MESSAGE
| DATE | 2008-05-14 |
| FROM | Mark Simko
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Microsoft GNU Pitch
|
Two points:
They should do their own damn homework instead of expecting the foss
community to provide the info for them.
I've begun to hear people ask me why they save a document in Word
(2007), email it, and open it up with Word (2003) and all they see is
gobble-de-gook. OXML just ain't compatible.
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:48 -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
> Microsoft emails Blender Sunday, May 11 2008 -at- 12:52 PM EDT
>
> Microsoft has just approached the Blender guys, and I would assume have
> or will approach other FOSS projects since we learn that Microsoft has
> assigned a guy to work with Open Source projects, with a request for
> information on how to make Blender run better on Windows. Here's part
> of what Microsoft emailed to Blender:
>
> With respect to Blender, what can you tell me about your
> community/user feedback that you have heard regarding file
> formats? Specifically, Microsoft is slowly shifting toward a more
> open standards based approach to its file formats. The ISO standard
> Office Open XML is an example of the direction we are moving
> towards. A good user experience of Blender on Windows is good for
> your project/community and good for Microsoft. What we are trying
> to understand is what file formats, which are not open or not fully
> open, are impeding the optimal experience with your community.
>
> OOXML is an example of openness? They're kidding, right?
>
> While on the surface, one might think this is an example of greater
> openness on Microsoft's part, I thought it would be probably a good time
> to point out Microsoft's competitive strategy against Linux and FOSS. I
> think this is an example of its announced strategy to "outsmart Linux",
> as Ballmer put it, using "openness" -- a Brand X, tilted version of it --
> to do it.
>
> Here's the overarching strategy Ballmer mentioned recently:
>
> I would love to see all Open Source innovation happen on top of
> Windows. So we've done a lot to encourage, for example, the team
> building, PHP, the team building, many of the other Open Source
> components, I'd love to see those sorts of innovations proceed very
> successfully on top of Windows.
>
> Because our battle is not sort of business model to business
> model. Our battle is product to product, Windows versus Linux,
> Office versus OpenOffice.
>
> Get it? They view everything as a battle. "All Open Source innovation"
> means to him, I gather, that Windows runs the applications so well,
> the GNU/Linux operating system dies off. Who needs it? That's how they
> think, because they don't grasp any purpose to freedom for the code or
> for the end user. If you do, please watch out. The OOXML saga stands as
> a perfect example of how Microsoft plays to win, by hook or by crook. It
> is a "standard" that only Microsoft can fully use. That's not openness
> to me. Why don't they help the OpenOffice.org guys by telling them how
> to render Windows Office 2007 documents properly? Really. If openness
> is the goal, how about it, Microsoft? I know. I jest. Instead, Microsoft
> would like FOSS developers to cross over to Microsoft's eternally tilted
> playing field and lose its competitive advantage. They want Open Source
> applications to run better on Windows with the purpose of battling
> against GNU/Linux and FOSS more successfully. Want to help them?
>
> I know. It's complex. But unless Microsoft also lets FOSS run Microsoft
> applications on Linux equally well as FOSS apps on Windows, it's
> not actually interoperability or openness, is it? It's a Microsoft
> advantage. "Ha ha, Linux, we outsmarted you," I can imagine them
> saying. Microsoft's idea of interoperability is that it runs everything
> just great, your stuff and theirs, and you can't. You can run your stuff
> great and their stuff in a hobbled and imperfect fashion that leads the
> ill-informed to conclude that Microsoft is "better".
>
> There are more than just technical issues to think through, in other
> words. I'm just saying consider the entire picture. Microsoft is. Here's
> where, in 2002, Ballmer said Microsoft would outsmart Linux, using
> increased 'openness' as part of that plan.
>
> The bottom line is this: if Microsoft wants interoperability, all it
> has to do is follow true standards, and by that I mean ones that don't
> allow proprietary extensions the way OOXML does, and open up their
> APIs so everyone is on the same page. Their goal, however, isn't true
> interoperability. It's to have Windows do everything, including running
> Linux applications, better than anyone else. Why should you settle for
> Brand X "interoperability"?
>
> They will very likely also use such reaching out to projects in their
> defense before the EU Commission, so unless you wish to be used that way,
> think deeply about your response. I understand that there is a very fine
> line to be drawn, but while Microsoft says it will "outsmart Linux", I
> don't believe that is possible if you stay alert. Most of the brainiacs,
> in my experience, are here, not there. But because there is no central
> management to plan and react to their competitive strategies, they might
> be successful in their overarching aim to destroy Linux and FOSS, if no
> one thinks these types of issues through carefully. Happily, Blender is
> GPL'd, but so is Linux, and we saw how Novell got snookered. It's natural
> to want your applications to run better on all operating systems. But
> if the end result is the Extinguishing of FOSS as we know it, what have
> you done?
>
> You will likely find the responses on the Blender list of interest,
> as you follow the thread. Here's the very first comment:
>
> I would not touch that with a barge pole. MS XML is an example that
> they are not moving on that issue, or they would support ODF, not
> using dirty tactics to force an half-backed non open standard.
>
> They have an history to use one OSS group against another too.
>
> Blender is in a position where we do not depend on any MS backed
> format, so I think we should be very careful to stay neutral in
> those areas.
>
> And the next:
>
> Personally I don't see why specific attention should be given to
> proprietary Microsoft file formats. If they continue to avoid truly
> open standards and their own file formats provide a sub-optimal
> experience for Windows users, then it is not the open source community
> that has a problem imho.
>
> I don't see Microsoft making it easy for Mac, Sun, Linux etc users to
> use their "file formats, which are not open or not fully open". Any
> multi platform application which has support for Windows specific
> file formats is going to end up with a fragmented community as data
> then becomes platform specific even if the application isn't.
>
> Do we want to help Microsoft lock more users data to their platform,
> or do we want to encourage Microsoft to truly move towards open
> standards?
>
>
|
|
