adobe Acrobat Elements - which is the corporate only low end PDF creation package). It did NOT compete with Acrobat Reader at all. Fortunately some of us actually alpha and beta tested this stuff and can remember what was what.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0(canceled)
- Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1LOL
I just read at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2070078,00.asp, that the vote was 20 to 1 against IBM. LOL Yep, that's some great clout that IBM has. LOL
"_Any_ no-confidence vote against Microsoft at this point in time is a huge hit against Microsoft."
Sorry, gemintojanus, but the 20 to 1 vote isn't a "huge hit against Microsoft", it's rather an embarrassment for IBM, showing how isolated and petty they really are. It also showed that nobody gave a damn what IBM had to say about it. The rest of your post is extremely amusing in light of the Microsoft = 20, IBM = 1 vote. LOL - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Microsoft shouldn't be able just to roll out these standards because they are the designers of the software."
Is that a criteria established by the standards body or did you just make that up? - stm24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@geminitojanus; you was good until the last paragraph. It's not Office Vista - Office 2007 and yes Microsoft did add a PDF reader in Office 2007 but Adobe wanted MS to pay for it. I don't have the link to the article but it's on digg and other sites. MS included the reader cause all users wanted on there instead of downloading it themselves. But like I said Adobe told MS they had to pay for it or they'll sue them for using it. MS was like ***** it, I'll take it out and put my own ***** that I was working on since you don't want me to use yours! Do some checking on the web, you'll find the story.
- Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Docx will be the new defacto standard because of the proliferation of Office. But I do agree that Office should support ODF (more options are better).
In all seriousness Office has a monopoly for a good reason, it is by far the best Office Suite available. Many large firms will upgrade to Office 2007 faster than you think because they absolutely demand compatibility with other firms (especially professional service firms desire this to conform to their clients).
The only weak points are Excel and Power Point which need serious upgrades. -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is