C'mon, Miguel... tell us this is not true!

Today I experienced two moments of bewilderment, the second one mixed with dismay. At first, when I googled for something unrelated, on one of the returns I saw a forum post where someone said "Icaza himself says that OOXML is superb". Well, first I was amazed, then I shrugged, and wrote it off as a troll, and continued with my other tasks. Two hours later I remembered again.

So I googled once more. This time simply for OOXML +superb. And sure enough, I found this (may also be found here).

The Google group where this quote (which is only 5 days old) is from, is setup by Miguel himself, specifically to provide a feedback forum for his blog. Here is the quote. The emphasize was added by me:

OOXML is a superb standard and yet, it has been FUDed so badly by its competitors that serious people believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. This is at a time when OOXML as a spec is in much better shape than any other spec on that space.

Besides, it is always better to have two implementations and then standardize than trying to standardize a single implementation.

Come on, Miguel! Please tell us this is not what you said. This must be a forgery. Google must have f+cked up with its archive. Microsoft hackers must have cracked the hosting server. Or your email account, and they posted under your name. Or you didn't mean it. You had a terrible headache that Wednesday night. You thought it's April Fool's Day, and it was a good joke. You just wanted to test if it gets noticed.

Whatever. Just tell us that it is not what you really think about OOXML.

Update: So it's true. It IS his opinion, and it is not misrepresented. -- I'm speechless. Returning to the base office after a long workday spent on a customers' site, not only do I find my blog entry having been submitted by someone to Slashdot and to Digg, but also Miguel has now personally confirmed above quote in a long Slasdot comment. If you want to read all of his arguments, be sure to search for 'miguel (7116)'   on   each   of   the   expanded   Slashdot   pages. I'm tired now, and I myself haven't yet read all of his reasonings (and probably never will). I'm also speechless... (oh, I said so already...).


'Fraid it's accurate. Remember that this is coming at a time where Miguel's work is being propped up by Microsoft to the detriment of most FLOSS coders; quite frankly, it doesn't surprise me. And it isn't the first time I've seen such comments from Miguel; it was only a few months ago that he was arguing that ODF is incomplete and not good enough to implement in a program, DESPITE the existence of at least 5 (that I know of) implementations, and OOXML having zero implementations.

By dark phoenix at Mon, 09/10/2007 - 19:49

We all must earn our pay. Sad but true.


By Jose Celestino at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 00:15

The guy's entire career revolves around free software. Argue with him on the technical merits if you want, but this kind of personal shot is sort of silly.

By dsilva at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 07:40

Well, I think this personal shot is spot on. Sorry, but Miguel is only talking this shit because he gets paid to do it. He honestly CAN NOT believe OOXML is a good standard, or he really got hit my a car or something... This calls for a cheap shot like "Gnome has always been more about money and politics than technological sane choices" - but even by their standard (which is, after all, still high compared to many commercial endeavors), Miguel is really doing the Wrong Thing. I've never been a big fan of him, but now any respect I had went down the drain.

By superstoned at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 11:49

What is it technical about vendor locking to start?
I don't understand the "personal shot" part. 2+2 = 5?


By Jose Celestino at Wed, 09/12/2007 - 21:30

I suppose the implication is that there is only one implementation of ODF but two of OOXML?

I dunno, the second sentence seems like a non-sequitur.

...Well and now I read the message it seems that the second paragraph isn't actually related to the first paragraph but refers to something else in thread. Maybe?

Anyways I suppose years of being of Mono developer has made him a Microsoft apologist. Really from what I hear C# is a legit standard, yet I hear folks who have what sounds like an ideological opposition to C# (which is pretty normal for languages anyways).

By eean at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 02:05

Okay, here goes:

C# is a legit ECMA standard, as far as I can see. I don't remember if it was accepted by ISO or not, but it's okay. As is the standard for the CLI written underneath it.

The problem with Mono and what Miguel is doing, is that Mono is NOT just the C#/CLI standard; it includes Microsoft's entire .NET API (which ISN'T part of the standard) and VB.NET, and other components like that. And now Silverlight (which is also Microsoft's tech). I don't believe it's C# people necessarily are opposed to (personally, I think C# > VB.NET, anyway), it's the idea of pushing .NET deep into Linux and giving Microsoft the FUD leverage they need to start with the patent BS again. I mean, people aren't complaining about DotGnu, which is also an implementation of C#...

By dark phoenix at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 02:28

C# and the CLR are an ECMA standard, but were never proposed as an ISO standard.

The problem with Mono and what Miguel is doing, is that Mono is NOT just the C#/CLI standard; it includes Microsoft's entire .NET API (which ISN'T part of the standard) and VB.NET

So just don't use those parts if you think there is a problem with them. C# is just another programming language, and the CLR is just another virtual machine. If you like the technology, then use it for Free Software, and if you don't then use something else. Nothing to get particularly worked up about.

I mean, people aren't complaining about DotGnu, which is also an implementation of C#...

As they aren't complaining, it might suggest there is something slightly irrational going on

By Richard Dale at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 07:12

By lufthanza at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 05:48

/. has picked up on this, and Miguel has replied.

By randomguy3 at Tue, 09/11/2007 - 11:27