[Lula-chat] Fwd: [ PFIR ] What's Up Doc? -- Chicago Politics Meets Microsoft's OOXML

Wed Jun 18 15:42:32 EDT 2008

 >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.