MESSAGE
| DATE | 2008-05-16 |
| FROM | From: "Paul Charles Leddy"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Microsoft GNU Pitch
|
These people are evil. Any communication from them should be
considered an attack, and if not, will eventually reveal itself to be
such, though it may be subtle. I am impartial.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Mark Simko wrote:
> 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?
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
