[odf-discuss] Miguel on OXML

[Daniel Carrera]

On Thu, 2007-01-02 at 10:38 -0500, Lars D. Noodén wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Carlos Moffat wrote:
> > The attitude that bothers me about your criticism and others here is the
> > notion that there's no valid criticism of ODF, and if any is voiced,
> > them it must come from a MS shill. This is ludicrous.
> 
> That would be ludicrous, except that's not what I am saying and not part 
> of my criticism.  Nor has anyone else on the list made that kind of 
> criticism, so I'm not sure where you are pulling that conclusion from.

Well, several people seem to think that you *are* doing that. At least I
do. Miguel had a lot of valid criticism and just because you don't like
it doesn't make him an MS shill. You call him a troll, but your email
was a lot less balanced and a lot more troll-like than his. You keep
referring to some sort of Miguel history that should make us assume the
worst from him, but I am not aware of any such thing. I've followed his
work for years, and I even worked with him for a while. He is an open
source advocate, and I have no reason to believe that he is an MS shill.
You only make yourself look like a zealot with your type of response.
Just because people disagree with you doesn't make them shills.

Incidentally, some of Rob Weir's counter-criticism is wrong too. Are you
going to call him an IBM shill now? He actually works for IBM you know?

> Re-read my criticism and follow-up messages.  The omissions and 
> half-truths seem to be circulating as a bundle

So people are not allowed to state valid criticism that you've read
elsewhere? OXML criticism also comes in bundle. More than ODF criticism
it seems. Does that make our criticism less valid?

> and their apparent 'boosters'

You are using *your* perception as supporting evidence for *your*
opinion? I expected better from you.

> The larger 
> problem, IMHO, is that his message represents a campaign.

ie. You are calling him a shill. You don't have any evidence for that,
and I have evidence against that (a lot of pro-FOSS work he's done). But
you state it as if it were an undisputed fact.


> Yes, but my initial message is not about the factual mistake in that 
> particular instance of a 'booster' letter, but the appearance that

*appearance*... you use your perception as evidence that your perception
is correct. Fallacy.

> Yes, and as I have written, there is not problem with the parts that are 
> accurate, when separated from the misdirection, omissions and half-truths.

Rob Weir misrepresented Miguel's position on spreadsheets. Are you going
to criticize Rob the same way you criticize Miguel? Rob makes it look
like Miguel said that it is not possible to write an spreadsheet that
uses ODF as a file format. Truth is, Miguel said that you can't write a
spreadsheet *based* on the ODF spec, simply because the ODF spec does
not list spreadsheet formulas, and that is true. The formulas that OOo
uses are not part of the spec.

Is misdirection only wrong when it doesn't suit you?

> However, Miguel, for example, has presumably had enough contact with 
> projects like Gnumeric that it is hard to believe that he can accidentally 
> make so many errors in one document on data formats.

His errors are not as great as you (or Rob) make them out to be.

> > If you want to start calling people MS Shills,
> > be ready to be called a opensource 'zealot' or 'radical'. Real useful.
> 
> Happens already.  Anything other than high praise for MS, its products, 
> policies or employees is slammed as 'bashing' or any number of names.

Acting like a zealot will not make the mainstream listen to you. It is a
bad strategy. You should try to sound reasonable and not act like you
have a personal vendetta against Miguel. That might go well with people
who already share your views, but it won't work with a broader audience.

Daniel.
-- English is essentially Anglo-Saxon with all the cool bits taken out.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070201/c9273b0a/attachment-0001.pgp