Suspicious OOXML Fanboyism, Clues About IE8's New Engine
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2007-12-09 05:43:18 UTC
- Modified: 2007-12-09 05:45:21 UTC
Speculation: shill tactics and OOXML Web 'extension'
Doug Mahugh is said to be getting a "new horse". Microsoft continues to use various individuals to
push forward its OOXML agenda.
You see how humilation works at Microsoft: You get the guys that preserve an independent mind in charge of propaganda for broken specs and let them keep a big smile about standardization torture. Smile, not laughter.
An anonymous reader sends us a pointer to an interesting comment that Miguel de Icaza has just left. He participates in a discussion in Brian Jones' own blog. From de Icaza's comment:
The work that was done by Jody Goldberg while at ECMA had a much higher quality as he was actually trying to implement the specification.
[...]
So I applaud Brian's work (driven for whatever business reason) that allows third parties (and in this case, free software users) to interop better with their software.
Yes, well done Microsoft. Congratulations on luring in GNOME developers (and
until recently -- a former GNOME Foundation President) who praise or at the very least re-implement your proprietary formats, which are slightly more XML-structured now.
XML does not mean open.
Interoperability is not open standards but
a case against them.
Watch the last comment about
proprietary IE capabilities getting integrated with Microsoft Office [PDF] and get a load of this new
Internet Explorer 8 shocker. It has just landed in a few Web site with contextual remarks suggesting that Microsoft might already have intentions to 'extend' the World Wide Web (
once again).
IE8
Don't ask what it's going to fix. Ask what it's going to break... And I'm not even kidding :
" I do realize that there is a new engine, there is some other information, and this information is not being made public — we are being asked not to talk about it " -- Molly Holzschlag
Remember that Outlook 2007 had its rendering engine replaced at the last minute. This surprised (and annoyed) quite a lot of people. The Office rendering engine is not the same as that which you find in Internet Explorer. .NET, XAML and other issues return to one's mind. Here are some previous posts that we wrote on this topic:
Related and external references:
Comments
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-09 07:51:24
Roy Schestowitz
2007-12-09 08:11:46
"Anecdotally, I would like to point out that the work that happened through the ECMA TC45 has proved very fruitful, as things that were completely left out of the Oasis specification and in the original TC45 submission were put in there because Jody and Michael that have previously worked on Gnumeric and OpenOffice managed to get these things into the spec."
From http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Nov-02.html
That was over a year ago. Microsoft promised pass on a lot of money that day. Miguel has admitted that he is rich -- something which very Free software developers can say about themselves. His work on Mono and collaboration with Microsoft might have something to do with this. It's a career choice. I believe that pretending that the money never played any role and was never a factor would simply be naive.
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-09 08:33:55
... and it has been made abundantly clear on numerous occasions that while he held the title of president, he was not active in that role. Now it has been stated again, what will it take for you to cease repeating these shameful, deceitful insinuations?
... and now you're insinuating that financial considerations were involved between Miguel's relationship with the GNOME Foundation, and the GNOME Foundation's support for Jody's participation in ECMA TC45-M.
I would suggest that you do active, primary research (particularly with the stakeholders in the issue) and offer evidence for such accusations, or cease this repetition of such suspicion and insinuation.
Show some responsibility and accountability for your shameful behaviour, Roy.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-12-09 09:23:49
Yes, we have through this before and I maintain my position that a president who is not active leaves a project in a less potent state. One question to ask is, did he play a role 'by spirit', so to speak? You know, like Richard Stallman and Peter Brown? I know he works on another project, but what about general policies? I know you'll continue to deny this, but the fact that Miguel unexpectedly joined us in a podcast about OOXML and GNOME speaks volumes (pun intended).
No, I was suggesting that Miguel likes Microsoft also due to financial reasons. As such, he might feel obliged to return them favours. That's just my belief. It's not a fact that can be confirmed. It can easily be denied as well and, as Sam V. from ITWire puts it, someone is not telling us the whole story, Again, that's just my speculation (whether you like it or not is another story).
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-09 09:35:03
Ah! A question! Roy, I welcome your primary research before posting -- and possibly even after posting -- such insinuations, but I refuse to have my time wasted in the comments section of your website. I've asked you before, and I ask you again: ASK QUESTIONS AND DO YOUR RESEARCH IN A RESPONSIBLE AND RESPECTFUL MANNER.
Are you suggesting this was planned? I would suggest you do some primary research before making accusations such as this. In particular, I suggest you ask Roblimo, Miguel and I about his participation and any backchannel discussions during the podcast. You might find that primary research is an illuminating endeavour.
So ask questions, do primary research, and try to actually prove the vile insinuations you repeat ad nauseum on your website. Show some respect and responsibility to the community you purport to serve.
Repeated speculation is not truth. It was only days ago you were criticising other publications for repeating mistruths.
Show some responsibility and accountability for your shameful behaviour, Roy. What are you going to do about this?
Roy Schestowitz
2007-12-09 09:43:57
Miguel was on IRC beforehand, IIRC.
> Show some respect and responsibility > to the community you purport to serve.
Which community is that? The community (or subset thereof) whose chief says OOXML is a "superb standard"? Sorry, no.
> It was only days ago you were criticising other > publications for repeating mistruths.
eWeek is not a blog. It's a news site and it repeated old news like a broken radio. It was almost as though it was trying to keep the FUD flame alight. See the article I posted last night about IDC and Gartner. When I accused Peter Galli of being part of the "Chain of FUD" (the disinformation cycle), it was for blindly delivering Microsoft-funded FUD with a headline like "Linux is Losing to Windows".
> Show some responsibility and accountability > for your shameful behaviour, Roy.
Just repeating this accusation does not make it more true.
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-09 09:54:21
And this is evidence for what? Your claim? No, Roy.
I am talking about the FLOSS community, to whom you purport to serve. You are being irresponsible to that community by posting insinuations and accusations about upstanding members of the FLOSS community (including myself, my fellow GNOME Foundation directors and even, despicably, my wife) without any evidence whatsoever.
And again, you are insinuating that Miguel is a leader of the GNOME community. This is false, has been stated so numerous times directly to you and indirectly to the community, and you have yet to demonstrate any evidence for your insinuations. Show some responsibility for what you say and back it up, take it back, or at least stop repeating what you cannot prove.
I am fundamentally aware of that, however I don't believe my repetition imbues the statement with any more proof than already exists in the pages of this website. You have shown a shameful dismissiveness of truth and no ability to do primary research to prove your insinuations and accusations.
You continue to change subjects, raise new insinuations, and repeat your attacks on the character of upstanding members of the community WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever.
You have attacked me, my community and my wife. You have no basis in truth to have made any of these insinuations, and you should demonstrate a responsibility and accountability to the community you purport to serve by actually coming up with the goods or ceasing such vile, irresponsible behaviour.
I have given you every opportunity to take these issues up with me Roy, and yet you choose to repeat unproven insinuations here again and again instead. That is irresponsible reporting.
Show some mettle, and do the right thing. Prove it, or lose it.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-12-09 10:31:15
Actually, yes. I wasn't suggesting what you tried to suggest that I suggested (intentional phrasing). What I said originally was that Miguel is still protective of GNOME (and OOXML). That's what the podcast was about.
Which community is that?
Hold on one second. OOXML is not an problem just for Free software. It's a broader issue. OOXML is all about Microsoft (having others play catch-up). ODF is about proprietary software as well. This is about fair competition. I defend not only Free software, but also companies that are being abused using illegal tactics. Need one look at the graveyard of companies that sued Microsoft, having fallen victim to a company which is certain it's above the law? See these damning letters.
When I first wrote about it, he was the leader (on paper at least).
Jeff, just face it. He was officially the leader until recently, even if he was rather passive. Even now, it would be safe to assume that he still has influence and impact. He is the project's founder. It's his baby.
Not everything I am being told is true. In general, in society, there's spin, there's bias, there are motives.
See, now for example you make a statement that is not true. I use a lot of evidence to back many assertions. I even provide clicky URLs so that people can conveniently go to the source and have things validated. Where things are not known for a fact, this is stated.
What you call an "attack" is simply a case of putting together facts and showing what they might mean. That's how evidence is collected. I make no accusation or attacks. I only present things to the reader and provide possible interpretations. That's just investigative writing.
I don't repeat things in this site. There's no point in doing this. I can cross-reference things instead and the site is made self-contained. As you can see if you look closely, each blog item is cumulative in the sense that it gathers new evidence and strives to connect it to other dots. We want a complete picture (if there is any).
What is stated as a fact is adjacent to proof (usually peripheral information or a direct quote from the person concerned). If you believe that I state something as a fact when it is fact totally false, please tell me so that I can correct it. I've corrected dozens of blog items before.
eet
2007-12-09 10:40:10
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-09 12:00:58
Don't change the subject, Roy. You purport to be serving the FLOSS community with this website, and yet you are doing damage to the community due to your irresponsible reporting and insinuations. That has nothing to do with OOXML.
No, Roy. Again you are repeating a lie. Any serious research into the GNOME project would find that Miguel has little influence or impact. Miguel was not the leader of the GNOME project or the GNOME Foundation, he was only the titular and inactive president of the GNOME Foundation.
The problem is, you will keep repeating this and bringing it up in otherwise irrelevant articles because you wish to smear, speculate and insinuate rather than inform. That is irresponsible to the community you purport to serve.
I would like you to provide the evidence that led to your insinuations about my personal and professional integrity, the personal integrity of my fellow GNOME Foundation directors, and the personal and professional integrity of my wife. I would like you to provide the evidence that led to your insinuations and claims about Miguel's influence in the GNOME Foundation (and project).
Roy, your research and evidence are so astoundingly weak that you haven't even found the most obvious, titillating facts to smear my integrity (without basis in intent, but surely attractive to your gutter-trash insinuations).
You continue to repeat insinuations about Miguel's involvement in the GNOME Foundation, its decision to participate in ECMA TC45-M, and possible financial incentives involved WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, even on articles that are in no way relevant to GNOME. This is colloquially known as 'muck-raking'. It is divisive and irresponsible, and is destructive to the community you purport to serve.
See above. But that's not good enough Roy. You should also avoid posting sensationalist insinuations for which you have no evidence, particularly if you are incapable of doing even the most basic fact-checking available to you.
You need to accept responsibility and accountability for your attitude and behaviour on this site, and fix your problem.
eet
2007-12-09 12:43:09
I say, sue the living daylights out of him and ruin his career!
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-12-09 13:25:43
How has it not? You are never willing to let this argument go or express regrets, but the matter of fact is that your stance on OOXML has helped Microsoft elbow its competition to the sidelines. You still insist that you're unable to reject OOXML. You are only willing to say that you do not support it, but that's not enough, especially if comments are offered that show anticipation of approval.
Meanwhile, government with strong policies are looking at formats, are watching Microsoft blogs, and are getting the impression that ISO for OOXML is just a matter of time.
You're giving it to them on a silver platter. Many people have said this to you (and to Jody), but you're unwilling to change your minds, let alone acknowledge the negative effect.
There you go. You've accused me of lying and then actually contradicted yourself by acknowledging the truth what you claimed was a lie. "Has little influence or impact" is not the same as none at all. This seems to suggest that indeed there was a level of impact, which may or may not indicate a level of involvement in decision-making.
I'll admit that I do not know the administrative structure of GNOME, but is it normal for a GNOME president -- any president for that matter -- to be "titular and inactive"? Even the queen of England is still doing things. The monarchy has little impact, but it does have some. It's an iconic entity at the very least.
If there was no element of truth in this, then I do not believe you would try hard to end these discussions or restrict them. This was pointed out by at least two readers in the past.
I'm not a big fan of the word community. I think many of us have responsibilities, some of which are moral. ODF is moral, OOXML is immoral. To paraphrase a Microsoft executive, OOXML is simply a matter of Microsoft's commercial interests (Doug said this in Malaysia, IIRC).
There is a combination of observations that we mentioned in this Web site before. They include:
You've just said: "[Miguel] Has little influence or impact." From this can conclude that there might still be some influence or impact. I must be pedantic here because I can't tell what goes on in meetings, E-mails, etc. It would seem very unnatural to me if Miguel had no impact at all (that's an opinion by the way).
What is this community which you say that I serve? Should I not serve a so-called community, which may or may not include proprietary software vendors, that also strives to find out why non-Microsoft people support a Microsoft-only specification, despite the fact that an open standard already exists?
[vague points snipped]
eet
2007-12-09 13:55:20
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
Jim Powers
2007-12-11 04:54:51
RE: Community
Let's be clear about this. FLOSS folks clearly have a large stake in what is going on between ODF and OOXML, but that is not the only group of interested parties. Personally, based on what I have read, and yes, read INDEPENDENT of this site, it is unclear that you represent the FLOSS community I would like to be a part of. So where does that leave us? It certainly appears to me that the word "community" can be wielded like a weapon by any side, yes? Perhaps it is best to leave the word "community" out of it, as we all have communities "for us and our point of view" and "against us and our point of view".
Now, you may say that Roy's work is "divisive" by some measure, I think a more accurate description is that Roy's analysis is both not favorable to GNOME, and certainly not to you. In some cases perhaps he's gone too far, but buy-in-large the analysis presented on this site is consistent with my own. So, we approach a tautology: there is the community that Roy "speaks for" and the community that Jeff Waugh "speaks for". Are we going to get anywhere with this? I would say no. So, leave "community" out of the discussion.
RE: Baseless accusations
In repeated posts here you have accused Roy of not doing "primary research", let's look at this further:
Clearly, one would assume, since you take so much exception to what you read here that you, pretty much, disagree with what gets published via this blog. Now, I didn't have to do *any* primary research to arrive at this conclusion. Furthermore, it doesn't take all that much thinking to conclude that if one would publish articles that are not flattering of one's organization that you would like to see the publication of such articles stopped. Stopping this can be achieved via two ways (as far as I can see):
1. The presentation of sufficient evidence that dismisses the published accusations.
2. The control of publication through personal persuasion.
Now, I think that you may be able to do some of 1, but so far, at least on this site, you seem more interested in 2. How do I come to this conclusion you might ask? Simple, there are two ways to "silence" sites like this (by the way, as you are aware, more and more sites are beginning to publish articles critical of Gnome's participation in the OOXML proceedings):
- By word
- By deed
There are already postings on various blogs, including official Gnome sites, that try to explain Gnome's role in participating in OOXML proceedings, let's take this at face value and call this the "by word" approach. However, there is a big problem with all this "explaining" of Gnome's participation in the OOXML work: it assumes that the reader will accept the explanation as being either valid or true. Now, it would appear that you have your work cut out because, although the "word" about Gnome's participation is now out there for all to see, the skeptics about the value of the "deed" of Gnome's participation seem (to my eye) to be increasing in number. So, going with the view that Gnome's participation in the OOXML work is being perceived more and more negatively, the "word" is not enough, and unless Gnome actually disengages the OOXML process the "deed" remains an irritant to some (many?). So, this gets us back to (2) from above: using personal contact you try to (more efficiently than via blogs and emails) to hash out the issue and try to "set the record straight". But what if the person on the other end of the phone doesn't buy it? It doesn't mean that you are lying, it could be that the particular story you tell is unsatisfying in terms of connecting all the dots well. Or, perhaps your command of the information about all the events in question is inconsistent with other information sources. Clearly, you can say that such a situation (lack of command of the facts) is not true and that your word should be taken above other sources, but really, does it seem plausible that such a result is possible? In other words, the measure of the current "deed" (Gnome's participation in ongoing OOXML work) in fact speaks louder than the words that you or others can muster? This leads to...
RE: Current state of affairs
Gnome continues to engage the OOXML work despite:
- The FACT that Microsoft has corrupted the ISO process, for this particular issue, and the larger operation of the ISO as a whole by attempted ballot stuffing of last minute ISO P-level registrants. This has been well documented, and even an out-going ISO official has admitted as much.
- The FACT the Microsoft has turned over an incomplete specification for OOXML format explicitly leaving out extensions already in use, and has so far, not indicated that it will "sign-over" (i.e. free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-discriminatory license protection) any and all related patented materials related to current and future versions of OOXML. Furthermore, has explicitly stated that it wished to retain sole control over the evolution of the OOXML standard (granted the ISO has not agreed to this).
- The FACT that Microsoft has in the past (HTML extensions as an example) wandered from official standards unnecessarily (CSS, JavaScript, W3C-DOM, Kerberos) clearly with the singular intent to "hijacking" the said standard (embrace, extend, extinguish). Assuming that Gnome gets the BEST it can get out of Microsoft in this effort: a "full" specification of OOXML that Microsoft wishes to disclose, what evidence does Gnome have that Microsoft will NOT move away from the ISO OOXML standard finally agreed upon? How may FLOSS (or otherwise) folks will be happy with this outcome? Especially in the light of the fact that MANY people are currently telling you that this is EXACTLY what Microsoft WILL DO. What happens if (hopefully WHEN) OOXML fails to get approved? FLOSS will be back at square one: reverse-engineering a proprietary format with all the legal issue that come along.
- The FACT that Microsoft can COMPETE in a world with ODF (and be able to play with all the organizations/countries that want out of the Microsoft lock-in and want to move to ODF) EASILY if they would simply build a friggin' kick-ass ODF read/write capability into Office. The spec is there, ALL of this rancor about Gnome's participation in OOXML can simply disappear if Microsoft simply pursue this line of action. They can keep their formats all they want, just play nice with an existing standard. Clearly I don't expect this to happen, I'm mostly not an idiot, but it is, by far, the easiest, cleanest, most straight-forward way to address this rather ugly situation. The "chase after OOXML" situation is a fools errand.
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-12 04:33:51
Actually, while I was sitting in a Standards Australia technical committee meeting on Monday, GNOME's participation in ECMA TC45-M was actually a helpful experience in our efforts to change Australia's "abstain" to a "no".
See, Roy, you just don't have the depth of experience, knowledge or commitment to the FLOSS community to question my integrity. You don't even have sufficient skills to research what I do to understand the context in which these things happen. That's why your reporting is so irresponsible.
This is a silly little semantic game you're playing because you haven't done any primary research about the issue, and you're more interested in making insinuations, reporting conspiracy theories and smearing personalities and organisations than seeking the truth. If you were seeking the truth, you'd ask questions!
So, let's make this absolutely clear, so you can't keep using weasel words and insinuations to propagate this ridiculous conspiracy theory:
Miguel has been the titular president of the GNOME Foundation since it was founded, and regardless of his on-and-off status as an elected director of the Foundation, never performed the role of 'leader' (either as chairman or active president) of the GNOME Foundation. Moreover, all of his responsibilities as titular president were performed by the chairman throughout the lifetime of the GNOME Foundation as a result of conventions adopted when it was founded. This is the issue we sought to fix a couple of months ago by more actively pursuing Miguel's resignation (as per the bylaws, the position of president can only be resigned by letter). Additionally, neither Miguel or Novell were involved at any time in the decision to participate in ECMA TC45-M, as very clearly noted in the GNOME Foundation statement.
Note: I want to make it absolutely clear that the information I provide here is not new, and is a result of your irresponsible reporting, not a result of fair and reasonable questions on your part.
You have never had any basis for the continued repetition of this insinuation on your website, particularly where GNOME is not at all relevant to the story. This merely makes clear what is already well known, and what you could have found by responsible research or contact with the relevant people.
I am absolutely comfortable knowing that I can't end or restrict these discussions, or the way you choose to report issues on your website.
What I have tried to do is bring the light of truth and knowledge to your objectionable insinuations, and suggest that you might consider a different approach, one that is more productive, more informative, and more responsible to your readers and the FLOSS community.
I defended Jody's position because he has the right to his opinion, and he is significantly more informed about these issues than many. I don't have to share his opinion to defend it, a subtlety you don't seem to be able to cope with.
The GNOME Foundation didn't favour the use or highlight the importance of multiple standards by any stretch of the imagination. Don't be fatuous.
You keep raising questions about the integrity of me, my fellow GNOME Foundation board members, and have on a number of occasions now, brought my wife's integrity into question. If you'd done any research about me, my wife, my company or the people on the GNOME Foundation board, you would realise that there is absolutely no question whatsoever over our integrity or commitment to FLOSS. You link to sites and make convenient assumptions and insinuations without engaging any kind of primary research or critical thinking, and that is simply irresponsible.
Go and do some research. Go and ask some questions. Go and do the right thing, Roy. You might find that the world is not as black-and-white as it seems (or, perhaps, as you want it to be).
And finally:
This is hilarious. OOXML is not "immoral". It's a document format specification created by a company that doesn't share our philosophy or commercial interests, who are using standardisation as a weapon in the marketplace. That's all.
Just because we don't like it, just because it is a competitive risk to our products and Software Freedom, doesn't make it immoral.
You're not going to make any useful contribution to FLOSS or even the debate about OOXML if you take this kind of black-and-white, extremist attitude.
Meanwhile, I'm actually doing something about that competitive threat, on multiple fronts... and you're just screaming and frothing at the mouth in an ill-informed echo chamber.
Let's have a good long think about integrity now. :-)
Roy Schestowitz
2007-12-12 05:18:42
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112601753.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139920-c,opensource/article.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/11/26/GNOME-Foundation-defends-OOXML-involvement_1.html
"The [GNOME Foundation] group also argues that neither OOXML nor ODF will serve all needs, and that the development of standards overall could be in jeopardy: “We are deeply concerned that abuse of the standards process is eroding public trust in the value and independence of international standards. Both ODF and OOXML are very heavily influenced by their implementation heritage, neither are likely to deliver the “one true office format,” and both communities have — in their own way — played a role in this erosion of trust."
What do you call that then?
You have conveniently ignored the following sentence which presents Microsoft's explicit admission that it's only a matter of money. I suggest you read some literature on fair competition and consider the issue of data preservation, which is among the customer's best interests. People do not use Microsoft's formats because they are good; they often do these because they haven't a choice. Read Andy's in-progress eBook on how Microsoft eliminated competition in office suites. Microsoft's OOXML is a case of ensuring there will never be competition and you guys are helping Microsoft for all I can see, by acknowledging that playing catch-up with a moving target is acceptable.
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-12 06:23:54
I call that a quote from our statement, which shows our concern with the unfortunate impact on the standards process from both sides of the divide. It says absolutely nothing about a desire for two standards, or endorsement or support for OOXML. Seriously, can you read?
It's not acceptable, but right now it's inevitable. It doesn't matter if OOXML becomes an ISO standard, we'll still be implementing their formats so that users have the ability to choose FLOSS products. That doesn't mean we like OOXML or our position in any of the reverse engineering efforts we've been lumped with over the years.
Roy, you're still pursuing this as if we've done something wrong, and as if you are going to expose some great conspiracy behind it all. The problem is, we haven't, and you won't. So you should pull your head in, do some research and ask some questions for a change, and do the right thing.
You're tilting and windmills and not doing anything positive for the FLOSS community in the process. What do you actually expect to achieve here, other than attempting to defame community contributors and organisations?
Jim Powers
2007-12-12 06:28:38
Here's some simple questions, I ask that you answer them since I am sure that you are reading this:
GNOME cannot endorse OOXML, yes? So GNOME opposes it? I have read over and over the GNOME statement on its participation in TCM45-M participation and exactly what role GNOME is playing in all of this.
Case 1: OOXML does not get approved
So OOXML does not become a standard. Now, through the hard work of GNOME members you are able to extract a lot of information about the OOXML format, then what? Seems like a waste of time to me, you now have some details about a format that you cannot implement without significant legal implications. Now you seemed to be proud that via GNOME's participation in the process may have gotten a "no" from Australia, I'm happy to hear that, but it only confuses me more (more on this later).
Case 2: OOXML gets approved.
Now, of course I'm hoping that approval occurs under the fairest of terms for everybody: free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-discriminatory license protection on everything involved in implementing the standard. Under this circumstance at least GNOME's involvement in the process makes sense, yes? But then one is kind of left to conclude that GNOME wants OOXML to get approval. Seriously, is seems like a logical conclusion.
So, my confusion ('m sure shared by MANY MANY people): there is a general consensus that OOXML should be rejected because of two things:
a) the distasteful baggage of history associated with this emerging fiasco and the fact that the standard, by most accounts, is a very bad one. Also, nobody seriously believes that Microsoft will stick with an "open" standard that they cannot unilaterally diverge from.
b) the logical conclusion that one would draw from GNOME's participation is to get a good, well documented standard with adequate protections that gets approved so that implementations of that standard within the FLOSS world can proceed without fear of reprisals. But of course, there is that lingering tenancy for Microsoft to "go its own way". Nobody can stop them. What then?
Seriously, please stop fighting with Roy for a minute and clarify some basic points. It is the gap between points a and b above that is fueling all the "conspiracy theories". You may think that all of this has been made clear already, believe me, it hasn't. It really, really, really seems like GNOME is put itself into a bad position here (in other places I've seen this called a mistake), because it seems like you have to want OOXML approved, but many of "us" simply cannot see how rewarding Microsoft's behavior with a standard for OOXML (one the pursued only because ODF got there first and ODF is threatening their stranglehold on document file formats) is the "right" thing to do, but if you fight against OOXML's approval you won't be able to act on the information you got about the format during the standardization process, unless... and this is where the really scary conspiracy theories take over, GNOME has been co-opted by Microsoft through, lets say Novell, but pick [something] that makes some plausible sense, as a "vector" to inject a patent encumbered format into the FLOSS world. I don't want to be a nutter and think that the FLOSS project blesses by the FSF primarily because of the "not completely free" Qt license of old has been, even remotely, turned into a force for Microsoft. Please provide evidence that this is true.
You may not think that Roy is asking questions but *I* am. Please take some time out to answer them, Above else clarity is needed and GNOME's actions remain unclear, at least to me.
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-12 06:36:10
Roy Schestowitz
2007-12-12 06:44:39
Yes, I can. And to me, the whole paragraph sounds - just as to others for that matter -- like Microsoft propaganda. It's exactly the type of statement used by Microsoft to have a proprietary format seen as needed. Don't ask me. Ask others who have read that.
Various people on the mailing list have requested change of course, in deed or in words.
Electing the GNOME Foundation board
"There are clear tensions between some of the project's leaders. Criticism of the project's participation in the OOXML standardization process seems unlikely to let up anytime soon."
There would have been no tensions if you waited rather than helped Microsoft's pursuits for ISO.
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-12 06:53:09
No Roy, you made the statement. You are responsible for it. You're welcome to disagree with our analysis of the situation, but you're not welcome to demonise us or suggest we're "Microsoft stooges" for having our own perspective.
What you need to point out to me is what specifically about that statement you disagree with, and why you believe it provides you evidence or rationale to suggest that we are "supporting Microsoft" or do not have Software Freedom as our priority. Go for it.
We're not helping Microsoft's pursuit of ISO standardisation for OOXML, and we have not done anything wrong. I'm absolutely willing to agree to disagree about the perception issues, but our intent is 100% positive for Software Freedom, in line with our long-term commitment and desires for working on GNOME at all.
So, justify your attacks and insinuations. You're not doing anything positive for Software Freedom here, Roy.
What you ought to be doing is asking questions and researching the issues before making claims, assumptions and insinuations, but based on your behaviour and responses, it's unlikely that you're going to start doing that any time soon.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-12-12 07:19:46
By the phrase “supporting Microsoft”, which is a phrase I haven't used here, I never meant (and you know this by the way) that someone is 'in cahoots'. What I meant to say that either sympathy or tactlessness led to this decision. One parts which I disagree with (among more) is "both communities have — in their own way — played a role in this erosion of trust." Very tactless. This reminds me of Brian Jones' latest claim that "Rob Weir wants war".
Yes, you do. Maybe not actively, but your actions are helping Microsoft’s pursuit of ISO standardisation for OOXML. See Jim's comment which he posted a couple of hours ago. Maybe I should echo that message so that you decide to reply to it here (it's challenging, I know).
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-12 08:58:53
You're welcome to disagree with it. It does not give you the right or any evidence to suggest any kind of lack of integrity on the part of people or organisations as a result of your disagreement -- which you have done on this website, irresponsibly and without cause.
We think it's an extremely important point to be made, and it is actually something you would do very well to think deeply about. It's not just Microsoft who are using standards as an industrial weapon, and shrill voices from both sides of the debate have had a negative impact on the standardisation process and trust in it.
We may not like Microsoft, share philosophies or market goals, but that doesn't make them solely responsible for the problem here. Happy to disagree on this point, but again, it is not cause for demonisation or conspiracy theories.
No Roy, my personal actions, and those of the GNOME Foundation are not helping Microsoft's pursuit of ISO standardisation of OOXML. I'm happy to agree to disagree about perceptions, of which there are valid points to be made, but there's a lot of grey area in there, and very little black and white.
Our participation in ECMA TC45-M has, on the whole, from my perspective, *helped* the case against ISO standardisation of OOXML. I'm totally comfortable that people disagree with that.
But again, it does not deliver them the right or any evidence to demonise individuals or organisations such as the GNOME Foundation.
You're going to have to start thinking pretty hard about what your case against us is, and what evidence you have for it, Roy.
TaQ
2007-12-12 11:53:27
Jeff, why the "right questions" should be deal on a more secret scope than the public exposure this website have? As Jim pointed, here is not the only place were people are talking about this, but if some of the Jim comments were answered here, it can make a reference to point on another websites.
As seems that we don't have any kind of censorship here as we could have on some other websites that perhaps are connected to companies not interested on make some critics about Microsoft and some other huge players, I think it's a good place to answer that. I understand that it's not a place you like Jeff, but as we (you included) keep commenting here this make this place a good place to make the Jim questions clear. And if Roy works like a censor to the your comments, I'll be the first to complain.
And, man, what a lot of "do your primary research and ask questions" thing, uh? If you search Google for "primary research ask questions roy" we're on first place. :-)
If Roy could make some of the deep research that eventually could prove some of his points, he'd need to walk with some security dudes or hide somewhere on Earth. It's not that easy have some proofs on some deals that a lot of people with power and money are involved, but this can't make us stop searching for the truth even without the real facts. If there's something wrong, Jeff, prove him that he's wrong, but without personal persuasion. As your point needs some more, let's say, "positive" facts, you'll not need to be on a delicate position as Roy if he proves some of the "negatives" facts.
Jeff Waugh
2007-12-12 12:14:59
I made it pretty clear in my comment that I'd let him publish them. I just don't think it's appropriate to expect people to answer serious questions about serious issues in the comments section of a website. This is not the right way to go about research.
I am wasting my time here trying to get Roy to stop being divisive and irresponsible in his reporting and do the right thing by the FLOSS community. I've said on many, many occasions that I'm happy to answer questions about the issues, and I even created an opportunity for him to do so in the form of an interview.
Sadly, he doesn't appear to value truth more than he values the entertainment value of finding conspiracy theories and smearing good people and organisations in the community. He can fix that behaviour if he chooses to do the right thing.
That's a reasonable answer when commenting on Microsoft or Novell, but not when making nasty insinuations about members and organisations of the FLOSS community, who are easily accessible. Making nasty insinuations about your friends in the FLOSS community without asking what's going on is just disrespectful and lazy.
That is completely backwards. Roy has insinuated that GNOME Foundation direcctors, my company, my wife and I may have had some kind of financial incentive from Microsoft or Novell to make the decisions we've made.
It is not up to me to "prove" that kind of ill-informed, evidence-free insinuation wrong to prove my/our innocence, it is up to Roy to prove guilt. He hasn't done so, and can't (because the truth is not on his side).
What he's doing here is lazy, irresponsible, disrespectful, and not helpful to the cause he wishes to contribute to (FLOSS) and some day he'll look back on it with shame.
eet
2007-12-12 12:22:31
Oh, yes there is. Shame that you can't read it, my friend!
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
dsksdjEdfdsfۤEdfsT
2007-12-12 12:41:28
@TaQ: If it just were so. I had a hard time using a proxy in order to get this message through. Roy censors-out any comments that don't agree with his view. This casts a bad light on his love for freedom IMHO.
The only reason Roy doesn't censor out Roy is that this would certainly not look good for him. But anyone else, he gladly censors.
Roy, this one is to you: Most people DO NOT agree with you. Stop inducing hatred into a community where people should respect each other.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
TaQ
2007-12-12 12:56:52
So Roy can send you the interview, but you'll not complain that the questions are not the "right questions" and will answer them no matter what they look like to you? Of course no questions with personal attacks, just asking about what is happening and we are *wondering*. What you think, Roy?
As Jim pointed, words seems to be louder than deeds right now, so we have this situation.
Again, a point of personal interpretation. You can think on a way about the right thing, Roy on other, me on other. They are connected on some way, but don't need to be exactly the same.
People on Microsoft and Novell could be easily accessible too, but see, there are human beings involved on both sides. We can and must not face all the people on "the other side" as demons (maybe the companies, but not the people) as we must not face everybody on the FLOSS side as angels also. Humans are more complicated than code, we have politics. And power. And, oh boy, money. So, it's important to ask questions on both sides, even if sometimes there are not proofs or evidences, but we need some speculation. My personal opinion about miguel, for example, is that he loves Microsoft things more than a normal person on the FLOSS side. And that's weird.
I still think that it's very complicated to him to prove that without deep investigation which can lead him to some complicated fields and places. Not a matter of the side of truth, maybe, but resources and time available. See, I'm not insinuating that you're lying, Jeff, but I can't just trust you're right because *you* just tell me that you right. As Jim pointed, you can not say that such a situation is true and that your word should be taken above other, specially when things are moving fast and huge right now about the matters discussed here.
TaQ
2007-12-12 12:59:10
Jim Powers
2007-12-12 14:29:50
1. You were banned because your comments became relentless ad hominem attacks without content.
2. The rest of the world not "against" Roy: another empty ad hominem attack.
If you are not a hired gun/instigator, you are redeemable, but it will take something more than drive-by insults.
Re: asking questions and making answers available.
How much is it worth to you? He he, just kidding. Certainly I consider any thoughtful answers coming from Gnome that shed light on the issues surrounding its participation on OOXML work of the utmost importance and would feel it to be my duty to share that information. But can I suggest something even better?
Jeff, two things:
1. You can see the nature of the questions I've posted here. I'm sure that there are a great many other people out there, despite the eet isomorphisms' claims to the contrary, that are asking similar questions . Gnome can at least start by crafting a public response to these issues. You should know better than most, having worked with talented software people, we are a creative bunch, and left to our own devices we will fill in the "blanks" with our own creative efforts. It's what we do. We are not sheep. You speak of "communities" but there is at least some who would probably, under "normal circumstances" consider themselves part of the Gnome community, side-by-side helping to bring free software to the world. But, by the nature of how FLOSS has come into being there are many forces that seek to undermine our efforts. Now, we see a pillar of free software, Gnome, actively engaging one of the most aggressive antagonists of free software. The nature of that engagement is confounding. Some (many?), who have been following the rise of FLOSS are gravely concerned that either Gnome has been co-opted or is acting is an ill-thought-out manner. So you see, the community that you have been speaking of, certainly a community I (and Roy for that matter), generally see ourselves a part of is being "split" because of an action Gnome has taken. All issues about personal integrity of you, Roy, your wife, Miguel de Icaza, etc. are secondary what is primary is we want "our community" to be a "safe place". One where we can remain confident that our efforts will, in word and in deed, help bring freedom to the world. Like it or not, Roy really is a messenger. The message may be the result of fermentations in his imagination, but his concerns are resonating. The concerns are emerging because one of our free software pillars, Gnome, is acting in a way we either cannot understand or agree with. Why this concern? Why all this angst? Why are so many "good people" getting caught in this net? Because of the lack of quality information coming from Gnome. Again, Gnome has put out information concerning some of the history of the OOXML work, ok good. But it could do better about allaying some of the fears that have been developing:
- What does Gnome expect to achieve? - What will it mean to FLOSS if OOXML does not get approved? What will Gnome's actions be to "ensure interoperability" in a world (and you seem to indicate that this is inevitable) with OOXML out there while not increasing the likelihood that people will have to "interoperate" in fear? - What will it mean to FLOSS if OOXML does get approved? What if the ISO (now publicly documented as hijacked by Microsoft) approves (something you also seem to indicate is inevitable) OOXML under not the best terms? What about the extensions that are in use but neither documented nor likely to be documented because Microsoft clearly wants to retain a wedge? What about the likely behavior of Microsoft to change their implementation of OOXML?
Another way to look at this is Gnome setting itself up for another Pyhrric victory like the recent "EU anti-trust victory against Microsoft"?
These are the general nature of the questions I (and may others, I'm sure you are aware) would be asking, and I agree that answering them in the comments section of some arbitrary blog is not the way to go about doing this, so put up a page answering these and many other questions on the Gnome site "engage" the issue with information.
2. The approach you have been taking with Roy is getting tiresome. All of this rancor can dissipate with "information". Constantly putting Roy on the defensive isn't helping. "Engage" this faction of the community you speak of by the information we crave, the information you and "yours" posses. Take the lead and publish information on the Gnome site that addresses the issues raised here. Like it or not, all of our "ego" related issues such as the claims about integrity or not is really, truly secondary, FLOSS will prosper because "our community" is "open" and it is the information about our actions that strengthen our cause, not the particular people. Remember, there will be a (very sad) day when even RMS is no longer with us, but the "cause" needs to continue. Ping-pong insult fests aren't helping anybody
fdfEfgddsfdEgfdTgbfg
2007-12-12 16:15:03
So I guess that would make it okay if I said. Roy has been bought out by Appel to make Linux users look geeky, malevolent and paranoid.
You ask me to prove that? Well, Roy and Steve certainly won't admit their secret arrangements. And no, I don't have recordings of their secret backroom-talks about a job-offer for Roy, or photos of cash changing its own; what do you expect from me, I'm just a simple guy, not the secret service.
BUT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE ME THAT ROY HAS BEEN BOUGHT OUT! It all perfectly fits. You cannot prove me wrong!
"See, I’m not insinuating that you’re lying, Jeff, but I can’t just trust you’re right because *you* just tell me that you right." Well I am insinuating that Roy is a complete headcase and I rather blieve Jeff's word because he is a pro and does useful work for GNOME - in sharp contrast to the self-indulgent character-murdering that Roy is busying himself with.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
fdfEfgddsfdEgfdTgbfg
2007-12-12 16:17:03
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
TaQ
2007-12-12 16:28:20
That's ok for me, I can't prove that. I'm curious about the Roy answer. And Roy, if this guy is not eet, what you have to say about the censoship he told us?
Roy Schestowitz
2007-12-12 20:23:46
Yes, he still tries posting every day (abusive stuff, as always), but I've got this under control, I think. He is the one reason we needed moderation and the only person to whom this applies. Everyone is encouraged to follow the links and see what we have in our hands because it isn't just the voice of a critic.
Sounds fair. As you say later, just getting answers (assuming these address the "right questions") doesn't ensure everything is resolved.