RSSNow an official ISO standard, Microsoft's OOXML invites controversy
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published April 2, 2008, 7:00 PM
Although ISO approval was not entirely unanimous, the Microsoft-originated Open Office XML (OOXML) protocol has finally become an international standard as of April 2.
Still, though, with OOXML foes accusing Microsoft of playing politics -- and OOXML fans accusing IBM of doing likewise -- the European Commission (EC) continues to investigate whether Microsoft might have used market dominance to unfair advantage in clearing passage for the controversial document protocol.
OOXML is a format for word processing documents, presentations and spreadsheets which competes against the OpenDocument standard favored by many open source advocates.
Microsoft first achieved standardization of OOXML through the European-based ECMA industry association. But in the subsequent ISO standardization process, the Microsoft-spearheaded format was initially disapproved in a "fast-track vote" that ended last September, receiving over 3,500 comments.
A second ISO vote took place during the final week of February, 2008. Before then, "by eliminating redundancies, the comments had been reduced to just over 1,000 individual issues to be considered. Issues considered as priorities by national members (such as accessibility, date formats, conformance issues) were discussed, and the other comments were addressed through a voting process on the remaining items, a system agreed upon by [the] participants," according to a written statement from the ISO.
In the second ISO vote, 75 percent of nations belonging to the ISO/IEC joint technical committee said "yes" to standardization, where only 14 percent said "no."
Approval required two-thirds of the votes cast to be positive, while only one-quarter of them could be negative. After the vote, though, nations were given until March 29 to reconsider. Because none of the countries did change their votes by then, the ISO declared OOXML to be an official standard on April 2.
Meanwhile, however, the Wall Street Journal reported in February that the EU had launched an investigation to find out whether might have abused its market dominance in obtaining standardization of the protocol.
Then, CNET today reported receiving confirmation from an European Commission spokesperson that the investigation is still ongoing. The EC's investigation was reportedly spurred by a complaint from an anti-Microsoft lobbying group known as the European Commission for Interoperable Systems (ECIS).
Industry reaction outside of the EC has been predictably polarized. In one recent blog entry, for example, Reuven Lerner argued that OOXML fails as a standard on three counts: technical "correctness," ease of implementation, and intellectual property (IP). "Another consideration has to do with intellectual property: Even if it's technically possible for everyone to implement a particular standard, it should be legally possible, as well. That is, implementation of the standard should not require the licensing of technologies from anyone else, particularly another member of the committee," according to Lerner.
Lerner also criticized Microsoft for "old-fashioned politics."
"If anyone in the open-source community were to propose a huge, unimplementable standard, they would have been laughed out of town. So this raises at least two questions: How did this happen, and what do we do about it?" he asked rhetorically.
"This happened, from everything I can tell, through old-fashioned politics: Microsoft, from numerous reports I've read, managed to get a number of countries to vote in favor of adopting OOXML. For example, Norway's ISO representative voted to approve OOXML, despite the vocal objection of the Norwegian standards committe. Politics are a normal part of the standardization landscape, but this seems to have been an extreme case, by everyone's measure."
For his part, however, Jason Matusow, Microsoft's shared source manager, points to lobbying taking place in the opposite direction from a continent he refers to as "IBM, et al."
"It is completely legitimate for companies who are Microsoft partners (or who have an independent interest in using the specification) using Open XML in order to deliver functionality to their customers to participate in the standards process. They choose to invest engineering and business resources in support of Open XML as a means of supporting their own business interests. This is just as true for a business partner of [IBM's] (or [someone who has] an independent interest in document formats) who joined Big Blue in the work against Open XML because they felt it was in their best interest to do so. Standards work is meant to be inclusive rather than exclusive," Matusow's wrote in his blog.
"IBM/et al worked very hard to oppose the Open XML standard. They committed millions of dollars to the effort, lobbied hard, worked with their partners, but did not get the outcome they were hoping for," he contended.
"In some countries, IBM was responsible for more than 90% of the submitted comments, and everywhere they added essentially the same comments to their work in national bodies. They got their wish -- their comments, indeed, 87%+ of all comments, were resolved in the disposition process and the national standards bodies felt that the process had been successful," according to the Microsoft executive.
"[But] we now see IBM/et al driving an orchestrated process attack in the hopes of overturning the ratification of Open XML, or at least to discredit what has come out of this long, global process."
Bob Sutor, vice president for Open Source and Standards at IBM and vocal opponent of Open XML, fired back in a blog post, calling into question the International standards process and outlining issues that he feels led to OOXML being approved unjustly.
"So is that it? Of course not. The process of international standards making has been laid bare for all to examine...While fully cognizant of these current results, I'm energized to take the bigger fight for openness to the next level with the thousands of individuals who are now convinced that the standards system needs fixing, and soon," Sutor wrote. "I hope you'll take part."
Yup. the Ec makes good money off of MS and still can't produce a quality computer. I wonder if the phrase in the title "invites Controversy" is RSVP type of invitation.
Score: 0
|Ahhhhh.. the EC running low on cash and needs to make another withdrawal from the Bank of Microsoft.
Score: 0
|I wished the US would learn a lesson before things go further down the drain...
Score: 0
|and what is that lession you are refering to ?
Score: 0
|Even though it passed, it will might get rejected by companies choosing not to use it.
Score: 0
|then again it would, might, could be accepted by companies choosing to use it.
Score: 0
|Honestly, MS should just drop it. Why bother with this so call "standard". Isn't standard is what used by most people? MS capture like 80% of the market. In corporate, it's like 100%.
It's a free market, if you don't like it, just don't use it.
Score: 0
|Rob Weir said it best:
Now that it has been demonstrated that pushing proprietary interfaces, protocols and formats through ISO is cheaper and faster than writing code to implement existing open standards, one assumes that the future is bright for more such boutique standards from Redmond. "Open" HTML, anyone?
Score: 0
|Now that it has been demonstrated that pushing proprietary interfaces, protocols and formats through ISO is cheaper and faster
So...MSFT "allegedly" spent all this money to get it approved on fast-track... How is that cheap? (Unless, of course, you admit that no proof exists and all the accusations are simply made up BS)
...and faster?
Are you even *aware* that ODF went through faster than OOXML? Damn near twice as fast?
http://farm3.static.flic...6477_955c06b073.jpg?v=0
Score: 0
|"How is that cheap?"
If you bothered reading zridling point, you'd have seen it written black on white: because you can write your own code for whatever you see fit instead of having to figure out how to write code to support existing formats.
Score: 0
|The ODF specification is also an order of magnitude smaller than the horribly defined M$OOXML, which made it suitable for the Fast Track Process.
A specification the size and low quality of M$OOXML had no place in the Fast Track process. This is no matter who submitted it...M$, Sun, IBM, Apple, etc...
Score: 0
|PC_Troll does not read comments. His job at M$ is to spread FUD about how great and honest M$ is. Notice how he changes the argument rather than take it head on and actually discuss the topic.
Score: 0
|It was much cheaper and faster to write their own format and get it pushed through ISO and ECMA than to adopt ODF?
Are you high?
...or is it really *that* costly to implement ODF?
Score: 0
|I've provided far more *fact* and common sense to this topic than you have *ever* contributed to the ODF/OOXML topic.
...and I don't work for MSFT....
Really, how many times do I have to tell you that? Are you dense?
Score: 0
|The ODF specification is also an order of magnitude smaller than the horribly defined M$OOXML, which made it suitable for the Fast Track Process.
lmao..
ODF didn't get fast track.
You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?
Score: 0
|You've got to stop feeding the trolls. I see the grey hairs popping out all over heh. They're not listening to you or anyone except Mr. Wier of whom everyone's weary.
After the appeals period is over they'll all disappear and move on to b****ing about the next Redmond initiative. Just in time for summer here in the North.
Up next: Local betanews troll argues that IIS 6 and 7 actually do have more security issues than Apache, refuses to provide evidence. Story at 10.
Score: 0
|Nope, he'll probably also claim that ODF isn't patented either and refute claims that it's not complete and claim that it was substantialy more than one company that developed it.
Yup, same song and dance for over a year now, loud and incoherent as ever ;)
Score: 0
|lmao...
While all of the above is true, I'd really rather not have them spawning even *more* useless trolls with their BS.
Tilting at windmills, I know. How very quixotic of me. :p
Score: 0
|HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!. What a tool.
Score: 0
|Are you able to actually point out how you managed to conclude that it was twice as fast? Only thing i can see from that chart is that ODF had one less stage to go through, not how many years or months it took from start to finish.
Score: 0
|Pure gold, man.
You've actually yet to do *anything* in this topic but troll.
yeah...I'm the tool.
Isn't he clever, folks?
Score: 0
|I was a bit off on that actually:
ODF was submitted to ISO in November of 2005 and approved in May of 2006 (6 months).
OOXML was submitted to ISO in December of 2006 and approved in April of 2008 (16 months
So ODF went through ISO more than twice as fast, even without the "fast-track" process.
Score: 0
|"Are you even *aware* that ODF went through faster than OOXML? Damn near twice as fast?"
It would be hard to be 'aware' of a blattant lie.
ODF, a document an order of magnitude smaller thatn MSXML took 3 years maturing in OASIS to become an approved OASIS standard. Sure after that passing ISO was a breeze. The things had been vetted for 3 years and had been actually implemented by multiple parties.
That was an effort of 700+ page in about 900 days.
MSXML, was ruched through ECMA in barely a year
An effort of 6000+ in less than 300 days.
Faster you said ???
Is it another one of you so-called 'facts' ?
Score: 0
|according to your post:
"Are you even *aware* that ODF went through faster than OOXML? Damn near twice as fast?"
So yes, it was a fast process to get it approved. LOL. You can do better than that PC_Troll.
Score: 0
|the guy works for M$. You don't expect him to make sense on this matter, do you?
Score: 0
|MSXML, was ruched through ECMA in barely a year
Submitted November 2005, approved, December 2006. Not barely a year, over a year (though not by much).
ODF...took 3 years maturing in OASIS to become an approved OASIS standard.
And MSFT officially announced OOXML in 2005, which had been in development as early as 2001.
Also, perhaps one of the reasons ODF sat so long in OASIS is due to there being only 2 main individuals involved in the work (those who attended at least 75% of the meetings) and 4 others who were present for at least half of the meetings.
Shouldn't really be *that* hard to reach a consensus, should it?
Faster you said ???
Through ISO? You bet.
Is it another one of you so-called 'facts' ?
Indeed it is.
Score: 0
|Do you make sense on *any* matter?
Nope.
...and *you* not understanding it means surprisingly little to just about everyone else in the world, for what it's worth.
Score: 0
|You really are that stupid, aren't you?
ISO approved OOXML under their "Fast Track" process.
ODF was *not* approved under that process and actually went through ISO faster.
Try and wrap your head around that one...we'll be patient.
Faster != being on the "Fast Track" process.
Score: 0
|"Faster you said ???
Through ISO? You bet.
"
The reason MSXML went slower, was because it is a piece of s*** that should never have been presented, and it got a record number of 'remark' for it. It takes a bit longer to pervert the system, how exactly does that play in favor of MSXML
"which had been in development as early as 2001."
Really ? Why no claim as early as 1981... Seriously, what microsoft do or claim it does behind close door doesn't get it points toward 'open standard' status.
BEside it is well documented that the sudden interest of Microsoft in 'standard', or mare exactly in standard-stamping, was provoked by Massachusetts and others states epiphany that vendor lock-in was not a good policy.
"Shouldn't really be *that* hard to reach a consensus, should it?"
The consensus to be attain is within the P-members... no matter how many people work on the draft, it is still reviewed and approved by the members...
An approved it got, unanimously.(22 approvals, 4 abstentions, 0 against, among P-member) and a dozen of comments overall, mostly editorial.
"Also, perhaps one of the reasons ODF sat so long in OASIS is due to there being only 2 main individuals involved in the work "
you just claimed that microsoft was at it since 2001. and with all the people they have they still managed to get such a crappy specifications, that get thousands of bug in ISO review ?
That merely illustrate the a millions of monkeys do not beat a good author.
Good software like good science is not a fostered by democraty nor by plutocracy but by meritocracy.
Score: 0
|The reason MSXML went slower, was because it is a piece of s*** that should never have been presented, and it got a record number of 'remark' for it. It takes a bit longer to pervert the system, how exactly does that play in favor of MSXML
So now that you've been proven wrong your comments will continue to get s***tier and s***tier.
PC_Tool proved you wrong on the speed argument, and now you're just replying with baseless anti-MS rhetoric.
Score: 0
|which had been in development as early as 2001."
Really ? Why no claim as early as 1981... Seriously, what microsoft do or claim it does behind close door doesn't get it points toward 'open standard' status.
But the "7 year" ODF one does?
How cute.
BEside it is well documented that the sudden interest of Microsoft in 'standard', or mare exactly in standard-stamping, was provoked by Massachusetts and others states epiphany that vendor lock-in was not a good policy.
The EC demanded it. :) Get your facts straight. The first XML standards from MSFT were submitted in May of 2004 at the request of the EC.
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/2592/5588
you just claimed that microsoft was at it since 2001. and with all the people they have they still managed to get such a crappy specifications, that get thousands of bug in ISO review ?
Heh... Thousands of bug? Really? That many? MSFT started their original work with XML in 2001. Their first release of it was in the form of an XML Word and Excel format in Office 2003.
That merely illustrate the a millions of monkeys do not beat a good author.
Good software like good science is not a fostered by democraty nor by plutocracy but by meritocracy.
No, that just means it went through several different, tested, used, and accepted iterations before being submitted for certification.
Score: 0
|These people never let facts get in the way of rhetoric.
It is their bread and butter.
Score: 0
|Is it any wonder why toolie is the biggest troll ever? Just like a Microsoft tool, he can't be bothered with the truth.
Toolie, you are pathetic, and you do Microsoft no favors with your incessant lies and spamming BetaNews daily.
Score: 0
|(Spoken like a true Obama supporter.)
Score: 0
|OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
The STUPID!!!!!! IT BURNS!!!!!! Ignore the spam troll.
Score: 0
|In a nutshell for whom can't bother reading: big corporations lobby and bribe so that laws and standards that supports their own interests are passed.
Can we have news now?
Score: 0
|What rules were broken? What Microsoft person broke them? What money changed hands?
Score: 0
|Firstly, anyone who would publicly brag about lobbying and bribing would be a dimwit.
Secondly, your questions are rhetorical because it really doesn't matter what the answers are. E.g. "What Microsoft person broke them?". Excuse me, but where the heck do you try to get with such a question? If you're looking for proofs, c.f. firstly above.
So why do I even bother replying? If I didn't, you'd feel like you made a strong point about something important.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
So the questions are invalid because no-one can answer them?
ROFLMAO!
That's rich. Typical, but amusing, nonetheless.
Score: 0
|"So the questions are invalid because no-one can answer them?"
Your questions, as usual, were pointless. So let's argue semantics instead.
"What rules were broken?"
The ones where you push your agenda and pay people off to get your way.
"What Microsoft person broke them?"
The guys with fat wallets near the top.
"What money changed hands?"
Large sums of US currency. Oh wait, the US dollar is worthless, so make that VERY large sums of US currency.
My answers were as contrived and vague as your questions. Now it's your turn to come back and ask for more specific answers to your pointless questions, throw some rhetoric, ridicule, and perhaps a few internet slangs like LOL, ROFL, etc. Rinse, repeat.
Score: 0
|I love it.
Everyone can go ahead and make claims that the rules were broken and that MSFT bribed people...
...but no-one's allowed to ask what rules, or what evidence there is of bribery.
Do you always hide behind a catch-22? Must be nice never having to justify your accusations.
Score: 0
|you can 'aught' all you want, still you ask 'who did it' and when answered you evade by 'but that is just one employee'...
But even without having one caught red-handed, there would still be way enough evidence to get a civil conviction, including a pattern of behavior of Microsoft, a multiple convicted offender.
Score: 0
|*sigh*
One employee. Not involved in the certification process, no money exchanged hands (or was even explicitly promised), it was uncovered, stopped, and immediately reported by his superiors.
Sure, it's not a good thing. But it is also not evidence of anyone acutaly *being* bribed.
....if anything, it's evidence of nothing more than a failed attempt, or, going your guys' totally baseless and absurd route, obviously a set-up by the ODF folks. (that last bit is sarcastic, I am in no way implying such a scenario)
Score: 0
|ROFLMAO, nice, I guess that means that you scored another point.
1 - I never said "invalid", I said "rhetorical".
2 - In my original post, I never said "MS", I said "Big corporations".
It feels like you're taking general points personally by extrapolating. I'm done discussing this any further because firstly you have way too much time at hand (it looks like leaving comments on Fileforum is your full time job), and in addition to this, you think that having the last word means that you are right. Of course, if you bothered reading correctly and not extrapolating out of context, you wouldn't have enough time to try to prove that you are right in so many branches of the discussion.
As for me, this post was my leaf.
Score: 0
|1 - I never said "invalid", I said "rhetorical".
Apparently you don't know the meaning of either?
2 - In my original post, I never said "MS", I said "Big corporations".
This is a MSFT topic. MSFT is a big business. Do the math.
Score: 0
|It's a sad day for the computer . MS-OOXML-$$$
is nothing more than MS-$$$ buying time to
continue the proprietary garbage that stops
innovation. Again $$$ destroys progress.
Shame on ISO participants for selling out.
Score: 0
|The article doesn't really go into detail about the parts of OOXML that don't work, or what OOXML really is.
Basically all it is is a way of representing Office document formats in XML and then compressing them using the ZIP format. If that was all it was, it would be a good start for a standard. But unfortunately it carries along a bunch of baggage including proprietary Microsoft formats either in files included in the ZIP or embedded in the XML in base 64 encoding (the source I read wasn't clear on which, it wasn't that technical). This relates to the bit of the article where the EU talks about proprietary formats needing to be licensed.
Basically, if you want to make a program that can read and write the FULL feature set of OOXML, you're faced with several CLOSED formats inside the "open" one (I imagine... I can't say for sure, but where licensing and money is involved I'm pretty sure you aren't going to see openness). Now, if Windows can already read this format, you're in luck... as long as you don't mind your app being tied to the Windows platform only. Microsoft won't mind, that's certain. Otherwise you have to license stuff, according to the EU.
Score: 0
|Basically, if you want to make a program that can read and write the FULL feature set of OOXML, you're faced with several CLOSED formats inside the "open" one
OOXML includes support for the inclusion or embedding of other (ISO Certified...MP3?) closed formats?
OH NOES!!
Score: 0
|ODF doesn't support this either, nope, no way no how, that would be really *really* bad and evil. Oh wait...
Don't go now and read §2.4.2 of the ODF spec "Base Settings" Whoops, looks like you can include arbitry binary base64 encoded settings :(
Score: 0
|Go ahead. Ask him out on a date. You know you want to....
Score: 0
|You can't date yourself. Oops, cat's out of the bag.
Score: 0
|I do have one alt here, but flake ain't it.
(By the way, you're wrong. I used to watch the underdog cartoons on TV when I was a kid. Oops...I just dated myself.) ;)
Score: 0
|"In the second ISO vote, 75 percent of nations belonging to the ISO/IEC joint technical committee said "yes" to standardization, where only 14 percent said "no."
Bear in mind that
Azerbaijan, Ivory-Cost, cyprus, Jamaica, Kazakhstan Malta, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Trinitad and Tabago, that is 10 or the 24 'yes' suddenly joint a P-Member at the last minute, while having never work on anything related to that subcommity, and having not worked on anything since then. Their ony 'Participation' (that is whta the P or p-Member is supposed to mean) was to vote Yes without comment to a specification that they haven't read (as admitted by Malta's representation). These vote were bought out-right by Microsoft.
Now add the Norway's scandal, (the technical comity voted 19 to 5 against, yet Microsoft managed to get a reversal of the September no vote!)
Poland, where the Chair decided that no-vote = yes vote for OOXML, DIN (germany) which offered just Yes or abstain as balloting option, and France, where last minute pressure from the very pro-Bush Sarkosy led to a 'surprise' overturn of a strong NO vote to an 'abstain'.
Malasia abstain, depite the technical commity voting against. Sweden was not conted because of Microsoft bribery discovered in August, which invalidated Sweden vote... And the list goes on.
Bottom line is: if the proposed standard was juged on it's technical merit - the only relevant yardstick for that kind of document - if the vote reflected the professional opinion of technical expert and not the deepness of the pocket and influence of Microsoft, that thing would not even have made it to the ISO desk.
Objectively, on a technical merit, that proposed standard was and still is botched. Microsoft abused the standardization process for pure marketing reason, destroying the reputation of ISO along the way.
Score: 0
|Azerbaijan, Ivory-Cost, cyprus, Jamaica, Kazakhstan Malta, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Trinitad and Tabago, that is 10 or the 24 'yes' suddenly joint a P-Member at the last minute, while having never work on anything related to that subcommity, and having not worked on anything since then.
What rules were broken? What Microsoft person broke them? What money changed hands?
Now add the Norway's scandal, (the technical comity voted 19 to 5 against, yet Microsoft managed to get a reversal of the September no vote!)
MSFT had nothing to do with that. Prior to discussing the state of the "comments" and if they'd been sufficiently addressed, a group of those members sent them an open letter stating they would vote "no" regardless of the outcome of the discussion or whether the issues had been addressed. Of course they were booted out.
Look at Norway's response to the complaints yourself.
Sweden was not conted because of Microsoft bribery discovered in August, which invalidated Sweden vote... And the list goes on.
One local employee, not even part of the certification process, sent an offer to two MS partners, which suggested that those partners should join the Swedish NB, and that MS would in some way pay them back for the joining fees. This mail was deemed inappropriate by MSFT and a retraction was sent within hours. It was MSFT themselves who reported the incident to the Swedish NB - had they not done so, it's possible that no one would ever have heard this story. In the end, Sweden's NB abstained because of other issues.
Facts can be your friend, too. :)
Score: 0
|Too bad you don't have any real friends.
Score: 0
|sjc001: When presented with facts? Just lamely attempt to insult the poster.
Good job!
Score: 0
|"What rules were broken? What Microsoft person broke them?"
For one thing this:
http://www.iso.org/iso/codeethics_2004.pdf
and
http://www.iecee.org/cbscheme/html/cbcode.htm
then,
"One local employee, "
Oh, so how many 'microsoft' employee have to get caught for it to count ?
"had they not done so, it's possible that no one would ever have heard this story."
I'm quite sure that they try very hard to seal the leaks....
"a group of those members sent them an open letter stating they would vote "no" regardless of the outcome of the discussion or whether the issues had been addressed. Of course they were booted out."
When 80% of your tech people tell you that the thing is a piece of crap, there is little chance that you can tap-dance around the problem. So, yes no matter how much last minute, unscrutinized and unreviewed, modifications where done a the BRM, the vote is legitimately NO.
The house was built on quick-sand. No matter how good the paint look, it is still a doomed house.
And it certainly no ground for administrative staff to REVERSE the original vote.
Score: 0
|K...
We're getting there:
Show me what part of either of those codes were broken (keeping in mind, of course, that these aren't exactly "rules").
Oh, so how many 'microsoft' employee have to get caught for it to count ?
Consider:
No money changed hands.
MSFT was the one that uncovered it, put a stop to it, and reported it.
Yeah, Bad MSFT...
hen 80% of your tech people tell you that the thing is a piece of crap, there is little chance that you can tap-dance around the problem. So, yes no matter how much last minute, unscrutinized and unreviewed, modifications where done a the BRM, the vote is legitimately NO.
Regardless of their stance on the issue, they had no intention of following the due process *required* by the organization. Of course they got booted, and *yes*, the remaining members can still vote how they choose, even if it reverses the original vote.
Again, Google Norway's own response on the issue.
Score: 0
|Getting standards and laws passed is all about playing politics. The only way to truly win is not to get mud stuck to your suit.
Score: 0
|It's amazing the sheer number of lies that come out of Jason Matusow's mouth (too many to go into now, just read his blog). He's a perfect representative of his company that so many people hate. MS-OOXML is simply a proprietary product specification that Microsoft lobbied (with tons of money and politicking since Massachusetts) into a 'standard' [that no one will use or ever be able to implement independent of MS Office itself]. One look at MS-OOXML and you're amazed those coders(?) got jobs at all.
Bob Sutor is right. It's where we go from here to fix ISO.
Score: 0
|I LIKE Microsoft. Microsoft is good. Microsoft has great ideas, and OOXML is one of them. I think Microsoft ROCKS!
Score: 0
|You're an idiot! MS is one of the worst companies in business and Bill Gates is even worse.
Score: 0
|"My opinion is better than yours!!!"
"Is not!"
Seriously kids, settle down.
Score: 0
|Another stupid idea from Microsoft. Their arrogance and disdain for their customers have driven me away from them. I only use a microsoft product when there is no other alternative.
Score: 0
|"OOXML fans"
lol
Score: 0
|Yeah, praise be to M$, and death to the infidels.....
Score: 0
|Oh my--comparing Microsoft to terrorists?
What a strange world you live in...
Score: 0
|Yeah, I thought only Bush used the "terrorists" bit to sway the mind-numbed robots out there.
I guess he just wants to be more like Bush. :)
Score: 0
|Im sorry guys.. i've been catching up with this whole OOXML chat..but the one thing i dont get is..how is it benificial to Microsoft at all? Could some one please fill me in..coz im clueless.
Score: 0
|