Promoting ODF (OpenDocument Format),It's not about choosing, but about having a choice.
as an ISO standard is not about choosing, but about having a choice.
What?
Yes. Try to understand that fantastic quote from Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia's (current) Managing Director. This was reported by Tech&U, which is currently leading the pack as the most reliable source of Microsoft propaganda. What's wonderful is that they quote Yasmin word for word without questioning what she really means. It makes hilarious reading.
I have transcribed the article below, as it is not available online yet.
What's interesting is that finally, we have documented proof that Microsoft is not interested in real choice for customers, but merely an illusion of choice. This is straight from the horse's mouth, as they say:
"The industry just wants to have the best innovation; they want to have the freedom of choice. The whole idea is not about choosing, it's about having a choice ... and that is what customers and partners want," she said.
It's about having the freedom of choice. Not really about making a firm choice, but at least we have some choice. I could go on about how fallacious this argument is but I think you readers are intelligent enough to know how this is so wrong.
But if Microsoft really has the interests of "choice" for their customers, why then don't they really, walk the talk, and provide choice of ODF in their products? Why are they restricting my choice as an end user who prefers the better ISO standard? Do they really practice what they preach? Why is there less choice in their products?
Why do they complain so loudly when their 'formats' are not considered and yet are so blatant about leaving out competing formats in their products? Why is Novell so much more capable in building OOXML support in OpenOffice.org and Microsoft, a vastly larger company with teams of developers having such difficulty writing ODF support in their products?
What really is rich about her comment about the astroturfing Microsoft Malaysia had seeded to create the illusion of OOXML adoption in Malaysia:
... some strategic projects in Malaysia have successfully leveraged on the format. Among them are the Malaysian Halal Hub Open XML System, RosettaNet Automated Enablement, Tradenex.com and World Congress on Information Technology 2008's Registration System.
I have already elaborated on how Microsoft funded the development of OOXML integration on "strategic projects" above (Halal Hub and RosettaNet). What is new however is the WCIT'08 Registration System. Who needs OOXML to register for a seminar? Don't we just need HTML/HTTP to do online registrations?
It's laughable that Microsoft Malaysia is trying to tag on OOXML to everything they sponsor.
Speaking of which, if you visit the WCIT website, at the bottom, you can see these logos:
CMS powered by Microsoft | Site designed by WCIT2008 | Developed by Pentasoft
It does not take a statistician to find a correlation between voting patterns on OOXML in Malaysia and "smart partnerships" with this WCIT circus. MDeC and PIKOM voted "Approve". MoSTI (Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation) voted "Abstain" and its Minister ultimately overrulled the overwhelming 81% Disapproval position by TC4 and ISC-G, the technical committees overseeing the OOXML draft standard.
What has to be said is that the Microsoft Malaysia propaganda machine has to go into overdrive now because at the end of the day, while Malaysia voted "Approve" to ODF, in all intents and purposes, Malaysia strongly rejected OOXML in all sectors of the ICT ecosystem. At best, if spun properly, Microsoft can say that Malaysia is non-committal to OOXML as it merely "Abstained".
I wonder what other strategic projects Microsoft Malaysia can sponsor next? To them, the money train just left the first station and must keep going! We just have to sit back, and enjoy the spin. Eventually they will find that they cannot fund everything and buy support all the time.
yk
OOXML vote's a win for customers
by Rozana Sani, Tech&U 21st April 2008
More room for innovation and freedom of choice. This sums up Microsoft Malaysia's view on ISO/IEC DIS 29500, Information Technology - Office Open XML (OOXML) file formats being given approval as an ISO/IEC International Standard after gaining the necessary votes earlier this month.
"We feel very encouraged by the overwhelming support from all over the world on the adoption of OOXML as an ISO standard. I think this is good because it can ensure two things: first, there will be choice for customers, which will always drive innovation; and second, it will ensure that customers and partners (communities) will have a say in the development of this standard in the future, and that is good," said company managing director Yasmin Mahmood.
She believes that the decision will go down well with the local information and communications technology fraternity.
"The industry just wants to have the best innovation; they want to have the freedom of choice. The whole idea is not about choosing, it's about having a choice ... and that is what customers and partners want," she said.
ISO/IEC DIS 29500 was originally rejected in the "fast-track" vote in September last year when 2,500 comments were received. But under the rules of ISO/IEC JTC1, the DIS vote was followed by a ballot resolution meeting at which the comments were addressed. After the meeting, the ISO/IEC national bodies had 30 days to modify their votes if they wished.
The 30-day period during which the ISO/IEC national bodies could reconsider their votes on the draft ISP/IEC DIS 29500 closed on March 29, with the results that the criteria for approval of the document as an ISO/IEC International Standard have been met.
According to Microsoft, the OOXML format is an open standard file format for office applications that can be freely implemented by multiple applications on multiple platforms.
It is also available through free updates to past Microsoft Office versions, and some strategic projects in Malaysia have successfully leveraged on the format. Among them are the Malaysian Halal Hub Open XML System, RosettaNet Automated Enablement, Tradenex.com and World Congress on Information Technology 2008's Registration System.
I'm afraid the argument of "choosing" cut both ways. There is no easy way to use ODF in MSOffice, neither with OOXML in OpenOffice.org (reading without writing doesn't count as support)
Of course, we pro-ODF people never said anything about choosing. I, for example, do not believe in choice, especially an inferior one.
And I agree that Microsoft, if it is advocating the "choosing" argument, should set an example and put ODF in MSOffice by default.
Posted by:Wu MingShi | Tuesday, 22 April 2008 at 05:16 PM
They've been doing this for three years now, asking for choice but then totally avoiding the fact, that having choice means you have to choose. So what happens if that choice (proprietary/patented) none-open Microsoft protocol at that time, then results removing other people's choices to use FOSS.
Wouldn't Microsoft then actually be against choice?
It's a stupid argument, that everybody at any conference should question. Don't be like the citizens who believe in the Emperor's new clothes.
Posted by:kaeru | Wednesday, 23 April 2008 at 06:06 AM
@Wu MingShi -
Hi !
You make some good points. Here are my responses:
As to no there being no easy way to use ODF in MSOffice. I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with Microsoft because they are the only ones that can modify MSOffice to add ODF support (proprietary software)
As to using OOXML in OpenOffice.org, there are three points I would make - (1) OOXML is not yet published as a standard, so there is no final document to work with. (2) Even if/when OOXML is published, the MS OSP that covers patents on the OOXML specification excludes any GPL project from implementing OOXML and MS designed the OSP with this in mind using prior knowledge of the GPL license requirements. Again, you'll need to take this issue up with Microsoft. (3) Microsoft's MSOffice 2007 does not implement OOXML, so compatability with OOXML means automatic non-compatability with MSOffice. Please take this issue up with Microsoft so they modify their product to follow the (now-approved) standard.
Is it just me or am I sensing a pattern here ?
Posted by:Ed | Wednesday, 23 April 2008 at 07:58 AM