[odf-discuss] Miguel on OXML

[Lars D. Noodén]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Carlos Moffat wrote:
> *you* called Miguel's article a 'troll' and him personally being part of
> a 'FUD team MS is running'.

Yes.  MS appears to be running a FUD campaign.  Trolls and shills are 
commonly used in such campaigns.

Yes.  It has every appearance, to me, that he has participated in it.  I 
realize you have to stand up for your friend there, but step back and look 
at what he wrote in the context of the others that wrote more or less the 
same bundle of errors and when.

> Sure. The arguments he's using are the same arguments of other people

Yes, and that was my original point.  It's a crowd that has been 
circulating disinformation, misdirection, errors, and half-truths for a 
couple years.  There are legitimate criticisms of ODF, but they're not 
being brought out.  Anyway, isn't the debate supposed to be why Ecma 376 
is good, or is it just the strategy to smear ODF and leave Ecma 376 
unexamined?

He went to a lot of effort to present dis- or mis-information. If the idea 
were to promote a rational debate, those arguments would be presented in 
conjunction with facts. Like Rob Weir's blog entry points out:

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to 
their own facts"

> who don't think OOXML should be rejected flat out, and that MS applying 
> getting ISO status for OOXML is a good think.
> Same as pro-ODF people 
> like me using the same arguments as laid out in the GrokDoc page or from 
> the different pro-ODF blogs. What a surprise.

Which supports my assertion that prominent individuals are conduits for 
MS, passing material unexamined.

> However, that doesn't make me a dishonest 'ODF shill', 'IBM shill', or
> part of any FUD campaign. I just arrived to different conclusions from
> Miguel's.

However, if you appeared to be uncritically posting information on behalf 
of an interest, especially if there appeared to be economic or other ties, 
then that would most definitely make you a shill.

ODF is backed by a wide range of industry and other interests.  Ecma 376 
is backed by those at MS and those boosting MS.  Miguel is in the latter 
category by his own statement on many occassions since many years back.

> You have no proof he is part of any MS FUD team. The only evidence I see
> here is that he find MS's arguments more convincing, that's all.

Wrong.  don't skip that he appears to be repeating MS misinformation, on 
cue.

One of his claims to fame was the experience he has had in the area of 
applications, data formats and interoperability.  At best, it's a case of 
really bad judgement.  If you're waiting for a check stub from chairman 
Gates and notarized statements from four witnesses of good standing, then 
you're in for a long wait.

He presumably has enough background that he could have provided legitimate 
criticism of ODF rather than re-wording a packaged subset of known errors, 
misdirection and half-truths.

Or, better yet, rather than taking the MS approach of smearing ODF, it 
would have been more useful to point out why Ecma 376 is good -- except it 
can't be done.

It's just quite annoying that a still prominent individual that once 
contributed to open projects seems to be participating in a quick 
smear campaign in larger campaign against open standards.

-Lars
Lars Noodén
 	Ensure access to your data in the future
 	http://opendocumentfellowship.org/about_us/contribute