Tuesday 20th February, 2007
Following on from the earlier word processor review post, this article hints at the importance which Microsoft attaches to ODF's ISO standard rating. There are usual laughable quotes from Microsoft execs:
We see a level of hypocrisy in IBM's activities...They have long called on us to standardize formats, make the IP (intellectual property) freely available to the broader community, and we've done it.
(Emphasis added.)
Well, sorry, but in a word ... BULLSH*T.
It's the comments beneath the article which as usual, raise some interesting points:
After transparently attempting to derail HTML standards, javascript standards, java standards and XML standards, Microsoft has absolutely no credibility when it comes to standards and interoperability. Microsoft has pursued a strategy of closed proprietary formats and diversionary tactics with standards organizations for many years
why on Earth did these folks from the Redmond Campus not attend the Open Document Format Standards (ODF) parties which were sponsored by the OASIS GROUP when they were invited to
Most people working in IT know that Microsoft does everything within its powers to make it hard for others to making compatible products, when trying connect to MS-products. There are too many examples.
The same is happening at the so-called Microsoft open xml data format. Everyone concerned about the matter (including Microsoft) know their format is NOT REALLY OPEN. Let me qualify: The actual xml structure they use is open, so much is true, but not the binary information Microsoft places inside the XML, and with that the whole data format is NOT OPEN, useless to the public.
A data format that is NOT REALLY OPEN should not be a standard.
The masses of people out there/the world needs ONE standard that is TRULY OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE TO ALL, not just the software of one proprietary vendor.
Etc, etc. There is lots more. My, my, so much distrust.
Wednesday 14th February, 2007
Following on a from an earlier entry, where the BBC announced that its new on-demand services would be limited to Microsoft Windows, it now seems that the BBC Trust, after consultation with the UK media regulator Ofcom, now require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach.
"As proposed, the TV catch-up service on the internet relies on Microsoft technology for the digital rights management (DRM) framework. The Trust will require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach within a reasonable timeframe. This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the on-demand services."
Well, that was a quick change of heart.
Monday 12th February, 2007
Who even thinks of this stuff? I mean who would be so sad as to sit down and dream up of ways to force us to watch advertising, and then go so far as to patent it?
A method and apparatus for assuring delivery of paid advertising to a user may involve asking a question about an advertisement or requiring data about the advertisement to be entered.
When the allowable number of incorrect answers has been exceeded, several response are possible, from noting a user's record but taking no action, to a follow up communication with the user, to disabling or even repossessing the computer
(Emphasis added.)
This is something to be proud of?
Monday 12th February, 2007
Walmart's new video download service is deliberately blocking all browsers except Internet Explorer. You know, the insecure browser.
Earlier reports indicated it might be due to sloppy coding, but no, it's deliberate.
Monday 12th February, 2007
Jeremy Allison, most famous for Samba, recently left Novell over the controversial Novell/Microsoft patent licensing deal. In this interview, he explains some of the reason for his leaving.
... I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute. I think that would be the restriction. I would have to look quite carefully. So, essentially that’s not allowed. But they’re not telling anyone about it. They’re completely doing it off the record.
Then, the really interesting bit:
The problem with the Novell deal is -- Novell gave Microsoft what Microsoft dearly wanted, which is a public admission that they think that Linux violates the Microsoft patent. So, that’s the difference between this and the sort of off-the-record quiet deals. This one is public. This one is Novell admitting, "yes, we think that Linux violates Microsoft patents." Now, of course, Novell has come out and said, "no, that’s not what we said at all. We don’t think that." To which, of course, Microsoft publicly humiliated them and said, "oh, yes, that’s really what you were saying." It’s kind of funny. They couldn’t even wait until the press conference was over to start threatening users with a Linux system.
I wonder how this is going to pan out ...