Cover-up Work

I

n an earlier post, we showed that ODF adoption is definitely increasing. Microsoft meanwhile resorts to EEE (embrace, extend, and extinguish) because it's the only method it understands. That, however, is not the subject of this one particular post.

According to observations made about a new article, Microsoft has little or no guilt after its merciless abuse of the whole system, which even its next-door press seems to be well aware of (whilst a reformed ISO and Microsoft blatantly deny). Watch this shrewd take.

Microsoft admits they were a bit clueless about the standardisation process, but they do not regret having stuffed the committees at the same time.

When it comes to standards, Microsoft does have prior experience. It ridicules and regularly manipulates such as process, as Bruce Perens confessed only yesterday, but they try to act dumb, knowing too well what they have done. They try to blame ignorance and thus find shelter in merits of innocence.

ODF from Microsoft? Keep Dreaming.

Just as Bob Sutor predicted at times of skepticism (regarding ODF support from Microsoft), half-hearted attempts are only to be expected.

Remember that it's only a marketing push . It's about putting the "ODF supported" label on shrink-wrapped boxes of Microsoft Office, thereby securing some business and government contracts. It's all based on false assumptions. It's about circumventing policies and having migrations to Office alternatives grind to a halt.

ODF support in Office for Mac? Forget about it.

And while ODF support has been promised for Office 2007 SP2, there's no sign of it for Office 2008.

Never forget that the Mac version of Office is incompatible that that of Windows. Part of the many possible causes is OOXML, which is too messy even for Microsoft to manage.

Poor Documentation as Standard

Yesterday we wrote about Microsoft's alleged destruction of key documentation that is needed for interoperability. Here comes some more damaging complaints, whose core resembles the high defect rate found in OOXML.

Plaintiffs Complain About Microsoft Docs"

[...]

There are now 1,276 identified problems with the technical documentation, compared to fewer than 900 at the beginning of the year, said Stephen Houck, a lawyer representing the so-called California group of states that are plaintiffs in the case.

By the nature of the business model, namely lock-in, interoperability is never part of Microsoft's plan (unless it can cash in on it, e.g. using software patents, or if antitrust fines become too severe to bear). Need it be added that a lot of Microsoft's technical documentation is a software patents bait? ⬆