EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

11.09.07

Personal Minddump: What Is the OpenDocument Foundation?

Posted in Formats, GNU/Linux, ISO, Microsoft, Novell, Open XML, OpenDocument, Standard at 6:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Some quick thoughts

The OpenDocument Foundation is in for a bit of a shock. I’m actually in good terms with them (or used to be), but I hope they’ll get a good slap on the wrist for what they so selfishly did a few weeks ago.

Money divides communities and Microsoft knows how to use its money. We have seen that with Novell, which supported OOXML only after receiving a huge heap of cash from Microsoft.

Novell gets 'bribed'

On that same issue, I still wonder about the Foundation sometimes, but I am convinced there is no Microsoft connection. Other people whom I speak to suggest otherwise, but their arguments are poor and they completely neglect to take into account the principles of people at the OpenDocument Foundation where Microsoft’s monopoly is generally loathed.

Sam Hiser is a good example of this and I’ve been reading his blog for quite some time. He has just published a pro-GNU/Linux article in the Financial Times. In his defense of the OpenDocument Foundation, he is now bragging about getting attention (see his blog if you wish). Buy why? Why is it worth betraying ODF just to fuel a publicity stunt? Why throw away their years of hard work just to divert attention?

”Does personal interest overcome the obligations?“They are serving Microsoft’s interests, which Gary tells me is a sad side effect. What happened to the good of the community? Does personal interest overcome the obligations? Wasn’t the Foundation supposed to be for the ‘little people’? At the moment, the very opposite steps appear to be taken. They drive in reverse. CDF? I was patient enough and I even mentioned it at some stage. I had some blind trust and faith, but those who understand CDF say it’s impractical, according to the latest article from Andy Updegrove. It’s a route to nowhere. Andy has some harsh words for the media as well:

The most astonishing piece was written by ZDNet’s Mary Jo Foley. Early on in her article she stated that, “the ODF camp might unravel before Microsoft’s rival Office Open XML (OOXML) comes up for final international standardization vote early next year.” All because Gary, Sam and Marbux have decided that ODF does not meet their needs. Astonishing indeed, given that there is no available evidence to support such a prediction.

[...]

Here’s where things stand today:

  • The Foundation’s former members are not supporting Gary, Sam and Marbux
  • No one has spoken up to support their view of CDF as an alternative
  • They are not working with the W3C at this time, and no one at W3C is working with CDF in the manner they are proposing
  • CDF is not an appropriate substitute for ODF
  • The CDF working group is not chartered to provide what Gary, Sam and Marbux want to try and accomplish, even assuming that what they want is technically possible

All of which takes us back to the question, What were Gary, Sam and Marbux thinking?

I trust Andy’s assessment a great deal, but it’s a good point to clarify that just as we haven't any association with the FSF (or any not-for-profit body for that matter), there’s no connection at all to IBM, or Sun, or anybody else in industry. This is about freedom and fair competition, not market value. It’s good that I’ve actually been reminded to state this in public.

To Andy, our stance would be rather odd. He works for the Linux Foundation, which has Novell as a Gold Sponsor. Generally, it’s the same situation with IBM (notably Rob and Bob), which collaborates with Novell. Still, We’re on Weir’s blogroll (he added us by choice) and Andy lets the links (trackbacks) be. Bob actually linked to boycottnovell.com from his blog (again, by choice). I appreciate this, but again I stress that there’s no connection at all. Shane and I are independent individuals.

Returning to the point at hand, the important part of the article is that where Andy cites a position of authority. Even CDF people say that CDF cannot replace ODF. It is simply not suitable. Meanwhile, ODF gets support from almost everyone (well, just about everyone except Microsoft).

”It’s about time someone explained that the OpenDocument Foundation is not exactly what the name stands for or strives to represent.“It’s about time someone explained that the OpenDocument Foundation is not exactly what the name stands for or strives to represent. Rob Wier did this a month ago, but now it’s the CDF experts as well that give the Foundation the thumbs down. Mind you, I used to be a supporter of the Foundation before they began with the self-serving charade. I hope I haven’t lost them as friends, but I just can’t support their cause, which is a non-cause at the moment.

On the other side of the pond, OOXML is the format which associated with fraud and bribery. We have all the necessary facts to back and protect this accusation. There is no reason to feel shy about using words such as these (“fraud” and “bribery”) when there’s just so much evidence. Anything else would be a case of turning a blind eye to crime, or unethical manipulation at the very least.

If you wish to know what lies ahead for OOXML, then watch Bob Sutor’s latest blog item.

Though I’ve written about this before, I continue to be amazed that there does not seem to be a single, unambiguous, and logically complete description of what will happen at the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) in Geneva at the end of February.

Will it be technical or political? What role will the money have? One thing is certainly true: the ISO has lost its way.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

6 Comments

  1. Sam Hiser said,

    November 9, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    Gravatar

    “Buy why? Why is it worth betraying ODF just to fuel a publicity stunt?”

    Roy -

    Is it wrong to tell a friend his collar is untucked?

    We didn’t launch the PR campaign about ‘Foundation quits ODF’ (or whatever).
    Since then, we’ve faced this paradoxical message: Foundation kills ODF; helps Microsoft; they’re insignificant, only 2 guys in a garage. Which one is true?

    Turns out only the garage bit is true. Gary’s wife built a walk-in closet in his and I just don’t have one (my car is all covered with leaves).

    Too much has been distorted in the hysteria and I appreciate your reverting to common sense here.

    CDF is not a contrary story to ODF; it is about taking on Sharepoint at the hub.

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 9, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    Gravatar

    Sam,

    Isn’t it impractical to take such a U-turn? (not a rhetorical question, I’m genuinely curious)

    SharePoint is a big problem, which we mentioned 2 days ago (mind the bit about the urgent need for a free open source answer). Taking a Microsoft-like side and slamming ODF is going to help SharePoint more than it’ll stifle its adoption though.

  3. Sam Hiser said,

    November 11, 2007 at 7:00 am

    Gravatar

    We haven’t changed what we are doing (in terms of action): working on software that is a solution for CDF at the server-side.

    We were wrong about something: we believed the Universal Document Format should have a locus on the desktop.

    We continue to believe CDF is the best container for document content and layout information coming from a myriad of sources. This has not changed. CDF is very important but it does not conflict with ODF — it complements ODF’s open XML; it can use ODF’s open XML.

    We are at the Web now. Not the desktop. That changes what we do and with whom we work.

    We are moving forward to close the foundation because its purpose is over. This means the rhetoric to influence ODF will stop; our work is not on ODF any more. That format is in better hands than it was.

    Impractical? I’m not sure the word applies. Is a monopoly a practical thing to have?

    We are doing software which we are designing to correct some of the forces of monopoly. All the rest is talk. One does what one can, it’s not always the easiest path. And it is important to change when the old path doesn’t work any more. So that’s where we are.

  4. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 11, 2007 at 8:13 am

    Gravatar

    Sam,

    To justify your sudden change of course, you often refer to ODF as though it was a failure. I believe this to be a convenient excuse and distraction. Please explains how more than a handful of nations creating strong pro-ODF policies makes ODF an insufficient response to the monopoly. It starts at government level for a reason. It becomes more universal, so the monopoly gets excluded and eradicated before its ‘extend’ phase can begin.

  5. Sam Hiser said,

    November 20, 2007 at 10:55 am

    Gravatar

    How many of those declaring policy for ODF have deep knowledge of how business processes get interrupted when you insert OpenOffice.org into an MS Office workgroup?

    I mean knowledge like I have (as an experienced OpenOffice.org migration consultant), like Mass ITD has, like Peter Strickx in Belgium has, like the pilot people in Denmark have.

    Apart from those I mention above, none of these pro-ODF organizations have hit that brick wall. Individuals don’t hit the brick wall because our workflows are not as complex as the multifarious permutations of behaviors with documents of even a 5-person enterprise workgroup that, for example, shares a spreadsheet file set up as a landscape table to update the project funding & invoice process of their organization.

    What happens when, for example, the workgroup keeps several simple Excel spreadsheets (version 2003) on a share directory /blah.blah.blah.F:\? It so happens that the spreadsheet called CCi_4.xls has a few formulas in it which reference cells in different spreadsheets, CCi_2.xls and CCi_15.xls. They all sit on a share drive F:\ and those relative cell references contain the full path as well as cell information. Occasionally the Team Leader — Janice — updates these spreadsheets — CCi_2 and CCi_15 — with new information reflecting the events of the business week in that department. What happens is that when someone opens CCi_4, they are prompted with the question ‘would you like to update?’ Saying yes, the formulas in CCi_4 recalulate based on the new information Janice had entered into CCi_2 and CCi_15.

    Well what happens if the members of the workgroup should inadvertently try to send on of the source files, CCi_2 or CCi_15, or the target file, CCi_4, as an attachment to an e-mail or saved away from the native location? If the attached file is opened locally and saved on a desktop, for example, the formulas break because the paths in the cell references change from something.something.F:\ to something.something.C:\temp. Often people are trained to keep, at all costs, the files in their relative locations to preserve relative path linkages. This is challenging enough with everyone using MS Office 2003 and it is prone to breaking as soon as people from another workgroup who are not inculcated with the do’s and don’t of workflow habits in the main workgroup, and prone to breaking when someone with Excel 97 comes in and tries to collaborate due to the different application behaviors.

    Now introduce OpenOffice.org into this workflow example and a) it is difficult to predict precisely where the workflow is going to run into trouble; or b) it is quite likely to the experienced migration consultant that OpenOffice.org Calc’s way of handling relative cell references is a shade different than MS Excel 2003′s and c) it is certain that at some point people are going to get mixed up about what the current latest data is or should be and where the last-best version of CCi_4.xls is and what information it should reflect.

    I have never posited that OpenOffice.org migration is impossible. It is being done all the time. However, take the complexity of this very simple example and multiply it by a few thousand — which is a conservative estimate of the number of different small workgroup collaboration permutations that occur more or less spontaneously in a mid-sized government agency of say 350 users — and you begin to get the magnitude and density of workflow stoppage risk attending OpenOffice.org insertion into a MS Office workgroup. (And this is OOo insertion during a pilot in which no MS Office installs have been uninstalled; no defaults changed.)

    Now, advance past Go. Now we are talking about migration risk in circumstances where policy is developed by people who are not at the location of risk. Imagine the CIO who has his own department of 350 users and he is in charge of implementing an ODF policy (brought down from above) across 79 (or 217…or 56…or 149) different autonomous agencies across his state or region — each agency of different geographical distribution, size, character and with its own CIO and its own particular patterns of business processes — and you can see why CIOs have been a) silent since Peter Quinn and Louis Gutierrez got beheaded in Massachusetts; and b) they are not happy about having to implement ODF policies in all these places where they cannot control the OpenOffice.org migration process.

    In fact, you haven’t heard a single peep from any single one of these CIOs because they a) wish ODF would disappear; or b) are incredulous that the policy people above would actually expect them to follow through on the policy after seeing what happened in Mass and what is about to happen in Belgium and Denmark.

    The fact that California did not come in with an ODF policy declaration and OpenOffice.org migration immediately after Massachusetts should tell you something about the general feelings about ODF and whether or not it is alive.

    Practically speaking, ODF is not implementable in what we call this Rip & Replace scenario being set up by IBM & Sun. CIOs would sooner license Office 2007 and move forward on OOXML than jump, at cost, over to the ODF|OpenOffice.org’s alternative universe where interoperability has been only framed as brochure-ware and not actually granted. The Devil you know…

    I was the biggest Rip & Replace OpenOffice.org cheerleader of anyone I know. At some point, when the information is overwhelming, one has to accept reality.

    You call our change of course sudden. We knew this in May 2006 and worked within the system to change it against stern and misguided resistance. Over these the 18 months, Microsoft has shifted the nexus of battle to the server hub while enjoying what has amounted to a great distraction.

    While playing the Foundation’s closure for maximum PR value and confusion — and to advance their own corpse of a standard, OOXML — Microsoft are not so happy that someone has woken up to where the problem really exists.

    Roy. I didn’t kill ODF. But you’re shooting the messenger anyway.

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 20, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    Gravatar

    and you can see why CIOs have been a) silent since Peter Quinn and Louis Gutierrez got beheaded in Massachusetts;

    From what I can recall, Peter Quinn went around the world advocating ODF and standards after he had been pressured out of his job in MA. For all I know, countries continue to support and implement ODF, gradually. The process is gradual, not a Rip & Replace scenario. The same goes for migration between operating systems, for example.

What Else is New


  1. Patent Scavenging or Racing to the Bottom of Patent Quality

    The patent microcosm is pushing for software patents, and for litigation with such patents, but it all boils down to bottom feeding



  2. EPO and UPC Can Become the Next 'Dieselgate'

    Mischievous policies in Germany and cover-up of abuses won’t bode well for the nation; we’re already seeing some of the pushback, but can António Campinos keep the gory details under the wraps for much longer?



  3. Microsoft Partner Explains How Microsoft Screws Partners (and Free/Open Source Projects)

    "Nothing Has Truly Changed Since Netscape and Antitrust," as we put it four days ago; the 'new' Microsoft is the exact same company with the exact same strategies, which include destruction by assimilation



  4. Why Does Microsoft Even Want to Associate With Satanic Ritual Cults and Marina Abramović?

    Microsoft's 'news' sites fail to heed the warning or the toxicity (bad publicity) associated with Marina Abramović and they promote Microsoft's proprietary software using not only militarism (goggles for the Army) but borderline cannibalism



  5. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 28, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 28, 2020



  6. Links 29/1/2020: MPV 0.32, Qt Offering Changes, Thunderbird Gets New Home

    Links for the day



  7. Don't Let the Collapse of News Companies Be the Collapse of Information (or Ascent of Misinformation)

    We're growingly concerned that the collapse of the mainstream media will entail reliance not on reliable and independent alternatives but corporate marketing agencies, charlatans and frauds, sometimes even deliberate falsehoods and state-manufactured bogus stories



  8. When Police Gets in the Way of Investigations, Having Used Microsoft Products to Investigate Microsoft Issues

    In this long article we outline barriers we’ve come across in pursuit of information from the police (the pedophilia arrest at the mansion of Bill Gates — followed by conviction and arrest — has thousands of pages about it, but since September the police has shared not even one!)



  9. Guest Post: Free Software is About Software Ownership

    "In effect, companies will lose control and profit. Will they accept that?"



  10. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 27, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, January 27, 2020



  11. Links 27/1/2020: Linux 5.5 is Out, Work on Linux 5.6 Commences, New Solus and Award for Andrew Tridgell

    Links for the day



  12. EPO: Goodbye to the Rule of Law and Hey Hi, AI!

    The EPO’s embrace of buzzwords — no longer a unique EPO strategy (it has already spread elsewhere) — puts examiners in a very bad position and they’re grappling with nerve- and mind-racking dilemmas (risk of unemployment for truly upholding the EPC)



  13. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, January 26, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, January 26, 2020



  14. Links 26/1/2020: MuseScore 3.4 Released, New Kate Icon and Solus 4.1 Fortitude Available

    Links for the day



  15. MIT and Microsoft Have Done Nothing to Actually Tackle Pedophilia and Ephebophilia

    MIT never actually resolved the issue that caused Joi Ito, Richard Stallman and others to be ejected; Microsoft meanwhile continues to profit from life-changing abuse (while seeding puff pieces in friendly media, just to pretend otherwise)



  16. Opinion: If You Advocate Population Control and You Are Yourself Doubling in One Single Generation, Then You Might be Hypocritical

    People with 3-5 children (each) tell us that the world has an overpopulation problem; while the growth of the population certainly poses a risk, these people lack the moral authority to lecture us about that (unless they adopt a eugenicist worldview, wherein only particular people are permitted to reproduce)



  17. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, January 25, 2020

    IRC logs for Saturday, January 25, 2020



  18. Nothing Has Truly Changed Since Netscape and Antitrust

    The same old crimes persist, as well as the blatantly anticompetitive behaviour



  19. When the Monopolists and the Patent Litigation Industry Hijack the News They Control the Narrative

    Money buys perception and litigation firms have certainly 'bought' the media coverage, which fails to convey the issue at stake and instead paints a rational court decision as tragedy for "innovation" (by "innovation" they mean monopolies on nature and on life)



  20. Links 25/1/2020: OPNsense 20.1 RC1 and DXVK 1.5.2

    Links for the day



  21. The Linux Kernel is No Longer Free Software?

    Gardiner Bryant, the creator of The Linux Gamer as well as The Off Topical Podcast, reacts to our articles about DRM in Linux (he even pronounced my name correctly)



  22. Sometimes Proprietary Software is Proprietary (Secret) Simply Because It is Not Good and Obfuscation Helps Hide Just How Ugly It Is

    Why nonfree (or proprietary) software generally fails to catch up with Free/libre software — at least on technical grounds — and then makes up for it with marketing and FUD offensives (discrediting perfectly-functioning things, based on their perceived cost)



  23. IRC Proceedings: Friday, January 24, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, January 24, 2020



  24. Links 24/1/2020: GNU/Linux in Russia and More New Openings

    Links for the day



  25. When EPO Press Coverage Boils Down to Lobbying, Press Releases, EPO Lies, and Bribery

    Any attempts to properly assess and explain what happens in Europe's patent landscape are being drowned out by EPO-bribed and law firms-connected media; to make matters worse, the EPO's bribes have expanded to academia, so even scholarly work in this domain is corrupted by money of special interest groups



  26. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, January 23, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, January 23, 2020



  27. Links 23/1/2020: Qubes OS 4.0.3, EasyOS 2.2.5, GhostBSD 20.01

    Links for the day



  28. Passion of the Microsoft

    A rough timeline of Microsoft’s interactions with Linux and the Linux Foundation since 2015



  29. The Patent Microcosm is Really Panicking as European Patents on Life and Other Spurious Junk (Invalid Patents) Are Successfully Rejected

    European Patents (EPs) may be revoked en masse if what we're seeing is the gradual emergence of 'European Mayo' (and maybe soon 'European Alice')



  30. Distractions From Microsoft's Gigantic Tax Evasion and Contribution to Denial of Climate Science

    Microsoft (connected to oil companies) wants us to think of it as a "green" company; not only does it contribute to climate denial but it also evades tax, which is a serious crime that costs tens of billions of dollars (the public pays this money instead)


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts