Posted by: Anonymous
on November 24, 2007 07:40 PM
First, I have to say that this article does a disservice by wallowing in the misdirection of de-facto standards and 'technical issues'. ODF vs OOXML is part of a larger issue, and following along as certain players try to frame the discussion in terms most favorable to themselves does not add anything to the debate. Bruce, if you really want to show some journalism, try stepping back and writing about the big picture, which is document preservation and archiving, and the associated costs, for the forseeable future. Proprietary lock-in formats, with their single platform/application non-interoperability and legacy incompatiblities threaten the viability of long term information retrieval, both public and private.
Now, about the article, Jody and the Gnome Foundation...
It is disingenuous to complain about taking "...friendly fire from the FLOSS community who did not bother to contact me to find out what was actually happening." There has been a very loud and very constant call from the community, ever since Miguel started on Mono, to know what's going on. It got louder after the Massachusetts debacle, notched up again with the ECMA rubberstamp, again with the Novell 'IP' agreement, and boiled over with the ISO ballet stuffing. Consider that your contact, Jody, and your answers and Miguel's have been far from reassuring.
Yes, as Waugh suggests, there is an "erosion of trust" in the standards process. But pointing at "...both OOXML and ODF..." is weaselspeak; anyone following that process in regards to OOXML knows that it is one side specifically that has abused the process. And the scope of that abuse illustrates just how important the issue is to a certain mega-corp trying to maintain its illegally gained 95% market share.
And speaking out against such abuse and it's perpetrators is not "...paranoia in the free software community about anything to do with Microsoft...", it's just common sense.