Darren New wrote:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/09/1-2-1.aspx
> 
> Heh. I hadn't even noticed it was from MSDN until I pasted the link.
> This is why source code makes for a bad standard. :-)  It's interesting
> to read some of the comments and see the arguments for interpreting MS
> as evil there. I'd rather have a standard for prose documents that says
> "flag indicates obsolete word-break required" than a standard for
> spreadsheets that doesn't say what a formula looks like. That seems just
> kind of weird.  The thing lots of people forget is that MS has money,
> and open source groups generally don't, so CYA happens a lot less with
> open source.
> 
Ignoring the technical arguments about whether M$ is doing the right
thing or not (for the record, I believe they're not), I particularly
like Jomar Silva's comment (fourth one received). In fact I like it so
much that I'm going to quote it for those who can't be bothered to read
for themselves:

"If you can't (or don't want) to do that, please stop talking about the
ODF TC this way, and don't involve TC members with Microsoft business
decisions (on this episode, yours 'throw mud on everyone' strategy is
going far from the acceptable limits).

This also raise additional suspicious about your real intention on the
ODF TC (at least to me)."

As an aside, does anyone know if Doug Mahugh is blogging as part of his
duties as an employee of M$ or is he writing from a heartfelt belief
that his employers are right?

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message