Group items tagged

In particular, Rob takes issue with a statement that he condemns as “Microsoft FUD […] laundered via intermediaries”: There is no software that currently implements ODF as approved by the ISO Now Rob Weir is a great blogger, a much-praised committee chair, and somebody who can, on occasion, fearlessly produce the blunt truth like a rabbit from a hat. For this reason, I know his blog entry, “Toy Soldiers” of July 2008 has enjoyed quite some exposure in standards meetings around the world, most particularly for its assertions about ODF. He wrote: No one supports ODF 1.0 today. All of the major vendors have moved on to ODF 1.1, and will be moving on to ODF 1.2 soon. No one supports OOXML 1.0 today, not even Microsoft. No one supports interoperability via translation, not Sun in their Plugin, not Novell in their OOXML support, and not Microsoft in their announced ODF support in Office 2007 SP2.

So, far from being “Microsoft FUD”, the idea that “No one supports ODF 1.0” is in fact Rob Weir’s own statement. And it was taken up and repeated by Andy Updegrove, Groklaw and Boycott Novell, those well-known vehicles of Microsoft’s corporate will. Today however, this appears to have become an inconvenient truth. The rabbit that was pulled out of the hat in the interest of last summer’s spin, now needs to be put into the boiler. Consequently we find Rob’s blog entry of July 2008 has been silently amended so that it now states: Few applications today support exclusively ODF 1.0 and only ODF 1.0. Most of the major vendors also support ODF 1.1, one (OpenOffice 3.x), now supports draft ODF 1.2 as well. No one supports OOXML 1.0 today, not even Microsoft. No one supports interoperability via translation, not Sun in their Plugin, not Novell in their OOXML support, and not Microsoft in their announced ODF support in Office 2007 SP2.

The pertinent change is to item 1 on this list, which now has a weasel-worded (and tellingly tautological) assertion that might make the unsuspecting reader think that ODF 1.0 was somehow supported by the major vendors. Well, is it? Who is right, the Rob Weir of 2008 or the Rob Weir of 2009? Maybe I’ve missed something, but personally I’m unaware of an upsurge in ODF 1.0 support during the last 11 months. My money is on the former Rob being right here.

As for me, I've never denied who I work for, what my job is and what my motives are. I don't pretend to be neutral. I think when presented with market abuses like we see from Microsoft, being neutral is not a respectable position. My only weapons are facts and logic. I would not be effective if I were not known to be accurate and trustworthy.

This certainly is an interesting statement. There is nothing I can point to that is false here. Everything here is 100% accurate. However, it seems to be reckless in how it neglects the most relevant facts, namely that the proposals did not make it into ODF 1.2 at Microsoft's sole election. It is as if Lee Harvey Oswald had written a note: "Went to Dallas and saw a parade today. Tried to see a movie, but had to leave early. Heard later on the radio that the President was shot". This would have been 100% accurate as well, but not the "whole truth".

Ask the questions in public places and seek a public, on-the-record response. More people are willing to lie than face of consequences of being caught lying. That is the ultimate weakness of lies. They cannot stand the light of public exposure. Sunlight is the best antiseptic.

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern: Most people believe that a claim, X, is true. Therefore X is true. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

I hope you will verify these facts, if needed, and correct your misstatements regarding OASIS process and the ODF's TC's work. Then you can go back to telling us again how you and Alex are not spreading lies about ODF. -Rob

It seems you like to ignore requirements in order to defend Microsoft

Do you get paid to spread FUD like this, or is it merely a dilettantish pursuit?

I am unable to even imagine that you would be ignorant of basic standards terminology. So why do you persist in intentionally misleading your readers?