Patrick Durusau's response
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Mar 26, 2008 8:46 AM EDT |
I sent Patrick a copy of this article via e-mail. He has responded and I have added his response to the article at the end: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/101017/index.html#patri... |
| gus3 Mar 26, 2008 9:12 AM EDT |
Good Lord, talk about an "appeal to authority"! "I am OBVIOUSLY better than you! If you don't understand that, I have no obligation to enlighten you!" Matt Hartley just found a new tennis partner. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2008 9:14 AM EDT |
gus3 - Sander asked for it. His piece is pretty insulting. Oh -- and, Sander -- This is just my opinion, and not representative of 55 year-old men in general. |
| tracyanne Mar 26, 2008 12:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:Since I have spent the last six years of my life working on and improving the ODF standard I feel no need to formally respond to your obviously ill-informed post. A clear and arrogant appeal to authority. An argument as patently invalid as the ones he offered for accepting OOXML as an ISO standard. The upside is that people in positions to neutralise the clown will also see this. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2008 1:03 PM EDT |
tracyanne - I think everybody's got their polarities reversed here. Did you actually read the letter? If so, did you read Sander's piece? If so, did you you read Durusau's response in light of the other two? I smell arrogance, but not in the same place you do. There certainly was nothing arrogant in the original letter. He expressed his opinion and listed some potential losers if things continue the way they are going. That arrogant b*st*rd!! What a terrible thing to do. To make things worse, he tells us, "As national bodies meet to cast their final votes on OpenXML, a checklist of who loses if OpenXML does might be helpful. This is just my list and isn't meant to be exhaustive:" A checklist might be helpful!! How overbearing can you get! "Just my list" -- Well, that certainly makes it clear that he intends to represent all of us with his ideas and that we had better darned well follow. Yesserriee, Bob, that is one nasty, nasty, man. Or what about this: Quoting:As the editor of OpenDocument, I want to promote OpenDocument, extol its features, urge the widest use of it as possible, none of which is accomplished by the anti-OpenXML position in ISO Did he forget that he was supposed to keep his position a great big secret? I mean, it is "just his list", but he shouldn't let us know that he has dedicated years and energy to making ODF as good as it can be, should he? After all, folks around here would rather believe he's just an MS butt-wipe, looking to torpedo ODF while promoting MS Office. You know how we could tell? He included a list of problems for ODF. A REAL ODF supporter would be sure that it is perfect. An arrogant man, not like our Sander, who humbly writes, " I find it shameful that you, Patrick, makes these kind of statements without a proper disclaimer that this is your personal opinion and not the position of the ODF committee." Personally, I find it shameful that our editor seems unable to comprehend things like "just my list" and insists instead on magic incantations. Shockingly, most people outside of PR flacks, the press, lawyers, and politicians, do not routinely use magic incantations. I agree it would be better if he had, but shameful? C'mon. Shame on you for setting a tone that is guaranteed to ruffle feathers for no good reason. That might be excused if your logice were, well, logical. Take your response to item 2, which is nothing more than a rant which effectively calls Durusau a tool of Microsoft while ignoring the fact that even you agreed with his point. Guess what? Some 3rd party contractors may well find themselves out of luck if Microsoft does not support an ISO standard. Instead, you seem overly impressed by noting that ISO owes no company a living. If only you applied some thought before you applied fingers to keys, you might have remembered the very purpose of having standards in the first place. They facilitate transactions between strangers, including governments and businesses. Greasing the skids for business, is, in fact, one of the reasons why ISO exists. I am not at all surprised by Dursau's response. You took a pretty innocuous letter and barfed all over its author. Not only that, you did so badly and with a preachy -- undeservedly preachy, I might add -- tone. You write a lot of good stuff. You make a lot of good points daily. You're certainly a smart guy, but, on this one, you need to get over yourself. |
| tracyanne Mar 26, 2008 1:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:I think everybody's got their polarities reversed here. This is the sort of humour we Australians appreciate, well done, I didn't know yanks were capable of being that subtle. |
| Schnoodledorfer Mar 26, 2008 1:29 PM EDT |
"I don't have to answer questions about my commitment to ODF from you or anyone else." Of course, that's true. No one can force Durusau to talk. But no one was even asking about his commitment to ODF in this case. Durusau changed the subject and then refused to talk about it. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2008 1:36 PM EDT |
>Durusau changed the subject and then refused to talk about it. No, not at all. He was offended -- and rightfully so -- by Sander's attack. He took the attack personally, which is utterly predictable when you accuse someone of shameful behavior, and decided that he didn't want to play. Could he have responded better? Sure. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2008 1:38 PM EDT |
>This is the sort of humour we Australians appreciate Sigh. I forgot -- you're in the Southern Hemisphere. Everything is backwards. Or, at least, that would explain your comment. |
| dumper4311 Mar 26, 2008 2:11 PM EDT |
There was a recent discussion on another article about this exact subject. Making these topics personal, and responding as such, engenders hostility. Sander's response to the original article, and Durusau's reply demonstrates this clearly. I'm certainly guilty of it, sometimes intentionally, and it's not always a bad thing to stir the pot. But it's important to keep your intended outcome in mind. While this exchange isn't likely to rend asunder the progress of ODF or OOXML, it certainly doesn't help either camp. The harm done here can extend well beyond two people disagreeing. Sides get chosen, positions entrenched, and progress halts. Overall, our "community" could do with a bit less emotion, and a little more reason. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2008 2:22 PM EDT |
dumper -- It's a common online problem. We deal with people we don't know and words can become clumsy tools without facial expressions and body language to clarify them. The thing that bothers me on this exchange is that, absent any strong evidence otherwise, Durusau should be considered one of the good guys. He's been working to make ODF into a good strong standard. I read the letter, even though it is presented as a "list of losers", as an accounting of ways that his job would be made harder, hence the specific accounting of ODF/Office problems. The rest I figure to be the kind of fluff we tend to toss in when we wish to fortify our positions -- "Hey! It's not just me! Other people could get hurt, too." The problem isn't that people disagree with him. Heck, anybody who can't handle disagreement shouldn't get out of bed. Sander treated him as a Microsoft spokesmodel, and his service to ODF deserves a little more kindness than that. |
| BillG Mar 26, 2008 2:52 PM EDT |
dinotrac -- Good work. Thanks. Your check is in the mail. BillG |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 26, 2008 3:17 PM EDT |
First off, I have no beef about Patrick's work on ODF. I love ODF. He did a great so far. Hell, I even write software for ODF: http://www.jejik.com/odf-xslt/ Dino, most of your problems seem to be about my first paragraph. I have a real problem with going online in the morning only to find umpteen stories going "ODF Editor says..." and "V1 Chair says..." every time Patrick makes a post. And I'm not the only one who's having problems with it: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/contra-durusau-part-1.ht... It's not all Patrick's fault. The media just love to run with that stuff. That's why you have to be extra careful. I make damn sure that nobody will be misquoting me as "LXer editor says..." and present it as if my position was LXer's position. This has happened with plenty of Patrick's writings so far without any response from him about it. Could I have toned down the first paragraph a bit? Probably. But I didn't and I stick to what I wrote. Quoting:Take your response to item 2, which is nothing more than a rant which effectively calls Durusau a tool of Microsoft while ignoring the fact that even you agreed with his point. He presents the point as a reason not to disapprove DIS 29500. I most certainly disagree with that. My point that ISO does not owe any specific company a living is an entirely valid one. Just think it through, what will happen for third parties if DIS 29500 fails and a government body standardizes on ODF? The Microsoft based third parties loose out, yes. Boohoo. How sad. But the ODF based third parties win. Money changes hands either way. It just goes to a different pair of hands. Standardization is about greasing the skids of business in general. Not greasing the skids of a subclass of business aligned to a specific vendor. Besides these (government) procurements there is nothing that DIS 29500 could achieve that cannot be achieved with Ecma 376 already. Ecma 376 is already a standard. Just not an ISO one. That's all. Office suits will be procured and paid for. Third parties will write tools. Money will change hands. Business as usual. |
| viator Mar 26, 2008 4:06 PM EDT |
Its obvious that the M$ money was hard to turn down but he took it anyway. His bank account should be audited for large deposits. :P |
| flufferbeer Mar 26, 2008 5:44 PM EDT |
re: dt's longer comment following tc's
I think it was Shakespeare or someone like this who quoted "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" in one of his plays.
dt is not a lady such as tc, however the longer comment comes across to me as a similarly hostile personal protest against S_M just as dumper4311 mentions above for Patrick Durusau and S_M's reaction to Patrick's OOXML views. Someone tells me that the appropriate, academic adjective that distinctly applies to dt's tone of voice within the long comment is "vituperative". Have not seen this awkward term used much in online posts (or at all online really) , so cannot vouch for certain that this is completely true. Just passing this along though. |
| dumper4311 Mar 26, 2008 6:21 PM EDT |
@fluffer: I think dino responded to Sander in a tone similar to the "preachy" tone he accused Sander of using, but there's a practical and functional difference. dino and S_M know each other - at least through interaction on this forum. They both respect each other's opinions, even if each may think the other is a bit of a dink from time to time, and they will talk to each other to come to an understanding - if not resolve their differences. I also mentioned that sometimes it is necessary to stir the pot a bit. Humility is good for us all, and it's important to maintain a balanced perspective. But criticism must be constructive to be useful. S_M and dino (I believe, based on what I've witnessed in this forum) are well acquainted enough they can be a bit more frank (and smug, and sarcastic, and . . .) with each other and still end things productively. Without that familiarity, one must be much more careful about their communications if they wish to remain constructive. This is demonstrated by S_M's and Durusau's interaction. Note that I'm not implying Durusau couldn't use a small dose of humility, I'm just saying that Sander doesn't seem to have the relationship with him necessary to administer that dose. So while the tone may be similar, the relationship of the participants in this forum may allow for a bit more play than would otherwise be productive. |
| dinotrac Mar 26, 2008 6:24 PM EDT |
Sander - The point of my reference to Patrick's item 2 was simple: your rant had nothing to do with what he wrote. Perhaps the problem is that you are not responding to his letter, but to an accumulation of things. To the rest of y'all - Sticks and stones and all that, y'know? |
| GDStewart Mar 26, 2008 7:21 PM EDT |
"The point of my reference to Patrick's item 2 was simple: your rant had nothing to do with what he wrote." Uh, yes it did. Maybe you should actually read it. "Perhaps the problem is that you are not responding to his letter, but to an accumulation of things." No, he responded to the letter point by point, as well as "an accumulation of other things" and their effect. "Sticks and stones and all that, y'know?" Yeah, I stopped using that sometime in grade school. |
| tracyanne Mar 26, 2008 7:35 PM EDT |
Tis is why I like Dino, he's a stirrer in the Australian tradition of stirrers. |
| thenixedreport Mar 26, 2008 9:03 PM EDT |
Dino: The anti-rebel! |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 27, 2008 12:03 AM EDT |
Quoting:The point of my reference to Patrick's item 2 was simple: your rant had nothing to do with what he wrote. Patrick wrote about "Microsoft based third-party vendors". That's what makes it relevant. Had he written about ISVs in general, or local ISVs then my response would have been off base. Standardisation is about doing away with such vendor alignments. Look at plumbing. Sizes are standardised so you don't need to rely on a single vendor (or it's partners) if you want to easily connect your pipes. The only reason Microsoft based ISVs would lose is because Microsoft would lose procurements. ISVs overall win either way because they still get their contracts. It may be a different ISV that gets the contract but it's not like there won't be any contracts at all. Quoting:Perhaps the problem is that you are not responding to his letter, but to an accumulation of things. My remark about him letting himself get quoted all over the place as "ODF editor says..." and "V1 Chair says..." is definitely a reaction to all his recent publications and not just this one. The rest of my piece is aimed at the logic that underlies his points. |
| dinotrac Mar 27, 2008 4:28 AM EDT |
Sander - You are blinded by your feelings toward Microsoft, justified though they may be. There is a huge industry built around the Microsoft software -- and for good reason: It's ubiquitous. Lots of VARs make livings that way. Lots of specialized products are little more than a collection of Office macros and templates. Yes -- it benefits Microsoft, but it benefits lots of others. The reason your response to item number 2 is just plain wrong is that you focus on the one and forget the rest. The truth is, third party contractors are likely to lose if Microsoft does not conform to an OSI standard. The further truth is that Microsoft ain't likely to conform to ODF. That doesn't mean that OSI should adapt the current proposal. It doesn't even mean that the OSI should ever adapt any OOXML standard. It does mean that truth and real logic are better than rants. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 27, 2008 5:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:The truth is, third party contractors are likely to lose if Microsoft does not conform to an OSI standard. On the whole they will not. It's just that the money will be going to ODF-based third party contractors instead of OOXML-based third contractors. |
| dinotrac Mar 27, 2008 5:35 AM EDT |
Sigh. |
| thenixedreport Mar 27, 2008 10:57 AM EDT |
Quoting: You are blinded by your feelings toward Microsoft, justified though they may be. You nearly hit the point on the head. Almost! But not quite. Look up the words "lock in" through google and maybe you'll understand. |
| dumper4311 Mar 27, 2008 11:16 AM EDT |
@nixed:
That's exactly the problem with "lock in". If there isn't a standard (mind you, I'm talking about a truly open and implementable standard, which would be a first from microsoft), then no matter what other standards exist, you've just maintained that lock in of MS customers. Dino is right in that MS is ubiquitous, and the ONLY effective way of unlocking their customers is if they can MIGRATE from their existing infrastructure without pain. While a truly open OOXML standard isn't the only method of enacting such a migration (and isn't very likely anyway), it would certainly help. So in that sense, it would be a worthwhile goal. |
| jdixon Mar 27, 2008 11:23 AM EDT |
> ...and the ONLY effective way of unlocking their customers is if they can MIGRATE from their existing infrastructure without pain. Not quite true. No such migration will ever be pain free. The actual case must be that the pain of migrating must be less than the pain of remaining with the status quo. Perhaps fortunately for FOSS, Microsoft and other vendors seem intent on gradually increasing the pain of remaining with the status quo. |
| azerthoth Mar 27, 2008 11:26 AM EDT |
Recognized standard or not, MS will proceed with its use of OOXML or whatever else they call it internally. This gets pushed out to the consumer for daily use on a majority of the worlds computers, and thus gains the status of a defacto standard. With that in mind, it probably actually is in everyones best interest that it gets "officially" documented in the most complete and accurate way possible. Everyone is treating this as defeating the fast track process is the end goal win, then no more OOXML, it's not. It can still go through the normal process and in 2,3,4 years still land as an officially recognized standard. Like it or not OOXML is something that we will HAVE to live with, there isn't a choice in the matter, there isnt even a debate on it. Best for all concerned that the fast track dies a horrible death and it goes through normal processes to get the most and most accurate documentation possible. |
| dinotrac Mar 27, 2008 11:46 AM EDT |
Hey all, One thing must be clear : A true OOXML standard, one that is actually open and free of hidden binary blobs without which documents cannot be completely implemented, and one that Microsoft committed -- to its customer and VAR/consultant base -- to follow, would be a good thing. Not as good as Microsoft supporting ODF, but miles ahead of the current mess. I seriously doubt that Microsoft will ever propose and acceptable OOXML standard, but amazing things happen every now and then. |
| vainrveenr Mar 27, 2008 12:03 PM EDT |
..... and from the Comments section of today's Groklaw piece 'Kenya Changes From Yes to Abstain! Denmark Says No; EU Commission Investigating Poland - Updated' found at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327104739103 In the end, it won't matter Authored by: justjeff Quoting:Chairman: and Kenya, how do you vote? |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 27, 2008 1:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:Dino is right in that MS is ubiquitous, and the ONLY effective way of unlocking their customers is if they can MIGRATE from their existing infrastructure without pain. While a truly open OOXML standard isn't the only method of enacting such a migration, it would certainly help. Quoting:Recognized standard or not, MS will proceed with its use of OOXML or whatever else they call it internally. [it] gains the status of a defacto standard. With that in mind, it probably actually is in everyones best interest that it gets "officially" documented in the most complete and accurate way possible. You're both missing an important point I made in my rebuttal: OOXML is already an internationally recognised standard: Ecma 376. We can already interoperate with MS-Office using this document. Putting an "ISO approved" stamp on this document does not make us magically interoperate even better. It does not fix the flaws in the spec. It's still the very same spec. Just with two stamps instead of one. Quoting:[OOXML] can still go through the normal process and in 2,3,4 years still land as an officially recognized standard. That wouldn't be a bad thing. Provided that the spec can be fixed in that time frame and that MS commits to implementing it in MS-Office. Else it's just an exercise in futility. |
| dinotrac Mar 27, 2008 2:42 PM EDT |
>You're both missing an important point I made in my rebuttal: No, I am not. Ecma != ISO It matters for some contracts. Speaking of missing a point, you must have skimmed the letter you rebutted, because you should have noticed that the Ecma spec is a piece of crap that does not provide everything a proper ISO spec should. A crap spec is worthless. A proper spec without hidden binary pitfalls, and with a commitment to use by Microsoft, will be a boon to everyone. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 27, 2008 2:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:It matters for some contracts. It doesn't matter from a technical point of view. Interoperability with MS-Office is a technical issue, not a procurement/policy issue. Quoting:Speaking of missing a point, you must have skimmed the letter you rebutted, because you should have noticed that the Ecma spec is a piece of crap that does not provide everything a proper ISO spec should. My point is that putting the ISO stamp of approval on the spec doesn't magically fixes these issues. If someone claims that approving DIS 29500 brings us interoperability with MS-Office then I say that Ecma 376 does that as well. It's the same text with the same faults. |
| jdixon Mar 27, 2008 4:37 PM EDT |
Sander: Well, having read both documents now, I agree with Dino that your response to his second point left a lot to be desired. Other than that, I have no real problems with it. I have no idea why he considered you response to be "ill-informed". He might consider it poorly stated or ill-mannered, but ill-informed? Oh well. |
| dinotrac Mar 27, 2008 7:11 PM EDT |
jdixon - The guy probably felt insulted, and "you don't know what you're talking about" is a pretty common slap back. |
| jdixon Mar 28, 2008 6:31 AM EDT |
> ...and "you don't know what you're talking about" is a pretty common slap back. Yeah, it's an easy and quick retort, and if he was responding in anger it's even somewhat understandable. In this case it's completely unjustified though. Sander's response was detailed and comprehensive. The fact that I find his response to point two lacking is comparatively minor. |
| dinotrac Mar 28, 2008 6:47 AM EDT |
jdixon - To be truthful, most of Sander's response was riddled with similar problems. I took point 2 as the clearest example. For example -- point 1 (I think it was 1) about losing an international body to shape the standard was kind of a drive-by by Sander. Yes, Ecma is still there, but OSI wouldn't be. One instead of two, and, worse, the more influential and rigorous one is the one that gets lost. Sander's piece is disrespectful and biased. Now, disrespectful shouldn't be much of a problem for anybody who pokes his head out in public. We all need to have thick skins or crawl back into our hidey-holes. The bias issue is legitimate, and went completely unaddressed by Durusau's response because he viewed the piece as a personal attack. |
| jdixon Mar 28, 2008 7:15 AM EDT |
> Sander's piece is disrespectful and biased. Biased, yes, though it's a bias common among the readership of this site. I'm not so sure about disrespectful. I think Sander would say that it is the arguments he is disrespectful of and not the person, and that the arguments are not deserving of respect. |
| hkwint Mar 28, 2008 4:12 PM EDT |
I'm sorry Dino, but I never saw such flawed logic before here on LXer. You are the one who should think before typing. Like 'explaining' to us what the task of the ISO is and later confusing it with OSI. You are the one blinded by MS and ODF. See it like this: Someone tells BS about who loses if OOXML is not promoted to an ISO standard. OK, he's formally right those parties lose but it's not of any interest; and can only be meant to influence NB's by throwing totally irrelevant issues at them. Then it doesn't matter who he's working for, how old he is or how many things he has done for ODF, if he's a good guy or not, the number of purple hearts or how many cow lives he saved. BS is BS and neet to be debunked. Apart from the first paragraph I see no arrogance at all, Sander just tries to argument how the letter he replies to is irrelevant. I agree the first paragraph might be considered arrogant though, but it's just an opinion of what's ethical and what's not. If you say "because you should have noticed that the Ecma spec is a piece of crap that does not provide everything a proper ISO spec should." than who's arrogant by making a list of 'some parties losing ' which should be 'considered', and publishing this list to try to influence the NB's to promote the piece of crap you're referring to to the ISO level? Well, this is my opinion: I don't agree to what you see as the intention of ISO. The intention of ISO is to make life cheaper and simpler for customers. OOXML only reaches the opposite: It makes life more expensive and more difficult for customers. Then it doesn't matter who loses if a standard which is against the goals of ISO doesn't reach the ISO level; does it? That's totally irrelevant BS; and I have to admit I find it downright insulting to try to mislead NB's in such a way. Durusau is arrogant with respect to the ISO and the intention of ISO-standards, that's the problem. |
| dinotrac Mar 28, 2008 4:28 PM EDT |
Hans - Yawn. >The intention of ISO is to make life cheaper and simpler for customers Do tell? How do they do that? Hmmmmmmm. Let's see. Wait a minute!!! I see it now!! Standards matter because somebody decided it would be nice. Get a grip. |
| tracyanne Mar 28, 2008 5:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:Did you actually read the letter? Yes Quoting:If so, did you read Sander's piece? Yes Quoting:If so, did you you read Durusau's response in light of the other two? Yes There was nothing particularly insulting in what Sander wrote, unless you are so far up your own rear orifice that you can see daylight through you own clenched teeth. Sander managed very successfully to show the flaws in Patrick Durusau's logic, so much so that the only response the bloke could come up with was to be rude heavy handed argument from Authority. |
| Scott_Ruecker Mar 28, 2008 5:41 PM EDT |
Well, it certainly looks like the pot has been stirred throughly. The bait was laid and just about everyone took it. Including me now. Ok Dino, so you don't like the attitude with which the article was written and have contention with the relevancy of some of the comments contained therein, its like the pot calling the kettle black for me. If you had not displayed the very same attitude that you were complaining about I would be defending you instead of engaging you. It is your right and prerogative to like or not like the tone of an article you read, but to then display that very same attitude that you said you did not like, over and over again in conversation is unfortunate. You could have stated your displeasure and kept to the "high ground" and actually have made a point. But you did not and now this thread has degenerated into personal attacks and conjecture. Do you have any complaints with any of the factual information included in Sander's article? Does anyone for that matter? I for one liked the tone very much, it takes "huevos", for lack of a better word, to call someone out, back it up with facts and say how you feel, its about time someone did. If Sander wasn't so right about what is going on then why did Patrick not want to engage Sander and attempt to refute facts or comments? Why would Patrick respond by saying he will not bother to respond to it? I know why, its because he can't. Its your choice now, you can take the high ground and find something factual that is worth arguing about to bring to the thread or "come down" to my level and lock horns with me over whose attitude is the worst. I know there will be those who say, "Your attitude is no better considering your comments" and you would be right, but I figured why not lay some bait of my own and see what I catch. If I can catch an argument over the facts instead of the tone, then I will have caught the fish I was looking for. |
| jdixon Mar 28, 2008 5:54 PM EDT |
> Do you have any complaints with any of the factual information included in Sander's article? Yes. His response to point two ignores the thrust of the argument. There are lots (oodles and oodles) of third party vendors who support Microsoft Office. They would very much like to be able to claim ISO compliance in doing so, as many government contracts require ISO compliance to be considered. If Microsoft's proposed standard doesn't make it as an ISO standard, they're locked out of the bidding. Implementing the ECMA standard doesn't cut it when the contract requires ISO compliance. This is unfortunate in that it limits customer choice and vendor competition. I'm sure I could think of other negative aspects if I took the time, but that's enough to make my point. Sander's arguments do nothing to address this point. While valid, they ignore this aspect of the situation, which I believe was the central point Patrick was trying to make. Please note that I consider this to be a fairly minor defect in his overall article. |
| tracyanne Mar 28, 2008 6:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:Please note that I consider this to be a fairly minor defect in his overall article. I don't see it as a defect at all. The solution to that particular problem is in Microsoft's hands, all they have to do is conform to THE standard - ODF, and all those third party vendors who have chained themselves to Microsoft's products will have no problems. |
| Scott_Ruecker Mar 28, 2008 6:13 PM EDT |
You make an excellent point jdixon. Now how did you think of that and Patrick not think of it to respond with? Its because Quoting:Since I have spent the last six years of my life working on and improving the ODF standard I feel no need to formally respond to your obviously ill-informed post.and Quoting:I don't have to answer questions about my commitment to ODF from you or anyone else. See, he's real important and Sander is not. Its that kind of attitude that gets my gander. He would have to admit to himself that what comes out of his south end stinks before he would be capable of engaging Sander in conversation about the article he wrote. |
| dinotrac Mar 29, 2008 12:08 AM EDT |
> If you had not displayed the very same attitude that you were complaining about I would be defending you instead of engaging you. Bingo. Exactly. See what I mean? >Its your choice now, you can take the high ground and find something factual that is worth arguing about to bring to the thread or "come down" to my level and lock horns with me over whose attitude is the worst. Speaking of pots and kettles. Durusau's whole letter was a little bit of nothing. Why on earth did it warrant such a rant -- one in which pretty much everything but the kitchen sink was thrown in? My hypothesis (already stated) is that Sander let a whole pile of stuff well to a head that this letter exploed. As to factual items, I started out with one point re item 2, then added another. Sander more or less invented a great big pile of stuff to be angry about. People on this site hate Microsoft so it made them feel good to see a big old angry rant against a little letter that had next to nothing in it. You don't have to like the truth. Many people don't. I do. Even when it might be vaguely non-hysterical with regard to Microsoft. |
| tracyanne Mar 29, 2008 2:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:People on this site hate Microsoft so it made them feel good to see a big old angry rant against a little letter that had next to nothing in it. I think you are quite wrong dino, I read the original, I read Sanders comments, I read the response to Sanders comments. I think Sanders comments were reasonable and well stated. They demonstrated how Patrick Durusau's arguments were wrong. I stated that at the beginning. Quite simply the arguments presented for accepting OOXML are bad reasons for doing so, Sander showed why. Patrick Durusau's response was simply rude and arrogant. I really can't see why you got yourself so worked up about it. I saw nothing anti Microsft in anything Sander wrote. |
| hkwint Mar 29, 2008 3:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:Hans - I guess that's why you're confusing OSI with ISO, you suffer from a lack of sleep and Lavazza I guess, and instead of coming with arguments this is the only reaction you are capable of due to your lack of energy. Anyway, "Yawn": That's what the reaction to Durusau's letter should have been. Press should have stated "Durusau writes irrelevant letter containing nonsense about OOXML'. Durusau knows his letter contains nonsense. And he knows the press thinks he has a certain amount of authority. That's why one could blame him; he's intentionally leading the OOXML discussion to an irrelevant area, and some people take him seriously. Those other people too are the problem, and that's why Sander reacted I guess. Quoting:The intention of ISO is to make life cheaper and simpler for customers You may as well read when I post something instead of trying to make me look ridiculous: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/99490/index.html You are the one who should get a grip. That you don't understand standards but can hide it with evasive answers like 'Yawn' and "Get a grip" doesn't mean you have the right to make others who gone to great lengths to explain their opinions look ridiculous. Now I would really appreciate it if you come with arguments - and please don't fill them with your non-linear logic - or spend your time in a better way, like finding out the difference between OSI and ISO before blaming others on logical mistakes and making a joke of yourself. |
| jdixon Mar 29, 2008 4:29 AM EDT |
> I don't see it as a defect at all. If you're doing a point by point rebuttal, not properly addressing one of the points is a defect. > The solution to that particular problem is in Microsoft's hands, Yes, and his response is correct, ISO does not owe anything to either Microsoft or the third party vendors who support Microsoft Office. It just doesn't address the original point that excluding all of those people isn't really a good thing. A more relevant response, off the top of my head, would be that it is Microsoft itself who is excluding them, by abusing the process instead of working to produce a implementable and supportable standard. |
| jdixon Mar 29, 2008 4:37 AM EDT |
> See, he's real important and Sander is not. Yeah, that's the impression his response gives. Giving him the benefit of a doubt (which I always prefer to do until proven wrong) I doubt he actually thinks that. I suspect Dino is correct and he wrote that in anger. He may also be fairly busy right now and fell that he doesn't have time to waste debating the matter. That doesn't change the fact that his casual dismissal of Sander's arguments as "ill-informed" and a personal attack, when to me they appear to be nothing of the sort, gives a very bad impression. |
| hkwint Mar 29, 2008 6:38 AM EDT |
Quoting:A more relevant response, off the top of my head, would be that it is Microsoft itself who is excluding them Agree to that, however the third parties who Durusau portrays as 'Microsoft based' are also themselves to blame. Being only 'Microsoft based' sounds to me like being completely dependent on Microsoft. Indeed, this can not be a good thing as Microsoft is not willing to support the current ISO-standards. As for Mr. Durusau's complaint about ODF not having the right formula specs: This is a misleading viewpoint which is blinded by only looking at ODF / OOXML. This problem should state: ISO26300 has no formula definitions, it has no definition of MS legacy features and no definition of the current MS format for mapping purposes. It is ISO26300's task to have formula definitions. These could be taken from OOXML or a feature version of ODF or maybe neither of the two, it doesn't matter. This supplement should be (made) compatible with the current ISO26300. That is ISO's task, not to promote ECMA376 to ISO just because it defines formula's (in a bad way though, I heard) while ODF doesn't. OOXML or ODF shouldn't be the points of departure, ISO26300 should be. It is NOT ISO's task to make sure an ISO standard defines MS legacy features, that's up to implementations; or it's up to MS to make those legacy features public under a real free license. Those legacy features are such a mess I wouldn't say they are not suited for ISO standardization at all. It is also NOT ISO's task to make sure ISO26300 has definitions of MS current format for mapping purposes. It's MS task to append these definitions to ISO26300 if they are application independent, which I doubt, and in case they are not application independent it doesn't' belong in an ISO standard in first place. So basically the reaction of Mr. Durusau is ISO should be concerned about Microsoft formats and its users, and Microsoft based third-party solution providers. That's flawed logic in the ISO world; both Microsoft and the solution providers should be concerned about ISO; not the other way around. They should also be concerned about an ECMA standard which is made with the purpose to maximize the profit of the ECMA member-companies being submitted for a fast track ISO-process while this particular ECMA standards is not suited to become an ISO-standards. Thats partrly because the goals of ECMA and ISO are not the same. In case someone doesn't believe: Taken from ECMA's site: Quoting:Ecma is driven by industry to meet the needs of industryhttp://www.ecma-international.org/ Taken from ISO's site: Quoting:Therefore, ISO enables a consensus to be reached on solutions that meet both the requirements of business and the broader needs of society.http://www.iso.org/iso/about.htm In other words: If an ECMA standard is bad for society but good for the industry needs, and of course in particular for the industry needs of ECMA members, that's no problem at all. In the ECMA-case, the society raps up for the industries needs. That's not ISO's intention as one could see by reading about them. |
| dinotrac Mar 29, 2008 6:47 AM EDT |
Hans - >Anyway, "Yawn": That's what the reaction to Durusau's letter should have been. I take back and apologize for anything I have ever written that might have been, or might have been perceived as being, in the slightest bit unkind to you. That is the single most intelligent comment in this entire thread, including Sander's original piece. Absolutely true. |
| tracyanne Mar 29, 2008 2:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:That is the single most intelligent comment in this entire thread, including Sander's original piece. Just keep digging. Quoting:Absolutely true. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!