and i agree with what you said David. I wouldn't expect n-Ax to respond to it though, it was well worded and brought up valid points. As from what i've seen from our beloved axe, he boasts about his implementations and thinks his company is a model for everyone, he never looks at the broad spectrum, only what he has found tried and true, and don't get me wrong, thats fine, if it works, use it, but he has this facade that everyone should share his opinion or he taunts them into making remarks unbecoming of etiquette on the talkbacks. When offered a valid opinion or shown proof he likes to boast his "LAMP is the most hacked in the world" but has yet to offer any link to support his opinion(yes i saw one article with 4 people asking for his findings of research towards said comment, he seemed to not answer for some reason). From what i read from his comments, he is very MS-centric, and when something comes along without all the bells and whistles, yet is more secure and prone to a standards base, he seems very against it(other than firefox). I don't know, I think it has to do with fear, that someone will come along, and offer a way around his IP(he's said he's got IP to his firm that MS buys, but who knows if he's telling the truth, he also said he had a private jet), and i can understand that, but I have to say, too bad so sad, someone innovated over ya, and they are offering it away for free, guess you should have been looking to innovate yourself to make said product more worth wild. I resepect his opinion, but he bases alot of his beliefs on them as facts, and offers very little to back up his opinion as facts. Maybe we'll see a change of heart one day and one day he'll find he's not always right(i know, pigs will learn to fly and lay eggs before that may ever happen). He may stop trying to change or read too deeply into what people say to base his opinion one day as well, one never knows.
Basically, don't take what he says to heart, normally from what i and others have seen(and commented on), his opinion is the only thing that matters, and no one will ever sway that.
In response to my recent blog on how Microsoft Office program manager Brian Jones drew fire for comments in his blog, a ZDNet reader offered his (or maybe her) interpretation of what I said with a comment entitled David, you really, REALLY, are missing the boat here. In that comment, the reader says:
No David, what you are really saying is that Microsoft should throw away years of research, investment and development, become another "me too" generic provider and not raise the bar in features or functions.
I never said Microsoft should "throw away years of research." If the reader is suggesting that by supporting OpenDoc, end-users would actually end up using it and essentially throwing away all that Microsoft has created over the years, that’s a different question. Then it’s not me suggesting it. That’s users doing what they think is best for themselves (and I’m not necessarily predicting that this is what will or will not happen). But never once, in my story or anywhere, did I suggest that Microsoft disable support for its own formats or throw away its research. For those who want to take advantage of it, Microsoft should absolutely leave that proprietary functionality in its products when that functionality cannot be supported by the open standards.
Also, I don’t think I’m missing any boats. I don’t think the people who govern Massachusetts are missing the boat either. On other technological fronts, many of such "organizations" have already sacrificed some functionality so that they may experience the benefits of open standards and now realize that that they’ve managed quite nicely while enjoying the leverage they now have over their technology providers. If their existing open standards-based solutions become too expensive, too vulnerable, too unstable, or whatever, they have the freedom to switch and all their suppliers can do is acquiesce. Or, those suppliers can lower their prices to stay in the game, redouble their efforts on security and bugs and cajole their customers into sticking with them, but they are not in control of the relationship, those organizations’ IT, or their budgets. The customers are. Massachusetts is. Or will be.
But hey, if you want the cost, security, stability and whatever else of your IT to be out of your hands and in the hands of your suppliers, well, you’re welcome to stay on that boat. I like knowing I have the option of that proprietary functionality. But I’ll also take the life raft in the form of solid support of open standards, thank you very much.
I often wonder if vendors are that insecure about their implementations of open standards that they must lock us into questionable — often failed — implementations of proprietary functionality. This isn’t an issue that’s specific to one vendor. Everywhere you look — take blade servers for example — this insecurity appears to exist. Personally, I think that in almost every open standard there exists plenty of opportunity to offer a killer implementation. There’s plenty of room to compete and plenty of customers to go around (and having the freedom to go around is not missing the boat).
Oh, and by the way, to Brian Jones, we’re still waiting for your answers here on ZDNet. We’d love to have you come join the discussion.
. 
