From OLFarCnArt at dslextreme.com Wed Jun 18 15:42:32 2008 From: OLFarCnArt at dslextreme.com (Chuck Kerschner) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:42:32 -0700 Subject: [Lula-chat] Fwd: [ PFIR ] What's Up Doc? -- Chicago Politics Meets Microsoft's OOXML Message-ID: <48596528.7030103@dslextreme.com> >To: pfir-list at vortex.com >Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:01:17 -0700 >From: pfir at pfir.org >Subject: [ PFIR ] What's Up Doc? -- Chicago Politics Meets Microsoft's OOXML >X-BeenThere: pfir at pfir.org > > > What's Up Doc? -- Chicago Politics Meets Microsoft's OOXML > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000391.html > >Greetings. Though we may think of corporations as being entities >unto themselves -- and in a legal sense they are in many ways -- in >reality even the largest are of course actually made up of people. > >If you want a way to peer into the minds and sensibilities of the >folks running any particular firm, observing the methodologies that >they use to try advance their agendas is at least as illuminating as >looking at the resulting policies and outcomes themselves. > >It's been popular for years in various quarters to bash Microsoft. >Some of the criticisms are well deserved, others are not. I've >personally always tried to keep as objective a keel as possible on >this score. > >But a theme that has frequently emerged when folks are critical of >MS is the concept that Microsoft is a serial bully in its business >practices. Software licenses that bully. Distribution agreements >that bully. OS integration architectures that bully. And so on. > >The bullying question has come up again in the context of the recent >attempt by Microsoft to forcibly acquire Yahoo -- a sequence that >while officially ended is viewed as only being in temporary >suspended animation by many observers. And while it is undoubtedly >true that mistakes by Yahoo management set the stage for the takeover >attempt, the attitude of MS in this instance, even while it was >obvious that the attempt itself would likely drive significant Yahoo >talent to seek more stable environs, seems to carry MS' business >bullying signature. > >But there's a current case of MS playing hardball outside normal >bounds that you may never have heard about, even though it could very >well affect you negatively in the wallet and in other unfortunate >ways down the line. And in some respects it's even more >illuminating. As usual, MS isn't the only player involved, and >while the underlying issues are rather technical, many of the >associated methods would seem rather familiar to any student of the >old Chicago political machine. > >I won't even attempt to get into the deep details here. Head over to >Google, and search for: > > microsoft ooxml > >... then spend the next few hours enjoying the tale in all its sordid >glory. I strongly recommend doing this on an empty stomach. > >The micro-synopsis is that over a number of years, a crucial ISO >(International Organization for Standardization) process -- that >will deeply affect how documents will be edited, manipulated, >processed, and published -- has essentially been hijacked by >Microsoft. > >Microsoft's goal has been to make their own grossly bloated (6500+ >pages!) and in many ways flawed "OOXML" document format the >standard for the foreseeable future, instead of the existing, much >more reasonably sized, and easily extensible Open Document Format >(ODF). Document formats matter. They have impacts on everything >from portability, to privacy, to the costs associated with word >processing software and systems. > >You've gotta be careful when reading the many sources you'll find on >the OOXML topic -- and keeping events in chronological order is >crucial. The plotline has more twists and turns than Colossal Cave, >and more ways to confuse than cheap vodka. > >My favorite character in the story is the gigantic OOXML document >format itself, which might be classified as a deadly weapon if >printed and then dropped from a low-flying aircraft. > >Unnecessarily massive and complex specs are bad enough, but when the >time to review such abominations is reduced to ridiculously short >periods as in this case, the circumstances border on the Twilight >Zone -- or late night legislative dealings in Congress -- take your >pick. Blind everyone with volume, make sure there isn't time to >properly read and analyze the material, then ram it all home for >approval. "Fairness? We don't need no stinkin' fairness!" > >And remember, if it looks like you're going to lose a key approval >vote, be sure to use whatever underhanded techniques are necessary >to win. In Chicago, the traditional method of choice was to make >sure that every man, woman, child, and even deceased citizens would >register the "proper" vote -- ideally multiple times in each >election. In Microsoft's OOXML world, the parallel approach is to >arrange for emerging countries that previously had no apparent >interest in the proceedings to suddenly appear, vote for the >Microsoft side, then conveniently vanish back into standards >obscurity -- a procedural coup that is currently the subject of >official protests filed with the ISO. > >At this late stage of the game, it appears difficult to derail the >OOXML blunderbuss, though with such wide support for the much more >sensible ODF format by institutions around the world, it's just >possible that the end result may not be quite the steamroller effect >in terms of OOXML uptake that Microsoft has been counting on. > >But this entire affair most certainly represents a teachable moment >- -- something of a x-ray image of Microsoft's soul -- or rather the >souls of its management, since as I noted at the outset, even >Microsoft is made of people -- but then again, so was Soylent Green. > >If those people wish to play fair, all the more power to them. >However, if they choose to play fast, play loose, and play the bully >in their dealings with the international technical community, you >end up with organizations and individuals much less worthy of our >respect and patronage -- both now and in any future considerations >and deliberations. > >--Lauren-- >Lauren Weinstein >lauren at vortex.com or lauren at pfir.org >Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 >http://www.pfir.org/lauren >Co-Founder, PFIR > - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org >Co-Founder, NNSquad > - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org >Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com >Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > >_______________________________________________ >pfir mailing list >http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.0/1506 - Release Date: 6/17/2008 >4:30 PM __________ NOD32 3195 (20080617) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com -- Marriage is a double-edged sword, and the "gay community" is grabbing it by the blade. Be careful what you ask for.