Slashdot Log In
India Votes Against OOXML
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:42 PM
from the one-down dept.
from the one-down dept.
harsha_c sends in a local Indian perspective on the vote against Microsoft's OOXML ahead of the March 29 deadline. Of 19 companies participating, only 5 voted in favor of OOXML. "It was the ultimate battle for control over global IT standard for documents — between Microsoft-promoted OOXML and Sun and IBM-backed Open Document Format. It was played out between Indian IT giants, namely Infosys, Wipro, TCS supported by Nasscom on one side and the global IT biggies like IBM, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat backed by te IITs, IIMs and IISc on the other, on their respective positions on Microsoft's OOXML standard. Microsoft understandably expressed its disspointment. 'While we are disappointed with the decision of the BIS committee, we are encouraged by the support from NASSCOM.'
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Hooray! An honest nation! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hooray! An honest nation! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Huh??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, you say "OOXML really makes no difference", and continue on to say "except for... not having... an overpriced, closed vendor...".
Ditto. You start each sentence one way, then contradict yourself later in the same sentence. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, most companies will go with Office anyway because there's still Outlook, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access. Most of those are at least as entrenched as Word.
ODF vs OOXML is important in a philosophical kinda way, but I don't expect much practical change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you foresee some of the practical implications being? Companies continue to use Office exclusively, but now their internal documents are saved in ODF?
Standardization is great, but this is such a small step I don't see it having an impact. Nobody is going to use two office suites. Nobody is going to buy Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and Access separately and then use OpenOffice for word processing. Until there are standardized formats covering the rest of Office's components, any actual change i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. For the time being, MS has almost nothing to lose from this. Companies and governments are still going to buy Office for Excel, PowerPoint, Access and Outlook. Worst case scenario, they'll have to shell out an extra $50 for a third party ODF import/export plugin. More likely, MS will make their own exporter and include it. Hell, they could sell it as an add-on and make even more money off of Office. Just because Word will have to support ODF doesn't mean it has to be the default format.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"not properly document" criticism is invalid (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
autoSpaceLikeWord95 and useWord97LineBreakRules (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:autoSpaceLikeWord95 and useWord97LineBreakRules (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as the revised spec is published by Ecma, the information will be in the public domain. It's crap all right, but it's not "proprietary crap" any longer. And it's certainly no longer an example of missing information in the OOXML spec.
I agree that it is debatable at least whether this kind of information really belongs into a standard. But what would you suggest that should be done with this information?
Parent
Re:autoSpaceLikeWord95 and useWord97LineBreakRules (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:autoSpaceLikeWord95 and useWord97LineBreakRules (Score:4, Insightful)
They should convert that information into the equivalent representation in their new format. Replacement of specific spaces with hard breaks or forced non-breaks or whatever will cause the resulting document to print exactly the same and would not require this stuff.
This puts all the ugly part of implementing this information into the program that is reading the
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hooray! An honest nation! (Score:5, Insightful)
But just because someone is against Microsoft on this issue doesn't mean they are 'honest' or honorable with their intent or motivation.
India is a growing IT powerhouse. When Microsoft provides the basis for participation in IT products and services, it goes without saying that they have influence in your success or failure. It may well be that India's motivation is simply to help Microsoft become irrelevant so that their potential is no longer dependent on Microsoft's will. After all, Microsoft is an American company and as such is subject to influence of the U.S. government. You can see that there's plenty of reason to mistrust Microsoft.
Parent
You can dishonestly argue for the right thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
This is not something I made up. All you have to do is read the articles linked to from here, and perhaps Ars Technica. Other places too, but that should be enough to convince anyone.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One link. There are many out there. Just look. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One link. There are many out there. Just look. (Score:5, Informative)
I do not think it is out of scope to take into account the past trustworthiness of Microsoft as an international entity, either. You may disagree with that, but the linked post can't really be argued against.
Parent
Re:Hooray! An honest nation! (Score:5, Funny)
That's funny; I always thought it was the other way round.
Parent
You make my point for me. (Score:2)
Dishonesty of voting for OOXM (Score:5, Insightful)
Either they are dishonest because they don't understand what they're doing while claiming to understand, or they're dishonest because they're knowingly voting against their country's best interest.
Nota bene, the representatives of Microsoft Corporation and partner companies are not necessarily dishonest in their lobbying for "APPROVE" votes, since what they ask for is genuinely in their interest. But the national bodies are supposed to represent the correspondiong national interest!
Parent
"One standard" vs "multiple standards" (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact facilitating technical progress requires that the "no contradicting standards" rule cannot be strictly enforced.
In this situation however there is a serious problem. Because of Microsoft's dominant market position, if OOXML gets ISO/IEC approval, that will probably kill ODF. The problem with this is that this kills investments in ODF. If Microsoft is allowed to get away with this, the net result will be a chilling effect on all investments in non-Microsoft standards.
Re:"One standard" vs "multiple standards" (Score:5, Insightful)
It may take a while for the smoke and mirrors to clear, but in the end, the truth will out.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And you, sir, live in a dream world where corrupt and/or clueless politicians, shady back-room deals, and money-trumps-all reality don't exist.
on the openness of OOXML (Score:2, Informative)
OOXML can't kill ODF, because ODF is open, and OOXML isnt. People who want to guarantee access to their documents in perpetuity (eg legitimate governments) cannot use OOXML because it cannot meet their needs.
Microsoft is working hard on making OOXML as open as it needs to be in order to meet the requirements of the relevant decision-makers. Of course, whether that is open enough to allow genuine free software implementations is not a question that Microsoft really care
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So why do you think they started creating their own format in the first place?
They migrated from their binary formats to an XML based format because they're convinced that XML is the way of the future. Documentation of this format is what they submitted as the starting point for creating the OOXML "standard".
Why should you create another format if there already is an open one?
Because Microsoft has a strong enough market position that they thought that could get away with doing their own thing and essentially forcing the whole world to go along with them.
Even if they're forced now to make OOXML a genuinely open and technically acceptable standard
Re:"One standard" vs "multiple standards" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can you give your definition of "open"?
Where as my
~Dan
Microsoft's own fault (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even their OS X paying customers (MS Office is big deal) are having problem with "New XML thing". They must have wondered if the overpaying OS X users get that treatment, what would happen to their millions of open source machines?
I will really laugh if Icaza somehow gets this "ooxml reader" idea and channel through Novell
ODF is backed by more than just two (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the perspective of MS competitors, OOXML is an attempt to kill the document format that they have been investing in (ODF).
Is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you figure that? Anyone implementing OOXML readers or writers still has to reverse-engineer Microsoft's applications. It doesn't make a lot of difference whether the undocumented proprietary code looks like "xmlns..." instead of "{\rtf..." or binary gibberish.
Parent
Microsoft just doesn't *understand* open standards (Score:5, Informative)
Recently I accidentally went to a short promotional Microsoft presentation (non-US) about OOXML for work. From the description about integrating with Office from a programmers' perspective, I'd thought it was going to be about writing Office addins, but it turned out to be a promotional-fest for OOXML in front of about 30 or so local software architechts for various companies and government organisations.
They started with a couple of locals without explaining what was coming -- one guy had built a Silverlight application that could parse basic OOXML Word documents and display them according to the OOXML specification. The other guy had written a web app that generated its own Office 2007 documents (Word and Excel) without having to rely on any third party or binary manipulation.
Then the local Microsoft CIO jumped up, having recently returned from Geneva, and started complaining about how there were really a small segment of people who had gripes with Microsoft and were refusing to work with Microsoft and trying to stop the standard going through for its own sake. They made a big thing about how the two people who'd just presented hadn't needed to read a complete 6000 page specification to do what they'd done, and he used the phrase "defacto standard" in virtually every sentence. They were preaching to the converted on this occasion, considering the room was full of people who were already big Microsoft customers, and really only wanted reassurance rather than to be convinced. I was tempted to ask if Microsoft ever had any plans to support the OASIS standard, but I didn't in the end.
I came away from that presentation with the impression that Microsoft as a company, and especially at the executive level, doesn't actually have a clear understanding of what an Open Standard is. The entire focus of Microsoft is that their Office suite is by far the most popular (for whatever reason), and therefore Microsoft should be the one to decide the standard. If someone else did that while Microsoft was looking the other way, then it must have been an accidental quirk that now needs to be corrected.
Perhaps there's some idea somewhere up in the ranks of leveraging their broken format in the future to reinforce their market dominance should there ever be a problem, but I think for most of them, they're just a bit pissed off or shocked that someone else has already defined a standard and is now trying to tell Microsoft that it can't do what it wants to do. After all, it's not "supposed" to work that way in their minds... Surely the "defacto standard" that's used everywhere should be the one that matters, right?
In their own minds, most of the Microsoft managers are quite certain that Microsoft would never abuse its position, or their already fundamentally of the belief that it's only fair that money should always change hands for these kinds of things, and that if Open Source apps can't find sources of funding then it's their own problem. (Money makes Microsoft go round, after all. It shouldn't be surprising for Microsoft employees to have those kinds of ethics.)
The frustrating addendum to this is that many businesses are in exactly the same mindset as Microsoft because money makes their business go around, too. If Microsoft starts using badly documented parts of their spec and charging for others to implement it, those people will quite happily either keep using Microsoft products, or pay for a product that costs extra as part of the necessity of paying the Microsoft tax. These people haven't even consciously dealt with concepts like standards definitions before, they don't appreciate how critically important it is to get it right, and they don't want to now. That's where Microsoft is getting its support from.
Parent
Re:Microsoft just doesn't *understand* open standa (Score:2)
I think you're right: ridiculous as it is, many Microsoft managers really think they are winning in the market through quality and innovation.
These people haven't even consciously dealt with concepts like standards definitions before, they don't appreciate how critically important it is to get it right, and they don't want to now.
But these people presumably also want various office suite relate
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Solve the Fundamentals (Score:5, Insightful)
If IBM and others are as serious as people like Rob Weir seem to be then I strongly suggest they stop being chicken shits after the way in which they capitulated OS/2 in the face of Windows, start funding a really viable alternative to Windows and start really getting just what is required. This would be a desktop operating system that would circumvent the OEM channels Microsoft controls by being given away freely so that everybody, including OEMs, can install it free of Microsoft's control, and it will be a desktop good enough in terms of developers' tools and installation so software can get to users. With enough effort then you'd definitely carve out a market large enough to make it viable, and you'd then have an office suite with enough of an installed base. Governments and other organisations would then pick it up as a result.
Winging about OOXML isn't going to get anybody anywhere, sadly. It's only maintaining the status quo.
Re:Doesn't Solve the Fundamentals (Score:5, Insightful)
funding a really viable alternative to Windows
A viable alternative to Windows has to run popular Windows software. The problems are a) MS owns (or can buy) the most popular Windows software and can modify it to be incompatible with an alternative OS, or b) MS can push the next release of Windows before the alternative can gather momentum. This makes creating a viable Windows alternative a very risky, expensive, and exceptionally time sensitive gamble.
Which is why ODF scares the hell out of MS. ODF would make it much easier to develop an alternative to Office. As it stands, Office's price is pretty inelastic since there is no real competitor. We've been paying five dollar a gallon prices for Office for a long time now. ODF would make it possible for people to switch to a wallet friendly and just as effective Office alternative. And unlike Ma Bell, once the office productivity market is broken up, there won't be a way to put it back together again.
Once people no longer have to rely on the Microsoft Office software suite, their need to run Windows diminishes greatly. If Office falls, Windows OS falls, and MS goes from Kraken to being just another fish in the pond.
End result: you don't need to create an alternative Windows compatible OS. You just need to develop an Office alternative. Which is why MS is using every ethically challenged legal and business strategy to shut down ODF.
Even if MS stops ODF, if they keep pushing out underwhelming and much delayed Vista-like versions of Windows, or if MS cannot keep people on the software upgrade/subscription path, then they might really be vulnerable to an actual alternative Windows compatible OS (which at the moment is XP. Go figure.) Given that an operating system isn't useful in and of itself (applications make a computer useful,) it is a double hit to see MS having a great difficulty in coming up with and implementing must-have features or improvements to Windows. They're also scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of Office improvements. It's becoming apparent that MS has has lost the agility needed to create and implement innovations in a cost and time-effective manner.
So until MS figures out how to compete by producing a quality product, it's going find itself in the same position that IBM did in the early 90s (where IBM almost went bankrupt.) It will be interesting to see if MS can pull an IBM and re-invent itself from a clumsy dinosaur into a fleet footed mammal.
Parent
Re:Doesn't Solve the Fundamentals (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
This is a big win (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Infosys, Wipro and TCS are in Microsoft pockets for long time. Of course, they don't want to lose their big projects with Microsoft. But that does not justify their support for OOXML.
Bad title - vote against is not news (Score:3, Insightful)
The only news here is (possibly) the insight the article gives as to why and how India has been and will be voting against OOXML, therefore the "India Votes Against OOXML" title is really stupid.
Is all about the market. (Score:2)
IBM, Google, and many others have a vision on a ubiquity desktop, even Microsoft have this. But due the dominance of the desktop. This isn't able because the locking of the server and desktop for the collaboration and the portability to slimmed down applications. This doesn't work for IBM, Google and many others, so they're aligning to put ODF as an standard, because is a warrant for a bette
Parent is a virus link (Score:5, Informative)
Please don't click it.
Parent
Re:Parent is a virus link (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)