** Reply to message from "James G. Sack (jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:44:39 -0700
> Doug wrote: > > ** Reply to message from Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 > > 14:44:38 -0700 > >.. > > That is still being pretty darn open and hundreds of times more open > > than Microsoft. Microsoft, BTW, is still having problems publishing APIs > > for many of its products after failed anti-trust lawsuits in both the US > > and Europe. Over 5 years going and still having problems getting out > > that which will let others interoperate. Clue, because they are not open > > and don't intend to be. > > Actually, MS seems to be moving in some surprising directions on this. > They recently hosted an interop shindig of some kind and Samba folks who > attended their session of interest said (something like) MS was helpful > and forthcoming and committed to such an extent that the only current > obstacle to achieving Samba compatibility goals was Samba developer > resources. > > Presumeably this cooperation is required by the EU lawsuit rulings, but > evidently they are jumping in with more enthusiasm than tradition might > lead us to expect. > > Didn't I also read something recently about MS taking a more sensible > attitude toward Open Document Format? > > It would be nice if things really are changing, even if only a little. > Let's keep an open mind .. ummm, but verify. ;-) > After 20 something years of 'crush, kill, destroy - crush, kill, destroy' I will say that I'm just a wee bit leary of any lip service they put out. The crushing of the ISO process to get MS-OOXML accepted just last year and this year shows they have not changed one single bit. And a court requried assistant just doesn't mean diddly squate to me as far as their seeing the light. Sorry, I've seen too many technologies destroyed because it would have weakened their monopoly and as I said, lip service means nothing to me. -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
