Coffeehouse Thread

52 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Google gets the better of Microsoft

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    corona_coder

    In a move that echos something that Microsoft would do.  Google basically admits to the fact that they hijacked Microsofts fast track. for OOXML in a blog post.

    Microsoft was defeated and the world is right again.  OOXML doesnt deserve to be a standard and if I have anything to say about it, it will never be.

  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    Luckily, you don't have anything to say about anything. And what do you mean, "the world is right again"? So crime, poverty and world hunger are not important issues. The world is right again, because "Microsoft was defeated" (defeated?).

  • User profile image
    Lloyd_Humph

    GO
    TO
    HELL



    I like pie.

    If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    corona_coder wrote:
    In a move that echos something that Microsoft would do.  Google basically admits to the fact that they hijacked Microsofts fast track. for OOXML in a blog post.

    Microsoft was defeated and the world is right again.  OOXML doesnt deserve to be a standard and if I have anything to say about it, it will never be.


    Sorry, let me get this straight - you despise Microsoft because of the way they do business, right?
    So when Google act, as you say, like Microsoft you praise them?  Shouldn't you be decrying Google for the kind of behaviour you object to?

    Or am I missing something?

    Microsoft are evil.  Google do something you would expect of Microsoft.  Google are not evil.
    Does not compute.



    Herbie

  • User profile image
    Charles

    Take it easy, Lloyd...

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    I like the way you object to OOXML in clear, articulate and well thought out ways, rather than just jumping on the "I-hate-Microsoft" bandwagon.

    If Google sent hitmen to kill Bill Gates, would you agree with their moral standpoint? How about if they developed search that relied on sacrificing orphans? If Microsoft decided to give a billion dollars in aid to africa to help fight AIDS, would you support Google if they pressed the US to prevent Microsoft doing so?

    Assess your morals, remove your bias, uncloud your mind.

  • User profile image
    Royal​Schrubber

    corona_coder wrote:
    BS


    Watch out! It's a huge owlbear!!!11!

  • User profile image
    Lloyd_Humph

    Charles wrote:
    Take it easy, Lloyd...


    Wink

    If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    Google wrote:

  • for a specification of this size it was not given enough time for review;
  • the undocumented features of OOXML prevents its implementation by other vendors;
  • dependencies on other Microsoft proprietary formats and their technical defects makes it difficult to fully implement; and
  • the overall cost for vendors of implementing multiple standards (hence the lack of OOXML implementations in the marketplace).



  • How long does it need to be reviewed?
    Why would you want to implement undocumented features and are you unable to create your own undocumented features?
    What proprietary formats is it dependant on?
    If it becomes a standard, why would you need to implement other methods?

    All I'm seeing here is "MSFT did it, so it must suck."


  • User profile image
    borosen

    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    Google wrote:

  • for a specification of this size it was not given enough time for review;
  • the undocumented features of OOXML prevents its implementation by other vendors;
  • dependencies on other Microsoft proprietary formats and their technical defects makes it difficult to fully implement; and
  • the overall cost for vendors of implementing multiple standards (hence the lack of OOXML implementations in the marketplace).



  • How long does it need to be reviewed?
    Why would you want to implement undocumented features and are you unable to create your own undocumented features?
    What proprietary formats is it dependant on?
    If it becomes a standard, why would you need to implement other methods?

    All I'm seeing here is "MSFT did it, so it must suck."




    Why would you put undocumented features in a standard?

    I use Microsoft's products all the time, earn a living from doing so, I am not a Microsoft basher, but this OOXML standard proposal seems to be a joke.
    How any standardization body could vote yes on this, is beyond me.


  • User profile image
    Ray6

    corona_coder wrote:
    and if I have anything to say about it, it will never be.


    ROFL!! Big Smile




  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    borosen wrote:
    
    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    Google wrote:

  • for a specification of this size it was not given enough time for review;
  • the undocumented features of OOXML prevents its implementation by other vendors;
  • dependencies on other Microsoft proprietary formats and their technical defects makes it difficult to fully implement; and
  • the overall cost for vendors of implementing multiple standards (hence the lack of OOXML implementations in the marketplace).



  • How long does it need to be reviewed?
    Why would you want to implement undocumented features and are you unable to create your own undocumented features?
    What proprietary formats is it dependant on?
    If it becomes a standard, why would you need to implement other methods?

    All I'm seeing here is "MSFT did it, so it must suck."




    Why would you put undocumented features in a standard?

    I use Microsoft's products all the time, earn a living from doing so, I am not a Microsoft basher, but this OOXML standard proposal seems to be a joke.
    How any standardization body could vote yes on this, is beyond me.




    Undocumented features == Support for earlier office formats == optional features == nonissue if you don't want to support it.

    They're undocumented because MSFT doesn't want people having to implement older office formats.  This is because they wish that these formats would be supplanted by OOXML.

    If they had included Word95 specs, people would be bitching about having to implement them, so they made them optional and didn't specify them.

    How any technically inclined computer monkey could not understand this is beyond me.

  • User profile image
    borosen

    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    borosen wrote:
    
    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    Google wrote:

  • for a specification of this size it was not given enough time for review;
  • the undocumented features of OOXML prevents its implementation by other vendors;
  • dependencies on other Microsoft proprietary formats and their technical defects makes it difficult to fully implement; and
  • the overall cost for vendors of implementing multiple standards (hence the lack of OOXML implementations in the marketplace).



  • How long does it need to be reviewed?
    Why would you want to implement undocumented features and are you unable to create your own undocumented features?
    What proprietary formats is it dependant on?
    If it becomes a standard, why would you need to implement other methods?

    All I'm seeing here is "MSFT did it, so it must suck."




    Why would you put undocumented features in a standard?

    I use Microsoft's products all the time, earn a living from doing so, I am not a Microsoft basher, but this OOXML standard proposal seems to be a joke.
    How any standardization body could vote yes on this, is beyond me.




    Undocumented features == Support for earlier office formats == optional features == nonissue if you don't want to support it.

    They're undocumented because MSFT doesn't want people having to implement older office formats.  This is because they wish that these formats would be supplanted by OOXML.

    If they had included Word95 specs, people would be bitching about having to implement them, so they made them optional and didn't specify them.

    How any technically inclined computer monkey could not understand this is beyond me.



    This is exactly why they should have been left out of the standard proposal.

    If it is not supposed to be there, don't put it there.

    If anobody wants to extend beyond the standard, please do so, but keep the crap out of the standard.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    borosen wrote:
    This is exactly why they should have been left out of the standard proposal.

    If it is not supposed to be there, don't put it there.

    If anobody wants to extend beyond the standard, please do so, but keep the crap out of the standard.


    I know it may come as a suprise to you, but there are an awful lot of documents that currently exist in some version of office format.  The naive idea that we'd all join hands and sing kubaya while we mass convert these files to the newer format is rediculous.

    By your standards, we would simply not have access to these files at all which would mean that the standard would never be used. 

    Then we'd have more people whining about how "MSFT doesn't follow standards" every time Word opened up a file created on a previous version.

    Here's a brief, but bitter truth: 

    Whatever format MSFT uses IS the standard. 

    Hop on the train, or don't, but the opinion of some artificially created standards board doesn't really matter.



  • User profile image
    borosen

    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    borosen wrote:
    This is exactly why they should have been left out of the standard proposal.

    If it is not supposed to be there, don't put it there.

    If anobody wants to extend beyond the standard, please do so, but keep the crap out of the standard.


    I know it may come as a suprise to you, but there are an awful lot of documents that currently exist in some version of office format.  The naive idea that we'd all join hands and sing kubaya while we mass convert these files to the newer format is rediculous.

    By your standards, we would simply not have access to these files at all which would mean that the standard would never be used. 

    Then we'd have more people whining about how "MSFT doesn't follow standards" every time Word opened up a file created on a previous version.

    Here's a brief, but bitter truth: 

    Whatever format MSFT uses IS the standard. 

    Hop on the train, or don't, but the opinion of some artificially created standards board doesn't really matter.





    I agree with you here.

    The reason this document was submitted to iso have nothing to do with quality or openness.
    It is a document describing some part of the new office document format.

    The document is so bug-ridden though, I am happy I was not part in producing it.
    Actually, I would be ashamed if I was, and it was forwarded to iso as a standard proposal.

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    How long does it need to be reviewed?



    It is apparently 6000 pages, so you tell me - does it need 6000 pages, or is this just a tactic to get people to say "I'm NOT reading that" Wink

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Rossj wrote:
    
    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    How long does it need to be reviewed?



    It is apparently 6000 pages, so you tell me - does it need 6000 pages, or is this just a tactic to get people to say "I'm NOT reading that"


    That's a dumb thing to think. It's being reviewed as we speak. People who use the document format in a technical capacity are compelled to read it (and are thankful that it exists) and people who just use office don't read it.

    For example, have you read the C# specification (Or the VB one if you swing that way)? No? There's a surprise, but I bet the MONO project's implementors have, and they'd find it much harder if the specification was non-existant, incomplete or shorter.

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    evildictaitor wrote:
    It's being reviewed as we speak. People who use the document format in a technical capacity are compelled to read it (and are thankful that it exists) and people who just use office don't read it.


    Then how the hell are people validating it if they are still only reviewing it now? How can they be fast-tracking something that still hasn't finished being reviewed?

    My point wasn't that it was useless, my point was that it is rather on the large size....

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.