[odf-discuss] Miguel on OXML

[Carlos Moffat]

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 12:29 -0500, Lars D. Noodén wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Carlos Moffat wrote:
> > Geesh. You can say somebody is part of a "FUD Team", not provide any
> > proof, and then say proof is impossible to acquire.
> 
> No.  I have offered the grounds for my suspicion, accept it or not it, 
> ignore it or not:
> 
>   1) The content, structure, and timing of his post
>   2) in conjunction with the *general* knowledge one must have of
>      applications, dataformats, and interoperabiligy to participate in
>      projects like Gnumeric (he should have known better)
>   3) occasional past statements, on cue, in support of MS unpopular
>      decisions
> 

This is partly based on technical grounds, and mostly based on innuendo,
careful picking of Miguel's background and contributions, and your
obvious dislike of the guy. In summary, errors, half-truths and
misinfomation. We can do better than this.

> > He still contributes to Mono, ...
> 
> I have avoided mentioning mono because there are many strong opinions on 
> it.
> 
> Since you bring it up, I mention that it was a factored in as an element 
> weighted against him:
> 
> I see Mono as a high-risk, zero-yield time sink which *detracts* not only 
> from open source but also from computer-related activities in general. 
> To over-generalize for the sake of brevity: .NET is not defined nor will 
> be usable, and a reverse engineering of it will be even less.  If it ever 
> gets close to completion Bill can either move the goals posts by changin 
> the specs, or simply take him to the cleaners in court over "intellectual 
> property" issues. Now that Java is open sourced, which was inevitable, 
> there is no reason even for C#.
> 

[...]

> It's my opinion and it is pointless and irrelevant to debate my conclusion 
> about Mono. 

You're right.

>  I bring it up because you mention it and my *conclusion* is a 
> factor in my decision.
> 

I mentioned it because you said he is somebody 'that once contributed to
open source projects', which is only a 'half-truth', as you like to say,
as he continues to do it, unless you want to challenge that Mono and
other Novell-based FOSS is not, after all, FOSS.

> There is enough to deal with regarding Ecma 376.  My point is that not 
> that there are errors, half-truths, misinformatino and disinformation in a 
> single MS developers posting, but that they appear in similar ways on cue 
> from conduits, intermittent and otherwise, for the MS party line.

You're right, there's enough to deal with.

Carlos

> -Lars
> Lars Noodén
>  	Ensure access to your data in the future
>  	http://opendocumentfellowship.org/about_us/contribute
> 
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss