Summary: The impact of leaked diplomatic cables on current affairs and perceptions people have about companies, government, and elected officials

OVER the past day or two we have been receiving a record number of links to this site, mostly pointing to Cablegate posts. People from all over the world share with their friends what they previously suspected but could not prove.

One person from Brazil is pulling skeletons out of Microsoft’s closet and embarrassing the cowardly, supine government at the same time. Following some blog posts about American diplomats lobbying for OOXML (including our own post), we are notified about this very detailed post which provides further background to the leak from someone who was nearby:

Let me make clear here that I don’t believe that this meeting between Microsoft and the major representative from the American Government in Brazil has been a personal initiative of Mr. Michel Levy, but for me it was an corporative initiative. Even being a Microsoft employee, Mr. Michel Levy is a Brazilian, and I prefer not to believe that he has, on its own initiative, decided to start an initiative to put the American Government against the Brazilian Government, thus violating our sovereignty and our national technical merit.

The first question that I leave here is on how many other countries that voted NO to OpenXML the same kind of initiative also happened, and how much of these countries “have accepted” an eventual intervention by the U.S. government.

Yes, the intervention may have occurred, because if you notice the general line of argumentation used here in Brazil, the national technical decision is presented as being an initiative against the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and one of the things that cause retaliation in free trade agreements with the United States are eventual IPR violations. I have my own collection of rumors from the times of OpenXML, where possible sanctions motivated by IPR violations were brought to the negotiation table to get the governmental votes in some countries (if your country has changed the vote after the voting in September 2007, please investigate and you will probably find a ‘key’ governmental role on that vote changing). Maybe one day, WikiLeaks could help us to investigate that too!

[...]

Finally, they try to insinuate that the ODF is an anti-American standard. I confess that I would like to know what IBM, Oracle, Google and Red Hat (and other North American companies) think about the that, since they work hard on the past years on its development and worldwide adoption. Actually I prefer that these companies explain directly to the American Government if the ODF is anti-American, and I still hope they ask clarification from the American Government about Microsoft’s similar initiatives in other countries during the 2007 and 2008 years.

For those who did not follow the whole story, the ODF was adopted in Brazil, OpenXML rejected here and just didn’t had a major role on the international scene, because we were silenced on the last day of the BRM, just when we would submit a proposal that could change the end of this history. I’ve already told this story here.

Special thanks to WikiLeaks, for helping us get the skeletons out of the closet. For those who want to understand how Microsoft deals and negotiates with governments that have pro-FLSOO policies, it’s worth reading this other cable here.

Well, now there is proof too.

Several days ago we found out what American government officials were saying about Neelie Kroes. We published this yesterday and Jan Wildeboer notes that there is plenty more where that came from. Sooner or later we shall get around to it. This promises to change the way Microsoft and its lobbying practices are widely perceived. █

(ODF | PDF | Original en softwarefreedom.org)

El Microsoft tan exageradamente promovido reemplazo de sus $ 20 billones por año [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/technology/business-computing/28soft.html] de negocios de Microsoft Office basado en la “nube”, viene con nuevas características como la de tiempo real multi-usuario de colaboración, la mensajería instantánea, video conferencia, reuniones en línea y mucho más [http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/plans/small-business/im-online-meetings.aspx]. Lo que Microsoft no te dice en su comunicado de prensa es que cuando usted, su negocio o sus amigos, se inscribe en ella, usted podría estar recibiendo una característica que no se anuncia así: ESPIONAJE GRATIS.

Una solicitud de patentes [http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20110153809&OS=20110153809&RS=20110153809] publicada por la USPTO (Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos) el jueves pasado revela que Microsoft ha estado investigando, ya desde antes de diciembre de 2009, la forma de redirigir las llamadas VoIP para interceptar/redirigir a los dispositivos a los agentes de la ley. El método descrito por la solicitud de patente es tortuoso, subvertir los protocolos de enrutamiento para que los paquetes enviados por cualquier persona marcados por una solicitud de control se dirigirán a través de un agente de grabación. La solicitud describe los “sistemas de juego, los protocolos de mensajería instantánea que transmiten las aplicaciones de audio. Skype y aplicaciones como Skype, de reuniones, software de video conferencia, y similares”, así como tecnologías que pueden utilizar estos métodos. En otras palabras, Microsoft tiene razones para creer que su método de intercepción se puede aplicar a la recién adquirida Skype (recientemente desplegada en el Congreso [http://blogs.skype.com/en/2011/06/skype_is_in_da_house.html]), Xbox 360, y las características de video conferencia en la Oficina 365.

La publicación de la presente solicitud, junto con el anuncio del nuevo servicio de Microsoft destaca la necesidad de adopción de soluciones de software libre y de código abierto. Cuando las mismas empresas hacen las herramientas que necesitamos para mantenernos conectados están investigando las formas de espiar a sus clientes, ¿por qué deberíamos confiar en ellos y por qué no habríamos que buscar algo mejor? En SFLC que utilizar un servidor Asterisk [http://www.asterisk.org/] y el softphone Twinkle [http://mfnboer.home.xs4all.nl/twinkle/index.html] para proporcionar una comunicación libre, voz encriptada en cualquier lugar donde cualquiera de nosotros tenga una conexión de red. Nuestro sistema de software libre proporciona comunicaciones seguras y nos ahorra dinero. Cada pequeña empresa, así como todos los grandes van a tener grandes ganancias mediante el uso de VoIP, pero no habrá ganancias empresariales por la pérdida de su privacidad. Microsoft está ofreciendo “comunicaciones unificadas” con unificado espionaje probablemente construido dentro de su software. El Software Libre trabaja para su negocio, no para la gente que piensa que su negocio es negocio de ellos.

A no ser que sea indicado de otra manera, todo contenido es licenciado bajo el CC-BY-SA 3.0.[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode] █

Traducción hecha por Eduardo Landaveri, Administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

Summary: Customers continue to replace GroupWise and Techrights wonders what Attachmate will do about the WordPerfect case

Attachmate, a Microsoft partner, has bought Novell while leaving Mono out in the cold and letting Microsoft take the patents. The thing is, Attachmate has hardly said anything about GroupWise. A tricky situation for sure as the product keeps bleeding. EAT is the latest large user to dump it. From the news: “The chain rolled out the cloud-based Apps productivity suite seven months ago to help meet its goal of doubling the size of its business. It replaced a 10-year-old Novell GroupWise system.”

There is more about it here and here:

The migration involved a move away from Novell Groupwise.

Cesar Ramanauskas, systems engineer at EAT, says in a blog post, “In preparation for our goal of doubling in size, EAT migrated to Google Apps for Business, after more than a decade of using Novell GroupWise.”

Inaction from Attachmate cannot help much, can it? But the elephants in the room are actually SUSE, the SCO case, and the Microsoft case. Will Attachmate dump the case against its partner, Microsoft? We are not sure what might happen with the antitrust case because Attachmate never mentions it and the Microsoft booster portrays it as just a “headache” when he argues:

But Microsoft’s antitrust problems aren’t ending just yet. Another old case involving WordPerfect, the once widely used word prcoessor, has been resurrected by a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling overturning a previous judgment in favor of Microsoft and allowing the case being pursued by Novell to proceed. Novell, now owned by Attachmate, owned WordPerfect for a couple of years in the mid-1990s before selling it to current owner Corel.

Some of us think that Microsoft toys around with Skype and Nvidia simply because of loose/lenient oversight. █

(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Resumen: Un repaso a cómo Microsoft distorsiona el mercado de suites de oficina y una propuesta sincera para IBM para sacar a luz los problemas reales, no los detalles de menor importancia.

EL “DESPIADADO[http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/153351/20110527/microsoft-apple-bill-gates-david-einhorn-steve-ballmer-stand-down-fire-fired-question-ceo.htm]” Bill Gates está hoy en día comprando periódicos para llamarse a sí mismo otra cosa[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique] y distraer la atención de su lado malo, la reescritura de la historia en la medida suficiente para que la gente se olvide de su tóxico legado al mundo que lo sufre hasta la fecha. Se llama lavado de reputación. Hoy nos gustaría volver atrás y mostrarles el verdadero Bill Gates. A finales de este mes, esperamos obtener una mano de otro editor que pueden ayudarnos a mostrar algunos de los delitos actuales de Gates (pero que va a ser dejado de lado por ahora, ya que no es en parte del tema).

“En otra ocasión, Gates mostró no sólo su odio de las normas y la interoperabilidad, sino también su amor por las patentes.”Así que ayer escribimos acerca de cómo IBM se convierte en un jugador clave en ODF[http://techrights.org/2011/06/01/ibm-takes-odf-to-another-level/]. IBM y Microsoft son rivales tanto como Apple y Microsoft son rivales. De hecho colaboran en algunas áreas en las que es beneficioso para ambas empresas (no necesariamente a las externalidades). Microsoft, que está a cargo de sociópatas, tiene una historia bastante de copiar y también de arruinar a Lotus. Hemos demostrado esto usando las exposiciones del tribunal de Comes vs. Microsoft[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Comes_vs_Microsoft]. Un informante de Techrights nos acaba de recordar que, en Comes vs Microsoft, “PXE 3078 ha Lotus trabajo para la interoperabilidad y los Microsoft trabajando en contra de ella.” Cubrimos esto hace varios años. Bill Gates dijo que la administración de los formatos de Office 2000 a los competidores parece una locura[http://techrights.org/2007/04/13/office-formats-disclosure/] y este tipo de observación se produjo más tarde también[http://techrights.org/2009/08/17/bill-gates-vs-open-file-formats/]. En otra ocasión, Gates mostró no sólo su odio de las normas y la interoperabilidad, sino también su amor por las patentes. En varias ocasiones trató de utilizar las patentes de software en contra de OpenOffice.org[http://techrights.org/2009/02/10/bill-gates-patents-vs-free-office/], recurriendo incluso al chantaje de patentes contra Sun[http://techrights.org/2010/03/10/bill-gates-racketeering-revealed/]. Una gran cantidad de publicaciones hablan de las noticias de OpenOffice.org en el contexto que exceptúa y excluye las patentes (ver ejemplos en la parte inferior de este post). Esto es un error. Para dar sólo un ejemplo de una interpretación típica[http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/open-source-insider/2011/06/ibm-to-contribute-to-openofficeorg.html] de este anuncio[http://www.newsjunkyjournal.com/ibm-nyse-ibm-announces-support-of-new-openoffice-org-project/2511304/]:

Continuando con lo que describe como su “compromiso de larga plazo con el Código Abierto,” IBM ha confirmado esta semana que ahora tendrá un papel activo en la base de código nuevo OpenOffice.org presentado a la Incubadora de Apache Software Foundation.

IBM y de código abierto que usted dice? En caso de que sea excepcional?

Esto no cuenta toda la historia. Recuerde lo que escribimos acerca de la licencia de Apache hace unas semanas[http://techrights.org/2011/05/19/openlogic-on-licensing/] (lo que condujo a FUD[http://techrights.org/2011/05/19/openlogic-on-licensing/]). Recuerde a quienes le gusta este tipo de licencia, que los proponentes Microsoft halagan muchas veces (y ahora Microsoft da dinero a la ASF -Apache Software Foundation- también). Como dijimos ayer, mucho se ha escrito acerca de la noticia y deseamos no aburrir con la repetición. Pero, vamos a decir que Microsoft se opone con vehemencia a la interoperabilidad (el problema está en el centro, entre ellos Bill Gates), por lo que debemos defender ODF, incluso si esto significa tolerar IBM. Pero IBM no deben ser tratado como nuestro amigo (ni debe la Fundación Documento, que tiene algunos residuos de Novell). Después de muchas observaciones que se están realizando en nuestros canales de IRC, hemos llegado a la conclusión de que algunos de nosotros aceptamos. Es posible que IBM, que intercambia materia de licencias (las patentes de software) con Microsoft, ahora puede tomar su versión propietaria de OpenOffice.org (Lotus Symphony) y además extenderla legalmente sin contribuir de nuevo sus cambios. Eso es lo que una licencia de Apache hará en el supuesto de que el paso de los derechos de autor a las obras de Apache como IBM espera. Todo esto muestra los peligros de los acuerdos de cesión de derechos (¡presta atención, Canonical!) y si la LGPLv3 (Licencia Pública General Menor v3) se abandona como Bradley de la FSF (Fundación de Software Libre) sospecha [3], entonces será posible para IBM haga Simphony las única protegida de patentes de derivada de OpenOffice.org (indemnización por ejemplo). Los grandes vendedores están en juegos malos para aumentar su propio poder y ODF se acuña en algún punto intermedio. IBM podría haber unido sus manos con LibreOffice y su organización de cubierta. No lo ha hecho todavía. Hubo incluso sarcásticos comentarios de IBM. Una persona que pidió ser más relevantes al vicepresidente de IBM en este área afirmó que ésta no ha aprobado su comentario, aunque después de un debate y un e-mail de este vicepresidente nos enteramos de que estaba demasiado ocupado (que probablemente sea cierto y no una excusa/idea de último momento). De todos modos, IBM tiene que aclarar dos cosas ahora: 1) se sumarán LibreOffice? 2) ¿Cúal es su posición en el tema de la licencias o derechos de autor y las patentes? IBM es una empresa en general silenciosa después de sus complicaciones en defensa de la competencia, por lo que tiene problemas de comunicación[http://techrights.org/2011/06/01/ibm-pr-fails/] (incluso cuando se comunica está tratando de ocultar la comunicación). █

Referencias:

1. Declaración Acerca del Movimiento de Oracle para Donar OpenOffice.org a la Fundación Apache[http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement-about-oracles-move-to-donate-openoffice-org-assets-to-the-apache-foundation/]

La Fundación Documento acogería con satisfacción la reunificación de la OpenOffice.org y el proyecto LibreOffice en una sola comunidad de iguales en la raíz de la salida de Oracle. El paso de Oracle ha tomado hoy fue sin duda tomadas de buena fe, pero no parece alcanzar directamente este objetivo. La comunidad Apache, que respetamos enormemente, tiene expectativas muy diferentes y las normas – miembro de concesión de licencias, y mucho más – a los proyectos existentes OpenOffice.org y LibreOffice. Lamentamos la oportunidad perdida, pero estamos comprometidos a trabajar con todos los miembros activos de la comunidad para diseñar el mejor futuro posible para LibreOffice y OpenOffice.org.

2. Oracle Entrega OpenOffice a Apache[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/oracle-gives-openoffice-to-apache/9035]

Kevin IBM Cavanaugh, vicepresidente de soluciones de colaboración., Que presionó para Oracle para deshacerce de OpenOffice después que se hizo claro que Oracle no iria a a poner mucho más recursos en en OpenOffice, dijo en un comunicado, “IBM da la bienvenida a la contribución de Oracle de OpenOffice software a la Apache Software Foundation. Esperamos poder colaborar con otros miembros de la comunidad para avanzar en la tecnología a partir de nuestro firme apoyo del proceso de incubación de OpenOffice en Apache. ”

3. ¿Recurre a Copyleft para competir con un Substituto?[http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html]

Me molestó hoy a leer que Oracle intentará relicenciar todo el código de OpenOffice bajo la licencia Apache 2.0 y OpenOffice pase a la Apache Software Foundation.

He escrito recientemente acerca de cómo entre las licencias permisivas, mi favorito es sin duda la licencia Apache 2.0. Sin embargo, creo que uno debe pasar de una licencia copyleft a una permisiva uno sólo en circunstancias excepcionales y con el mayor cuidado.

Obviamente, en este caso, me opongo a relicenciar de Oracle de OpenOffice.org bajo licencia Apache 2.0. Probablemente es obvio por qué me siento así, pero voy a explicar, sin embargo, por si acaso. Voy a pasar por alto sobre todo los motivos para hacerlo, que creo que son obvias: Oracle (e IBM, que se citan en apoyo de este movimiento) por sus propias razones no les gusta el “fork” de la Fundación Documento (LibreOffice) de OpenOffice.org. Se trata de un último esfuerzo por parte de IBM y Oracle para frustrar el progreso de LibreOffice, que ha sido reportado como muy exitosa y muchas distribuciones han comenzado a adoptar LibreOffice. (Incluso los no-software de sitios sitios como Metafilter en que los usuarios discuten el cambio a LibreOffice.)

4. Oracle propone OpenOffice.org para Apache Incubator[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/oracle-proposes-openofficeorg-apache-incubato]

5. El Problema de Llevar Armonía a la Asignación de Derechos de Autor[http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/news/the-issue-of-bringing-harmony-to-copyright-assignment/]

Hay una clase completamente diferente de CAA en el que el desarrollador da a una compañía pleno derecho a su código, sin embargo. Sun (y más tarde Oracle) exigierón esto de las contribuciones a OpenOffice.org. Ellos lo necesitan para poder incorporar las aportaciones en las diferentes versiones que no son libres de OpenOffice como StarOffice o la Lotus Suite de IBM. Así pues, en esencia, tiene que darles el derecho de vender versiones no libres de su código o no puedes contribuir. En lo que a mí respecta, ¡este no es un buen uso de las CAA!

6. Oracle da a OpenOffice a la Fundación Apache – debemos preocuparnos?[http://blogs.dailynews.com/click/2011/06/oracle-gives-openoffice-to-the.html]

Creo que Oracle pensaba lo mismo. No hicieron caso de OpenOffice y sus colaboradores después de comprar Sun. Claro que primero mató a OpenSolaris. Era sólo cuestión de tiempo antes de que OpenOffice fuese deshechada.

Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

Summary: A look back at how Microsoft distorted the market of office suites and a candid suggestion for IBM to open up on the real issues, not the minor details

THE “RUTHLESS” Bill Gates is nowadays buying newspapers to call himself something else and distract from his evil side, rewriting history to a sufficient extent so that people will forget his poisonous legacy that everyone suffers from, to this date. It is called reputation laundering. Today we would like to go back and show people the real Bill Gates. Later this month we hope to get a helping hand from another editor who can help show some of today’s offences from Gates (but that’ll be left aside for now as it is partly off topic).

“On another occasion Gates showed not only his hatred of standards and interoperability but also his love of patents.”So yesterday we wrote about how IBM becomes a key player in ODF. IBM and Microsoft are rivals as much as Apple and Microsoft are rivals. They actually collaborate in some areas where it is beneficial to both companies (not necessarily to the externalities). Microsoft, which is is run by sociopaths, has quite a history of copying and also breaking Lotus. We showed this using Comes vs Microsoft court exhibits. A Techrights informant has just reminded us that, in Comes vs Microsoft, “PXE 3078 has Lotus working for interoperability and MS working against it.” We covered this several years ago. Bill Gates said that giving out the Office 2000 formats to competitors seems crazy and this type of remark occurred later too. On another occasion Gates showed not only his hatred of standards and interoperability but also his love of patents. On several occasions he tried to use software patents against OpenOffice.org, even resorting to patent blackmail against Sun. A lot of publications speak of the OpenOffice.org news in the context which excepts and excludes patents (see examples at the bottom of this post). This is a mistake. To give just one example of a typical interpretation of this announcement:

Continuing what it likes to describe as its “long-standing commitment to open source,” IBM has this week confirmed that it will now take an active role in the new OpenOffice.org code base submitted to The Apache Software Foundation Incubator.

IBM and open source you say? Should that be unusual?

This does not tell the whole story. Remember what we wrote about the Apache licence some weeks ago (this led to FUD). Remember who likes this type of licence, which Microsoft proponents sometimes champion (and Microsoft now gives money to the ASF too). As we stated yesterday, too much would have been written about the news and we wish not to bore with repetition. But what we shall say is that Microsoft is vehemently opposing interoperability (the problem is at the core, including Bill Gates), so we must defend ODF, even if it means tolerating IBM. But IBM should not be treated as our friend here (nor should The Document Foundation, which has some residues from Novell). After many observations were being made in our IRC channels we have reached the conclusion which some of us accept. It is possible that IBM, which cross-licenses (software patents) with Microsoft, can now take its proprietary version of OpenOffice.org (Lotus Symphony) and further extend it legally without contributing back the changes. That’s what an Apache licence will do assuming that the passage of copyrights to Apache works as IBM hoped. This whole thing shows the dangers of copyright assignment agreements (pay attention, Canonical) and if the LGPLv3 is abandoned as Bradley from the FSF suspects [3], then it will be possible for IBM to make Symphony the only patents-’covered’ derivative of OpenOffice.org (indemnification for example). The big vendors are playing evil games to increase their own power and ODF gets wedged somewhere in the middle. IBM could have joined hands with LibreOffice and its umbrella organisation. It hasn’t done so yet. There were even snide remarks from IBM. One person who urged IBM’s most relevant Vice President in this area claimed that the latter has not approved his comment, although after some discussion and an E-mail from this vice president we learned that he was too busy (which is probably true and not an excuse/afterthought). Anyway, IBM needs to clarify two things now: 1) will it join LibreOffice? 2) Where does it stand on the subject of licensing/copyrights and patents? IBM is generally a silent company after the antitrust complications, so it has communications problems (even when it communicates it is trying to hide the communication). █

References:

1. Statement about Oracle’s move to donate OpenOffice.org assets to the Apache Foundation

   The Document Foundation would welcome the reuniting of the OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice projects into a single community of equals in the wake of the departure of Oracle. The step Oracle has taken today was no doubt taken in good faith, but does not appear to directly achieve this goal. The Apache community, which we respect enormously, has very different expectations and norms – licensing, membership and more – to the existing OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice projects. We regret the missed opportunity but are committed to working with all active community members to devise the best possible future for LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org.

2. Oracle gives OpenOffice to Apache

   IBM’s Kevin Cavanaugh, VP of Collaboration Solutions., which lobbied for Oracle to spin OpenOffice off after it became clear that Oracle wasn’t going to put much, if any, resources into OpenOffice, said in a statement, “IBM welcomes Oracle’s contribution of OpenOffice software to the Apache Software Foundation. We look forward to engaging with other community members to advance the technology beginning with our strong support of the incubation process for OpenOffice at Apache.”

3. Ditching Copyleft to Compete with a Fork?

   I was disturbed today to read that Oracle will seek to relicense all OpenOffice code under the Apache-2.0 license and move OpenOffice into the Apache Software Foundation.

   I’ve written recently about how among the permissive licenses, my favorite is clearly the Apache License 2.0. However, I think that one should switch from a copyleft license to a permissive one only in rare circumstances and with the greatest of care.

   Obviously, in this case, I oppose Oracle’s relicense of OpenOffice.org under Apache-License-2.0. It is probably obvious why I feel that way, but I shall explain nonetheless, just in case. I’m going to mostly ignore the motives for doing so, which I think are obvious: Oracle (and IBM, who are quoted in support of this move) for their own reasons don’t like The Document Foundation fork (LibreOffice) of OpenOffice.org. This is a last-ditch effort by IBM and Oracle to thwart the progress of that fork, which has been reported as quite successful and many distributions have begun to adopt LibreOffice. (Even non-software sites sites like Metafilter have users discussing changing to LibreOffice .)

4. Oracle proposes OpenOffice.org to Apache Incubator

5. The issue of bringing harmony to copyright assignment

   There is an entirely different class of CAAs where you give a company full right to your code, however. Sun (and later Oracle) demanded this for contributions to OpenOffice.org. They need this to be able to incorporate the contributions into non-free versions of OpenOffice like StarOffice or IBM’s Lotus Suite. So in essence, you have to give them the right to sell non-free versions of your code or you can’t contribute. As far as I’m concerned, this is clearly not a good use of CAAs!

6. Oracle gives OpenOffice to the Apache Foundation — should we care?

   I guess Oracle thought the same thing. They ignored OpenOffice and its contributors after buying Sun. Sure they killed OpenSolaris first. It was only a matter of time before they ankled OpenOffice.

A reader of ours (in IRC) has just posted a couple of links from financial news sites. While these sites tend to take Microsoft’s claims at face value even when the numbers don’t add up, the latter story says that “Windows has 75% PC market share” and also speaks about the erosion of margins, which competition with GNU/Linux inevitably leads to:

Microsoft OS’ operating margins have declined from around 79% in 2007 to around 66% in 2010, and we expect it to continue to decline to around 59% by the end of Trefis forecast period. The margins have declined as average OS license pricing has suffered given the company’s expansion into emerging markets and due to lower priced netbooks for which Microsoft sells a cheaper OS license. We expect these trends to continue in the future in addition to the growth in mobile devices like smartphones and tablets which could also weigh on margins in the future.

[...]

Microsoft Office operating margins have declined from around 67% in 2007 to around 61% in 2010, and these could continue to decline to around 54% by the end of Trefis forecast period. Last year, Microsoft released Office web apps, a cloud-based software, to compete with Google Apps, and we discussed some of the challenges in for this product in a note entitled Microsoft’s Stock Could Lose $2 if Office Margins Decline to Google App Levels.

Just as we mentioned earlier today, there is this tendency to ignore the real competition which is Free software. Google Apps is not Microsoft’s #1 problem and the estimate of office suites market share in the article above is incorrect based on surveys that exist. But it’s the trend we care about and it confirms what we occasionally write about. █

THIS Web site, Techrights, was one of the sites which broke the news about LibreOffice (to ensure no misunderstandings we were contacted weeks in advance). There has been criticism of this project, however, notably because of OOXML exporting [1, 2]. In order to clarify this situation, The Document Foundation has just released a LibreOffice FAQ relating only to OOXML doubts. Among the parts:

Ah! So Novell is bringing in odd software bits from Microsoft to betray Free Software!

That’s not really a question, but there are some things that are quite clear to the Document Foundation:

* Novell and the Document Foundation are not the same entities, nor does Novell own the Document Foundation. Novell is one contributor, among several others, to the Document Foundation.
* The patches related to the Microsoft Office formats support coming from Novell are the indirect result of the a specific agreement between Novell and Microsoft. We use the word “indirect” here, as the agreement covers the software known as “OpenOffice Novell Edition”, and that’s not the same as LibreOffice.
* To the best of the knowledge of the Document Foundation, there is no specific agreement between Novell and Microsoft about LibreOffice. (But then again, we are not Novell nor do we represent the company in any way).

“Excuse me,” wrote Groklaw in response to this, “but this is a little too smooth, because if LibreOffice includes those OpenOffice patches, and apparently it does, what in the world would require a specific contract regarding LibreOffice? If the patches are patent-encumbered, for example, would LibreOffice get a pass from the courts because the patch was designed for OpenOffice? Obviously not. If there is any chance of that, then why not make the patches optional by default, and the wiki says you can ship LibreOffice without those patches? That way those of us in countries with wacky patent laws can avoid difficulties.”

Techrights has covered this subject since 2007 and Groklaw woke up to it only a few weeks ago. Separately, Groklaw wrote: “If you do technical work for Microsoft to help it be more interoperable, then, are you helping or hurting FOSS in this context? Something to think about.” █

Summary: Microsoft’s #1 cash cow still suffers on/from the Web, so Microsoft rebrands and also uses help from Facebook, which it partly owns

“Microsoft [is] trademarking ‘Be What’s Next’ slogan,” which comes as no surprise as the company craves an image makeover (there is a new Web site coming). A lot of people associate Microsoft with being “uncool” and the monopolist is aware of this. Even BPOS (which has the acronym “POS” in it) may be in the process of phase-out following many downtimes and failures that we covered here last year. “Microsoft Office 365″ is a new identity Microsoft introduces as part of a rename that’s necessary for competing with Google in online office suites. As the previous post showed, Microsoft uses many other methods against Google. It’s just abusive. Boys will be boys and Microsoft will be… well, Microsoft.

“Microsoft recently lost its Office president (he became the CEO of Nokia) and its ‘Web’ president left around the same time.”Even Goldman Sachs recognises Microsoft's imminent demise and the slow decline of cash cows is indicative of it. This whole B-POS business is not something which Microsoft can monetise like it’s used to and just slapping a different label on it (insinuating a 365-day uptime despite the many downtimes B-POS has had) is a case of evading bad reputation, not innovating anything. Microsoft is playing catch-up here, even in the office suites space. Who would have thought this could happen by transitioning from the operating system to the server room (SaaS) for workloads. Microsoft recently lost its Office president (he became the CEO of Nokia) and its ‘Web’ president left around the same time. Yes, that would be Ozzie, who expressed deep concerns after he had left and then started blogging atop GNU/Linux with Free software (WordPress).

Let’s put this more briefly again: for Microsoft to rebrand Office “Office 365″ amid shifts to the Web (Fog Computing or SaaS) is to imply uptime that cannot really be delivered using Windows and the rest of Microsoft’s underlying stack (ask Microsoft’s poster child the LSE about this stack). This is not going to work and the exodus of presidents indicates that they too are giving up. Before anyone yells, “but hey! There’s still Microsoft Office 2010,” well… read this new report which says that “Microsoft Office 2010 Migrations [Are] Delayed”:

Concerns around the complexity of migrating to the new productivity software in Microsoft Office 2010 will delay broad deployment until 2011, according to a global survey of 953 IT professionals conducted by market research firm Dimensional Research and sponsored by Dell’s Kace division.

Microsoft’s booster Preston Gralla says that he finds Microsoft Office 365 beta “occasionally frustrating” [1, 2] and these rants are being noticed. Yet again we see Microsoft’s biggest cheerleaders ranting about Microsoft’s offerings.

Earlier this year we showed that the malicious site Facebook (partly owned by Microsoft) came to Microsoft Office’s rescue, promoting OOXML in the process. “Microsoft May Be Using Facebook as a Trojan Horse for Office” says one new headline:

The answer may have more to do with Microsoft’s priorities than Facebook’s. Outside of its Facebook collaboration, Microsoft has been experimenting with Docs.com, which has been a kind of proving grounds for its cloud-based Office suite, Office365. Docs.com is now piloting its own Facebook integration, but only with Facebook Groups. The idea is that a group of friends can collaborate upon a single cloud-based document, just as on Google Docs. (The Docs.com/Facebook Groups collaboration is a separate but parallel project to the Facebook Messages/Office365 support. Confusing, yes.)

Also see the very recent reports titled “Microsoft enhances Facebook partnership”; “Facebook opens up your data to Microsoft”; “Microsoft infuses Facebook data in Bing search”; “Docs.com Now Supports Facebook Groups”; Microsoft bolsters online document-sharing for Facebook” and “Microsoft’s Docs Now Supports Facebook Groups”.

“Facebook already shares its data with Microsoft.”Watch out as Facebook is not much different from Microsoft. A Microsoft executive recently confirmed that Microsoft tried to buy Facebook for $15 billion and some people still think that Microsoft should buy Facebook, which in some sense means acquiring many profiles of very many people. It would essentially make Microsoft more of a Big Brother than it already is. In reality, Microsoft doesn’t need to buy companies; it only needs to tilt them into Microsoft’s agenda (e.g. .NET, OOXML); see Yahoo!/Novell for recent examples. Older examples include Corel. Facebook already shares its data with Microsoft.

Over at Forbes, Microsoft’s agenda has been promoted quite a lot recently. One post said that “Facebook And Bing Threaten To Throttle Google’s Growth” and Quentin Hardy — a shameless Microsoft booster and Wikileaks basher on the face of it — promotes Bong [sic], advances/welcomes Microsoft’s case against Google, and bashes Chrome OS. It’s a consistent Microsoft booster on the face of it, but Forbes blogs are a fairly new addition, so the sample size is too small for judgment at this stage.

For those who argue there is legitimacy in Microsoft’s case for Google antitrust, bear in mind that “Microsoft has been funding anti-Google group since 2007″ while Google responds by arguing exactly that. IBM too says that Microsoft's “satellite proxies” are the cause of antitrust actions (yes, IBM used those exact words). Mind the sensationalism in “Google’s monopolisation of the internet” and the article posted by Google Watch in a couple of eWEEK sites (US and Europe):

Europe’s Antitrust Hunt of Google Smells Like Microsoft

Search engine experts are exasperated by the European Commission’s pending witchhunt of Google for alleged anticompetitive behavior.

As Microsoft might put it, why compete when one can cheat and use lawyers instead? Appalling.

“It’s very bad when people’s social platform is subjected to censorship by unknown people. It limits people thoughts and expressions among peers (or ‘friends’).”Back we go to Facebook, which is said to have just “remove[d] Gmail from “Friend Find” List”. That’s quite telling, isn’t it? Facebook is picking sides. It’s not as though Gmail can be ignored. Many people use it. Is Facebook engaging in a form of censorship to please its owner (in part), Microsoft? More and more people also use Google’s Web browser, which capitalises on the fact that Microsoft is asleep at the wheel and too incompetent to keep up (it insists on developing a rendering engine alone, the proprietary way).

Why is Facebook censoring Google? Some sites say that Facebook plays hard to get in order to rub Microsoft and Google off against each other and thus retrieve the best deal available on the table. There is this recent article titled “Should Amazon Censor? Should Apple? Facebook? Microsoft?”

Everybody censors these days, as it seems to have become worryingly fashionable. All large companies do this. Then again, Facebook censorship is a standard and frequent practice (Apple censorship, new Microsoft censorship, and Amazon censorship aside). It’s very bad when people’s social platform is subjected to censorship by unknown people. It limits people thoughts and expressions among peers (or ‘friends’). The whole idea behind Facebook is revolting and we wrote many posts to warn about the dangers.

For those who have not heard yet, the deeply corrupt and Bill Gates-funded Goldman Sachs comes under US probe after investment in Facebook. Here is an article that provides background:

Far from turning up the heat for Facebook to go public, Goldman Sachs’ $450 million investment, along with Digital Sky’s $50 million more, may actually delay the social-networking giant’s IPO, says David Kirkpatrick.

Francine McKenna from Forbes says that “Goldman Sachs Wants You To Invest In Facebook” (headline is almost instructive):

Facebook wants the public’s money – and their trust – with none of the disclosure and none of the regulatory scrutiny of a public company. Goldman Sachs strategy to raise $1.5 billion for Facebook from “sophisticated investors” and invest another $450 million of their own money is an example of wanton disregard for accountability to the securities markets.

P2PNet’s headline is “Facebook, Goldman, Sucks”:

Fa$ebook has “raised $500m from Goldman Sachs and Digital Sky Technologies, the Russian investment firm, in a deal that values the social networking site at $50bn, according to people familiar with the deal”, said p2pnet in the January 3 headline roundup, quoting the Financial Times.

p2pnet hasn’t raised a dime but it, too, is worth $50 billion, according to me. And my valuation has as much validity as that of the Goldman Sachs / Digital Sky Technologies Facebook.

If you’re Goldman Sachs, come up with a figure – any figure — and it’s quoted just as though it’s really real.

Fortune/CNN has published “Five reasons why I’m not buying Facebook” and The New York Times asks, “Why Are Taxpayers Subsidizing Facebook, and the Next Bubble?”

Remember that Goldman Sachs is now a bank-holding company – a status it received in September 2008, at the height of the financial crisis, in order to avoid collapse (see Andrew Ross Sorkin’s blow-by-blow account in “Too Big to Fail” for the details.)

This means that it has essentially unfettered access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window – that is, it can borrow against all kinds of assets in its portfolio, effectively ensuring it has government-provided liquidity at any time.

Any financial institution with such access to such government support is likely to take on excessive risk – this is the heart of what is commonly referred to as the problem of “moral hazard.” If you are fully insured against adverse events, you will be less careful.

Goldman Sachs is undoubtedly too big to fail – in the sense that if it were on the brink of failure now or in the near future, it would receive extraordinary government support and its creditors (at the very least) would be fully protected.

Techrights covers several companies that disregard people and Facebook increasingly becomes one of these. It’s not because of its scale but because of its practices and their rather far-reaching effects. █

Summary: “Genuine Advantage” getting the kick explained by bloggers

The title is ambiguous as it may refer either to cracking one’s registration process or the spreading of crack, the banned drug. Actually, the title can be either one of these things. As we explained earlier, Microsoft’s “Genuine Advantage” withdrawal is sign that dead products from the giant take their toll and expand to basic territories. Some products that are close to Office are among the casualties. Matt Hartley explains why stepping away from “Genuine Advantage” makes sense for Microsoft:

It was fun while it lasted. According to at least one report, Microsoft has shut down Office Genuine Advantage (OGA). And I hate to say it, but no one is going to be missing this any time soon. I’m sorry, but there was absolutely NO advantage with Genuine Advantage. It was a horrid thing to subject paying customers to and it is long overdue for a toilet based funeral in my opinion. Glad to see Microsoft stepped up to put it out of our misery.

OpenBytes goes further by tackling this conundrum with a memorable quote:

As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.

Source: Bill Gates

There have been numerous articles around the net that Microsoft has killed off OGA (or in Microsoft’s words “retired”).

Microsoft “retiring” OGA should, for once, be a good news story from Redmond.

Or should it?

There is no doubt to me in the obvious surge of popularity for FOSS or even proprietary alternatives to Microsoft products. Its been said that the two main cash-cows Microsoft has remaining (in lieu of its patent portfolio and a predicted more aggressive patent attack) are Office and Windows. We see products like OpenOffice taking users away from that cash cow, LibreOffice, AbiWord, Google Docs are but a few that are taking a bite out of Microsoft’s cash pie.

Could the OGA retirement be an attempt to achieve that which Bill Gates envisioned those years ago, where it appears Microsoft was quite happy for people to pirate their products in order for this “addiction” to take place? Afterall, why should the majority of users spend money on Microsoft Office, when there are free alternatives?

The challenge now is ensuring that Bill Gates is pushed away from school children (which he is taking over using the Gates Foundation) so that they don’t get “addicted” (Gates’ word) to Microsoft Office and other forms of lock-in. █

Summary: Novell is slammed by a longtime stickler for helping promote Microsoft’s proprietary rival to ODF, which is the international standard for documents

PEOPLE have begun leaving for their vacation, but earlier on Groklaw decided to speak about Novell’s massive betrayal (translation to Spanish), which is not exactly news at all. Novell’s betrayal has been clear to us for over 4 years and we wrote thousands of posts on the subject.

Groklaw turns to Comes exhibits, specifically IBM exhibits. Rob from IBM has just posted this chart which shows what an utter mess Microsoft Office can be for ODF (pretty much by design [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]) and Groklaw links this to what Novell did with Microsoft and what Microsoft did to IBM a couple of decades ago. To quote some parts:

First quietly create incompatibilities to make sure that Microsoft applications wouldn’t run right on OS/2. Then tell the world that they shouldn’t buy OS/2 because Microsoft applications wouldn’t run right on OS/2.

But 1991 is a long time ago, I hear some of you say, and there is a new Microsoft. Oh? Let’s see if that’s so by highlighting one of the recent Novell filings with the SEC, its work agreement with Microsoft titled “Improving Microsoft-Novell Interoperability through Open XML” and dated March of this very year.

It’s regarding work Microsoft was willing to pay Novell to do to make Microsoft’s cynically misnamed Open XML seem like it allows interoperability. Novell has been at work since March to make Novell’s version of OpenOffice.org interoperate, sort of, but as you will see not completely with Microsoft Office 2010 so that it would at least look like Open XML works and that somebody is implementing it.

What a role for Novell to agree to play. We’ve had our suspicions for years, since Microsoft and Novell entered into its patent peace agreement and technical work agreement, and now we know that everything we suspected Novell was doing with its version of OpenOffice.org, it was. It is. This is the smoking gun. And the work agreement runs through November of 2011, so this story isn’t over yet.

[...]

Remember that one of the big objections to OOXML becoming a standard in the first place was that it allowed for proprietary extensions, which it was pointed out would make it difficult and indeed impossible for anyone but Microsoft and any chosen pals to interoperate with the “standard”. And here you see it in real life. Under criticism, Microsoft hires Novell to be a Microsoft pal and to try to figure out a way to make Microsoft Office look like it interoperates with OpenOffice.org up to a point, not any version of it, but just Novell’s version of OpenOffice.

You are not supposed to have to hire people to figure out a private way to be compatible with a true standard.

[...]

Oh, Novell. What were you thinking? Why would you agree to this? I can read these words, so why couldn’t you? They say you are being used to prop up the reputation of Open XML, while not really making it compatible in the end. What kind of goals are these? For a *standard*? For a company selling GNU/Linux?

[...]

Irony is dead. Here you have a so-called standard being used for exclusivity, so Microsoft and Novell have special interoperability that others can’t enjoy.

And as for Novell’s awful role, obviously, Novell executives never grasped the essence of Linux or FOSS. That explains a lot, including the company’s downfall in the end, don’t you think? Selling out the community in secret does not a long-term business plan make. And to everyone who pushed for or accepted Novell’s version of OpenOffice.org, what’s the plan now? Seriously. Time to really make a plan. Microsoft does. How about the community? How stupid are we?

Groklaw also appends the exhibit (we will hopefully have its Spanish translation soon, courtesy of Eduardo Landaveri) and Microsoft’s booster/insider Alex Brown gets slammed for his role in this whole process (he is a Microsoft “mercenary” as Landaveri would probably call him). He is criticised severely not just for his abuse as OOXML convenor but also as a Microsoft booster after all these incidents. Brown also threatened me after I had leaked OOXML, for all the misconduct associated with it (even corruption like bribes). That’s the type of crowd Microsoft surrounds itself with, in order to defend itself from prosecution for crimes.

For those who can recall the debate from 2008, OOXML is filled with RAND traps although it’s not the only issue with this proprietary format. The news about EIFv2 [1, 2, 3] (also in Spanish) suggests that Europe will not exclude OOXML for its unacceptable RAND terms and there is a new analysis (supposedly impartial) of what EIFv2 will mean to Europe:

Whether or not by indirect reaction to some of these developments, Red Hat has this week issued a blog post outlining the European Interoperability Framework (EIF), which has been set out by the European Commission. The commission recognizes that open technologies are key to achieving interoperability and therefore recommends that public administrations should aim for openness at all times.

If the European Commission is right to back this initiative with its emphasis being on “open specifications” and open standards being implemented in practice, then it may help the wider cause of free and open source software application development (in the public sector at least) from the following perspectives:

* The promotion and support the delivery of public services by fostering cross-border and cross-sectoral interoperability;
* To guide public administrations in their work to provide public services to businesses and citizens; and
* To complement and tie together the various National Interoperability Frameworks (NIFs) where they exist.

Although this model is confined to Europe under the auspices of the European commission, if effective it may prove telling for procedural adoption in other developed countries of the Western world from the United States and beyond.

The EIF is more than just a typical paper from another government committee. It is the result of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder effort that sets out to shift the paradigm for IT deployment in the public sector. Indeed, in the words of the EIF, it… “should be taken into account when [governments are] making decisions on public services that support the implementation of policy initiatives… [and] should also be considered when establishing public services that in the future may be reused as part of public services.”

OOXML was never supposed to get anywhere near ISO, but Novell helped it along the way, in order to appease Microsoft which had paid Novell hundreds of millions of dollars. Boyott Novell and whatever comes after it (AttachMSFT is buying Novell, so the name of the target will change). █

(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Resumen: Spanish translation of a new Groklaw article exposing Novell’s ugliness

Eduardo Landaveri wrote to us last night (in English):

Groklaw & Boycott Novell were the only ones had the guts to declare MS goals & denounce Judas Novell openly. Many of those who attack PJ & yourself instead of focus on the message have tried to derail you both, but history & time brings everything to light. The trolls & paid MS mercenaries can’t and won’t be able to deny or rewrite history thanks to the Comes exibits. Many of them need to be translated to other languages so other peoples won’t be deceived.

Their Himmlerian tactics: “Lie, lie, lie something will remain” won’t be able to rewrite history. Please, people of Spain, Latin America & Brazil, join us in translating documents on this site as well on the Comes vs MS documents at:

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018

To the Latin American & European peoples Microsoft goal is: DIGITAL COLONIALISM. Do not let pass any legalization of software patents! Doing so will enslave your childrens future. Look up to India & Brazil.

Or in Spanish:

Groklaw y Boicot Novell fueron los únicos que tuvieron el coraje de declarar los objetivos de Microsoft y denunciar abiertamente a Judas Novell. Muchos de los que atacan a PJ y a usted mismo en vez de centrarse en el mensaje han tratado de descarrilarlos a ambos, pero la historia y el tiempo trae todo a la luz. Los trolls y mercenarios pagados de Microsoft no pueden ni se podrán negar o reescribir la historia gracias a la exibits de Comes vs Microsoft. Muchos de ellos necesitan ser traducidos a otros idiomas para los demás pueblos no seán engañados.

Sus tácticas Himmlerianas: “Miente, miente, miente que algo quedará” no será capaz de reescribir la historia. Por favor, la gente de España, América Latina y Brasil, únete a nosotros en la traducción de documentos en este sitio y de los documentos de Comes vs MS en:

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018

Para la región de América Latina y el objetivo de los pueblos europeos Microsoft es: COLONIALISMO DIGITAL. No dejen pasar cualquier legalización de las patentes de software! Si lo hace, esclavizaran el future de sus niños. Miren a la India y Brasil.

Here is the translation of the article from Groklaw:

Otra exhibición espantosa ha terminado en forma de texto en nuestra colección de exposiciones[http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018] Comes v. Microsoft, prueba 1116[http://groklaw.net/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01116.pdf] [PDF].

Es un memorandum de Microsoft de 1991, con respecto a un plan de ataque sugerido para vencer al OS/2 de IBM, escrito por José Krawczak, actualmente director del programa de grupo de Outlook de Microsoft. Éstos son sólo tres sentencias condenatorias del memorandum confidencial:

Llevar a cabo una estrategia de desarrollo de productos que prevenga a IBM que puedan decir que tengan compatibilidad con Windows. Impedir que Windows las aplicaciones se ejecuten correctamente en OS/2 ….

Cambiar la posición de OS/2 como poco práctica e incompatible en la mente de los clientes.

Que bónito: Primero en silencio crear incompatibilidades para asegurarse de que las aplicaciones de Microsoft no trabajen correctamente en OS/2. A continuación, decirle al mundo que no debe comprar OS/2, ya que las aplicaciones de Microsoft no trabajan correctamente en OS/2.

Pero 1991 es hace mucho tiempo, he oído que algunos de ustedes dicen, y hay un nuevo Microsoft. Ah, sí? Vamos a ver si eso es así, poniendo de relieve una de las últimas presentaciones de Novell con la SEC (EE.UU. Comisión de Bolsa y Valores), su acuerdo de trabajo[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/000119312510279391/dex1068.htm] con Microsoft titulado “Mejora de la interoperabilidad entre Microsoft y Novell a través de Open XML” y fechado en marzo de este mismo año.

Es con respecto al trabajo que Microsoft estaba dispuesto a pagar Novell que hacer para que el CíNICAMENTE mal llamado Open XML de Microsoft pareciera que permite la interoperabilidad. Novell ha estado trabajando desde marzo para hacer la versión de Novell de OpenOffice.org interoperar, más o menos, pero como usted verá no completamente con Microsoft Office 2010 para que al menos pareciera que el “Open” XML es “abierto” y que alguien lo implementa.

¿Qué papel Novell acordo jugar. Hemos tenido nuestras sospechas durante años, desde que Microsoft y Novell entró en su acuerdo de paz de patentes y acuerdo de trabajo técnico, y ahora sabemos que todo lo que se sospechaba que Novell estaba haciendo con su versión de OpenOffice.org, lo fue. Así es. Esta es la pistola humeante. Y el acuerdo de trabajo se ejecuta hasta noviembre de 2011, por lo que esta historia no ha terminado todavía.

Esta es la descripción de los objetivos del proyecto:

Descripción: El proyecto tiene tres objetivos principales:

a) El aumento de la interoperabilidad entre Microsoft Office y Novell OpenOffice Suites de Productividad a través de la portabilidad de datos mejorado habilitado a través de soporte nativo del estándar “Open” XML; (NOTA: todas las referencias en esta Declaración de trabajo a “OpenOffice de Novell” se hace referencia a “Novell OpenOffice Productos” tal como se define en el Acuerdo);

b) Un fuerte ecosistema “OPEN” XML como habilitada por implementaciones de proveedores de software múltiples, y,

c) Una mayor “calidad” de estándar “Abierto” XML como activado por una participación más activa en el manejo de defectos, mejoras y establecer la dirección estratégica. En este sentido, los objetivos del proyecto incluyen Novell ser un activo, participante ejecutor en el mantenimiento y evolución del estándar “Open” XML; Novell que participan en el estándar de evolución de una manera que sea consistente con las necesidades de las modernas suites de productividad (casos de compatibilidad hacia atrás, de medios suficientes para los ejecutores de innovación basado en las necesidades del cliente, el grado adecuado de estabilidad de la norma, etc), y Novell ser un ejecutor de primera clase del estándar “Open” XML y activamente compartiendo sus experiencias con el resto de la “comunidad” de “Open” XML .

No veo como la meta sea plenamente compatible. ¿Usted? Más bien, dice “mejorado” la compatibilidad entre Novell OpenOffice, sólo la versión de Novell con Microsoft Office, mejora pero NO COMPLETA, utilizando los bits de la norma, pero obviamente siguiendo a los productos de Microsoft, no la norma, como la elección se debe hacer. ¿Cómo podía ser completa, teniendo en cuenta las extensiones de Microsoft que no están en la norma y que Microsoft mantiene en su propio control proprietario? El objetivo real brilla a través de mí como este: hacer “Open” XML parezca legítimo haciéndolo lucir como “participación activa de ejecutores”. Esa es la función de Novell en esta triste foto.

Lo que Novell hizo aquí fue dejase contratar esencialmente para poner en práctica la “interoperabilidad” de productos, no la interoperabilidad de un “estándar”, por lo que Microsoft no tiene que hacer una norma que en realidad funcione como una norma se supone que, sea compatibles con todo el mundo por igual.

Aquí hay un par de párrafos del acuerdo técnico de 2006[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/000095013407012375/f26782exv10w33.htm] entre Novell y Microsoft ridículamente redactada para ser indescifrable antes de que fuera presentado ante la SEC (EE.UU. Comisión de Bolsa y Valore) la parte de “Open” XML:

(A) el ejercicio de sus *** *** *** a más tardar el *** que (i) el OpenOffice *** (versión 2 o posterior) *** *** se hace o Office “Open” XML formato (“Open XML”), y (ii) hará una *** *** *** Si no se *** *** dentro del mismo marco de tiempo que en el *** *** en una *** *** a XML abierto. *** Proporcionará a sus *** *** *** por lo menos antes de *** *** El será *** *** No se proporcionará en el *** *** se *** *** de ese término, incluyendo a través de *** en la *** se define en el Acuerdo de Colaboración Empresarial.

b) El apoyo de Novell de producto para Office Open XML. A más tardar *** después de que el proyecto Translator hace generalmente disponible una versión de su traductor para procesadores de texto, y después de eso todo el plazo, Novell (a no ser comercialmente factible) hacer prominente disponible *** para documentos de procesamiento de textos. El *** se puede hacer un lugar destacado a disposición de un usuario de *** a través de una descarga fácilmente, o mediante la distribución de la *** con cada copia de un ***. A más tardar *** después de que el proyecto de traducción libera una versión definitiva de su traductor para hojas de cálculo, Novell hará todos los esfuerzos comercialmente razonables para incluir en el apoyo *** para hojas de cálculo. A más tardar *** después de que el proyecto de traducción libera una versión definitiva de su traductor para las presentaciones, Novell hará todos los esfuerzos comercialmente razonables para incluir en el apoyo *** de documentos de presentación. Una vez liberado, Novell continuará haciendo la *** comercialmente disponibles para el período. Si durante el plazo, el Proyecto Traductor edite una versión actualizada de su traductor para reflejar una nueva versión de la correspondiente ODF o especificación Open XML, a continuación, a más tardar *** tales siguiente lanzamiento, Novell hará todos los esfuerzos comercialmente razonables para hacer un lugar destacado disponible una actualización correspondiente a ***.

Incomprensible en ese momento. Teníamos nuestras sospechas acerca de lo que fue hasta Novell. Pero ahora podemos llenar los espacios en blanco, por lo que sabemos. Todo lo que pensaba de Novell fue hasta con OpenOffice.org, lo eran. Si. Me da pena escribir esto. Pero yo soy una persona basada en la realidad. Y es lo que es.

Esto es POR LO QUE SE LE PAGO a NOVELL por hacer y ACCEDIO a hacerlo por dinero de Microsoft:

Participación Resultados:

* Novell participará en al menos tres Ecma TC45 conferencias telefónicas trimestrales al año para un período de dos años.

* Novell participará en al menos cuatro conferencias telefónicas JTC 1 SC34 GT4 por trimestre durante un período de dos años.

* Novell participará en al menos tres JTC 1 SC34 GT4 reuniones cara a cara al año durante un período de dos años.

* Novell participará en al menos tres DII o eventos similares al año durante un período de dos años.

Microsoft no deja nada al azar, según tengo entendido. Quiere que sus socios se muestren y ayuden, por lo que PAGA a la gente por participar en actividades normativas. La fecha de terminación del proyecto es de noviembre de 2011. Para entonces, Novell es previsible que se venda, pero sólo para que la comunidad sepa que la versión de Novell de OpenOffice.org será un trabajo en progreso a partir de entonces hasta que pase lo que pase suceda.

Tenga en cuenta este elemento de trabajo en el contrato de trabajo:

1. OpenOffice Novell actualización se salteará sobre desconocido contenido desconocidos de Microsoft Office 2010.

“Actualización” se saltarse “contenido desconocido de Microsoft Office 2010 específicos”. ¿Por qué? Debido a que Office 2010 tiene un contenido, las extensiones, que no están en la norma, es por eso. Así que aquí Novell está trabajando para hacer dos productos “compatibles”, porque en realidad no puede ser compatible con Microsoft Office 2010, siguiendo la llamada norma. Es una solución provisional. En lugar de fijar el estándar por el envío de las extensiones de Microsoft al cuerpo de estándares, Novell crea una demo, supongo que se podría decir, que Microsoft podría utilizar en lugar de mostrar al mundo la impresión de la interoperabilidad.

Recuerde que una de las grandes objeciones al OOXML convirtirse en un estándar en el primer lugar fue que se permitieron extensiones de propiedad de Microsoft, lo cual se señaló, sería difícil e incluso imposible para cualquiera, menos Microsoft y cualquiera de sus compañeros elegidos para interoperar con la “norma”. Y aquí lo vemos en la vida real. Ante las críticas, Microsoft contrata a Novell para ser un amigo de Microsoft y para tratar de encontrar una manera de hacer que Microsoft Office parezca que interactúa con OpenOffice.org hasta cierto punto, no una versión de ella, pero sólo la versión de Novell de OpenOffice.

No se supone que tiene que contratar a gente para encontrar una manera privada que sea compatible con un estándar de verdad.

Hay tanta agua [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051128191449853] bajo el puente de Microsoft de no real compatibilidad. ¡Qué historia la de esta empresa! ¿Hay alguna otra compañía que usted sabe de que actúa así? Si la hay, enviarme un correo electrónico. Va a ser una novedad para mí.

Tengo entendido que Microsoft quiere una demostración de la interoperabilidad de Novell cosas se le ocurre hacer como su supuesto estándar funciona. ¿Y por qué es este un secreto desde marzo? En marzo es cuando Groklaw se alojaba las noches que cubre el segundo juicio de SCO en Utah, por lo que recuerdo muy bien. Al igual que muchas de las empresas, Novell quiere los beneficios de ayuda de la comunidad, pero no la responsabilidad que viene con la ayuda.

Hay cinco etapas en el acuerdo, y todas ellas dicen que algunas funciones NO SON compatibles, es decir, las extensiones en el producto de Microsoft que no están en la norma. Este es el quinto hito:

HITO N º 5

* Novell OpenOffice puede abrir Microsoft Office 2007 generados archivos por “Open” XML sin fallos; características M3 y 4 apoyado; características no compatibles se pierden cuando los abres.

* Novell OpenOffice puede abrir Microsoft Office 2010-generados archivos “Open” XML sin fallos; características M3 y 4 apoyado; características no compatibles se pierden cuando los abres.

* Sólo Novell OpenOffice puede guardar los archivos que contienen características M5, con ámbito de las funciones admitidas en OpenOffice de Novell, utilizando el estándar “Open” XML.

* Sólo Novell OpenOffice puede guardar los archivos que contienen características y Novell específicas que utilizan el estándar “Open” XML.

“CARACTERISTICAS NO COMPATIBLES SE PIERDEN cuando las abres.” Esa es la versión de Microsoft de compatibilidad – sus cosas siempre funcionan mejor que la tuyas. Así que, como en el memorandum de ataque a OS/2, que puedaninformar a los compradores potenciales que deben atenerse a los productos de Microsoft porque la competencia no funciona bien. Ahora sabes por qué.

El resumen en el contrato de trabajo dice que es cierto:

Apertura de Oficina de Microsoft 2010 Archivos

1. OpenOffice Novell ha actualizado para admitir
características de M3 y saltease sobre desconocidos
Microsoft Office 2010 específicos contenido

2. OpenOffice Novell ha actualizado para admitir
características M4 y saltar sobre desconocidos
Microsoft Office 2010 específicos contenido

3. OpenOffice Novell ha actualizado para admitir
características M5 y saltar sobre desconocidos
Microsoft Office 2010 específicos contenido

Ahorro de archivos de Novell OpenOffice

4. Novell implementa nativo “Open” XML
guardar el apoyo a M5 conjunto de características.

5. Novell Novell instrumentos específicos
extensiones sin apoyo para su propia
características cuando se utiliza con “Open” XML

¡Oh, Novell. ¿En qué pensabas? ¿Por qué usted está de acuerdo con esto? Soy capaz de leer estas palabras, ¿por qué no pudiste? Dicen que se están utilizando para apuntalar la reputación de “Open” XML, aunque no es realmente compatible al final. ¿Qué tipo de objetivos son estos? Para una “estándar”? Para una empresa de venta de GNU/Linux?

Bueno, es una? Una norma, quiero decir. Si es así, que un estricto o de transición? Ni estricta ni de Transición describe correctamente lo que Microsoft Office en realidad escribe cuando se escribe un archivo DOCX, después de todo, por lo que no puede ser precisamente bien, ¿verdad? Pero Alex Brown, quien creyó las promesas de Microsoft alguna vez, o dice que lo hizo, escribió recientemente en su blog [http://www.adjb.net/post.aspx?id=35a6a853-281f-4d93-a530-459f4b589516] que Microsoft no pasó la prueba de las normas, no mantuvo las promesas hechas, e incluso él dice que es más de transición:

El paso clave del proceso de revisión fue la división de la especificación en dos versiones de la variante, llamada “estricta” y “de transición”. Los Organismos Nacionales de confinados de todas las tecnologías que se encuentran inaceptable para el formato de Transición y dictó el texto a ser incluido en la norma destinada a prohibir su uso posterior:

“La intención [...] es permitir un período transitorio durante el cual los documentos existentes binarios que se están migrando a DIS 29500 puede hacer uso de las características heredadas de conservar su fidelidad, al tiempo que observa que los nuevos documentos no deben usarlos. [...]

Este anexo es normativo para la edición actual de la norma, pero no garantiza que sea parte del estándar en futuras revisiones. La intención es permitir que el futuro DIS 29500 grupo de mantenimiento de elegir, en una fecha posterior, para quitar este conjunto de características de una versión revisada del DIS 29500. ”

Estaba convencido en aquel momento, y estando convencidos de hoy, que la división de OOXML en las variantes estrictas y durante la transición fue la innovación que permitió a la “norma” pasar. Basta que organismos nacionales podrían votar en buena conciencia de OOXML sabiendo que su preferida, la variante estricta, estaría bajo su control en el futuro mientras que la variante de Transición (que – recuerda – que había rechazado de manera efectiva en 2007) se mantendrán en el nivel con el fin de especificar con precisión los documentos antiguos: un objetivo útil en sí mismo.

Algun “gran avance” que resultó ser. Innovación, por cierto. Era un truco de la mano, que él y los que votaron por la norma llamada fuera poco ingenuo, o peor aún, a estar de acuerdo. Había Microsoft hecho promesas, señala, en una carta abierta [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/letters/ChrisCapOpenLetter.mspx] de Microsoft justo antes de la votación final, prometiendo lo que pasaría si todo el mundo votaría a favor de OOXML, que bastantes de ellos hicieron para ungir como norma presunta. Aquí hay una promesa:

“Hemos escuchado a la comunidad mundial y aprendido mucho, y estamos comprometidos a apoyar a la especificación Open XML que está aprobado por la ISO/IEC en nuestros productos.”

Microsoft siempre habla de que “Ay caramba” de estilo, cuando quiere algo. ¿Cuánto vale una promesa de Microsoft, sin embargo? Advertimos al mundo acerca de esto y en aquel entonces fuimos ignorados, difamados con snarkiness por los empleados de Microsoft y Brown en Twitter y en los blogs desde hace meses. Así que, ¿quién de nosotros tenía razón al final? Microsoft hizo cumplir sus promesas? Vamos a ver.

El Sr. Brown [http://www.adjb.net/post.aspx?id=35a6a853-281f-4d93-a530-459f4b589516] también:

En este recuento de Microsoft parece estar listo para el fracaso. En su forma de pre-lanzamiento de Office ™ 2010 no admite la variante aprobada estricta de OOXML, el formato, pero muy a la comunidad mundial rechazó en septiembre de 2007 y, posteriormente, como marca para su uso en nuevos documentos – la variante de Transición. Microsoft se están comportando como si el proceso de normalización JTC 1 nunca sucedió, y el uso de tecnologías (como VML) en un nuevo producto que incluso el texto de la norma se describe como “obsoleto” y “incluido [...] por razones único legado” (véase ISO/IEC 29500-1:2008, cláusula M.5.1).

Tal vez debería pedir disculpas por todas las cosas desagradables que él escribió sobre aquellos de nosotros tratando de advertirle, ¿no te parece?

¿Y qué acerca de este acuerdo de trabajo de Novell – ¿qué es lo que vemos en uso, estricto o de transición? En realidad, ni, en que Novell está trabajando para interactuar con un “producto” de Microsoft. No, la norma, pero es más estricta que la de Transición, si tuviera que elegir sólo uno, según un experto cuyo cerebro tomé. Y he aquí una pregunta para Brown: ¿El comité puede hacer algo proactivo, como la eliminación de Transición o la búsqueda de la armonización con ODF? ¿Se trata sólo de Microsoft que no pasó la prueba de las normas?

He aquí otra promesa de Microsoft hizo en aquel entonces:

“Estamos comprometidos con el mantenimiento saludable de la norma una vez que la ratificación se lleva a cabo de modo que seguirán siendo útiles y pertinentes para el creciente número de implementadores y usuarios de todo el mundo.”

Cruz su corazón y esperanza de morir. Pero, ¿que cumplir esa promesa, o tenían sus dedos cruzados con una mano detrás de su espalda mientras que el otro estaba en su corazón y ofrecer un compromiso sincero de sonido? Dejemos que el señor Brown nos dice:

Microsoft tiene muchos enemigos que, sin duda, ven el estado actual de cosas como la prueba de que Microsoft nunca tuvo siquiera la intención de ser ciudadanos de un buen nivel ….

Y si nos fijamos en otros lugares dentro de Microsoft se puede ver – por ejemplo de su compromiso con HTML 5 y trabajar en MSIE – que puede moverse en la dirección correcta cuando la voluntad está ahí.

¿Entonces por qué – habida cuenta de la conciencia Microsoft tiene en la parte superior, en la parte inferior, y alrededor de los bordes – ¿aún la gestión de comportarse como lo hace? Algo, tal vez, está mal en el centro – algún tipo de disfunción de las empresas derivados de la falla de la supervisión ejecutiva.

¿Eso crees? Disfunción o INCOMPATIBILIDAD DELIBERADA? ¿Cuántas extensiones de Office 2010, fueron enviados a la norma ISO, el Sr. Brown? Cero? En serio, cualquier trabajo real sucede allí nunca más? Brown escribió todos los que en marzo de 2010, curiosamente poco, el mismo mes, Microsoft contrató a Novell para “mejorar” la compatibilidad de Microsoft Office y la versión de Novell de OpenOffice.org. Por cierto, Microsoft no tiene enemigos. Cuenta la gente que ve cómo actúan y los que no lo hacen o fingir que no lo hacen.

Más recientemente, Brown se pregunta si Microsoft alguna vez puede redimirse [http://www.adjb.net/post.aspx?id=812e7af4-1471-4232-ac62-490d94961c7f]:

¿Puede haber redención para Microsoft, cuyo producto de Office 2010 tiene ahora llegó a las tiendas con la variante obsoleta de transición de OOXML y un montón de extensiones de Microsoft? Bueno, en el tiempo, tal vez …

Ha habido mucha discusión en el GT 4 cómo normalizar las extensiones de Microsoft que – a pesar de que el uso de los mecanismos de extensión descrita por el SI 29500 – no se describieron en cualquier estándar. Actualmente están documentados en MSDN. ¿Cómo deben ser normalizados? En una de varias partes estándar? en un registro? o qué? En última instancia WG 4 llegó a la conclusión que debemos hacer nada – que no están escuchando cualquier demanda del mercado para la normalización de las extensiones de Microsoft y por lo que se espera. Por supuesto, esto significa que como Microsoft agrega extensiones cada vez más a las versiones posteriores de la Oficina de la proporción de lo descrito en el texto de ES 29500 disminuirá. Tendremos que esperar y ver lo que el mercado piensa en eso. Personalmente, creo que es fundamental que los compradores de las suites de OOXML basado en prestar especial atención a este aspecto de MS Office y (he escrito esto antes) saben que MS Office 2007 – No 2010 – es la única versión que (módulo errores / defectos ) se ajusta a OOXML no prorrogado. Es mi suposición que los futuros compradores a gran escala de MS Office lo desea, puede especificar qué extensiones que quieres (quizá ninguno), y me gustaría ver a la lengua de conformidad de OOXML reforzado la hora de formular las especificaciones de tales adquisiciones más fácil.

No hacer nada. Esa es la respuesta. No han hecho nada acerca de Microsoft no cumplir sus promesas. Creyendo las promesas de Microsoft podría no ser el curso más sabio después de todo, entonces?

Entonces, ¿qué fue de Novell contratado para su uso en su trabajo sobre OpenXML, de transición o estricto? Vemos lo que está utilizando, sin embargo, tenga en cuenta que el Acuerdo de Trabajo astutamente ha dicho:

NOTA: todas las referencias en esta Declaración de trabajo a “ISO / IEC 29500″ se hace referencia a “la norma ISO / IEC 29500:2008″

Aquí está, la norma ISO / IEC 29500:2008 [http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1181], si usted quisiera consultar libremente.

Algunas partes del documento de acuerdo de trabajo se han omitido por razones de confidencialidad, pero mira en los objetivos al comienzo si tiene alguna duda acerca de su propósito: “El aumento de la interoperabilidad entre Microsoft Office y OpenOffice Novell suites de productividad a través de la portabilidad de datos mejorado habilitado a través de nativos soporte del estándar “Open” XML “- en otras palabras, se trata de dos productos cada vez más interoperables, no aplicar una norma en el sentido habitual, o en realidad en ningún sentido que yo entiendo.

La ironía está muerta. Aquí tienes una llamada norma que se utiliza para la exclusividad, por lo que Microsoft y Novell tienen interoperabilidad especial que otros no pueden disfrutar.

Y en cuanto a papel terrible de Novell, obviamente, nunca los ejecutivos de Novell captado la esencia de Linux o software libre. Eso explica muchas cosas, incluyendo la caída de la compañía al final, ¿no te parece? Vender a la comunidad en secreto, no crea un plan de negocios a largo plazo. Y a todos los que empujaron a favor o aceptaron la versión de Novell de OpenOffice.org, ¿Cuál es el plan ahora? En serio. Es hora de hacer realidad un plan. Microsoft lo hace. ¿Qué hay de la comunidad? ¿Es que somos estúpidos?

En septiembre, así como un punto de lado, Brown cuenta de esta comparación revela búsquedas de Google con Bing, un punto de lado, pero todavía sobre el tema de cómo Microsoft se comporta:

Tratando de descargar la última versión de OpenOffice.org™ escribimos “OpenOffice” en Bing, y se sorprendió al volver una página de resultados que no contienen el sitio oficial de OpenOffice.org. Google sin embargo, se obtiene como resultado superior.

Hmm, tal vez no lo suficientemente específica. Trato de entrar en “openoffice.org” en Bing. Es lo mismo. Google vuelve otra vez el sitio oficial de OpenOffice.org como el resultado de la parte superior.

Curioso ahora, entrar en “descarga gratuita de oficina” en Google y de nuevo obtener el sitio de OpenOffice.org. La ejecución de este con Bing me dan una página de descargas de Microsoft® Office™ y complementos.

La neutralidad de la búsqueda? bah – estos dos motores de búsqueda tienen una visión muy diferente de la web, lo que parece!

Microsoft no cambia. Nunca.

Y al final, de Novell, lo que pasó? La asociacion con Microsoft beneficio a Novell? La compañía, quiero decir, no la junta de directores y funcionarios ejecutivos, que reconocen en la declaración de poder preliminar que se beneficiarán personalmente de la venta a Attachmate:

Intereses de nuestros directores y ejecutivos en la fusión

Al considerar la recomendación del consejo de administración de Novell, debe tener en cuenta que los directores de Novell y ejecutivos tienen intereses en la fusión que no sean sus intereses como accionistas de Novell en general, como se describe a continuación. Estos intereses pueden ser diferentes, o en conflicto con sus intereses como accionista de Novell. Los miembros de nuestro consejo de administración son conscientes de estos intereses adicionales, y consideró que, cuando se aprobó el Acuerdo de Fusión. Estos intereses son los siguientes:

* Los pagos por despido y de beneficios a la terminación de calificación de empleo;
* De la consolidación acelerada y dinero en efectivo de compensaciones en acciones y el acelerado de consolidación de los acuerdos de compensación diferida, y
* Después de que el tiempo efectivo de la fusión, la empresa superviviente de la fusión de indemnizar continuó y los directores y oficiales de seguro de responsabilidad aplicable al período de antes de la hora efectiva de la fusión.

¿Hay, entonces, una gran diferencia entre Microsoft en 1991 y Microsoft en el 2010? A veces veo comentarios negar que Microsoft nunca hizo cosas tan terribles a OS/2 y que lo que realmente pasó con OS/2 fue que IBM no podía competir debido a que carecía de competencia o de alguna manera no sabía cómo hacer relaciones públicas o lo que sea, pero esta es la historia real, yo diría que, la verdadera historia se ve en este Anexo 1116. En primer lugar, dice la memorandum de la creación de incompatibilidad deliberada, el basureo de OS/2 a los compradores potenciales por ser incompatible, un plan de ataque deliberado. Sucio. La manera de Microsoft.

Decir que Microsoft supuestamente no estaba en asociación con IBM en OS/2? Estoy buscando ejemplos de asociarse con Microsoft dando sus frutos. Estaba pensando que me gustaría hacer una lista que muestre lo que sucede a las empresas que se han asociado con Microsoft. ¿No sería divertido? Si alguien tiene alguna, por favor envíelas a mí, porque todo lo que veo es IBM y Novell, y i4i y WordPerfect y DR DOS y ahora Yahoo y así muchos más. Creo que puede ser perdonado por la conclusión de que la asociación con Microsoft suele ser el beso de la muerte. Pero vamos a ver lo que muestran los datos, una vez que los recoja.

Espere. Me pregunto si i4i sabe que, si bien Microsoft eliminó la extensión que se considera que infringe la patente de i4i de su producto, esta aún en la norma? Si no, memorandum a i4i.

Un gran agradecimiento a los voluntarios de Groklaw, kattemann, que hizo este memorandum siempre y cuando el texto, y para todos ustedes tomarse el tiempo para hacer esta historia completa. Gracias a esta colección Comes, blanquear el comportamiento de Microsoft en el pasado es mucho más difícil para ellos. Y el nuevo acuerdo con Novell es la pieza que trajo todo al día de hoy.

Todavía estamos trabajando en la recolección Comes, así que si usted desea ayudar, basta con ir a esta página [http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=ComesExhN01], coger una muestra en cualquier página que no está hecho todavía, a continuación, después de hacerlo en forma de texto, a ser posible con el HTML en el estilo que usted ve allí, me acaba de correo electrónico en un correo electrónico de texto plano con su trabajo o simplemente mensaje como un comentario sobre lo que es el artículo más reciente.

Por cierto, esto es autor de la memorandum, aún en Microsoft, trabajando en la interoperabilidad, natch. Krawczak es ahora gerente de Microsoft para Outlook grupo de programas, como ya he dicho, y mira lo que ha estado involucrado en:

Microsoft ha publicado un conjunto de herramientas de software de código abierto y la documentación técnica diseñada para mejorar la interoperabilidad y la flexibilidad de los datos de Outlook. En concreto, el material facilita la portabilidad de los datos en los archivos. Pst, permitiendo la “flexibilidad” del gobierno y los usuarios comerciales más en almacenar, compartir y manipular la información creada en Microsoft Outlook.

José Krawczak, gerente de grupo de programas Microsoft para Outlook, dijo que la compañía reconoce que sus clientes son cada vez más en entornos complejos y heterogéneos que requieren la capacidad de utilizar datos a través de una gama de plataformas y aplicaciones. En este contexto, la interoperabilidad es la capacidad de mover fácilmente los datos almacenados en Outlook. Pst a través de múltiples plataformas con programas y aplicaciones creadas por varios proveedores, y para el uso de cualquiera de estas aplicaciones.

Las nuevas herramientas y la documentación permitirá a los desarrolladores construir nuevas aplicaciones que interactúan con Microsoft Outlook y los datos que almacena. “Aunque pueda parecer contradictorio, creemos que la competencia y la elección de bienvenida que nos hará más éxito y creará nuevas oportunidades para nuestros clientes, socios y desarrolladores”, dijo.

Desde un punto de vista organizativo, la nueva oferta de Microsoft permite a las agencias del gobierno, o departamentos dentro de una agencia, para crear un marco para el intercambio de información. Según Krawczak, el material ofrece detalles técnicos sobre los protocolos para la comunicación con los datos almacenados en el formato de archivo. Pst, y proporciona información sobre la navegación jerarquías de carpetas y estructuras de datos de proveedores. Él dice que el proyecto de código abierto de Microsoft, proporciona a las agencias del gobierno con la capacidad de acceder fácilmente a los datos almacenados en los archivos. Pst en sus soluciones de software, sin tener que invertir en la construcción de estas mismas funciones.

¿Es aún necesario traducir eso para usted? Microsoft no puede cambiar, pero el mundo lo seguro. Por “fuente abierta” Microsoft quiere decir en sus propias licencias, que OSI era tan tonto como para aprobar, lo que permite a Microsoft a jugar a los juegos que lo hace. Yo, de la comunidad. Despierta. Para ser justos, que habían jugarlos de todos modos, pero ¿por qué ayudarlos?

Thanks to Eduardo for his translation. “I will reformat the exhibit itself as an ODF & PDF later in a way that it will be easier to read,” Eduardo added. █

Summary: One culprit in the selling of Italy’s future to Microsoft gets named; this problem is not only Italian

“STOP” on zona-m.net is an interesting blog which reports from Italy, particularly about topics related to OpenOffice.org (and now LibreOffice). A few days ago it did some excellent reporting about Nichi Vendola and Microsoft [1, 2] and it is probably worth laying out in isolation as follows:

• Italian Left Leader signs Berlusconi-like deal with Microsoft

  Nichi Vendola is president both of south-eastern italian region Puglia and of the Italian left party Sinistra Ecologia Libertà (SEL or “Left, Ecology, Freedom” in English).

  Free Software is software that can save lots of public money. Even moms like Free Software like Linux, partly because it can be used without problems even by some disabled children. Besides, Free Software is such a good idea that European Parliament representatives of all colors like it !.

  On its own website, SEL says “we believe that for a modern party speaking of copyleft, Free Software and Net Neutrality is as necessary as speaking of jobs, environment, economy and civil rights”. Among the more than 100 political candidates supporting Free Software at the latest regional elections in Italy there were several SEL representatives. The Florence section of SEL even presented a motion to promote Free Software in Florence http://www.sinistraeliberta.eu/articoli/sel-per-il-software-libero-al-comune-di-firenze] in January 2010.

• Nichi Vendola explains (but does he?) his Berlusconi-like deal with Microsoft

  The day after signing a Berlusconi-like deal with Microsoft, Nichi Vendola, president of the Puglia Region, published an explanation on the website of its party. These are my comments to the main parts of that article.

  Vendola: “Who is the enemy for Puglia and for Italy? Is it Microsoft, or any other software giant?”

  Stop: The first enemy is lack of competence and interest in ICT by Public Administrators. Is this the case with Vendola? Maybe not, but frankly this explanation isn’t enough to be sure, even if there are some good parts in it.

• Italian region asks for help to avoid software lock-in… to Microsoft

  Today, after the initial surprise caused by knowing that Left party leader and president of the italian region of Puglia, Nichi Vendola, has just signed a Berlusconi-like deal with Microsoft offering an explanation that, alas, doesn’t really explain much, we started to know something about the content of the deal (because the bigger, problem in this whole business, much more of the presence of Microsoft, is lack of transparency).

  The Region of Puglia published a press release titled, more or less, “Protocol of understanding between the Region of Puglia and Microsoft. Vendola says: (this is for) technological neutrality (a summary of the press release was also published by Italian newspaper Corriere del Mezzogiorno.

Microsoft clearly relies on corruptible people who would rather serve Microsoft and not serve the public. It is worth naming these people to put pressure on them. Nichi Vendola appears to be one such person and as this fine new article puts it, the problem affects more than just Italy (the author previously showed how it’s done in the UK with the “Everything Microsoft” CIO, Richard Steel [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]):

The reason Microsoft’s EU numbers don’t add up is that the EC has spent only half the total amount it had alloted under its €49m contract for desktop software.

When on signing the contract in 2008 the EC estimated its cost per user per year would be €125, it fell well short of the total contract value. It sounds like a super deal when you say it’s a third cheaper than it is.

It better had sound like a super deal as well if the EC wants to justify spending millions on Microsoft software while still fighting the software giant in court over its monopoly abuses.

Discount on software which takes away one’s freedom can be worse than no discount at all because its purpose is to ensure lock-in at all costs.

As another blogger put it the other day (in relation to KINect):

It looks like Microsoft is admitting that it needs to look like a bully even if it really isn’t at times; why?

Well, that’s just Microsoft, a control freak. Italy was smart enough to shoot down the “EU Patent” and to move to Free software more quickly than some neighbouring countries. Hopefully the likes of Nichi Vendola will be seen for what they are — an impediment to Italian autonomy and freedom. More stories about Italy are appended below. █

Related posts:

• Activists Battle Microsoft Fascism in Italy
• Voters on OOXML Up for ‘Hire’ in Italy (Updated)
• Survey in Italy: OpenOffice.org Usage in 50% of Companies, GNU/Linux at 63%
• Microsoft Unleashes the Gartner Group to Sabotage Migration to GNU/Linux in Europe

Update: Glyn Moody wrote a rebuttal to poor damage control from Vendola:

What on earth is he talking about? After having made an unjustified choice to sign a deal with Microsoft (one whose terms haven’t even been revealed, as far I can tell), he tries to simply avoid the central question “Why?” by saying in true Tony Blair fashion that it is time to move on, and that it’s not about competitors, but about the iPad and fibre optic cables, the price of apps and Net neutrality. He then changes subject yet again by bringing in the topic of Italy’s digital divide.

Now, closing the digital divide is certainly a hugely important undertaking, but if anything can do that it is *free* software, which can be distributed to everyone in Puglia – to every school, and to every business. Microsoft’s offerings are precisely the last thing that will close that digital divide.

Indeed, the divide is there largely *because* of Microsoft. By virtue of its monopolistic hold on the desktop market it has been able to impose artificially high prices on a sector whose marginal costs of production are zero. This implies that that natural price of software is also zero – as is exactly the case for free software. Anything higher than zero makes the digital divide deeper – which means that Microsoft’s inflated prices have helped excavate not so much a digital divide as a digital chasm.

So Signor Vendola’s bizarre “explanation” of his move – which, of course is a non-explanation, and the Italian equivalent of saying: “ooh, look, a squirrel” – is in fact a superb reason why he should in fact be supporting open source, just as his party professes to do on its Web site.

[...]

The message is clear: Italian free software activists must (a) continue to pile on the pressure until he cancels this deal with Microsoft, and (b) non guardare lo scoiattolo.

Summary: As OpenOffice.org gets more independent and increasingly liberated (as LibreOffice), Microsoft is working to spread more pseudo-standards like OOXML

The Document Foundation has some announcement to make and Charles Schulz writes:

The Document Foundation has started the rewrite of OpenOffice Yes We Can!

Microsoft would love to eliminate OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice (even though it runs on Windows) and one way to harm OpenOffice.org is to use proprietary and patented ‘standards’ like OOXML. Software patents are the main thing which Microsoft has got left as rescuer of falling cash cows.

Occasionally we find Microsoft setting up Web sites that serve its agenda and sometimes Microsoft uses front groups like ACT to set up such Web sites (we gave examples before). It is part of the company’s reality distortion field, selling people the false impression that in Europe, for instance, there is demand for software patents. This is a textbook example of AstroTurfing. Now, we do not know if TalkStandards (TalkStandards.com) is indirectly Microsoft’s creation (Microsoft put writers there), but it has many pro-software patents writers posting over there so it’s like a stacked panel. They are RAND lobbyists, which we most recently wrote about in [1, 2, 3], in addition to many prior occasions.

Even Rob Weir from IBM is now giving his opinion about TalkStandards.com:

For a couple of years I’ve been trying to find a good way to share and discuss news, articles, blog posts, etc., about open standards. I’m not very pleased with the results.

[...]

Now, I suppose I could just give up and go over to TalkStandards.com and be instructed on open standards by the European counsel for the Business Software Alliance and read commentary by other members of the Microsoft claque. But if you know me, you know that won’t happen.

Red Hat’s Jan Wildeboer warns that “MSFT [is] explaining Open Standards in Washington DC. Should be fun to hear how they define Open Standards” (the page he links to is this one).

Watch the part which says “Steve Mutkoski, Microsoft”. For those who do not know, this man co-authored the Microsoft Open Specification Promise ("MOSP") which is utterly useless, e.g. for OOXML. Earlier this year we wrote that he was harming software freedom yet again because, based on LWN, “Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft [...] asserted that patented standards are entirely compatible with most open source licenses” (oh, this humour of mobbyists is the same, but they actually say it like they mean it).

In conclusion, Microsoft is still working to normalise software patents inside protocols and/or “standards”. Projects like Mono help this agenda. █

Summary: Finland’s story of migrations to OpenOffice.org is told in a comprehensive formal document; Romania goes the other way and ISO continues to show why it is severely flawed

Tampere University has just released this 234-page thesis whose PDF version has been downloaded nearly 700 times and whose abstract reads as follows:

This study investigates the largest transition in Finland to an open source office suite and to an open standard for office documents. The IT environment of the open source OpenOffice.org migration involves more than 10 000 workstations in the Finnish Ministry of Justice and its administrative sector.

Methodologically, the research is a longitudinal innovation adoption study covering the 7-year time span from 2003 to 2010. The study applies and tests the organizational innovation adoption process model originally developed by Everett Rogers. In addition to the theory-testing approach, the study includes artifact-building and artifact-evaluation activities of design research. The research view of the study introduces a participatory researcher’s implementation perspective where the researcher as a staff member of the organization has been in charge of the adoption of the innovation in the organization.

The findings of the study provide contributions both to IS research and practice. The events of the study give reason to suggest that the characteristics of the open source software with low-cost licenses call for improvements in the organizational innovation adoption stage model. The findings suggest that the predefined order of stages in the innovation process and sharp distinctions between stages should not be expected in organizational innovation adoption. As a new model and method, the study provides a complementary framework for the instrumentation and documentation of the open source innovation process in the organizational context. The study confirms several results from previous research and practice, especially the importance of top management support, systematic open source skill building and the presence of innovation champions in the adoption of open source solutions.

For IS practice, the study shows that the transition to an open source office suite is feasible in a large-scale context and that substantial benefits can be achieved as the result of the transition. For the user organizations of open source software, lower cost has been the most commonly cited benefit and one of the main reasons for adopting open source. Other often cited considerations include strategic goals like the facilitation of more sovereign IT governance and the reduction of vendor dependence through open source solutions and open standards. The study addresses several practically important issues involved in the adoption of open source, e.g., the analysis of software functionality and interoperability, cost evaluations, installation and configuration issues, local language support issues, additional tools to support the migration, user training and support, technical support, and software usage measurements. The evaluation of costs in the study indicates that the migration to the open source office suite platform will benefit the target organization of the study with impressive cost savings when compared to the deployment of a comparative proprietary office suite platform. The study applies numerous best practice approaches which together with the rich insight provided by the research should benefit other organizations considering open source office suite adoptions both from the perspectives of management and implementation.

As summarised by Arjen Kamphuis:

Phd thesis on succesful migration to #openoffice by Finnish gov.

For some background about Finland also consider reading:

• Torvalds’ Home Nation Still Besieged by Microsoft and Its Partners
• Suvi Lindén and Finland’s Role at the OOXML BRM
• Nokia and Finland: A Mystery Behind OOXML and Silverlight
• Losing Your Job for Opposing a Monopoly Abuser? (Lassi Nirhamo)
• The Full Story About Finland Might Reveal an ‘Inside Job’
• Finland and New Zealand’s Fight Against Vendor Lockin; IBM Set to Release Lotus 8 with ODF Support on Friday
• Quick Mention: Does Milan ‘Pull a Finland’?
• Finland’s Public Sector Moves to Open Standards and Free Software, Microsoft Interferes
• ODF/OOXML Watch: Australia, New Zealand, Finland, and the United States

One would expect Finland to be ahead when it comes to Free software, at the very least because it’s the country Linux came from. In Romania, which some people have just told us is known for higher corruption rates, Microsoft manages to reign, still. One Romanian reader messaged us yesterday to say that: “While EU is abandoning proprietary software, Romanian civil servants learn to use MS Office http://tinyurl.com/33j8xwk (Google Translate)”

For more information about the situation in Romania see:

• Commentary: In Romania, the Government Serves Just Windows Users
• Dan Bulucea, Business and Marketing Director of Microsoft Romania, Escapes and Enters Google
• Head of Microsoft Romania Quits, Entryism Revisited
• In Romania, “Marketing and GNU/Linux FUD is Everything for Microsoft”; Latest Propaganda Comes From Călin Tatomir
• Microsoft and Romania: Follow the Money
• More Dirty Deals in Europe Involve Microsoft, Microsoft Lobbies
• Ballot Stuffer from Redmond Stuffs Another FOSS Conference (Romania)
• Quick Mention: It’s Romania’s Turn for Microsoft’s OOXML Stacking
• Microsoft ‘Vampires’ Suck Blood of Romania’s OOXML Voters, Supporters

A few of the links above (especially the last two) speak about how Microsoft seemingly corrupted the vote on OOXML in Romania. In turn it forces a lot of the population to buy Microsoft Office or be called “pirate”.

Finland’s migration to OpenOffice.org is not unique. There are other countries that do the same thing, Malaysia for example. The important thing is that parts of the Finnish government will be able to exchange information with the public in ODF format. OOXML (and other Microsoft Office formats) is proprietary, so no government should ever use/require it, thereby imposing the purchase of a particular set of products from one single company with dubious history.

Speaking of OOXML, it turned ISO into a launching stock and it seems to be happening again. Andy Updegrove writes:

After sixteen years of working in parallel to the traditional standards infrastructure, the World Wide Web Consortium has taken an interesting decision: to begin submitting selected W3C Recommendations to that same system for endorsement. In doing so, it joins the small handful of consortia (seven, to be exact) that have applied for this option out of the hundreds of consortia currently active in the information and communications (ICT) to apply for that option.

If this process sounds vaguely familiar, that’s likely because this is the same process that OASIS used to gain global endorsement of its OpenDocument Format (ODF). Microsoft took a similar, but procedurally distinct, route with OOXML, its competing document format, when it offered it to ECMA, which enjoys a special “Fast Track” relationship with JTC1. What won’t sound familiar is the conditions that the W3C has successfully included in its application to make submissions, on which more below.

It was only last week that W3C was involved in a separate controversy because of Microsoft. Glyn Moody links to this article about W3C becoming an official submitter to ISO and adds: “not sure this is good: wouldn’t it be better to ignore ISO after OOXML?” █

Summary: The pieces of Microsoft’s future and its monopolistic legacy are falling apart

MICROSOFT HAS a problem with the future and in the next post we’ll expand on Steve Ballmer dumping a lot of his Microsoft shares. A lot of evidence suggests that people increasingly go mobile; this is easy to measure because unlike installed base, sales of a mobile device is something that can be tracked. Physical appliances — as opposes to bits and bytes (like Web traffic or copy of an operating system) — are scarce but concrete.

We hardly write about Vista Phony 7 [sic] for several reasons; one is decreased focus on Microsoft and another is reluctance to give more publicity to a device which would never have earned much publicity had it not been for roughly half a billion dollars in marketing (a huge sum compared to about $80 million spent on advertising Office 2010, the latest version of this company’s #1 cash cow).

Since we have not mentioned Vista Phony 7 [sic] for a while (it gets plenty of negative reviews), we’ll just name one Microsoft booster (and existing/former Microsoft investor) Bill Snyder, who writes about Vista Phony 7 [sic] and ridicules it by arguing: “given how many mistakes Microsoft made in the design of the Windows Phone 7 OS, it probably makes sense to focus on not using the device. No one, as near as I can tell, will want to spend much time with it. Maybe the slogan should be “The smartphone for people who hate smartphones.”"

Microsoft has been shipping such phones to warehouses (channel stuffing) and imposing them on employees using promotional blanket-type deals, but notice the deafening silence when it comes to numbers. Microsoft always brags about the number of sales shortly after a release (and even prior to a release, e.g. when they speak about alleged preorders and sometimes tell that they sell out products which do not yet exist). Vista Phony 7 [sic] must therefore be a disaster.

Microsoft is having the same type of problem with the old cash cow. Earlier this year we wrote about initial sales of Office 2010 being disappointing and now we learn from IBM’s Rob Weir that “[o]nly 4% of users have updated to Office 2010. Retraining costs (Ribbon interface) cited as concern.” Here is the article with all the claims (from IDG):

Analysis of sales one month after the consumer release was that Microsoft Office 2010′s early sales were disappointing, according to NPD Group..

[...]

Thirty million represents only about 4 percent of Office users who have converted to the new suite. That might be a bleak percentage, or it might represent a fantastic opportunity; it depends on how quickly Microsoft can convert the remaining 96 percent of users, and that means convincing notoriously risk averse business IT departments to make the switch.

This must be absolutely terrible and no wonder Elop ran away. No wonder Microsoft is downgraded by so many analysts, either. In the next post we will cover Ballmer’s arguably suspicious activities.

Microsoft’s bottom line now relies on this war on customers (Microsoft is squeezing poor Windows and Office users who did not previously pay) and racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] that lets Microsoft monetise other people’s products, e.g. Android and SUSE. Welcome to the ‘new Microsoft’, the bully. █

–Technology & Finance

Summary: “Nineteen quarters in a row Microsoft’s Online Division has lost money,” says AOL and it is not the only division suffering from this type of performance; another older article says that “[i]n the last half decade, Microsoft has swept over $25 billion of these “Other” losses under the rug”

On the Internet, in the period of just 1 year, Microsoft suffered $2 billion in losses. And that’s just one area among several where Microsoft is cashflow negative. How come almost nobody covers it? AOL is one of the exceptions here. It writes:

the division lost $560 million for Microsoft. That’s better than the previous quarter when it lost a staggering $696 million, but it’s much worse than a year ago, when it lost $477 million. In the past year, Microsoft has lost well over $2 billion from the division.

Let me repeat that: 1 year, a $2 billion loss.

Obviously, any startup that did that would have long since gone under — with that kind of burn rate, they probably would have gotten the plug pulled a few weeks into existence no matter how well-funded they were. But Microsoft keeps pumping money into the division. And they have to. Because even they realize it’s the future.

Of all the money Microsoft makes, the vast majority comes from two divisions: Windows & Windows Live Division (Windows) and Microsoft Business Division (Office). They make a good amount of money from the
Server & Tools division too, but it’s less than half of those other two. And both of those two are under direct assault.

The web is making Windows (and every operating system) less vital, while at the same time coming up with free and/or cheap tools to replace the relatively expensive Office. And new devices like smartphones and tablets have created an ecosystem where Windows is essentially a non-player (though we’ll see what happened with the just-released Windows Phone 7). And Office is basically non-existent in these spaces.

[...]

Five years ago, Microsoft’s Online Division was actually making money. Granted, it wasn’t a lot. But they were in the black. But for the past 19 quarters in a row now, Microsoft has lost money in this division. And as this chart put together last quarter by SAI shows, the losses have actually gotten worse over time. It’s a bloodbath being covered up by the profits from other divisions.

Nessuno remarks on this article by writing: “A great picture!

“I suppose they’re supposed to be burning cash.

“There’s an older article on Microsoft’s Office profits. I’ll try to dig it up.

Eventually he did and here it is. The author says that “[i]n the last half decade, Microsoft has swept over $25 billion of these “Other” losses under the rug” and to give some fragments from this long article (3 years old):

These three enormously profitable businesses allowed the company to painlessly absorb nearly $8 billion in losses–in just one year–related to its spectacular failures in WinCE, Windows Media, Windows Mobile, the Xbox 360 and Zune, its online businesses, and that “Other” black hole of what the company calls “corporate level activity.”

The “Other” losses Microsoft documents every year includes many individual fines and lawsuit settlements in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars related to its criminal activities around the
world. In the last half decade, Microsoft has swept over $25 billion of these “Other” losses under the rug, in addition to the many billions sprayed at failed efforts to establish monopolies in the
online, mobile, and consumer electronics arenas. [...]

Why do they spew such venom about the iPhone, Linux, and the Mac? Because Microsoft’s obscene profits from the sales of its outdated, overpriced, and consumer hostile products help to directly support the
wags’ chatterbox industry.

Spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt by spewing ignorance and false information are efforts to keep the world stuck in the tech rut of the 90s, where no critical thinking was required. Lazy pundits like no
possibility of being wrong, so working to keep the technology world enslaved to Microsoft helps them appear to be insightful when they prophesy that Microsoft will eventually come out with a copycat version of whatever anyone else is doing. Sure enough, it happens. [...]

With zero competition in the desktop PC operating system and productivity application markets, it’s no wonder why Microsoft hasn’t bothered to crank out any innovation in new versions of its products over the last half decade. It simply doesn’t have to!

Microsoft makes tens of billions of dollars every year selling intellectual property licensees without any competitive pressure from a functional market economy.

It’s no mystery why the record labels and studios desperately wanted Microsoft to set them up with the same sort of “free money” pipeline policed by the extreme, unilateral, anti-consumer DRM of Windows
Media.

It says volumes that Microsoft’s only competitor on the PC desktop is a non-profit volunteer effort. The company is so rich it can proudly operate above the law, as it documents in its earnings reports. [...]

If Microsoft were to lose its monopoly position with Office to real competition, a third of the company’s revenues would be at serious risk, but almost half of its profits would be in danger.

Without the easy money from Office, Microsoft would have to compete on a level playing field, something that the company has no proven ability to do. In fact, in markets where Microsoft has to compete, it
always fails miserably. Outside of its three monopolies, Microsoft hemorrhages cash faster than nearly a half dozen Amtrak operations combined, or eight times faster than Apple did at its most beleaguered point in 1995 when it reported a loss of nearly a billion dollars….

Without the Office cash cow, Microsoft would be unable to dump unfathomable amounts of money into profitless exercises intended to hold back innovation and prevent competition in new markets to increasingly broaden its sphere of influence. It’s therefore no surprise that Microsoft is working hard–and playing dirty–in efforts to maintain its monopoly position in Office software, which is worth nearly as much to the company as its Windows business.

Recall how much corruption was involved in the OOXML saga. It’s all about trying to save the few things that still bring income while Microsoft brings debt.

“Ballmer is credited with maintaining up the revenue stream from Office and Windows, which he has done in part by corrupting standards bodies and threatening to sue users of open source.”
      –Nessuno“A basic question here is,” Nessuno adds, “how could they be so incompetent? In the recent analysis of this question in the media it’s been pointed out by both Microsoft insiders and outsiders that they are in some ways their own worst competitors, for example, cloud computing threatens Office, mobile threatens desktops, etc. And stories have been told about how groups inside Microsoft who are trying to do something new get sabotaged by the Office or Windows group because it will threaten them.

“Ballmer is credited with maintaining up the revenue stream from Office and Windows, which he has done in part by corrupting standards bodies and threatening to sue users of open source. But he’s also allowed good ideas inside his company to get crushed.

“Other companies (Google, Apple) don’t suffer from this problem.

“There was a post here quite a few years ago about a guy at Microsoft who was working on IE7 (I believe). He talked about how his group was trying to make a standards-compliant browser, but was getting opposition from the management. Even in IE8 (and I think IE9) the support for standards is somewhat wishy-washy.

“There are probably also struggles inside Microsoft regarding open source (those who favor it, those who hate it).

“Microsoft still leads the pack in profits, mostly because of Office and Windows, but has lost it this year in market cap and revenue.” █

Summary: Analysis of Microsoft’s latest interactions with the free/open source software community

HOW CAN one tell that a particular team loses? That team envies the opposing team and amid defeat tries to simply become that opposing team. Microsoft’s OuterCurve [1, 2, 3] and its Windows vision of “open source” (still PR driven) reminds us that Microsoft can no longer ignore or just laugh at “open source”. In order to remain part of the future Microsoft must try to co-opt “open source”, but it has not succeeded for years (it tried repeatedly under different names, e.g. “Shared Source” and “CodePlex”). The following new post helps remind us that Microsoft is not a friend of “open source”, it’s simply trying to exploit and hurt it:

Yesterday, I finished the analysis of a survey I passed for one of my courses.
I used tables, pie graphs, bar graphs, and many of those features people love to see when data analysis is presented.

Oh…I also used Open Office to build the whole thing.

That reminded me of the video bashing Open Office that Microsoft launched, I presume, as part of their “We LOVE Open Source” campaign.

The video, which some view as a desperate rant by the Redmond giant while others see it as an implicit warning of the dangers a hasty migration may cause, called my attention when it mentioned the academic sphere…

Can the use of Open Office actually cause students to get lower grades? Tricky question.

OpenOffice.org (or LibreOffice) is often the first step taken before abandoning Windows and moving to GNU/Linux. Microsoft knows that. Well, Microsoft Office requires operating systems that are not secure and it is also insecure on its own, as this new post reminds us as well:

Why do people accept faulty operating systems?

[..]

Sure they will throw the same tantrums with a physical computer fault however, on the software side of things they will accept without a murmur and actually request to install the most bug ridden, virus infected and unstable operating systems in the history of computing. They will use these systems and not care that it is sending spam to the four corners of the world (why do people say that? The world is round) or some fifty odd viruses are siphoning off their passwords, credit card numbers and personal details for sale on the black market.

Russia is said to be preparing for a nationwide move to GNU/Linux and the following article author wonders how Microsoft will respond.

Will Russia’s Move to GNU/Linux Prompt Microsoft to Repair Its Image?

[...]

The Russian government recently made a surprising decision: to create a national operating system based on GNU/Linux. The motivation for this development is crystal clear: escaping the Microsoft Windows monopoly. Russia will gain two other huge advantages due to the shift: lower software expenditures and full access to the operating system’s source code. The source code access will allow any discovered security flaws to be quickly fixed. Russia appears to be following China’s lead. A few years ago, China also decided to shift to a Linux-based operating system known as Red Flag Linux. In this article, I will discuss some of the underlying issues that are causing countries, institutions, individuals, and governments to defect to GNU/Linux.

We wrote about it days ago in relation to Microsoft Office. The bottom line is that it’s Free software (OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice and GNU/Linux) that gives Microsoft a major headache. Apple is very different in nature on the desktop (where Microsoft Office runs natively too). █

Summary: A story of tyranny and monopoly abuse in Russia (courtesy of Microsoft Office lock-in), news about OOXML in Malaysia, and a quick word about Microsoft’s results, which lag behind Apple’s

Vladimir Sorokin, a Russian teacher who stood up for his students’ rights, has just been sacked. His only alleged misdeed is that he did not accept the illegally-obtained monopoly of Microsoft, which nobody has an excuse for being a prisoner to anymore.

Natalya Krainova of the Moscow Times claims:

A battle over whether open-source or proprietary software should be used in Moscow’s public schools spilled into the open Wednesday when a schoolteacher said he was forced to quit for complaining about being forced to use Microsoft programs.

Vladimir Sorokin, deputy director at School No. 572 in southeastern Moscow who teaches computer science, said by telephone that education officials had pressured him into resigning after he complained to President Dmitry Medvedev about an online training system for students that requires Microsoft Office to run properly.

The federal government decreed in 2007 that all schools nationwide have to switch to software based on the free operational system Linux by next year. Sorokin said the training system Moscow schools are forced to use defies this order.

“The education directorate is giving preference to Microsoft,” Sorokin said.

“There has to be freedom of choice,” he added.

The British press has covered this too and this story seems likely to go viral.

A Russian teacher claims he was forced to quit his job after he complained about being made to use Microsoft software.

Computer science teacher Vladimir Sorokin, who was deputy director of School No. 572 in southeastern Moscow, told the Moscow Times that education officials had pressured him into resigning after he complained to president Dmitry Medvedev about an online training system that required students to use Microsoft Office.

“The education directorate is giving preference to Microsoft,” Sorokin complained. “There has to be freedom of choice.”

Sorokin claims the training system forces Moscow schools to defy a government directive originally issued in 2007, which requires schools to use the open source operating system Linux, as part of a drive towards a ‘national OS’.

Recall the very recent Microsoft NGO spin [1, 2, 3]. A few years ago a Russian teacher was sentenced to prison for the same reason those NGOs were. Microsoft provides ammunition and supports actions that put those people in jail. And it actually gets worse in Russia because to name some related posts:

• Russia Continues Migration to GNU/Linux in Government, Microsoft Creates New Prevention Measures
• How Microsoft Sabotages GNU/Linux Adoption in Russian Schools
• Russia to Microsoft: Stop Forcing People to Buy Windows
• Russia’s Antimonopoly Service Targets ASUS, Toshiba, H-P, Samsung and Dell for Potentially Colluding with Microsoft
• The United States and Russia Take Extra Steps Against Microsoft’s Monopoly Abuse
• Microsoft Antitrust in Europe, Russia, South Korea
• Microsoft Hits Russia Harder with Anti-Linux
• Off Topic: Microsoft Crime/Dirty Tricks Watch (Updated)
• OOXML Vote in Russia Overwhelmed by Scale and Pressure (Updated)
• Novell, Stay Out of Russia With Your Microsoft Software Patents Scam (Updated)
• Microsoft ‘Pulls a Russia’ in Brazil
• Microsoft Would Have Helped Stalin, Too

Microsoft and Office are far from benign, but as we pointed out earlier, even the Gates Foundation is pushing if not imposing its use by people who cannot afford it. That’s lock-in and it must not be tolerated in schools whose burden parents are taxpayers are taking. In a private business it’s another story, just not in the public sector. When will Russia abandon Microsoft at the federal level? This might happen soon. The relevant couple of links from yesterday's news are:

1. Russia developing alternative OS to Windows

   The Russian government has decided it is going to develop its own operating system as an alternative to using Microsoft Windows.

   Rather than opting for an existing Linux distribution instead, Russia will invest $4.9 million creating its own OS based on Linux for use across all government departments.

   A meeting is planned in December where vice-prime minister Sergei Ivanov will discuss the details and plan of action for the development. The key aims are to remove the dependence on Windows and allow for better security, while at the same time not becoming just another Linux distribution.

2. Russia to create ‘Windows rival’

   The Russian state plans to revamp its computer services with a Windows rival to reduce its dependence on US giant Microsoft and better monitor computer security, a lawmaker said Wednesday.

   Moscow will earmark 150 million rubles (3.5 million euros, 4.9 million dollars) to develop a national software system based on the Linux operating system, Russian deputy Ilia Ponomarev told AFP, confirming an earlier report in the Vedomosti daily.

It is encouraging to see that the state tries to distance itself from proprietary software.

Yoon Kit, who was among those who stood up against OOXML in Malaysia, now says that “the OXML beast is finally dead in Malaysia as a National Standard. Approval by ISC-G to kill the project was agreed today.” For some background about OOXML in Malaysia see posts such as:

• Malaysia Saves with Free Software and ODF, Europe Rises Against Microsoft
• Malaysia Turns to OpenDocument Format and Deployments Begin
• OpenDocument Format Wins in Malaysia
• Malaysia Wants a Truly Open Document Format and So Does New York State
• ODF Op-Eds from South Africa, Malaysia
• OOXML: What Really Happens in Malaysia
• Microsoft Insults the Intelligence of Malaysians, Choice of ODF
• Microsoft Still Contaminates Malaysian Press for OOXML Publicity
• Quote of the Day: What Microsoft Did in Malaysia
• Microsoft Goes Lobbying Against OpenDocument Format in Malaysia
• Malaysia looks at OOXML (and it doesn’t like what it sees)
• Does Microsoft Buy Organic OOXML ‘Support’ in Malaysia?
• OpenDocument Format (ODF) Now Officially a Malaysian Standard

The head of Microsoft Malaysia quit the company not so long afterwards and the OOXML corruption index ought to show that Malaysia was not unique when it comes to OOXML-related abuses. It’s a fight against ODF.

Just earlier today ThistleWeb spoke about the importance of standards, not Microsoft’s own way of doing things.

Standards are important, they avoid duplication of effort and increase interactivity between various different devices. Imagine if every TV network broadcast it’s own standard of TV signal, so you’d need a different TV for each network, or cars were made with their own standard of petrol so you had to fill up at a petrol station who sold fuel for your brand of car. This is the retarded world of vendor lock-in, it’s what happens when companies put their own profits above the needs of their customers.

[...]

One of the “reasons” Microsoft often give in their attacks / smears on their competition is that they “don’t work right with standard formats”. Of course by “standard formats” they mean “Microsoft created, patented, licensed and undocumented formats”. So of course any office application has to try and reverse engineer .doc and .xls to get them to work. Microsoft were heavily fined for ignoring a court order to release (in this case smb / Samba) documentation to allow others to make their software compatible with Microsoft’s own. Again vendor lock-in in full effect.

Earlier on today we posted the latest ODF newsletter and LWN finally has this summary of the very recent ODF Plugfest, which is available to non-subscribers now.

ODF has hurt Microsoft’s cash cow and it shows. Microsoft’s results are out (shortly within the results of Apple, which easily advanced beyond Microsoft’s), but it reshuffled the chairs on the deck a few weeks ago (divisions merging, bucket games, etc.), so if one looks beyond the expected spin in the corporate press it is evident that Microsoft just beat expectations that simply did not exist after it had been downgraded repeatedly. As Joe Wilcox puts it, “For more than 18 months, Microsoft has provided no guidance to Wall Street analysts, in a move that is highly unusual for so large and so successful a public company. As such, Wall Street analysts had to rely solely on their wits to call the quarter. Average consensus was $15.8 billion revenue and 55 cents earnings per share. Revenue estimates ranged from $15.32 billion to $16.18 billion. So Microsoft topped the Street.” Do not forget that Microsoft has just taken more debt. Why would a profitable company keep borrowing money and pay interest on that? █

–Steve Jobs, Apple

Summary: A quick walk-through covering Apple news as it relates to Free software and to Android (Linux-based)

YESTERDAY we wrote about Apple's latest attack on Android, where Steve Job was claiming that it is not open (whatever he meant by open).

“The first thing most of us think about when we hear the word ‘open’ is Windows,” Steve Jobs is quoted as saying. (hat tip: Jan Wildeboer]

He keeps redefining or distorting the meaning of “open” to suit his own agenda. That’s fitting, right?

Apple keeps blocking certain applications (including Free software) from being installed on hardware it sells. That’s truly open, eh? Here is a pro-Apple site talking about “guidelines for Mac App Store”:

Apple has posted the Review Guidelines for what will soon be the omnipresent Mac App Store, and many developers aren’t happy with what they’re seeing. Like the iOS App Store, Apple will control the gates and review each application before it’s posted. 70% of the profits will go to the developers, and 30% will presumably pay for chairs in which Steve Jobs and the rest of his executive team will sit to watch the iOS App Store money roll in.

“Apple OSX ‘invents’ Apt” claims this blogger at sight of this “Mac App Store” (which ideally should not be necessary, assuming people need not go through Apple for permission to do things with hardware they bought to allegedly own).

At today’s Apple conference, one of the big roll-outs is Apple’s new Mac Store.

Basically, its a way to use aptitude on OSX, for paid apps.

Debian has had apt and aptitude for a long time, with or without graphical frontends, allowing users to search for, install, and update software to their Debian OS. Other GNU/Linux Operating Systems have had their own package managers for a number of years now as well.

We keep hearing about Free(dom) software applications being blocked, but there are some conflicting examples, with some that suggest Apple will shoot down GPL-licensed software and some showing otherwise. We recently remarked on Apple's GPL disdain and Foxconn's violations of human decency/rights (which Apple seems to have no real problems with). Is this the new scandal we've been hearing about?

Is Apple’s suicide factory outsourcing to even cheaper Chinese peasants?

[...]

By contrast, according to Forbes, Mr. Gou has a net worth of $5.5 billion. Steve Jobs has a net worth of $6.1 billion

It’s a typical move towards cheaper and cheaper labour to improve margins. So much for the company which charges so much for computers. The New York Times asks this week, “Will Apple’s Culture Hurt the iPhone?”

The article says that “Americans now are buying more Android phones than iPhones. If that trend continues, analysts say that in little more than a year, Android will have erased the iPhone’s once enormous lead in the high end of the smartphone market.”

“As usual, whether the subject is antennas, Flash or shipments, there is more to the story and sooner or later, even people inside the distortion field will begin to resent being told half a story.”
      –Jim Balsillie, RIMYes, this is why Apple is increasingly afraid and aggressive towards Android. Even RIM has taken heat from poor Mr. Jobs (we posted the video yesterday, as Ogg), who faces this strongly-worded rebuttal from Jim Balsillie: “For those of us who live outside of Apple’s distortion field, we know that 7-inch tablets will actually be a big portion of the market and we know that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web experience. We also know that while Apple’s attempt to control the ecosystem and maintain a closed platform may be good for Apple, developers want more options and customers want to fully access the overwhelming majority of web sites that use Flash. We think many customers are getting tired of being told what to think by Apple. And by the way, RIM has achieved record shipments for five consecutive quarters and recently shared guidance of 13.8 – 14.4 million BlackBerry smartphones for the current quarter. Apple’s preference to compare its September-ending quarter with RIM’s August-ending quarter doesn’t tell the whole story because it doesn’t take into account that industry demand in September is typically stronger than summer months, nor does it explain why Apple only shipped 8.4 million devices in its prior quarter and whether Apple’s Q4 results were padded by unfulfilled Q3 customer demand and channel orders. As usual, whether the subject is antennas, Flash or shipments, there is more to the story and sooner or later, even people inside the distortion field will begin to resent being told half a story.”

Apple has opened a can of worms and this has turned into somewhat of a PR disaster, with headlines going as far as this from the mainstream press (news.com.au): “Seven inches is enough, RIM tells Jobs”

More people are beginning to realise that there is nothing of much substance underneath Apple’s heavy marketing with a flavour of arrogance. Microsoft is in many ways the same, but its marketing has been less successful. The Apple-like propaganda/attacks are failing (see this new cartoon about better cash cow marketing from Microsoft) and BPOS is now being called “Big POS” (big piece of s***thing) because it’s too poor [1, 2, 3] to substitute the cash cow, Microsoft Office. Generally speaking, both Apple and Microsoft do things which are indicative of weakness right now. Free software is jeopardising their cash cows. █

–(Usually attributed to) Mahatma Gandhi

Summary: The Microsoft camp is throwing FUD at OpenOffice.org, GNU/Linux and Java this month, just when the company crumbles at an increased pace; Apple too starts getting increasingly worried

THAT quote at the top sure has become a cliché, but it is worth repeating just to remind people what recent events may mean. First of all, Microsoft’s #2 man has just quit. Yes, Ozzie was supposed to be Microsoft's next superstar, but he fell on his sword, leaving just Ballmer to handle the disasters which are Bong [sic], Vista Phone 7 [sic], and AZune [sic] (Fog Computing). Nothing new from Microsoft seems to be profitable.

Anybody knows that when a person or animal feels threatened and cornered, he or she attacks. That’s what appears to be happening at Microsoft right now. Earlier this month there were those tactless OpenOffice.org videos (Microsoft got blowback and retreated), a short while ago we saw GNU/Linux FUD from Windows Vista Magazine's editor (as well as others who echoed his talking points), and Microsoft was recently seen hiring a FOSS guy who attacks Java in his blog (just weeks after being hired). Groklaw has already rebutted this voice. And now, having exaggerated the impact of Oracle’s lawsuit, our reader Patrick says that Microsoft goes further. “I love how Microsoft attacks Java popularity, real classy,” he wrote last night.

There has been an “unprecedented wave” of exploits against vulnerabilities in Oracle’s Java during the third quarter of this year, according to data from the Microsoft Malware Protection Center.

Let’s see now; FUD attacks from the Microsoft movement against OpenOffice.org, GNU/Linux, and now Java? What’s next? This whole strategy is highly misguided because Microsoft alienates existing customers. Many Microsoft customers also use OpenOffice.org, GNU/Linux, and especially Java.

The blowback carries on. There is the propaganda video against OpenOffice.org with a whole show focused on it and this new article which references Techrights:

Meanwhile, the Ars Technica Web site did some digging and found the quotes were actually from case studies and press articles from the last four years, most of which were hosted on Microsoft.com.

Writing in his Web site Techrights, Roy Schestowitz notes that one case study involving the Scotland police force, was a “success” story about a migration in 2006 to Windows XP, Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Windows Server 2003, products that are now ancient history. “Not really a good way to convince customers now,” he adds. But then again, the video doesn’t tell you this.

OStatic shrewdly refers to Bill Gates' and Steve Ballmer's attempt to extort the OpenOffice.org community using software patents:

If you’ve ever wondered whether Microsoft considers the OpenOffice suite of productivity applications to be competition, last week we took note of a new video from Microsoft showing customers criticizing the suite. It’s not the first time the company has targeted the open source suite. In this post from Sun Microsystems’ ex-CEO Jonathan Schwartz, he recounts the story of a visit with Microsoft’s then-CEO Bill Gates, where Gates displayed highly territorial behavior toward the OpenOffice suite. So does OpenOffice really represent a threat to Microsoft’s ubiquitous Office suite?

[...]

It may be a good thing to see Microsoft trash OpenOffice, but the day still isn’t here when a free, open source suite of productivity apps might acually topple Microsoft Office. For now, we should be thankful that there is at least competition.

The author links to this good post from Dana, whom we referenced yesterday. Dana says Microsoft’s attacks are good news; it’s basically the idea that if “then they attack you” it means that soon “you win”. Remember this: the worst thing is to be ignored. It’s even more insulting and degrading sometimes.

Eleven is Louder has meanwhile responded to the FUD piece from Windows Vista Magazine’s editor:

All in all, the article was bogus. People need to be weary of FUD like that. Too many credible news agencies are starting to churn out drivel like this PCW article.

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has to be polite because he too works for IDG, but he calmly responds and concludes:

In the new desktop, where applications and content are more often than not provided by Linux-based servers, Linux will do quite well whether your main interface will be on a laptop, desktop, smartphone, or a tablet. It’s Windows, not Linux, that has reason to fear this future.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, who used to write negative things about desktop Linux (several GNU/Linux FUD pieces almost identical to the above from a Windows Vista Magazine editor), no longer seems to agree with all that FUD he used to spread himself:

Secondly, Linux isn’t as bad at media as Strohmeyer makes out. Playing DVDs on distros such as Ubuntu is a snap. Sure, there’s plenty of DRMed media that won’t work on Linux, but there’s also plenty of stuff that will.

In conclusion, the Microsoft movement is running out of material and its talking points have expired. Well, all that a company can do is attack the competition like Android was attacked by ACCESS trolling or lawsuits from Apple and Microsoft.

Speaking of Apple, Android is now being attacked directly by Jobs and a transcript gets served by Charles Arthur, courtesy of Seeking Alpha. Yes, Apple too is scared as it sees the writings on the wall. Fabian A. Scherschel says: “Awesome. Steve Jobs: The worldwide authority on openness. What a joke….”

Glyn Moody responds by saying, “first MS fretting about OpenOffice, now Jobs on Android…”

Yes, software freedom is winning. Just don’t expect the losers to accept it lying down. █