Microsoft Releases Specs for Binary Formats 205
skolima writes "In response to requests for even easier access to the Binary Formats, Microsoft has agreed to remove any intermediate steps necessary to get the documentation. They're going to just post it, making it directly available as a download on the Microsoft web site. Microsoft will also make the Binary Formats subject to its Open Specification Promise by February 15, 2008. They're even planning to include an Open Source converter implementation."
Re:OSP: Might ba a trap for GPL license software (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't get warm and fuzzy feelings reading this and I think that's the idea...
Because never in all its history has a geek's interpretation of the GPL ignited a flamewar on Slashdot
Exchange (Score:5, Interesting)
footnotes like Word 95... (Score:4, Interesting)
As covered in this link [xmlguru.cz], it appears that most of these specifications have either been removed or documented. What this does mean is that perhaps it will be possible to truly understand what these formatting hooks refer to, not what MS have documented them as referring to...
(Thanks to zmotula [slashdot.org] for the link)
Re:OSP: Might ba a trap for GPL license software (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, first post on /. and it's actually defending Microsoft. As someone stated above, satan _must_ be freezing.
Enough of that and to my point:
I'm quite fond of the GPL and open source licenses in general. But actually, the open source licenses that microsoft has created (Ms-PL [opensource.org] and Ms-RL) are a lot less restrictive then the GPL and a great deal easier to read. If Microsoft will use theese licenses then there should be no problem with GPL-compatability as far as I can tell. [opensource.org]
The "disclaimer" in that FAQ is just saying that they wont promise anything, and it is probably the smartest thing to do so that they won't get sued.
Microsoft loses either way (Score:2, Interesting)
Pointy haired morons demanding the use of a $500 office suite cannot prevail forever. Commoditization is a very strong force but sometimes it takes a while to do its thing.
Re:I CALL FUCKING BULLSHIT!! (Score:5, Interesting)
As you said, there is no level playing field and businesses need to understand this. Microsoft has for 20 something years prevented many many other companies from providing solutions to businesses using these monster crushing tactics. Unfortunately most don't even know this. They just think that Microsoft got where it is because it had/has the best product(s). Regardless of how it got its size, its use of that size has destroyed many companies who attempted to get products into the desktop computer market place. Same goes for handhelds.
Oh, and if Goliath was in a race to the moon with someone else, they'd just make sure the others in the race couldn't get the parts for their rocket or materials to build the launch pad. Goliath would probably not make it to the moon either. Instead, he would build something which couldn't even escape out atmosphere but since he was the only one in the race, all observers think he is an amazing genius and vastly skilled.
So if the whining somehow opens someones eyes to how bad for everyone Goliath is, then the whining is being productive. People need to know the beast they are funding, the beast they are enabling, the beast they are almost glued to because of their choices in a partnership.
I do agree that there is way too much time wasted in discussions when it would be better spent supporting valid opposition. Talking with fresh college graduates exposed me to the naivety(?) of Microsofts business tactics and what it means to dictating how businesses leverage the IT toolbox. Since showing off better technology seldom gets accepted because of the "everyone else is using Windows" mentality, explaining why their success is limited by Microsoft's market control sometimes opens them up to what all these other tools are and the 'other' value they bring to the table.
LoB
Re:April Fool's Come Early (Score:2, Interesting)
That's so blatantly anti-competitive that I don't think even MS would be daft enough to try it - yes, they'd like to but they know that this time the EU would get medieval on their ass. Literally hundreds of companies (compared with a handful in the past) would be lodging EU competition complaints, and although MS could drag things out for a few years they'd end up with many more restrictions on their behaviour than they have now. Plus MS is hardly going to suddenly stop people writing applications using MS's own development tools unless they get each app signed. That would undermine the entire 'Windows ecosystem' that is so essential to their profit and market control.
I think they've got enough cunning to at least be a bit more subtle (e.g. exend the 'signed driver only' model by introducing new class of signed 'system' apps and preventing unsigned apps from using certain 'low-level' features. Eventually the only apps you could write/run unsigned would be of a limited sandboxed type.)