Been a while

I haven't posted in a while. I was on vacation, so please forgive me. However, I'm back at work, but then, I'm expecting my baby boy in about three weeks, so there may be silence for a while again.

There has been many minor events in the world of free software, but nothing earth shattering. My only frustration is ISO and their handling of the OOXML appeals.

Also, some of you may have heard that Viacom is suing Google over YouTube. Viacom is the owner of MTV, Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks. The suit has been ongoing ever since Google purchased YouTube. Viacom's claim is that YouTube is a haven of illegal movie uploads. To prove their point, Viacom has asked the judge that Google hand over all their user accounts as well as a list of all the videos they watched. The idea is that Viacom wants to demonstrate that copyrighted videos are more popular than non-copyrighted videos.

I think that it's only fair that Viacom attempts to protect their copyright. However, I cannot accept Viacom's request for identifiable user information. This means that Viacom would not only be able to know which videos are more popular on YouTube, they know immediately know who are the copyright infringer.

On one hand, it's true that whoever illegally uploads and whoever watches a copyrighted video on YouTube may be breaking the law. On the other, it's setting up the Internet to become a corporate police state.

In my opinion, Viacom is simply playing dirty to win the lawsuit against Google — a rather short-sighted strategy to control their copyright-catalog. It's the type of corporate action that pits David against Goliath — David being Google, the good guy.

Though I don't foresee this backfiring too much in Viacom's face, I'm of the opinion that Viacom will loose more than it will gain from this lawsuit even should they win.

On a personal note, I've aquired a mayhem device, also known as a video camera. Of course, the first victims of my mayhem device was the pets. The following video is the result.



Of course, it has been posted on YouTube ;). You may notice I've used copyrighted music. I would like to claim Fair Use.

Hope you have a great day!

ODF is the Winner: Microsoft

I'm kinda worried when Microsoft themselves declare that ODF is the clear winner in the OOXML-ODF war.

However, I think I can agree with Microsoft. The whole ISO/OOXML saga gave ODF a huge boost both in terms of popularity and credibility. This means that more people and organizations are aware of ODF than ever before.

I've long learns not to take anything Microsoft says at face value, so I'm a bit concerned about the statement. Maybe the statement is genuine, but I can't help but think that Microsoft has something up their sleeve. Until they display they ace, I'll keep my eyes and ears open.

The MS-OOXML Standard

Venezuela appealed OOXML as well, following the lead of South Africa, Brazil and India. Norway has also filed a letter of protest.

Though the news is interesting, what I find even more interesting is that it seems that even discussion of OOXML usually leads to Microsoft and/or Office.

The reason why I find this interesting is that no other companies are ever mentioned as direct benefiters beyond Microsoft. If the standard is truly a standard, why is only one company's name attached to it.

It's true that Microsoft created the standard, but why is Corel or Apple — supposed backer of the standard — never mentioned? Why are so many headlines along the line of 'Microsoft looses OOXML war?'

I don't know about you, but that tells me that there is only one company that stood to win from OOXML, and that's Microsoft. Let's face the fact: Microsoft did not create OOXML out of the goodness of their heart, or with inter-compatibility in their mind. OOXML was simply another tool in their lock-in arsenal.

Though ODF, MS-OOXML's so-called competitor was created originally with OpenOffice in mind, it has grown and evolved thanks to their own standardization process. Companies like IBM, Novell, Sun Microsystem and Google all participate to the development of ODF.

In the case of OOXML, who gets to participates in its future development?

Here's a hint

This is one of the many reasons I cannot support any Microsoft-controlled technologies or standards. No matter how 'open' they claim to be, Microsoft develops in secrecy, and announces specific features as they are getting close to completion. This ensures that any competing project continuously have to play catch-up with Microsoft. The standards controlled by Microsoft are pegs in the sand, and it's Microsoft that chooses where to put those pegs.

Who wants to play a game against an opponent who is also the referee?

OOXML is a Bad Thing

Don't let Microsoft razzle-dazzle you. OOXML — the 'new' Microsoft Office format they are trying to push throught — is only good for Microsoft. Let me make that clear:

• It is not good for customers
• It is not good for business
• It is not good for developers

The only entity that is bound to win with OOXML is Microsoft. The reason is, there is already a office file format that is certified by ISO called ODF (Open Document Format). It is presently supported by OpenOffice.org, KOffice, and many other suites.
Why is ODF not supported in Microsoft Office? It's not because of technical limitation. Office supports file formats that are technically inferior to ODF like RTF and HTML.

Product and business competition is good for the customer. What would the world be like if you could not choose your car manufacturer (Ford, Honda, BMW, etc), your computer manifacturer (Dell, HP, Levono) or even your gas station? First of all, everybody would be riding the same car painted any colour as long as it's black. You could buy any computer that you want as long as it's a Dell. How little do you think Honda would charge for the Civic if it was the only compact available?

Microsoft has had an illegal monopoly in the world of operating system, office suite and web browser. In the past ten years, the changes that we have seen to their product has been minimal. However, as soon as the competition heated up, notice how much work Microsoft suddenly places in their product:

• Windows XP -> Windows Vista thanks to Mac OS X
• Microsoft Office 200X -> Microsoft Office 2007 thanks to OpenOffice.org
• Internet Explorer 6 -> Internet Explorer 7 thanks to Firefox

These innovations on either side were born out of free competition.

However, competing standards are bad, especially for customers.

Not good for Customers
Imagine a world where there are two CD formats. Two DVD format. Two gasoline types. How would the customer benefit from that? Well, the customer would have to make darn sure that they buy CDs that work with their CD players. Otherwise, they have spend money on a CD that cannot be used.
And what if that said customer purchased another CD player that is incompatible with the first. They can kiss their whole CD collection goodbye, since it won't play in the new player.
Sounds unlikely? It happened very recently where Sony & Microsoft (amongst many other companies) developed two standards: Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD. Some customers spend thousands of dollars equipping themselves with HD-DVD, only to watch their market collapse, and their investment dissappear. Yes, they can still watch the movies their purchased, but no new movies will be released in HD-DVD.
Do you want the same thing to happen with your documents? Microsoft have changed the Office file format numerous time, and newer versions of Microsoft Office are sometimes unable to open files created in older version.
Who benefits here? The customer, or Microsoft. Hint: Who gets the money at the end of the day?

Not good for business
It may be a good news for developers looking for a job because now there are TWO file format to support. But what about the cost of doing business? Some clients or supplier may want to work with ODF. Others with OOXML. That pretty much doubles the development cost and time.
Of course, a company could alienate customers and suppliers by requesting a single format, but again, I don't think this is a sound solution.
There exists converters for one file format to another, but none are perfect. None can be perfect. Here's a simple experiment for you: Convert an MP3 to a WMA back to an MP3. What happens to the sound quality? It degrades. The same thing happens when we are converting from one office file format to another.

Not good for developers
I hate writing the same code twice. I hate solving the same problem twice. This is exactly what we are heading for.
I was quite excited when XML can to be. Before XML, I had to write so many file parser because everybody and their dog created a custom file format that had to be manually parsed. Now, thanks to XML and the DOM API (Document Object Model Application Programming Interface) to work with XML. I haven't wrote a single line of code to manually parse an XML document. Yay!
As a developer, I don't want to go back to the 'information stone age' by having to support multiple, incompatible standards. Thank you Microsoft for making my just so much more challenging. If Microsoft truly cared for us, ODF would have been supported in Office 2007.

---

So why is Microsoft pushing their format thought? The answer is simple: Governments and organizations are starting to standardize on ODF because it's an open ISO standard. Microsoft refuses to support ODF because that will mean that users can now choose between Microsoft Office, OpenOffice, StarOffice, KOffice, Corel WordPerfect Office, etc. You get the point. Microsoft does not want to give you choice, they want to remove choice. God forbid you should spend your money elsewhere!

OOXML is meant to work with Microsoft Office and no other office suite on the market. It's a bloated, complex format that is laded with legacy. Working groups world wide have made 3,500 comments and raised a number of technical issues found in the 6,000+ pages of specifications provided by Microsoft. Think about it: 6,000+ pages. That's not for the weak of heart. On the other hand, ODF has 700+.

On March 29th, ISO will announce whether or not OOXML becomes a dual(ing) standard with ODF. This choice is made based on votes made by technical groups in various countries around the world. Microsoft has openly stuffed and bribed some committee to ensure that the vote goes through no matter what.

Thankfully, some countries like India and Cuba voted no. I'm hoping that many more countries (including Canada, my home and native land) will vote against the broken, half-complete standard that would exists to benefit a single organization: Microsoft.

Please visit NoOOXML.org and Gloklaw.net for more information.

Three Things Microsoft Should Do

In the last year or so, Microsoft has earned the ire of partners, governments and customers. Forgetting about the Vista blunders, I think that one of Microsoft biggest mistake is to try to induce FUD (Fear Uncertainty & Doubt) into the FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) movement.

In a way, I can't blame Microsoft for that. After all, Linux is on the rise, the cost of machines is on the drop and customers continue to look for ways to save money and free themselves from Microsoft's illegal monopoly.

What irks me is that Microsoft seems to think I'm stupid and I'm just going to swallow whatever FUD they send my way. I'd like to think that I'm far from being the only user who is annoyed at how Microsoft is treating us. We are not sheep that exists only to pay a tax to Microsoft (which I don't).

If Microsoft is serious about working with the open source community, here are three things I need to see before I consider working with Microsoft.

Support ODF in Microsoft Office
Sure, they can keep using their half-baked OOXML, but there is not a single valid technical reason why Microsoft Office does not support ODF. Microsoft does not want documents to be interchangeable from office suite to office suite. In other words, OOXML and it's attempt at ISO certification is there only so that Microsoft continues to entrench governments with Microsoft Office.

Use the GNU GPL 3
Most free software is released under the GNU GPL 2 or 3, which is incompatible with Microsoft's OSP (Open Specification Promise) and the Ms-PL (Microsoft Public License). This is not an accident. Microsoft does not want software written using their technology to spread to other platform. Again, it's vendor lock-in. If Microsoft truly wanted to work with the Open Source community, they should abandon the OSP and the Ms-PL for the GPL, or another OSI certified license.

Use and Contribute to Existing Standards
I know this is very similar to the above to challenges, but Microsoft has a fascination with re-writing code that already exists. For example, NUnit provides everything that a developer needs to do unit testing, but Microsoft re-created the same functionality in Visual Studio Team Edition. Using Windows Metafiles and DrawingML instead of the W3C SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) recommendation. Creating the WMA file format when MP3 or Ogg already exists. Let's not get into Java vs. .NET!

This fascination with re-creating the wheel means that the world is always split between true standards (ISO, W3C, etc), and Microsoft. More standards is not better for the customer. If that was the case, there would be different type of incompatible CDs, DVDs and even television that work only for a single cable providers. By having a single standard for CDs, it means that I can buy a CD from Sony (minus the rootkit), and play it in a Panasonic player without having to worry about incompatibilities.

Until I see more action from Microsoft on those three fronts, I will happily continue to develop application on my Linux machine, and I will not care if they work on Microsoft platforms or not.

Links:
OSP - Incompatibility with open source
Ms-LP
Free Software Foundation