Comments

• Stephane Rodriguez

  2007-12-07 07:54:17

  Jody Goldberg needs to know better.
  
  When it comes to non-XML stuff, there is a ton of things to say that he does not even mention. I hope this is just because he has a plane to take or something like that. I would hate to learn that this is just ignorance.
  
  Let me just give a couple starting points.
  
  The new document environment encompasses non-XML stuff such as BIFF11+ and BIFF12. This is not XML stuff, and it even contradicts ECMA 376 and Microsoft claims about moving to XML. Obviously, if we take BIFF11+ and BIFF12, these are two new file formats, this also contradicts Jody's statement that "these are the same".
  
  As for "regular" undocumented binary pieces such as VBA macros, the file format itself is unchanged (and not part of Microsoft's covenant not to sue btw), but it's wrapped under a new container and, on the other hand, VBA macros now have explicit link attributes right within XML streams (GUID, codename, ...) which did not exist at all in previous versions of the file format. Therefore, here again, Jody is proven wrong.

• Stephane Rodriguez

  2007-12-07 07:57:52

  As for the podcast, I've found it of appalling quality. My only comment is that some of the intervenants sounded the same than Brian Jones and Doug Mahugh (both Microsoft employees) when those guys did a couple podcasts a while back. The tone, the view angle, the so-called benefits for everyone, not a single marketing point was missing.
  
  This confirms what I thought about the Deicazaification of otherwise intelligent persons.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-12-07 08:14:51

  I didn't prepare for the podcast in any way (no intentions to). Based on feedback I've received (via E-mail), this may have been somewhat of a set-up. They tried this with somebody else who promptly declined. Regardless, I'd agree with you that the quality was poor.
  
  Be aware that I'm a 25-year-old and should by no means be perceived as a spokesman or representative for anything.The dispute involved Jeff and myself and shouldn't be generalised and seen as something beyond this.
  
  In practice, the session didn't have questions they had collected actually asked at all (people passed questions for them to ask Jeff). Instead, it was just some awkward silence with off-topic discussions and rambling. Jeff didn't even go on the air until about 15 minutes after the start. As people have said in some places, this was unorganised. Oh, and don't get me started about those stalkers from USENET sticking their personal insults in various places around the podcast. It's the usual character assassination which they also do in Digg. I recognise these people easily.
  
  I haven't read the text of articles carefully, but I knew from the start that Bruce Byfield is somewhat of a friend of Jeff (they corresponded before). Some would try calling it a set-up (I don't really believe this personally), but being silent would not have achieved much either.

• Stephane Rodriguez

  2007-12-07 09:23:41

  To wrap up on the podcast, I would say that almost no question was asked and allowed to be answered anyway. The one I would like to get an answer : how does it feel for a so-called open-source group such as Gnome to be Microsoft best friends? So far, Microsoft has got all the marketing PR they wanted from "open-source" groups that are remarkably compatible with Microsoft minds. Again, I think those guys are just Microsoft persons who take a pride not to be on their payroll. (DeIcaza told me in the past that he's rich).
  
  The podcast was mostly politically correct, and is therefore useless to shed a light on Gnome/Novell/Goldberg actual doings and intentions. (not that you will get them to admit openly what they are doing anyway).
  
  DeIcaza took the role of Brian Jones, the technical person. (technical person who concentrates on never answering the good questions) JeffWaugh took the role of Doug Mahugh, the evangelist (communicates well, uses politics for cover)

• Hmmm

  2007-12-07 17:39:41

  I find it amusing that you guys get so upset when people use personal attacks against you, yet you do the same every day to Jody Goldberg, Miguel de Icaza, Microsoft employees, and now Bruce Byfield.
  
  Treat others the same as you'd have them treat you.

• Stephane Rodriguez

  2007-12-07 17:54:45

  Personal attacks? Those guys have become the Canada Dry of open-source. What's wrong with calling them for what they are doing?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-12-07 18:24:24

  I find it amusing that you guys get so upset when people use personal attacks against you

  
  
  When I talk about personal attacks, I typically talk about:
  
  

  • Outright libel. Examples include: Roy is castrated, Roy is gay, Roy has a criminal record, Roy molests children, etc. - some of that slanderous stuff is being posted to forums by people who even fake my own identity (pretending to post as myself). It's character assassination based upon bald-face lies and 'placements' of these lies in the Web.
  • Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. On numerous occasions, people have nitpicked and found inaccurate bits in one (or more) among ~1,600 posts. This happens not only here, but in other sites as well. Everyone makes a few mistakes sometimes, but rarely is it deliberate (if ever). These cases of nitpicking were used to assassinate one's credibility. This type of personal attack targets the messenger also.

  
  
  Have we used any such tactics/arguments to discredit the work of the individuals above? Have we merely spoken about their affiliations and attitude towards certain technologies? Have we quoted them selectively to isolate evidence?

• Victor Soliz

  2007-12-08 13:07:51

  I say we begin to call OOXML what it really stands for "Optionally open XML" instead of "Open office XML" it is a name that explains the truth about its openness and avoids any confusion.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-12-08 18:55:59

  The problem with using such names is similar to the problem posed by use of words like WIndoze and M$. People no longer take your words seriously because they assume a criticism is driven by blind hate.

• Charlie

  2008-03-23 17:17:35

  Miguel de Icaza is a shame to the open source community and a massive traitor. He is a brilliant man indeed, but he is more concerned about his little fragile ego and to conceal his sexual orientation and his past, rather than being commited with the open source movement. Everyone who knows him from his early life in Mexico City and the UNAM knows that during his career he has lied in numerous ocassions to preservate the image we wants to give, the one of a cool hacker with a pretty wife and a nice upbringing and brilliant parents. He wrote his own Wikipedia profiles. Both of them. And submited himself to IMBD. He is a lier and an egomaniac and should not be trusted.
  
  Brilliant man, but so positively, absolutely 100% gay.
  
  One of his other lies: his dad is not a Physic nor his mother a Biologyst. His dad is a not so brilliant math professor, and his mother remains until present day in a mental institution.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-03-23 17:44:16

  Charlie, I don't think personal attacks are quite so appropriate. Let's discuss a man's deeds, not a man's family. Please.