OOXML backwards compatibility led Microsoft to ODF

how the heck do they expect other applications to support it?

If they can't even support it themselves how the heck do they expect other applications to support it?

Of course they don't -- that's the point. It was designed to be something that nobody but Microsoft could support.

They just succeeded a bit beyond expectations, that's all.

Government markets were demanding an open document
format to protect access to information into the future
without being tied to a single supplier. MS had to respond
so they opened OOXML and submitted it for certification.

Like everything else MS does the submission was defective
and had to be fix. These fixes made it difficult for MS to
include in their hack together Office product.

The answer: return to a community developed standard.

All it does is show what a joke MS is!

Microsoft substantially supports OOXML, with the "changes required for ratification", you think that's going to happen overnight?


Who do you think is the joke, sir? The leadership? the engineers and developers? when you say MS is a joke, isn't that insulting the entire company? From where i stand, you are the joke to make a blanket statement like that.


For instance. Micrsoft has the most popular client in the world and it works very well, thank you Richard,


Their server market is growing, and this is impressive since it started out as mixture of government supported Unix servers and commercial Unix servers over time and the natural play for old Unix shops was obviously Linux since it's built on the Unix model down to the rivets.


Yet Microsoft forged a great market share and their NT servers are considered among the best in the world now. You honestly think XP, server 2003, server 2008, SQL Server 2005, Sharepoint, Office 2003/2007 are Jokes?


Why do we have to go there every time Richard. What are your credentials? What is the most complex system you've got under your belt? What is the name of the OS you wrote again?

Microsoft is clearly the world leader, and if you are going to say by "force" then don't bother to reply. That is the biggest B.S. that has ever floated here.


SUN was 100% federally funded, every bit of it, the OS the processors, the business, the monopoly exemption the Works richard. Now people claim SUN was damaged by Microsoft. Uh, yeah, no company can be held accountable in a Microsoft world can they? they can't make mistakes can they? Linux isn't full of holes, like Ubuntu proved to be a few releases ago when unpatched servers were owned like nothing even Microsoft has had to deal with.

But this site doesn't report Linux problems. Or very very rarely. It's here to entertain people like you who just can't get enough of being a very very small person.


Anyway, as the article said and you and the person quoted in the blog completely lost sight of, OOXML is supported by and large now.

they need time to implement the required Changes. They are proving to be very difficult. YOu don't understand that?


You rejoice in the governments of the world awarding the choice of vendor rather then the people, i realize that. I'll respect your socialism, but why not try to show an ounce of respect for capitalism. Or are you going to tell me there's never been any corruptio in the English government? Never made any huge bluders? Never any misconduct? never and laughable charades with taxpayer monies?


Yeah, the English are good wth fairy tales.

"Who do you think is the joke, sir? The leadership?"

Yes

" the engineers and developers?"

Yes

"when you say MS is a joke, isn't that insulting the entire
company?"

Yes. A company that claims billions of dollars in R&D can't produce a document which can survive standardisation
(community did), can't provide interoperability
documentation for EC several years after being charged,
several years to bring out an OS update with most of it's
much talked about features dropped (rest copies of other
OSes).

"Their server market is growing, and this is impressive
since it started out as mixture of government supported
Unix servers and commercial Unix servers over time and
the natural play for old Unix shops was obviously Linux
since it's built on the Unix model down to the rivets."

Unix servers are moving to Linux. Windows servers are
growing the market for servers.

"What is the name of the OS you wrote again?"

MS can't be a joke because it wrote an OS? I'm not sure
that is a very persuasive case;-)

"SUN was 100% federally funded, every bit of it, the OS the
processors, the business, the monopoly exemption the
Works richard."

100%?

"Now people claim SUN was damaged by Microsoft."

MS settled such a claim and paid Sun billions.

"Anyway, as the article said and you and the person quoted
in the blog completely lost sight of, OOXML is supported
by and large now."

Apart from supporting the standard. I believe this was the
point.

"I'll respect your socialism, but why not try to show an
ounce of respect for capitalism."

An attack on MS is now an attack on capitalism;-) Queue
national anthem in background;-)

"Or are you going to tell me there's never been any
corruptio in the English government?"

I think you might be referring to the British Government. There has not been a Government of England since 1707. Whilst I'm sure they have issues I'm not that familiar, I'm
not English.

Yes. A company that claims billions of dollars in R&D can't produce a document which can survive standardisation
(community did), can't provide interoperability
documentation for EC several years after being charged,
several years to bring out an OS update with most of it's
much talked about features dropped (rest copies of other
OSes).



You obviously don't know the history of documents. Or what happens over decades of having the most popular OS, Office product and most every other application, in the entire world. If you don't undersand the complexities involved, and the basics of capitalism that allow for competitive advantage. (you call it "lock-in" or some other negatively slanted phrase) and only are going to see it from one perspective,then it's hopeless.


Let's let the people speak, not the governments of the world. the people overwhelming choose Microsoft, even when options abound.


btw, Microsoft has displace many Unix/linux shops and replaced them with Windows. Some of it has been growing the server market, that is true, which only shows what the new money, the new blood wants in a server operating system. They had their fill of the old, time to replace it with something easy to install, operate and administration is a snap.

My main site was Unix in the 90s. But that failed experiment only rushed the move to Windows and productivity and, unfortunately, the need of a number of positions, rose and fell respectively.


Speaking of "copying from others", which is a joke since Microsoft was ahead of Apple in all major categories, dominates their space with Office programs, provided their development environment for years via licensing and Apple got on intel and quickly provided the means to run Windows on the way over priced Mac, which it turns out, along with paralells, to be the main use of a Mac nowadays. It's an expensive new PC OEM for Microsoft basically, only they get a retail sale in that case. Bonus for Microsoft.


Anyway, besides modeling Unix/Minix, Linux has done nothing but try to reproduce the windows experience with the linux engine. I've seem not *one* example of innovation come out of the linux camp since day one, but more of an inheritence of govenment bought technology and a strong push to try and match windows, feature for feature.


Mono, Samba, the distro with teh Vista look and feel (poorly done look and feel i might add) and many hundreds of projects aimed at obtaning MS functionality.


hmmm....seems odd Samba and the Mono group and many others, of the millions involved in developing Linux. Perhaps the marketshare of Linux is not taking off from the very reason you think MS stinks. The public smells something rotten with so man people being so down on the competition, in a religious zealot kind of way. That scares people away I'm afraid. That's what I'm seeing. And there are those that don't want their data store in an open format for security reasons.

For one thing decades would mean more than one and, perhaps a half, given that Windows didn't arrive till the early 90s.

For another things monopoly does not equal capitalism. If anything it's analog is mercantilism which is what Microsoft seems to practise a lot of.

By all means let the people speak without Microsoft pawning off copies of Windows on OEMs at at tiny fraction of the price that they expect the rest of us to pay. That isn't government that Microsoft distorting the market. I know you think that's some kinds of competitive market advantage but the rest of us would think of that as lock-in at the expense of choice for us.

And please tell me where the US or any other government has funded open source be it Linux or the BSDs. Time, place and government if you don't mind. Otherwise that is just more of your well known astroturfing hot air.

Samba, a command line program is duplicating any kind of look and feel? Since when?

Actually the less said about Mono the better. Gimmme PHP any day of the week over C# and the other .NET rotten idiot bastard son of Java.

I'd really, really like to know what Linux distro would want to duplicate the interface on Vista. Not SuSE, not Fedora, not Ubuntu, not Mandriva, not PCLinuxOS...I could go on.

And yes, I will tell you that Linux server systems are better and faster not to mention more secure than any Microsoft back office solution. Flat out. There. You won't believe me cause you're drowning in the Microsoft kool-aid.

About innovation just what is innovative about Vista anyway? Hackneyed 3D interface swiped directly from Apple? UAC? Crashitis? Please, tell me where it all is, I'm really curious to find some and I do use it far more that I wish I had to.

The public smells something rotten with so man people being so down on the competition, in a religious zealot kind of way.

Not that you're in any way a religious zealot yourself, of course. You may talk like one, walk like one, quack like one but oh no! not you!

Ignorant to be sure. But in no way a zealot.

Now, I need to go slap myself for troll feeding.

ttfn

John

I think not. If you disagree, then so be it, but the term "troll" is more fitting to someone who goes around calling others "ignorant" and "hot air astroturfing".


I mean, for what I'm getting paid, there should be a more noble name attached to it.

don't you see how silly saying I'm "astroturfing" is? I have no agenda, no stock in MSFT, no interest in you changing your mind on *anything, period*. I am interested in getting this place to be less of a microsoft spanking machine into something that is usable by professionals seeking peer advice and insights.

But with the majority still being so hung up on hating Microsoft, that is not going to happen any time soon.




For one thing decades would mean more than one and, perhaps a half, given that Windows didn't arrive till the early 90s.


Microsoft had products before the 90s.




For another things monopoly does not equal capitalism. If anything it's analog is mercantilism which is what Microsoft seems to practise a lot of.


I never meant to say that? I don't believe I did. I don't think Microsoft was/is a monopoly. Not even close. It requires total control of a market. AT&T was the most recent example of a very large monopoly that had 100% market and customes physically locked to them.




By all means let the people speak without Microsoft pawning off copies of Windows on OEMs at at tiny fraction of the price that they expect the rest of us to pay. That isn't government that Microsoft distorting the market. I know you think that's some kinds of competitive market advantage but the rest of us would think of that as lock-in at the expense of choice for us.


Ah, this is where you are confused. Microsoft had/has the right to make exclusive deals, like *any* other company with anyone. Since when is a company not allowed to make an exclusive deal?
If VCs and money in general were interested in Linux, if it thought their was a large potential there, and the market is very good at doing what it does, their would be other OEMs now for Linux. Distribution channles the works. The market makes things like that happen for something they see as creating a return. Due to the "free" nature of Open source, VCs shy away from it cause there is not a good monetary investment. Listen, if the distros can give the darn OS away, don't you think that telss the market something? You and every other ABMer act like Dell, HP, Toshiba et al, existed forever and Microsoft somehow roped them into an exclusive deal to "lock-in" the world to Windows.

No such thing, They were built on top of windows popularity. they owe their existence to Microsoft. Linux can do the same thing, they just need to go retail and advertise. I bet if they advertised Ubuntu, for example and made the general public aquainted with Linux, it would be no time at all. I don't understand the "principals" of free software. They sed to stand for *no corporate involvement*. All corps. were evil and the original communities were not funded by the IBMs of the world. Well between the communities moving away from that and saying, yeah we'll take every dime the IBMs and Googles will give us, and the fact that IBM and Google and others saw open source as way to get at Microsoft, the money came. But you still don't see the huge money needed to make it fly. Don't be fooled either. If Linux breaks open and starts to take hold, those companies tha "seemed" to care will suddenly be going after their share of the linux pie, which means it will eventually go proprietary as the war of distros taks off, the copyright wars will follow and Linux will be doomed.




And please tell me where the US or any other government has funded open source be it Linux or the BSDs. Time, place and government if you don't mind. Otherwise that is just more of your well known astroturfing hot air.


I don't know what you took that from, but SUN was part of what came out of the DARPA projects, that turned Unix of that time into the secure OS it is. Billions of taxpayer dollars went into PARC, Berkeley, Stanford (where McNeally attended) and other private research facilities such as the one that brought us TCP/IP. Vint Cerf was on the government payroll, he and his team. Berkeley did not want to integrate tcp/ip into Unix as part of the OS, but money talks, bS walks and they did it or lose their funding. In the end McNeally's project, Stanford University Network, was asked to privitize the research they had done. He worked, i'm not saying he didn't put in time, but most of it ws funded and spread out over many facilities and universities. He was given the risc processor technology and all Unix technology etc. and given exemption from anti trust laws and the gave him a ready made business. My guess is, it was setup with government/taxpayer money. It was a time the U.S. was pushing hard to get their technology up to date and get ahead of Japan and other nations.

If McNeally had been a natural leader, they could be the bigget name in IT today. As it turned out, he would have his comedy hour once a year to bash MS who bested him even coming from a tiny operation in the beginning.



Samba, a command line program is duplicating any kind of look and feel? Since when?



You misunderstood. I listed 3 examples. Mono, Samba and a distro ( i can't recall their name) that tried to make their UI look like Vista. See how quick you are to jump to conclusions about anything related to Microsoft. That's way too much emotion for an OS buddy. You need to chill out. We all know what Samba reverse engineered. I find that unethical.




Actually the less said about Mono the better. Gimmme PHP any day of the week over C# and the other .NET rotten idiot bastard son of Java.



Another of your lovely arrogant and misguided statements.


I think PHP is great. I also think .NET is great. See, i can have more than one opinion at a time. That must be very foreign to you.




I'd really, really like to know what Linux distro would want to duplicate the interface on Vista. Not SuSE, not Fedora, not Ubuntu, not Mandriva, not PCLinuxOS...I could go on.



It's called Vixta. The name speaks for itself, probably not the sharpest knives in the drawer.



And yes, I will tell you that Linux server systems are better and faster not to mention more secure than any Microsoft back office solution. Flat out. There. You won't believe me cause you're drowning in the Microsoft kool-aid.



They may have some advantages, but professionally speaking, Windows wins on more of the metrics SMBs and large companies, care about the most. And really, since server 2003, the objective professional crowd is saying there is little difference in how solid the OSes are in comparison now. Server 2003 and now 2008 offer 99.99% uptime.
Active directory domains with the power of group policy make for a very powerful set of adminstration tools. Unbelievable how fast you can set up your directory structure with some planning of how you want to partition it, so to speak, and you are off to the races.
ldap is a standard and there is much automation you can use to further enhance active directory. ADAM directories can be added for directory-enabled applications and provide a ton of infrastructure and functionality with no work.



About innovation just what is innovative about Vista anyway? Hackneyed 3D interface swiped directly from Apple? UAC? Crashitis? Please, tell me where it all is, I'm really curious to find some and I do use it far more that I wish I had to.


Why does Vista behave SO badly for those that use it the least. I'd guess most of the abm crowd on this site have never actually touched it.


The inteface is great. I love it. If some techniques are from Apple, I don't know but it's well beyond Tiger's interface so MS did a lot of coding on it. In fact, if you go back to WWDC 2007 and look at the screen shots of Leopard, it looks remarkably like Vista in those shots. And if you've not seen Leopard, my Unlce has it on a new MBP, which died from heat exhaustion and had to be replaced, but i don't see where the Mac has anything on Vista whatsoever, especially for that exhorbanatn price. The Apple crowd will tell you can get them cheaper now blah blah, but if you want something equal to the machine I'm using right now, you are looking at a 17" MBP starting...that's right STARTING at 2800.00. To get even close to my specs, which you can't, you are way over 3000.00. Can you believe that a 2800.00 machine comes with only 2GB of RAM and to top it off, they put in 2, 1GB modules. That is low....very low for that kind of money. But I'll never see you or any other linux user upset over how Apple rips people off blind. yeah, that 2800.00 machine, last time i priced it, only came with one 5400 RPM Drive. Mine came with dual 7200 rpm drives and 4GB of 800Mhz high end RAM. It flies man. Vista ultimate x64 is so fast on this machine I just love it. 2.5Ghz penryn core 2 duo, half a GB of discrete video RAM. High end GPU. It does everything well, for 1400.00 bucks. Coupon included.

I'm not sure why you have problems or what you don't lke, but i think the UI is SO much better than XP or Ubuntu or Leopard for that matter. It has a lot of new features and teh development environment for it is the best. WPF, WCF apps are great and powerful Rich internet applications are within even a non master programmer's reach. visual studio 2008 is packed full of everything a developer wants.

I don't know what to tell you, what is so great about Ubuntu or Leopard?? All desktop OSes are essentially all cut from the same cloth nowadays, they are very close to each other in overall performance, quality, stablility. None are perfect in any category, but to ask Why? about Vista is the same for any OS. It's the latest, much more secure, which is worth it right there for many, has a uch larger and richer development environment and requires you write much safer and better code than in the past. I foiund it exceptionally stable w/o SP1 and now it's still very stable. I've not had a crash of any kind yet. I installed SQL server 2005 x64 on it, which was adventurous but it runs great. I had a small issue getting reporing services configured and turns out it was in the web handler mappings for the reportserver virtual directories, the path of the custom handler had an extra "/" in it. That was the extent of *all* problems i've had with Vista. It's been great.

The memory usage everyone bit8hes about is simply how Vista does it. You can set it so memory is not used in this manner. It creates space in Ram for your most used programs and loads them so they are very fast. I have 4GB and after a very fast bootup, maybe 20 seconds, I have 1.25 GB of RAM used. Now i might feel that is bad, until I open all of my Office 2007 applications, like 10 of them a few visual studio sessions, one 2005, one 2008 and a number of IE sessions (they all open, even the very last one, lightening fast) and then i check RAM usage and it's only gone up a fraction. So you can see how it deals with memory. I love it cause I use the same set of large programs in my daily use.





Not that you're in any way a religious zealot yourself, of course. You may talk like one, walk like one, quack like one but oh no! not you!


No, you are correct, I am not.


Ignorant to be sure. But in no way a zealot.


That is an unfortunate thing to say. I won't return the favor, but i'll tell you I graduated from a very fine United States University with high honors in Computer Science. My wife, who is psychology major tells me I'm very well adjusted and mentally sound. Our Son is exceling in preschool and the teachers tell us he is a normal and very bright little boy.

So, for what it's worth, I respectively disagree with your opinion of me. But alas, you
will believe what you want to, no matter the facts.




Now, I need to go slap myself for troll feeding.


Ah, now you needn't annouce how you relieve yourself of any stress on here.

I'm sure you "slap" yourself very frequently anyway. Afterall, you must get lonely down in Mum's basement all day.

"If you don't undersand the complexities involved, and the
basics of capitalism that allow for competitive advantage.
(you call it "lock-in" or some other negatively slanted
phrase) and only are going to see it from one
perspective,then it's hopeless. "

You do understand this is about OOXML, a standard
submitted to a standards body. Yes it is complex, and very
difficult for people not knowing what they're doing (e.g.
MS).

"But that failed experiment only rushed the move to
Windows and productivity and, unfortunately, the need of a
number of positions, rose and fell respectively. "

You're claiming fewer people are required to support
windows than *nix server? I'd agree that *nix professionals
are more expensive than MSCE hacks but fewer, now your
making me laugh.

"Anyway, besides modeling Unix/Minix, Linux has done
nothing but try to reproduce the windows experience with
the linux engine."

How does one "models" Unix/Minix? Isn't the "windows
experience" you talk of the copied Apple experience with inconveniences?

"Mono, Samba, the distro with teh Vista look and feel
(poorly done look and feel i might add) and many
hundreds of projects aimed at obtaning MS functionality. "

Confusing functionality with interoperability.

"Perhaps the marketshare of Linux is not taking off from
the very reason you think MS stinks."

Market share is taking off. Linux doing well in Server and exceptionally well in embedded. Only the desktop OS lags
but even there interest is growing (thanks to computing
devices).

I'd suggest you leave it there too, your post is
degenerating into a mindless rant. Not bad going really,
you were wrong about every point you made (e.g. government of England, 100% funding, no OOXML support
in current MS products, etc). From this position MS would
not be fools, but heros:-)

She so aptly named you.

Mothers are instinctive that way.


You are the kind of ma...person that would take a phrase fully literally, google it and I can see that smirk across your face as you read, what you wrote, as a top 2 hit.

You are wrong as well, since it was the government of England and Wales actually, so when using your on the fly wikipedia brain, make sure you also read far enough to at least make it seem you like you what you are talking about.


I said the government of England, in the same way someone might say "the government of the United States". That is refering to a governing body and not it's proper name. I'm not that ignorant, but you are that much of a fool. And your trolling activities have really picked up lately.


If you can show me a block of code that Microsoft stole from Apple, I'll be glad to reconsider your otherwise ignorant statement.


I said 100%, you have not attempted to prove otherwise since you can't. Sun surely invested money after it was started by the feds, sure, but it's entire portfolio of software, OS, chip technology, the list goes on, came free to Scott McNeally, although he may have paid some taxes that year but I highly doubt he had to work outside of the projects for money to live. His startup costs were 0.


You know, i've seen your other posts and you've slunk into a "nomorems" type role. I haven't seen him in a long while now, are you filling in, ricky? Or do they call you rich? How about Dick?


I thought so.

Accept all points re England government.

"If you can show me a block of code that Microsoft stole
from Apple, I'll be glad to reconsider your otherwise
ignorant statement. "

I didn't claim Microsoft stole code from Apple. Re the
"experience", windows is built on ideas licensed from
Apple. Later versions of windows are rightfully mocked for
playing catchup with Mac OS X.

"I said 100%, you have not attempted to prove otherwise
since you can't."

I hadn't previously because it's preposterous. You're simply
extending DARPA support for Bechtolsheim's university
research project into a motherboard design to everything
the company's made.

Clever name substitution though, I haven't heard that since
primary school.

How you going with your OOXML defence;-)

Of the United States Of America?

Not a word in it about "capitalism".

I didn't find it in the "Bill Of Rights" or the "Constitution Of The United States", either. Have you ever read either or both of them in their entirety?

Did you know that Microsoft violates the Fourth Amendment, sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth? Probably others, too, if one were to get technical about it. But the fourth one in particular, the origin of their offenses, which says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Ever heard of Spyware, Rootkits, and Trojans? What do you think it is that Microsoft sneaks onto your computer?

My computer constitutes a part of my "personal effects", and Microsoft has no right to monitor or control it, neither in my house or office. A lame "you must click I AGREE to continue" does NOT supersede the Constitution. Except in your La La Land, I should say. You might as well wipe your behind on it for all the care you exhibit concerning the matter. While you stomp around and rant with your holier than thou attitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Text_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:sd011.105

James Madison proposing Bill of Rights to the House, June 8, 1789, said: ?It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community any apprehensions, that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled.?

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin
was asked, ``What have you wrought?'' He answered,
...a Republic, if you can keep it.''

Nary a word about Capitalism, nor Corporations.

I was feeling Richard was besting me, well not really, his idea the devs and engineers at MS, many who now work for Google or SUN or Apple, and vice versa, was very ignorant, but anyway you allayed all thoughts of that in an instant by stomping in with your drivel.


Ever heard of Spyware, Rootkits, and Trojans? What do you think it is that Microsoft sneaks onto your computer?



I'm glad to hear this from you. So when someone breaks into your house, are you going to blame the homebuilder? Maybe Anderson Windows? You think that'll work? Afterall, that is illegal entry into your home. HA HA HA HA.




thanks for being you Ole Man. what would we do without ya. And thanks for blaming everyone but the REAL crooks. The malware authors, such


Also, thanks for admitting you've got nuked by malware. I knew you were not capable of running a system on your own. HA HA HA!!!

When you have nothing logical to say, blah blah blah, as usual, ad finitum.

Have fun in your never-never land.....

Thought you'd be on to something else, as you've been shown the door on the subject numerous times.

Is everything backwards with you? I mean, logic, reason, YOUR NAME?

Perhaps, and this is just a thought, you might have something to learn, instead of the other way around (you know - backwards).

You and Axey both seem to suffer from ODD. Get some help, would ya?

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_oppositional_defiant_disorder

-Mike