IBM Threatening to Leave Standards Bodies

[HaZ]

It appears that IBM is feeling a little ‘left-out’ when it comes to organizations that set the standards for software interoperability with concerns that their processes are not always fair.

IBM Threatening to Leave Standards Bodies : Read more

 

[Guest]

'It seems as though IBM is just a little angry that they didn’t get to it first'

OK, you are crazy. ODF did get there first. This observation of yours appears to be factually inaccurate as well as irrelevant to the subject.

 

[jsloan]

Microsoft is not rushing standards. What do they want for Microsoft to delay their release for a decade while some standards committe debate what the third element should be named, ie LAST_DATE or LastDate or lastDate or ldate! It's just that for some years nows IBM has failed to provide leadership. Microsoft moves at business speed. IBM and many standards organizations move at glacier speed. Also, IBM is a cry baby, they once dominiated the computer industry. They lost to Microsoft and now they are IBM who, who out nuys anything from IBM anymore. When you buy an IBM PC you by a Lenovo. The computer industry has come to Microsoft vs N.O.I.S.E (Novell, Oracle, IBM, Sun and Everyone else)
or better (No bodies, Oracle, IBM, Sun and Everyone else)

 

[Guest]

I am not an expert on this matter, but I recall reading about the OOXML standards process on Groklaw.com.

Seems that when it came time for the vote to approve (and it appeared that OOXML would not pass), a bunch of countries that have never voted before on anything suddenly registered to be voting members. They did this without setting up technical committees to actually evaluate whether it was a good standard, they simply wanted to vote for it. And by some strange coincidence, these new voting countries received financial incentives from Microsoft. Not that there was anything unethical happening here.....

 

[bf2gameplaya]

[citation][nom]HeadMasterT[/nom]'It seems as though IBM is just a little angry that they didn’t get to it first'OK, you are crazy. ODF did get there first. This observation of yours appears to be factually inaccurate as well as irrelevant to the subject.[/citation]

Author Aaron Heibert has no business offering such baseless editorializing.

As I see it all of IBMs complaints are perfectly valid and adopting ODF, if any new format has to be adopted at all, is a superior solution for everyone everywhere, not just Microsoft and Microsoft customers.

 

[itadakimasu]

who.... wut is ibm?

 

[jsloan]

re: who.... wut is ibm?

I.B.M., en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibm, is a dinosaur, a living fossil, that which will not die, the American Roots of Nazi Eugenics, but don't take my word for it, read Edwin Black's book "IBM and the Holocaust", en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Black, which tells "the story of IBM's conscious involvement-directly and through its subsidiaries-in the Holocaust, as well as its involvement in the Nazi war machine that murdered millions of others throughout Europe."

Basically "IBM's CEO Thomas J. Watson used overseas subsidiaries to provide the Third Reich with unit record data processing machines, supplies and services that helped the Nazis to efficiently track down European Jews, with sizable profits for the company."

If that is not bad enough, they gave us computer languages such as COBOL wwhich gave us Y2K.

Now a facade for Communisit China takeover of the U.S.

Other than that they are nice bunch.

 

[mitch074]

This article is pointless, strongly influenced, and misrepresents the facts.

ISO/IEC 26300 (currently known as OpenDocument format) was first created by OASIS, a consortium that included Sun, IBM, originally Microsoft, and which created a multipurpose office document format based upon Sun StarOffice's XML-based format. It was expanded and cleaned up by the consortium for a few years (2002 to 2005) before being fast-tracked to ISO, where is was corrected a bit and then accepted. A new revision, correcting some omissions and dark areas, is currently pending ISO fast-track.

OOXML was drafted and proposed by Microsoft at ECMA, where it was accepted as-is, without outside intervention, and then was fast-tracked to ISO - where it was rapidly booed for:
- redundancy (tables were defined in 3 different ways, with no discernible advantage to any)
- non-compliance with existing standards (ISO page formats, ISO date formats, VML instead of SVG, a bunch of others)
- visible lack of revision (glaring mistakes)
- inconsistency (at one time VML is declared in-spec as deprecated, at another time it is used to the exclusion of anything else)
- tie-in with closed formats and patented elements (OLE)
- irrelevance (ODF was already there)

This is why it was then extensively revised by ECMA and submitted again with a lot of chair stuffing (countries that voted once then disappeared, committees including 80% of MS staff).

End result: OXML is an ISO standard that is much cleaner, but implemented by nobody (MS will implement ODF before OXML, oh the irony); no new resolution can be done by ISO because half of its members don't return calls anymore; IBM's only office suite is based off a Sun product.

This article is a stack of dung.

 

[jsloan]

re: This article is pointless, strongly influenced, and misrepresents the facts.

this coming from a pinguin, a aquatic, flightless birds.

first what is a standard... is somesthing a standard because everyone has it and is using it or is something a standard because some group of malcontents get together put something different out and call it standard.

everyone has microsoft office, shouldn't microsoft be able to document its format, however bad or good it is, and get the definition out there, like they did with .NET so people can create things like MONO. or should wwe say something other that what is being commonly used is a standard because we dont like the folks who create the software that most everyone uses.

or is Sun Office a standard, how ever good in somes oppinion their format is, something that very few people will ever have or use...

here read about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org#Market_share

here read about Sun pure motive for it's free office product, which they bought by the way.

"In the past OpenOffice.org was criticized for an increasing dependency on the Java Runtime Environment which was not free software. That Sun Microsystems is both the creator of Java and the chief supporter of OpenOffice.org drew accusations of ulterior motives for this technology choice."

also you don't want to know what Sun's own executve staff, which by the way has and uses nice laptops running Microsot Windows and Microsoft Office, yes you heard me and I worked there, think's about OpenOffice and StarOffice, or even Solaris, ect...

if they can't eat their own dung, why should we.

my point was and is, how ever much N.O.I.S.E cries, and however mighty they once were, they are bunch of losers and cry babies now. maybe if they would get together and show some leadership they would improve their position, but all i see is n flavors of the same thing. what do they think they are a baskin-robbins ice cream store.

did you failed to notice the execellent articles, Sun Solaris is in eclipse (let me make it clear dead, the sun is setting), IBM AIX and HP-UX, not much future there.

here read all about it

http://osnews.com/story/20324/Linux_Foundation_s_Zemlin_Declares_Solaris_All_But_Dead
http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20080924/tc_infoworld/111749_2
http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C400693880002574CE00371FE1.html

its got to be true even in the inquirer, next to the aliens with two heads that is running the country into the ground: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/09/25/linux-foundation-director-takes

Linux remains, but how many people use it... Ok, servers, buch less and less even there. Sure their market share is growing, but now as fast as Microsoft's os, so relatively they are shrinking...

but don't take my word for it, google:
http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox46-operating-systems-market-share.html

i know you will say that is for the desktops, ok read about what is happening on the servers.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Linux-Losing-Market-Share-to-Windows-Server/

oh by the way i've been developing on linux since minux, xinu, unix, zenix...

 

[mitch074]

@jsloan: I haven't used 'Linux' even once in my post.

OpenOffice.org is currently the main ODF-supporting application, and the second most used office suite family out there. It is not the only one though, as not only it has forks (StarOffice, go-OOo, NeoOffice, current Lotus), but also competitors (Koffice, Google Docs, Corel Office) that already support ODF, and Microsoft has announced support for ODF in Office 2007 SP2.

Just to remind you, for those suites that are local software, OpenOffice.org runs on:
- Windows (that one ain't going away yet, as you said)
- Solaris (going away, but there's still some OpenSolaris)
- Mac OS X + X11 (this one is quite marginal)
- Linux (this one is found on many netbooks, did you know?)
and version 3 (right now in Release Candidate) will run natively on Mac OS (which is rising).

As such, market share (OS or office suite) is irrelevant to the topic: the format itself is getting broadly accepted when not simply mandatory.

Remember, we're talking OFFICE FILE FORMATS, and IBM being pissed off at ECMA and ISO for submitting to Microsoft's tactics in having OOXML made standard. Thing is, I repeat, IBM has only one office suite, itself a fork of a competitor's product - not even IBM's, and the resulting fork is Free too.

As far as I know, ISO/IEC 29500 'OXML' is a standard, but it hasn't even been published, and is supported by... errr... Nobody (Wait for Office 14 for OXML support, dixit Jason Matusow)

OpenOffice.org 2.0 relied heavily upon Sun Java 1.4 when it came out. Fast forward a few years, to now (versions 2.4 and 3.0):
- most Java-only functions have been rewritten in C++
- other Java VMs can now be used instead of Sun Java, including IcedTea (GPL v3, free) and GCJ (GPL v3, free), for those functions (now pretty much limited to the Base module, and the Java macro interpreter, for obvious reasons) to work.

I attacked the article because it misrepresented facts (OOXML was accepted due to heavy lobbying by Microsoft, otherwise it wouldn't have been accepted before its refined form was merged with future revisions of ODF, as is currently the plan - even at MS). I didn't mention OSes, mentioned OpenOffice.org because the project's file format was used as a basis (it wasn't even compliant with the validated IEC 26300 standard, Koffice supported the standrad better for a while), and reacted strongly to an obvious bias by the author.

Now, pray tell, how is Linux market share (either the kernel, or GNU/Linux, the OS) relevant to a discussion of IBM protesting standard bodies' acceptance of lobbying practices, when they have little interest in selling software that use those standards, apart from a protest against such a precedent?

 

[TwoDigital]

How is it that Microsoft always ends up on the shaft end of 'standards' discussions? When they have a closed standard (one probably efficient and closely tied to their products' feature set) people scream and complain that Microsoft isn't embracing the open-source community.

When they create a new standard (OOXML) and present it to ISO for certification, people scream and complain that Microsoft isn't taking enough direction from the ISO members to change the standard... I don't think it was ever Microsoft's intention to replace ODF, PDF, or any other common standard. I think what they really wanted was to start selling copies of Office 2007 that was already using this standard and they wanted people to know how the format is set up so they could leverage that in 3rd-part add-ons.

 

[jsloan]

re: Now, pray tell, how is ..., apart from a protest against such a precedent?

just pointing out how much of a farce, boredom, these standards commiitties are, microsoft's gamesmanship is nothing new, once has-beens like ibm ruled the roust, now diminished they cry foul and shed alligator tears,

plus, it sounded good at the time, anyways why is ibm even on such standards bodies. don't they have better things to do, like making products and offering services that people want to buy, shouldn't they focus on their core competence, selling weight scales

http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-art-collectibles-Antique-IBM-Barrel-Weigh-Scale-Wow-W0QQAdIdZ74221738

;-)

 

[jsloan]

re: How is it that Microsoft always ends up on the shaft end of 'standards' discussions?

bingo, you scored a point.

the thing is there is like some anti-microsoft resentment out there, you know the anything / anyone but microsoft crowd.

you know has-beens, fringe groups, holdouts, unbelievers, malcontents, loners, losers, cry babies, socialists, pinko communists, ect...

don't look at me look at the pinguin.

no i call them N.O.I.S.E, because that is what they now add up to in market share. ghosts of days gone by, past.

now don't get me wrong, i love Apple, I have nice iPod, and Linux, run it all the time, ect, but I don't go around like one of those Sun Java One events 24x7 spewing garbage and Microsoft hatred, does anyone out there remember Scott "I'm so smart" McNealy on the large projection TV trashing Microsoft and Bill Gate without offering a single idea that could keep the stock from plummeting.

Sorry, still a little bitter about the value of my Sun stock being lower than the cost of a single piece of toilet paper.

anyways what are standard committees good for, coming up with bailouts for government scandal and computer languages like COBOL...

 

[mitch074]

You're all completely right: let's drop standards. They are completely useless anyway: what need is there to be sure that documents created a few years back can still be opened now, that a DVD can be played back on a DVD deck of any brand, that an audio CD can be played on any CD player, that a car can run on unleaded from any oil company, or that I can use pretty much any screwdriver on any screw out there?

Let's all go back to a time where standards didn't exist and you had to pay a premium to some hardware maker for a printer, because you couldn't plug a cheaper competitor's printer onto your machine - due to non-standard pinout, or that you had to buy paper (at a premium) from your printer's maker because it used a not-quite-210mm-wide paper format, or buy MD disks for MD decks from Sony, or find Rambus sticks for a Pentium 4 system...

By all means, do!

It's not as if the computer you're using doesn't rely upon stuff like USB 2.0, the orange and red books (for CD/CD-ROM definition), PCI, PCI-e (and before that, ISA and VESA), ATX, JEDEC (for RAM format) or your web browser parsing SGML-based HTML transmitted over HTTP, ECMAscript, your camera outputting JPEG, your video camera streaming MPEG1/2 or MPEG4, or your network connection using RJ45, Ethernet, TCP/IPv4 (or v6), or your text files and file names being encoded in ASCII-extended UTF-8...

Let's put all those standards to trash! Defending them is NOISE! Nobody cares about them anyway, but commies, pink socialists, has-beens, fringe groups and all. Obviously, they're useless.

I have a nice binary file for you; it's your own document that you created last year on a now unsupported office suite, and for the low cost of $399 you can open it now on your brand new computer that can't run the older office suite, and the competitor's office suite, which is $40, can't open it because it is our format to do with as we please.

Too bad: this file format isn't supported in our brand new office suite, as we didn't care enough to keep the import filters up to date and disabled them.

(original OOXML draft license made it so that it was open to read, but anybody implementing it had to ask authorization from MS for distributing each software copy; fringe groups and N.O.I.S.E., like the State of Massachussetts brought it to the media, and Microsoft had to change the license. Next, Office 2007 SP1 disabled several import/export filters due to vulnerabilities in said filters; MS decided that it was too costly to keep them clean. At the same time, OpenOffice.org and Koffice added support for more Wordperfect formats and improved import fidelity for MS Office 95/97 formats - while fixing vulnerabilities)

But then, what do I know, I'm a commie making noise for a fringe group.

At least I don't have to spend $1000 a year on software, hoping I can read documents I created 10 years ago as well as yesterday's, or to browse the Internet looking for cracked software.

 

[jsloan]

Well said pinguin, well said indeed!

Who needs standards, certainly not I, who would be happier running around nude, smeard in bright pigments of red, yellow and green. Now those where simplier times back in paradise before the corrupting influence of such fancies as standards.

By the way, I'm not sure what your buying or smoking, i mean inhaling, but way i don't pay $1,000 a year on software and my copy of Microsoft does not have any problems opening up files I created 20+ years ago in WordStar or even a year ago. Stop scaring the children...

And with regards to that $40 for open office, be careful about those who offer you the shirt off there back you get what you pay for. How much is your stock options worth, $40 products = $40 developers ~ starving artists, no Bling-bling, not bonus, no nothing for you. I know that is why Apple hardware costs like twice as much as my Dell laptop that runs the Apple OS like twice as fast as that Apple. Or what did you think Sparcs, RS6000, HP9000 costs like nothing, all which I have and paid for. The reason they give you the software is that they charge you through the nose on the hardware and other things. Basically I remember when I purchased those boxes I paid twice as much as my Intel PC cost at the time and they ran half as fast as the PC I got for half the price. And that Linux, ok hit F1 and see what comes up, nothing...

Anyways thanks for making an old man laugh hard

 

[mitch074]

Copy of Microsoft? You mean you bought a copy of the company? then it must have cost you a bit more than $1000, as they sell their IP for a bit more than that.

I don't smoke, don't drink, eat properly and fulfill my marital duties often enough. I'm also an atheist. No wonder I'm high 24/7...

What you have is a REVOCABLE LICENSE to use some Microsoft software, such as Microsoft Windows (either XP or Vista) and Microsoft Office (97, 2000, XP, 2003 or 2007).

- if your Windows version is XP, and you bought it with your computer, then your computer is outdated (last OEM versions of XP were sold at the beginning of 2008, and you had to hunt for them); you can't move the license to a new computer (OEM is tied to hardware), so you have to buy a new Windows with your new computer. This will be either castrated XP Home, or more costly Vista.

- if your version of Windows is Vista, then you bought it in the past 18 months; you probably got the Premium version, since Basic is even more castrated than XP Home. If you bought the OEM version, same as above; if you bought it retail, it was at least $180 (for the update version; full version was/is $270)

- your office suite: if you bought it to enable the trial version on your computer, you can't move it either. If you bought it retail, either you're a student or you paid $399 for the basic package. If it's an OEM version (either full or upgraded from trial), you have no software support outside of automatic security updates. You will have to buy a new Office version next year, as Office 2003 reaches end of extended support then - or you bought Office 2007 in the past 12 months.

- if you do image treatments, then you bought Photoshop: $600. If not, you're using OEM, castrated Limited Editions that you need to uninstall when you trash your camera, or update versions: $400 (CS3 over CS2).

All in all, it may not amount to $1000 a year, but it still goes for around $600/year or $1200/2 years, except i you're using you computer to browse and as a typewriter (in which case, you should check out a netbook - and the Linux based ones are better featured while being cheaper).

On the other hand, if you saved your documents using industry standards (as a matter of fact, yellow, red and blue pigments are not standardized, you need vendor-specific RGB profiles to say which is what ), you can open them with competing products. Wordstar is such a case: the file format fell in the PUBLIC DOMAIN a while ago; Wordstar is no longer being developed, so the format isn't expected to evolve; it is still used by a community independent from the original software, that created tools also able to open, edit and save Wordstar documents (in short: competitors).

So, you're feeling smug over using an open de facto standard. And if you didn't pay (you or your employer) an averaged annual 3-digit sum for your software, you've wasted money on your computer - or you're using competing products (Free or not) that require the use of standards so that you can still communicate with other softwares. Which was my point, and more importantly, the point in standards.