Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government Politics

India Votes Against OOXML 171

Posted by kdawson 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.'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

India Votes Against OOXML More

India Votes Against OOXML

Comments Filter:

  • Hooray! An honest nation! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:44PM (#22830464)
    While voting for OOXML does not automatically make one dishonest, I think it is fair to say that voting against is a sign of honesty.

    • Re:Hooray! An honest nation! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by webmaster404 ( 1148909 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:50PM (#22830504)
      I don't think it means a thing for honesty, it might mean there is less corporate corruption going on but really how is it "honest"? OOXML really makes no difference to the average IT company except for benefits of not having to go through an overpriced, closed vendor (MS) to get the "standards".

      • Huh??? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @03:02PM (#22830972)
        First you say "I don't think it means a thing for honesty", then you say "it might mean there is less corporate corruption going on". That is a contradiction, dude. If you said it in fewer words, it would be called an "oxymoron".

        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.
        • Modding something down as "flamebait" when all it is doing is politely pointing out where others are incorrect is simply wrong. Somebody had done that twice just today. I don't have the power to stop you, dear moderator, but you are making yourself look ignorant.

        • First you say "I don't think it means a thing for honesty", then you say "it might mean there is less corporate corruption going on".
          [...]
          You start each sentence one way, then contradict yourself later in the same sentence. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
          He's not contradicting himself., you know. He's merely making two opposing statements, of which only one can be true.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jlarocco ( 851450 )

        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)

          by tsa ( 15680 )
          Many gouvernments around the world are making the use of open standards mandatory these days. The importance of the ODF vs OOXML battle goes way beyond philosophical.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jlarocco ( 851450 )

            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:2)

              by tsa ( 15680 )
              Many companies have dealings with governments. Many people who work at governments take their work home. Things spread like that. Not starting a change because the first step is so small is a bit silly don't you think? And the only thing MS has to do is implement ODF in Office. This must be a lot simpler for them than getting their own format standardized.

              • Yeah... But for many people who take work home, "work" could just as well include spreadsheets, presentations, and email. And since they're going to need Office for those anyway, might as well buy Office and use Word also.

                As for businesses interacting with governments, a lot of that is already done through PDF. For the times it's not PDF, it's just as likely to be Excel spreadsheets or PowerPoint presentations, as it is Word documents.

                I'm not saying the change shouldn't be made. I'm just pointing

            • This is a standard war about billions, and Microsoft has much to lose. Governments can actually force Microsoft through their procurement policies to support ODF. The Netherlands are a perfect example. If they stay strong Microsoft will get real.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by jlarocco ( 851450 )

                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.

                • Like any geek, I like the idea of Microsoft being forced into submission, but document format standardization isn't going to be what does it. Maybe when the rest of the office formats are standardized.

                  Um, that's what they're doing! A lot of people respond to anything about OOXML with "Microsoft should just drop it and use ODF", but those arguments always miss the point - that OOXML is actually a standardised version of all of the Office formats. Microsoft can't just drop OOXML and use ODF because they aren't really comparable. ODF is a document format, OOXML is a format designed to cover 5 different types of documents - and people wonder why the spec is bloated.

                  • No, OOXML is XML. The Microsoft legacy formats are binary!

                    ODF has a clear design. Microsoft can use it.

                    • No, OOXML is XML.
                      So's ODF. If that's your argument, NEITHER format should be allowed to standardise.

                      Interesting though that you didn't mention that the ODF format extends to more than just documents (that OpenDocument name really sucks for ambiguity) but rather decided to make a bunch of completely irrelevant statements. It's how I know I'm on Slashdot.
                • Why are they fighting that hard then? ISO/IEC is mandatory for some government and governments are strong in procurement. ODF is already an ISO standard. So governments would be likely to adopt ISO 26300:2006 as their standard. Microsoft reacted by pushing their own second standard through ISO. The claim that they standardize via ISO because the EU told them so, it simply not true. It is not ownly government users. Microsoft is afraid of the underlying domino effect. All market players can implement the
                • Being able to send an ODF document to a person who uses MS Office, and knowing that they can reliably open it and see what I expect them to see, is already a huge improvement from what we have today.
      • The fact is that all nations which vote for the standard have stuffed committees where gold partners were sent to vote in favour or no commitees at all. In almost all nations new committee members arrived just to vote in september. The rules are depending on national rules and most of them do not prevent committee stuffing. Only in Sweden it was turned into a real political scandal but it happened everywhere.

        And then you have corrupt nations that sell their voice far too cheap. Standard people need to eat a

    • Re:Hooray! An honest nation! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @02:01PM (#22830580) Homepage
      I'm Anti-Microsoft, Pro-Linux, Pro-F/OSS, Pro-Open Standards, all that.

      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.
      • Completely agreed. Voting for what is genuinely in the public interest doesn't imply honesty. In fact, most of the arguments which are being made against MS-OOXML are based on misinformed, false premises or are otherwise dishonest. (The same can be said about most of the arguments in favor of MS-OOXML).

        • Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @03:09PM (#22831044)
          Your argument does not support your subject line. And in fact, the argument is incorrect. "Most" of the arguments being made against OOXML are based on these two facts: (1) There are hundreds of technical problems with OOXML (literally hundreds... read the articles) that were found by those who studied it, and which Microsoft has refused to address, and (2) the fact that it does not conform to the often-stated needs of a truly "open" standard.

          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.

      • Re:Hooray! An honest nation! (Score:5, Funny)

        by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @02:50PM (#22830876)

        Microsoft is an American company and as such is subject to influence of the U.S. government.

        That's funny; I always thought it was the other way round.
      • Yes, AND??? All you are doing is justifying my original statement. Being unwilling to succumb to corporate corruption and coercion is one definition of "honesty".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mgblst ( 80109 )
        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.

        Seems like a very honest and honerable thing to do. I couldn't find the bit were you talk about India being dishonest and untrustworthy, just because they don't want Microsoft?

    • Dishonesty of voting for OOXM (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Adaptux ( 1235736 ) * on Saturday March 22, 2008 @02:05PM (#22830604)
      In my opinion, any national body which at the current state votes for OOXML to become an ISO standard is definitely dishonest.

      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!

  • "One standard" vs "multiple standards" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Adaptux ( 1235736 ) * on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:51PM (#22830516)
    There is a lot of rhetorics around "one standard" vs "multiple standards". A major reason for this is the ISO/IEC rules which way that there should not be "contradicting" standards, while in reality this rule is not generally followed.

    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)

      by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:57PM (#22830552)
      OOXML cant 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. It is full of rabbit holes.

      It may take a while for the smoke and mirrors to clear, but in the end, the truth will out.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by erroneus ( 253617 )
        A few donations, free lunches and trips to exotic places will likely convince decision makers otherwise. You know it's true. That's just the way things work for now.

      • OOXML cant 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.... it may take a while for the smoke and mirrors to clear, but in the end, the truth will out.

        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.

        • Where I live is definitely real and not the place of dreams (Its known locally as "the Murder Mile") but I am old, and quite possibly wiser than you :-}

          I do not suppose that many politicians are wise and reputable, although is just possible some are. However, being old, I know that the life of a government is short, while the life of software is long. Look how no one has ever made money from Un*x, but Un*x lives. Sure people may vote in parliaments for all sorts of things, but over many years, it has becom

      • The world isn't as simple as that!

        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)

          by epine ( 68316 )

          But if you think that ODF can survive in competition against OOXML if both are ISO standards, you're kidding yourself.

          What kind of competition would that be? Certainly not a competition based on having a viable alternative implementations. Anyone care to speculate on the first non-MS implementation of OOXML to pass the OOXML Acid 3 test suite?

          Don't everybody stampede all at once to http://www.longbets.org/ [longbets.org]

          To cover a 6000 page specification that hasn't yet undergone a clarity bulk-out, the OOXML Acid 3 test suite would need to incorporate on the order of 20,000 distinct unit tests.

          With an implementation, a test suite, or

      • Re:"One standard" vs "multiple standards" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mikeabbott420 ( 744514 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @03:02PM (#22830968) Journal
        Microsofts game is not to promote OOXML, it is to delay and confuse the world wide adoption of any standard. The status quo is worth billions to them yearly as well as being a tool to promote other products. They fight to preserve that. I also find it hard to imagine anyone supporting OOXML for any reason beyond payment from Microsoft. It might be a promise of business investment or Gates foundation aid for a country rather than hookers and blow for an individual but it is still all about getting payment from Microsoft.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jimicus ( 737525 )
        OOXML cant 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. It is full of rabbit holes.

        It may take a while for the smoke and mirrors to clear, but in the end, the truth will out.
        I wish I shared your faith.

        To my mind, governments mandating that documents are stored using an open standard are doing so with good intention - so they can't be held to ransom by an arbi
        • It has no implementation. Microsoft does not fully implement the standard yet. That would be a matter of further pressure. And it is a good reason why it is politically unwise - even if all issued were addressed (which is NOT the case) - to say: We approve the OOXML spec as shitty as it is.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )
        The people making the decisions will usually not understand that...
        If the people in positions of power did understand the importance of open standards, then microsoft would never have got to where they are today in the first place.

      • OOXML cant kill ODF, because ODF is open, and OOXML isnt

        Can you give your definition of "open"?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Dan541 ( 1032000 )

          OOXML cant kill ODF, because ODF is open, and OOXML isnt

          Can you give your definition of "open"?

          OOXML is not open because only Microsoft products can open it by design. .Doc is the same. (Reverse engineering doesn't count)

          Where as my .odt file can be opened by many applications I can even write my own Word Processor to use .odt

          ~Dan

          • OOXML is not open because only Microsoft products can open it by design

            I'm shocked to find out that Pages, Numbers, and TextEdit on my Mac, not to mention my iPhone, are Microsoft products.

            And when did Microsoft acquire Thinkfree Office? Dataviz? Intergen? NeoOffice? Zoho Writer?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Dan541 ( 1032000 )

              I'm shocked to find out that Pages, Numbers, and TextEdit on my Mac, not to mention my iPhone, are Microsoft products.

              Are you alright?

              And when did Microsoft acquire Thinkfree Office? Dataviz? Intergen? NeoOffice? Zoho Writer?

              No Idea, I use OpenOffice I don't don't have time to keep up with everything that doesn't affect me directly.

              ~Dan

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dan541 ( 1032000 )

        OOXML cant 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. It is full of rabbit holes.

        It may take a while for the smoke and mirrors to clear, but in the end, the truth will out.

        I love the way Microsoft use the words "Office" and "Open" to try and fool people into thinking that OOXML is going to be an open standard.

        If Microsoft wanted an Open standard as they want people to believe they would just contribute to ODF.

        ~Dan

  • Microsoft's own fault (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nguy ( 1207026 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @01:55PM (#22830536)
    OOXML sucks technically, but that's not even the real problem. The real problem is Microsoft's waffling on making the standard open. If they had unequivocally placed the standard and all necessary patents in the public domain and committed to keeping it stable, more people might vote for it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) *
      If MS coded a completely open source , GNU/BSD licensed "ooxml reader" and distributed it freely over web, they could have a chance.

      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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's a bite that MS can always come late to the table with something broken and then get equal billing in the press. MOOX came as an attempt to compete with ODF, after some 600 companies [dwheeler.com] reviewed ODF as an open standard [dwheeler.com]. How is it then, that no matter how positive the articles is to open standards, the situation always gets spun as MS vs MS competitors? Really, how else can it be? One the one side you have the cult of MS. On the other side, all the major companies, governments and universities, except

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Adaptux ( 1235736 ) *

        How is it then, that no matter how positive the articles is to open standards, the situation always gets spun as MS vs MS competitors?
        From the perspective of document format users, OOXML is better than what MS customers had before.

        From the perspective of MS competitors, OOXML is an attempt to kill the document format that they have been investing in (ODF).

    • Microsoft just doesn't *understand* open standards (Score:5, Informative)

      by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @03:29PM (#22831196) Journal

      The real problem is Microsoft's waffling on making the standard open. If they had unequivocally placed the standard and all necessary patents in the public domain and committed to keeping it stable, more people might vote for it.

      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.

      • In their own minds, most of the Microsoft managers are quite certain that Microsoft would never abuse its position,

        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)

          by Pecisk ( 688001 )
          While I agree that web will matter more and more, I disagree that format won't be important. It will be and it will have more importance in archival means, not document exchange. So in fact it is where ODF comes out perfectly, because it maybe don't have equal apps like Microsoft Office, but it is more open and on much clearer grounds than OOXML.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by nguy ( 1207026 )
            Yeah, but whoever owns the web apps is going to set the interchange standards, and it ain't Microsoft.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Bilbo ( 7015 )

            An interesting point is that, if Web based applications such as Google Docs start to take hold, I think you will find that there is a sudden reversal in the complexity of most documents. One of the things about both ODF and OOXML is that they define HUGELY complicated document formats. (ODF hides a lot of its complexity by referencing other standards. OOXML is just, well, ridiculously complicated, with four or five different ways to do any one action.) On the other hand, if you look at what you can do

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by samkass ( 174571 )
      Forget the patents. Just placing the standard in the open domain and fully specifying all the parts that essentially say "Do whatever Microsoft products do here" would have gotten them in. I'm sure plenty of folks would have licensed the patents at an agreed-upon fixed price and the world would be a better place for having the biggest company in the world using a well-documented file format.

    • The real problem is Microsoft's waffling on making the standard open. If they had unequivocally placed the standard and all necessary patents in the public domain and committed to keeping it stable, more people might vote for it.

      That hasn't been a problem for any prior standard. Off the top of your head, can you name any other comparable standards (or any ISO standards at all?) for which that has been done?

  • Doesn't Solve the Fundamentals (Score:5, Insightful)

    by segedunum ( 883035 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @02:04PM (#22830600)
    While I applaud the moves in recent times to give us standards within the field of office documents that we can all work with, it doesn't solve the fundamental problems. Chasing after Microsoft, trying to get ISO committees to reject OOXML and trying to get governments to mandate proper standards (a worthy goal, as IT has so very few) is, unfortunately, a saga destined to never end. The reason for this is that Microsoft has the dominant office suite in the world today held in place by the platform they control (Windows), they can mandate any formats they like and they can keep going back to the ISO to get a puppet standard through.

    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)

      by stoicfaux ( 466273 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @04:24PM (#22831514)

      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.

      • A viable alternative to Windows has to run popular Windows software.

        Not necessarily. While I believe Ubuntu and others are making a mistake by ignoring WINE, and I think it would be a boon for many to be able to import a COM DLL into a Linux desktop environment and create a native front-end (the scary thing is, WINE might actually do a better job than successive versions of Windows), what we're talking about here is a snowball effect. The people who can use it now can pick it up, you make sure everything

    • Re:Doesn't Solve the Fundamentals (Score:5, Informative)

      by CSMatt ( 1175471 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @04:44PM (#22831632)

      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.
      There's already an OS like that. It's called GNU/Linux.

      • There's already an OS like that. It's called GNU/Linux.
        Alas, that comment and those who modded you up shows how little you do know. Software development and installation are still massive problems, and it's unlikely that a lot of people will 'get it'.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by CSMatt ( 1175471 )
          Well I haven't developed anything for the OS, so I don't know about software development, but it seems like the desktop distributions have installation mostly fixed by now. Granted, there are many post-installation problems that can arise, but the situation is certainly a lot better than it was a few years ago. You can even bypass the installation issue completely now by buying from an OEM who pre-installs a distribution for you. So yes, it isn't ready now, but given a few more years time things will cer
      • GNU/Linux is not a desktop OS. It's a kernel with a collection of unrelated programs.

  • This is a big win (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aloktherocker ( 1233588 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @02:12PM (#22830648) Homepage
    While Mr Gates may be starting to feel that he's loosing it,this really means good news for India. In a country where more than 70% of the people use pirated software,ignorant of any software licenses. As an Indian,i've seen that when people buy a computer,they just pay for the hardware. It probably is too obvious for them that software (pirated windows) should come free with it! Here only Open Source can ensure that people get it right. Rejecting OOXML is of course a big step for starters. ODF FTW :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by E IS mC(Square) ( 721736 )
      But isn't that ironical that the INDIAN companies (backed by NASSCOM) were supporting Microsoft?? Sad reality is that India did a good thing, not because of Indian firms.
      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.
      • Mod parent up.

        Also, these are the IT services companies that live on offshored projects. Their clientèle is not exactly what you would call technical; sure banks, hospitals, etc. use technology, but they are not what you would call a technology organization. And these organizations are Microsoft shops too, so obviously NASSCOM & the other biggies don't want the burden of having to spend on upgrading their IT infrastructure to support ODF too.

  • Bad title - vote against is not news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mathinker ( 909784 ) on Saturday March 22, 2008 @03:25PM (#22831170) Journal
    India voting against OOXML is not news, they already voted against it in September [noooxml.org].

    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.

    • Duh? The vote in September was the initial Ballot, now this resolution is to not change the earlier vote as per the provisions provided by the BRM.

      As per Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

      The fast track process consists of a contradictions phase, a ballot phase, and a ballot resolution phase. During the contradictions phase, ISO/IEC members national standardization bodies submit perceived contradictions to JTC 1. During the ballot phase the members vote on the specification as it was submitted by Ecma and submit editorial and tec

    • They REALLY need to fix that Slashcode bug to fix the re-parenting of replies to comments modded -1. Right now, it looks like the parent of THIS post is the one someone is referring to as a "virus link" when it's actually some goatse post at -1.

      Parent is NOT a virus, BTW. It's actually a map of which countries voted what on OOXML.
  • India, IBM, and every one at the fight against OOXML expect to break down the dominance of Microsoft at the desktop.

    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
    • As long as we are tied down the desktop, using doc documents .doc is not so bad, but now MS has muddied the water with .docx - it looks like .doc, it sounds like .doc, but not only it doesnt float on water, it sinks like a lead brick.

      Yesterday, a cousin who is "thicker than two short planks" came round to visit. She had e-mailed her college work to us so she could use or Colour Laserjet 5 printer (which is 8 years old, and uses toner bought in pint bottles of e-bay for £6) because she and her husband

  • Here be lawyers (Score:2, Insightful)

    by js_sebastian ( 946118 )

    Even though only one member per organisation is allowed, Microsoft not only allowed 4 members but also members who were foreign nationals to discuss India's position. It's not understandable why lawyers should be brought to technical meetings.
    Lovely quote from the article (emphasis mine). (Yes, I did RTFA!)

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close