Well, you go to the “Start” menu to “stop” (shut down) all recent Microsoft OS’s… Or is that just black comedy for those of us booting into Linux (or similar)?

My thinking is, if Microsoft continues with its cheating and sleazy tactics, it may end up meeting the same fate Rosie did.

What comes to my mind: When cheats at an exams it is obvious that it will not be accepted. Everybody sees how the NB’s are playing for MS against _their_ rules and they still are _allowed_ to vote?

FYI: An effective method for predicting Microsoft’s behavior is to simply assume they will continue to behave as a psychopath would. (psychopath: one with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.)

———-
in a world without walls or fences, who would need windows or gates?

Tunnels do not say “Exit.” Instead, and for a reason, they bear signs reading “DO NOT ENTER.”

If national bodies are not acting as would be desired, the blame lies not with Microsoft but with poor decision-making procedures, i.e., ambiguities and loopholes in the ISO rulebook.

So why don’t we fix that first?

“The document admitted into evidence also says, “The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator,” and explains how to find “pliable” moderators–those who will sell out.”

VERY interesting when I compare it to how OOXML is getting approval in some of the NBs …

For one, we would have a new standard unit for measuring length, using such measurements as the inch, foot, yard and mile. These are already in use by millions of people and are clearly superior to the meter.

Second, we would add the standard measurements of fluid volume, the ounce, cup, pint, quart and gallon. The world would certainly benefit by being able to choose between pints and liters.

Third, the standard measure of weight, the ounce, pound and ton. These are clearly better than having everything based upon the gram.

Finally, temperature would be measured in degrees Fahrenheit. Millions of people are more familiar with this than with degrees Celsius.

Actually, no I’m not serious. But how would that be different than OOXML?

The above is a VERY interesting document from Comes v. Microsoft that some Groklaw comment mentioned. It’s a copy of some old files from the Developer Relations Group back when they were fighting OpenDoc. Their strategies appear to be almost the same now as they were back then.

I sent it to Slashdot, too, but it’s definitely worth a read. I’m not even going to try to extract any more quotes, there are too many good ones that are better appreciated in context, like the “Rule to live by: Never Lie” that comes right before the “Be selective in which facts you emphasize.” …

Therefore there is precedent for Yes with comments and it leading to changes in the specification. I have no doubt that many of the issues found by IBM and others will be addressed in the ballot resolution process. For example the excellent finds on the spreadsheet formula’s here by IBM.

Btw, can I ask you that as a member of Ecma how many of those issues found by IBM has IBM actually send to Ecma before they created their final draft version.

All the ISO rules have been created in order to achieve consensus between skilled people who want to reach the best solution for a problem. Due to this the rules are weak. They are just not made to withstand a marketing machinery trying to abse the system. I wonder whether ISO would still be able to achieve the goals if the rules were stronger.

/eskild

What will it mean for JTC1’s future to be known as a body that does not follow its own rules, does not evaluate proposals on technical merits, but has procedures so weak and poorly written that it allows itself to be taken over and dominated by a single company?

I say:

They become no better than ECMA. I can’t think of any ECMA standards that carry near the same weight as an ISO standard. The problem here is accountability. If something goes awry, who do the participants have to addresses issues to, if those in power are having their ears whispered into.

In other words, have they (and can they?) fix all the horrible problems in their spec instead of trying to ram it through with brute force?

Or is fixing sub-optimal to them in terms of their time to market?

Does the ISO realize that accepting OOXML is like smoking a stick of dynamite?

I think you got very close to “The tragedy of this”, but not quite. It’s not the political machinations per se. I think it’s more of a common human failing: to repeatedly take people at face value, when you know that they’re lying to you.

I’m pretty sure some Ancient Greek playwright explored the issue in depth. Or whoever first wrote “…fool me twice, shame on me.”

. . Ted Swart . .

|-) |-)) |-))) :-) !!!!