Comments on: Those who forget Santayana… http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=those-who-forget-santayana Thinking the unthinkable, pondering the imponderable, effing the ineffable and scruting the inscrutable Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:20:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1820 Anonymous Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:39:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1820 New version of the RTF Specification is now available! The Microsoft Office Word blog announcement proudly describes how they sorted out deficiencies in the previous RTF specification, so this new version is the best yet! <br/><br/>It's interesting to evaluate the announcement from a non-Microsoft point of view...<br/><br/>http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoft_office_word/archive/2008/04/17/new-version-of-the-rich-text-format-rtf-specification.aspx New version of the RTF Specification is now available! The Microsoft Office Word blog announcement proudly describes how they sorted out deficiencies in the previous RTF specification, so this new version is the best yet!

It’s interesting to evaluate the announcement from a non-Microsoft point of view…

http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoft_office_word/archive/2008/04/17/new-version-of-the-rich-text-format-rtf-specification.aspx

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1393 Anonymous Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:25:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1393 @Anonymous<br/><br/>(From wikipedia:) PDF is an open standard, and recently took a major step towards becoming ISO 32000.<br/><br/>As far as Autocad goes, not that many people use it for file interchange (it is not really a monopoly at all, there are many competing cad products.) For file exchange, people use stuff like "STEP" - ISO 10303.<br/><br/>So basically yeah, people are like, SO unfair to Microsoft, yah! @Anonymous

(From wikipedia:) PDF is an open standard, and recently took a major step towards becoming ISO 32000.

As far as Autocad goes, not that many people use it for file interchange (it is not really a monopoly at all, there are many competing cad products.) For file exchange, people use stuff like “STEP” – ISO 10303.

So basically yeah, people are like, SO unfair to Microsoft, yah!

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1387 Anonymous Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:43:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1387 Microsoft is one the few companies that only supports what it controls. It has had a tightening grip on the office productivity tools for years and now that it see there are competatior out there, it is beganing to tighten it furthur, and using the almighty dollar, which it has more plenty of, push propritory coding methods. There is an approved format for document management why not simply follow it and then improve that, as other will. Why are they wasting money and time trying to force people to use their software? Becasue they can't do anything else in the face of ture compition, its like having a fighter who was the first one to defeat anyone, and sacring everone else who comes to challange him/her has never fought after that inital fight, comes face to face with a real opponent taht will not back down, and begins to shit its pants. Because they can't compete, they have no innovations and have changed absolutily nothing. What is worse is that they have began alienaiting their consumers by changing everything with new Office 07 and removed some very crutial feature that should not have been removed in the first place. Microsoft is one the few companies that only supports what it controls. It has had a tightening grip on the office productivity tools for years and now that it see there are competatior out there, it is beganing to tighten it furthur, and using the almighty dollar, which it has more plenty of, push propritory coding methods. There is an approved format for document management why not simply follow it and then improve that, as other will. Why are they wasting money and time trying to force people to use their software? Becasue they can’t do anything else in the face of ture compition, its like having a fighter who was the first one to defeat anyone, and sacring everone else who comes to challange him/her has never fought after that inital fight, comes face to face with a real opponent taht will not back down, and begins to shit its pants. Because they can’t compete, they have no innovations and have changed absolutily nothing. What is worse is that they have began alienaiting their consumers by changing everything with new Office 07 and removed some very crutial feature that should not have been removed in the first place.

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1386 Rob Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:40:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1386 @anonymous, One battle at a time, my friend. The inability to do everything is not a valid excuse for doing nothing. <br/><br/>I think one thing that makes the RTF/OOXML issue more critical, is that the word processor, along with spreadsheets, web browsers, email clients, etc., are the essential applications that we all use, everyone of us. We've done a pretty good job of making browsers and emails be based on standard protocols or formats. Using POP3 I can move from one client to another with little pain. With websites based on HTML/CSS I have my choice of web browsers at a range of prices with a range of features. But with word processors and spreadsheets, most of the world is using a format that perpetuates vendor lock-in and removes choice from consumers. So let's fix that problem. Then we can worry about the niche formats. @anonymous, One battle at a time, my friend. The inability to do everything is not a valid excuse for doing nothing.

I think one thing that makes the RTF/OOXML issue more critical, is that the word processor, along with spreadsheets, web browsers, email clients, etc., are the essential applications that we all use, everyone of us. We’ve done a pretty good job of making browsers and emails be based on standard protocols or formats. Using POP3 I can move from one client to another with little pain. With websites based on HTML/CSS I have my choice of web browsers at a range of prices with a range of features. But with word processors and spreadsheets, most of the world is using a format that perpetuates vendor lock-in and removes choice from consumers. So let’s fix that problem. Then we can worry about the niche formats.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1385 Anonymous Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:55:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1385 What about Adobe and the PDF format or AutoDesk and the CAD format? As the IT community are we saying it ok to have close formats as all as your not Microsoft? What about Adobe and the PDF format or AutoDesk and the CAD format? As the IT community are we saying it ok to have close formats as all as your not Microsoft?

]]> By: Paul http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1383 Paul Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:35:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1383 @mcinsand<br/><br/>There is meaning behind the sarcasm.<br/><br/>Microsoft has always argued that they need OOXML for backward compatibility with billions of existing documents in their legacy format. They have refused to fully support ODF besides ill-conceived converters because they claim ODF doesn't have sufficient compatibility with legacy.<br/><br/>To deprecate features meant for backward compatibility runs counter to that argument doesn't it? What is the remaining *official* purpose of OOXML if backward compatibility is optional and will be removed in the future? @mcinsand

There is meaning behind the sarcasm.

Microsoft has always argued that they need OOXML for backward compatibility with billions of existing documents in their legacy format. They have refused to fully support ODF besides ill-conceived converters because they claim ODF doesn’t have sufficient compatibility with legacy.

To deprecate features meant for backward compatibility runs counter to that argument doesn’t it? What is the remaining *official* purpose of OOXML if backward compatibility is optional and will be removed in the future?

]]> By: timkb4cq http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1367 timkb4cq Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:12:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1367 The fact is that not even the latest MS Office implements OOXML properly. Yes, it can <i>read</i> a compliant OOXML file, but it won't write one.<br/><br/>Even if OOXML gets the ISO blessing (still doubtful) it won't really matter as there is NO compliant application. MS has already made clear they don't intend to modify Office to be compliant with the standard.<br/><br/>Any organization demanding compliance with an open standard must therefore abandon MS Office as it isn't compliant with either ODF or OOXML.<br/><br/>I think MS has shot the footgun this time. The fact is that not even the latest MS Office implements OOXML properly. Yes, it can read a compliant OOXML file, but it won’t write one.

Even if OOXML gets the ISO blessing (still doubtful) it won’t really matter as there is NO compliant application. MS has already made clear they don’t intend to modify Office to be compliant with the standard.

Any organization demanding compliance with an open standard must therefore abandon MS Office as it isn’t compliant with either ODF or OOXML.

I think MS has shot the footgun this time.

]]> By: Joe http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1366 Joe Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:04:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1366 <i>This looks like a ploy to allow third party vendors to make "conformant" applications by the letter of the standard while only Microsoft can truly maintain the compatibility with existing documents.</i><br/><br/>Bingo.<br/><br/>I disagree that MS does not want a standard. They do want a standard, because their customers are demanding one, and their competitors have one. But the only standard that MS will ever support is one that they hold all the keys to. They will have to be a little more subtle than they were with RTF, but the result will be the same.<br/><br/>There will be good ISV support this time, but only with components and support licensed from MS. ISVs will be allowed to market products complementary to, but not competitive with, MS Office. There will be cross-platform support, as long as the platform is Windows.<br/><br/>MS has lots of ways to implement a "standard" and yet keep any independent implementations as second-class citizens, irrelevant in the marketplace. There simply is no way they will willingly open the door to competition in their core markets. This looks like a ploy to allow third party vendors to make “conformant” applications by the letter of the standard while only Microsoft can truly maintain the compatibility with existing documents.

Bingo.

I disagree that MS does not want a standard. They do want a standard, because their customers are demanding one, and their competitors have one. But the only standard that MS will ever support is one that they hold all the keys to. They will have to be a little more subtle than they were with RTF, but the result will be the same.

There will be good ISV support this time, but only with components and support licensed from MS. ISVs will be allowed to market products complementary to, but not competitive with, MS Office. There will be cross-platform support, as long as the platform is Windows.

MS has lots of ways to implement a “standard” and yet keep any independent implementations as second-class citizens, irrelevant in the marketplace. There simply is no way they will willingly open the door to competition in their core markets.

]]> By: mcinsand http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1364 mcinsand Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:55:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1364 >>I am puzzled. I thought the whole <br/>>>point of OOXML was to be compatible <br/>>>with the billions of existing <br/>>>documents<br/><br/>You were being sarcastic, right? Anyone with any oxygen flow to the brain knows that MS wants interoperability the way the republicans want Hillary in the Oval Office. OOXML is just another tool to promote vendor lock-in. Otherwise, the zombies might wake up and use something more flimsy, versatile, and configurable than MS' pathetic offerings. >>I am puzzled. I thought the whole
>>point of OOXML was to be compatible
>>with the billions of existing
>>documents

You were being sarcastic, right? Anyone with any oxygen flow to the brain knows that MS wants interoperability the way the republicans want Hillary in the Oval Office. OOXML is just another tool to promote vendor lock-in. Otherwise, the zombies might wake up and use something more flimsy, versatile, and configurable than MS’ pathetic offerings.

]]> By: PolR http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1360 PolR Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:15:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1360 This is a bit off-topic but still appropriate to this blog.<br/><br/>I just have seen Microsoft proposal to move to a separate Annex all "deprecated" features of OOXML that are contentious. Conformance will be redefined to avoid requiring the implementation of the "deprecated" features.<br/><br/>I am puzzled. I thought the whole point of OOXML was to be compatible with the billions of existing documents. If essential mechanisms for backward compatibility are optional and not required for conformance, won't we end up with conforming applications that won't implement the backward compatibility? This is a "solution" that kills the point of having OOXML in the first place.<br/><br/>This looks like a ploy to allow third party vendors to make "conformant" applications by the letter of the standard while only Microsoft can truly maintain the compatibility with existing documents. This is a bit off-topic but still appropriate to this blog.

I just have seen Microsoft proposal to move to a separate Annex all “deprecated” features of OOXML that are contentious. Conformance will be redefined to avoid requiring the implementation of the “deprecated” features.

I am puzzled. I thought the whole point of OOXML was to be compatible with the billions of existing documents. If essential mechanisms for backward compatibility are optional and not required for conformance, won’t we end up with conforming applications that won’t implement the backward compatibility? This is a “solution” that kills the point of having OOXML in the first place.

This looks like a ploy to allow third party vendors to make “conformant” applications by the letter of the standard while only Microsoft can truly maintain the compatibility with existing documents.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1359 Anonymous Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:45:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1359 I always had a problem with the definition of RTF as an standard, since it require Visual Basic for application (copyright note here) to access some of the hidden style property of that document format.<br/><br/>How was developer's expected to get access to these hidden style properties, without license the tools to access them ? I always had a problem with the definition of RTF as an standard, since it require Visual Basic for application (copyright note here) to access some of the hidden style property of that document format.

How was developer’s expected to get access to these hidden style properties, without license the tools to access them ?

]]> By: Jamie Royer http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1355 Jamie Royer Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:47:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1355 Another file format issue (maybe too off topic):<br/><br/>I remember back sometime around 1995 when I was developing software under OS/2. IBM was working on making Windows software run under OS/2 and Microsoft was working to ensure it wouldn't by continuously moving the function offsets around inside the executable.<br/><br/>What amazed me was how quickly 3rd party software changed and required the latest OLE lib (or some other Win library) that didn't work under OS/2.<br/><br/>I eventually (but reluctantly) switched to NT 3.51 when it became harder and harder to use software that my boss was insisting I use.<br/><br/>I was disgusted by how Microsoft was mistreating computer users by taking away their ability to use software of their choice.<br/><br/>I was also shocked and dismayed at how people didn't see a problem with this behaviour. Another file format issue (maybe too off topic):

I remember back sometime around 1995 when I was developing software under OS/2. IBM was working on making Windows software run under OS/2 and Microsoft was working to ensure it wouldn’t by continuously moving the function offsets around inside the executable.

What amazed me was how quickly 3rd party software changed and required the latest OLE lib (or some other Win library) that didn’t work under OS/2.

I eventually (but reluctantly) switched to NT 3.51 when it became harder and harder to use software that my boss was insisting I use.

I was disgusted by how Microsoft was mistreating computer users by taking away their ability to use software of their choice.

I was also shocked and dismayed at how people didn’t see a problem with this behaviour.

]]> By: Chris Ward http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1353 Chris Ward Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:08:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1353 Well, the Monopoly is a fairly limited one.<br/><br/>How much Symphony http://symphony.lotus.com/ is romping its way across the Internet ? Is the 'invite-a-friend' feature http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/invitefriends.jspa driving the distribution channel ?<br/><br/>How many Google Packs http://pack.google.com/intl/en-gb/pack_installer.html?hl=en-gb&gl=uk&utm_source=en_gb_UK-et-more&utm_medium=et&utm_campaign=en_gb_UK with Sun StarOffice ?<br/><br/>How much OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ ? SUN seem to be plugging it with every Java update, and we know that Java is the most important community property on the Internet. (Or at least, if we believe Sun's marketing messages, that is so).<br/><br/>How much Lotus Notes http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/products/notes/ ? As of Lotus Notes 8, that deploys ISO26300, too. IBM gets paid when people use this one, and the users get an IBM warranty. Good on both counts. The blurb says 130 million sold, but I don't believe that means 130 million people. Probably a good fraction of that, though.<br/><br/>Microsoft are offering some rather deep discounts to certain segments of the market; schools, charities, and 300,000-person globally-integrated corporations, come to mind.<br/><br/>Perhaps if we looked at the numbers who pay 'full list price', we might see a different story. Well, the Monopoly is a fairly limited one.

How much Symphony http://symphony.lotus.com/ is romping its way across the Internet ? Is the ‘invite-a-friend’ feature http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/invitefriends.jspa driving the distribution channel ?

How many Google Packs http://pack.google.com/intl/en-gb/pack_installer.html?hl=en-gb&gl=uk&utm_source=en_gb_UK-et-more&utm_medium=et&utm_campaign=en_gb_UK with Sun StarOffice ?

How much OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ ? SUN seem to be plugging it with every Java update, and we know that Java is the most important community property on the Internet. (Or at least, if we believe Sun’s marketing messages, that is so).

How much Lotus Notes http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/products/notes/ ? As of Lotus Notes 8, that deploys ISO26300, too. IBM gets paid when people use this one, and the users get an IBM warranty. Good on both counts. The blurb says 130 million sold, but I don’t believe that means 130 million people. Probably a good fraction of that, though.

Microsoft are offering some rather deep discounts to certain segments of the market; schools, charities, and 300,000-person globally-integrated corporations, come to mind.

Perhaps if we looked at the numbers who pay ‘full list price’, we might see a different story.

]]> By: Sean http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1352 Sean Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:33:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html#comment-1352 A while back Brian Jones, a Microsoft Office project manager, claimed good interoperability pedigree for Office applications since they can read and write "standards such as RTF and CSV". I took him to task over that one because neither of these is a standard; they are standins for standards. CSV is extremely unstable across versions and languages of Excel, and as far as I can tell is undocumented except to Microsoft developers. RTF is simply a representation of every version of Word. I took the trouble a while ago to compile this list, since such a list does not exist online from Microsoft:<br/><br/>* March 1987: An article by Nancy Andrews of Microsoft.<br/>* 1.0 1987: Word 3.0 for Macintosh<br/>* 1.0 June 1992: Word for Windows v2 <br/>* 1.1 Unknown, unavailable<br/>* 1.2 Unknown, unavailable<br/>* 1.3 January 1994: Word v6<br/>* 1.4 September 1995: Word v7 (Word 95)<br/>* 1.5 April 1997: Word v8 (Word 97)<br/>* 1.6 May 1999: Word v9 (Word 2000)<br/>* 1.7 August 2001: Word v10 (Word 2002)<br/>* 1.8 April 2004: Word v11 (Word 2003)<br/>* 1.9 January 2007: Word v12 (Word 2007)<br/><br/>The worst part about this "standard" is the license: it is packed in a Windows-only executable package and is licensed for noncommercial use on Windows machines only. A while back Brian Jones, a Microsoft Office project manager, claimed good interoperability pedigree for Office applications since they can read and write “standards such as RTF and CSV”. I took him to task over that one because neither of these is a standard; they are standins for standards. CSV is extremely unstable across versions and languages of Excel, and as far as I can tell is undocumented except to Microsoft developers. RTF is simply a representation of every version of Word. I took the trouble a while ago to compile this list, since such a list does not exist online from Microsoft:

* March 1987: An article by Nancy Andrews of Microsoft.
* 1.0 1987: Word 3.0 for Macintosh
* 1.0 June 1992: Word for Windows v2
* 1.1 Unknown, unavailable
* 1.2 Unknown, unavailable
* 1.3 January 1994: Word v6
* 1.4 September 1995: Word v7 (Word 95)
* 1.5 April 1997: Word v8 (Word 97)
* 1.6 May 1999: Word v9 (Word 2000)
* 1.7 August 2001: Word v10 (Word 2002)
* 1.8 April 2004: Word v11 (Word 2003)
* 1.9 January 2007: Word v12 (Word 2007)

The worst part about this “standard” is the license: it is packed in a Windows-only executable package and is licensed for noncommercial use on Windows machines only.

]]>