Hasannudin Saidin

Bearing witness to POWER

The final votes for DIS29500 is now done. Apparently, results will only come out tomorrow. So, it's all over for now, bar the screaming and shouting. For many observers, it's absolutely clear that the voting process in various National Bodies have been less than ... logical. However, because there's not actually been anything illegal, in so far as anyone can tell, the hanky-panky have been described as "irregular".

There's been accusations of corruption, but none that anyone could really make stick. In Malaysia, there's been cajoling, lobbying, pleading, cabinet paper attempt-ing, lunches, dinners, following of officials like a puppy, arse licking, ego stroking, economic doom-spelling and other methods to convince the vote caster to approve the draft standard, OOXML, or failing that, to abstain. However, there haven't been any reports of outright vote-buying or any other forms of money exchange, nor do we expect any to come in the future.

So, on the surface, in Malaysia at least and in many other countries (except, allegedly, Sweden), the efforts of Microsoft to convince the NBs to approve OOXML as an ISO standard has been legal.

That it stinks to high heaven is beside the point.

What is the point is that we have collectively, globally, bore witness to an awesome display of power by a single corporation. Awesome. Ruthless, even. That Microsoft would fight in every nook and cranny, every possible avenue, every committee, sub-committee, sub-sub-committee, upwards, downwards and sideways to the committees, is simply astounding.

That Microsoft can and did encourage the final decision makers to ignore the wishes of their own standards bodies, majorities be damned, is further affirmation of this awesome display.

Some are saying that this is a Pyrrhic victory for Microsoft, that the battle is not yet over. They refer to Norway kicking back as the first return salvo. We await other nations (and personally, especially my own, Malaysia) to join Norway.

But let's make it clear here that protesting the approval of DIS 29500 OOXML is not a protest against Microsoft per se, but more against the besmirching of the process, the subversion and brushing aside the collective technical expertise of countless of interested/non-interested parties and experts, and sheer ignorance of any due respect to other people's opinions.

However, it was awesome. One company, Microsoft, against all comers, all over the world.

Simply, awfully, awesome.

The Pikom Meeting About Microsoft's OOXML ... No! (bangs the table) Ecma 376!

Right, okay, so there was a meeting at Pikom's office, where their councillors were seeking clarification on issues brought up by Malaysia during the BRM, regarding DIS29500. Yoon Kit's explained why he wasn't there (in a nutshell, since there was some initial confusion as to whether non-members of Pikom could attend or not, he elected to spend time with the in-laws[1]), and Doug's [2] given his take on it.

As is the nature of these things, I would like to start my account of the meeting by nitpicking on one tiny little point -- I am not on the anti-OOXML side and in so far as I can tell, neither is Jeremy Allison (a.k.a. Jazzer me mate), Dinesh or Shane. Speaking for myself, I have no real strong opinion on OOXML, other than that DIS29500 seems broken to me, not just because Malaysia had 23 comments, but because the world and their pets seems to have collectively made more than 3000 comments.

Doug noted that the guys on the opposite side of the table from Microsoft (and (BANGS hand on table!) Ecma!) did not discuss any of the 23 comments made by Malaysia for the BRM ... and he's right, we didn't. Again, speaking for myself, prior to the meeting, I was sceptical that the "pro-OOXML" gang would actually just concentrate on that. This was mainly because I didn't know who would be attending on their side. I certainly did not expect that Microsoft would bring Doug Mahugh, Oliver Bell, Dave Welsh and (BANGS hand on table!) Jan van de Veld, former Sec-Gen of Ecma International. I fully expected Microsoft to apply the Chewbacca Defense strategy, and therefore figured that I must concentrate on my own Wookie-based defense.

Jeremy Allison prior to the meeting had already told me that he felt that restricting the meeting solely to discussing the 23 comments made by Malaysia would not be productive, since DIS29500 did not affect Malaysia alone, but the entire world. I just nodded, because at the time I was still thinking if there was any other Wookie that actually had a name in the Star Wars universe.

Anyway, before that line of thought gets even sillier, I'll get to my point and leave it at that.

My main reason for attending the meeting at Pikom was I was hoping to be able to make the Pikom councillors understand that DIS29500 at its current state is not fit to be approved as an ISO standard. Sure, there are questions raised regarding the efficacy of the Fast Track process (i.e. maybe Ecma should have tried a Not-So-Fast Track if there was one), and Jeremy at the very least would have been happy to discuss technical issues. Yoon Kit and Ditesh could have attended, and proceeded to split hairs with the Microsoft (and Ecma (BANGS hand ... never mind)) guys.

But that would only emphasise the main problem with DIS29500: given the volume of comments submitted, given the fact that Malaysia's representative (along with a bunch of other countries' reps) to the BRM chose to disapprove a majority of the resolutions means that there is something wrong.

Mr. van de Veld had pointed out that it's better to have a good standard now rather than a perfect standard later and well, the point is that it's not good now. And while everyone can accept that it would be highly improbable for something like DIS29500 to ever be perfect, let's at least get a good start first.

He also noted that the BRM was not the beginning of DIS29500, and that it was in 2005 when it all started and there weren't that many keen people wanting to get involved then (except, of course, the British Library of Congress, Apple, Novell, and another entity or two). So, to moan about the process now is a bit late. Well, better late than never, is what I say! Or rather, what I should've said at the meeting and didn't, because ... well, I felt it would be impolite and I didn't want to seem rude to him[5].

Oliver Bell pointed out that ODF was passed without as intense a scrutiny as OOXML and that ODF has flaws too. I pointed out that ODF is not quite why the meeting was being held that night, and as far as I'm concerned, that's no longer relevant. He then pointed out that it would not be fair for us to have a lower bar for ODF and a higher bar for OOXML. I wish I had the erudition that night to point out that if the bar was lowered for OOXML, then ... well, two wrongs don't make a right. PDF was also mentioned as well, and I must admit that I began to wonder if we were going to descend into a "which standard is lousier" argument at that point in time. It didn't, thankfully, because I'm usually useless at the "Yo Momma so fat" genre of hissy fights.

So, to return to the point, given that DIS29500 does not even seem to be good at this point, if Pikom voted "Yes" to it, it would be irresponsible on their part. They should vote "No", and allow Microsoft (Ecma!) to consolidate, rationalise and resubmit the draft standard to ISO, via normal process. Microsoft's reps alluded that if OOXML is not passed this time around, there's no guarantee that it would be resubmitted to ISO, and I fail to see why that should mean that it needs to be passed now. The standard doesn't magically become better simply because it was given a pass.

On the subject of handling the issues in Maintenance, the point is why? Why do it in Maintenance, when you can do it in The Now?

And finally, because I really need to be doing something else right now, I would like to appeal to Microsoft and Ecma to just pull back, make the thing look like an actual OPEN standard, and resubmit. While I respect your intensity and dedication in trying to get DIS29500 approved, I still cannot avoid thinking that your sincerity is still suspect.

--

[1] That someone would rather spend time with the in-laws rather than go to a meeting says something. I don't know what, though.

[2] Having met him for the first time, I can categorically confirm that Doug Mahugh is a bald dude with a tache[3].

[3] This is because I was once asked to describe what Hasan was like, and all I could say is that he's the dude with a white spot on the back of his head[4].

[4] Please do not ask me any more to describe who anyone is like.

[5] Because Mr. van de Veld looked like a guy you didn't want to be rude to, okay.

Speculation on our abstention

Disclaimer: I have no real idea why Malaysia abstained in the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 voting. The following is just speculation.

In the run up to the 2nd September deadline, there were a lot of lobbying, cajoling, and pleading from both sides of the OOXML divide. For those who opposed the ratification of OOXML, reasons given were on technical grounds -- essentially saying that OOXML as a technical specification is defective. For those who wanted OOXML ratified (and really, there was only one -- Microsoft), reasons given were on economic grounds -- essentially saying that if OOXML is not voted in as an ISO standard, Malaysia would lose out economically.

To expand:

The "No" to OOXML faction

This very blog, among many others all over the world, would generally painstakingly put down the deficiencies of OOXML, with examples. Yoon Kit and Ditesh, especially, have contributed a lot. Within the context of Malaysia's NB, comments given to justify a "No" vote were also extensive. For what it's worth, there weren't any reasons given in the form of "We will save/lose x million dollars if OOXML is approved", because that would be rubbish. Regardless of whether we were to save money in disapproving OOXML, or spend more if OOXML was approved, it had no place (to the minds of the "No" crowd) in a discussion of whether a technical specification for a suite of file formats should be approved as an ISO standard. Further, apart from employees of IBM, no one else who objected to the ratification of OOXML were under the pay of IBM, nor were they under IBM's magic spell nor did any of them receive any favours, discounts, women, rent boys or any other sort of incentives from IBM.

The "No" crowd works with the technically minded bureaucrats and technocrats in the Standards Body.

The "Yes" to OOXML faction

Microsoft have generally forwarded the following arguments when countering any FOSS initiatives in Malaysia, and therefore I don't think they changed much when arguing about Open Standards, because in my encounters with personnel from Microsoft (Malaysia, and one dude in Riyadh once), they themselves have absolutely no clue about the difference between Open Source and Open Standards:

1. Microsoft have contributed a lot to the Malaysian economy and the Malaysian IT industry.
2. Microsoft have invested x million ringgits in Malaysia, with y million ringgits last year alone.
3. Microsoft have <big number> --> ∞ of ISVs in the country, all depending on Microsoft to help them along.
4. Microsoft have assisted governments and big business all over the world with their IT needs.
5. Microsoft have always put importance on interoperability.
6. Microsoft have always believed that "The Children Are Our Future".
7. Microsoft have always believed in competition.
8. Microsoft loves you very much.

And therefore, given the reasons above, and the fact that Chewbacca lives on Endor (which makes no sense), the country must therefore say "Yes" to OOXML as ISO/IEC 29500. Because saying "No" would result in:

1. Malaysia going back on its Technology Neutral stance.
2. Malaysia losing out in competitiveness against other nations.
3. Malaysia gets left behind by the other countries which would be using Microsoft Office happily.
4. Malaysia no longer gets to preserve its sovereignty.
5. Malaysia would lose Microsoft as a valuable contributor to the nation's economy and IT growth.
6. Malaysia would no longer be a Halal Hub.

The "Yes" crowd works on the politicians and top-ranking civil servants. The "Yes" crowd also "encourages" their partners to be part of the standards body, in order to get more "Yes" men.

––

Given the above two approaches, with such divergent tactics, I suspect that the only available response from the country was to "Abstain". This is so that no one wins and no one loses. Further, I suspect the above scenario was also played out in many other countries. Though not necessarily ending with the same result, obviously.

Man, is the world frakked or what?

OOXML is not (yet) an ISO standard, as Malaysia votes "No" ... or did we?

After what seemed like an insane period of frenetic lobbying, with accusations of vote-buying, back pedalling, last minute changes, ekcetera, voting for the ratification of OOXML as ISO/IEC 29500 ended on Sunday, 02 September 2007. Two days later, it seemed that OOXML failed to garner enough "Yes" votes and has not been approved. For now. There'll be a Ballot Resolution Meeting in February 2008, where apparently Microsoft Ecma will work towards resolving the comments raised by both the "No with comments" and "Yes with comments" votes. According to Brian Jones, there are only about 10,000 comments of which some are duplicated. So, roughly 6 months is enough to fix them, I suppose.

By the way, what would "No with comments" really mean, exactly? I take it to be, "We don't approve of this draft, and it should be fixed so that it might one day be agreeable to us." As for "Yes with comments", I take it to be, "We approve of this draft, but if you feel like it, can you make some changes? No, you won't? Okay then."

Anyhow, as a Malaysian, I'm rather interested in how Malaysia as a P country voted. This is because we didn't have any dramas in our Industry Standards Committee on Information Technology, Telecommunication and Multimedia, ISC-G (equivalent to the US' INCITS) such as having some dude voting twice (beady eyes on you, Sweden), or have the committee so divided that the body decided to abstain (a hello to our neighbours, Indonesia), or having 2/3rds of the committee voting "Yes with comments" despite the strong and valid objections made (down the Causeway -- yes, you Singapore), or running out of chairs for Sun and IBM (wahey, everyone say hi to Portugal).

Our committee, the ISC-G, voted "No with comments". Unequivocably. Score was ten-nil (10-0), if I'm not mistaken.  Or near enough, anyway. Whitewash. Walkover. Not because they didn't like Microsoft. Not because ISC-G members thought that Microsoft was the devil incarnate. It was because there were obvious problems with the draft proposal for ISO/IEC 29500. Reasons for the "No" was laced with comments. The contradictions raised during the enquiry stage of the draft wasn't even fixed, so it wasn't like the committee had to take too much time to make the comments, to be honest. Recycle the earlier contradictions, add a few more found later.

As such, looking at that, I am proud to see that we have done our duty as a responsible nation in voting ... "No with comments" ... at ... the ... JTC1 ... because ... aaaah .... Wha...?

According to this document, Malaysia have decided to "Abstain". When did that happen? Just as importantly, how did that happen? The Prime Minister of Malaysia endorsed it, is it? While he was launching some Halal Food thingy, was it?

To Microsoft Malaysia, I salute you, I really do. You managed to subvert due process in evaluating a technical specification for approval as an ISO standard into a circus. There were valid reasons for voting "No" at this point in time, and you know it. But you did it, anyway. The letters, the meetings, the phone calls ... the cabinet. It is appalling, how deliberation on a file format can turn out this way.

I am ashamed. It doesn't matter now that OOXML did not pass this round. I can no longer snicker at Sweden, shake my head at Indonesia or wiggle my finger at Singapore. Never mind buying some chairs for Portugal.

I am ashamed.

How low can you go?

In today's online edition of the Daily Telegraph (UK), there is a headline and leader in the sports section which says:

'Miracle' of Istanbul

Fernando Alonso beat Lewis Hamilton in the Turkish GP after Briton's puncture.

It was technically correct, though if you didn't know the actual results of the F1 race in Istanbul, you'd think that Alonso had won it. What actually happened was that Hamilton was running third, behind the Ferraris of Massa and Raikkonen when 15 laps from the end his right front tyre ripped. Alonso at the time was fourth, and overtook Hamilton as he was limping back to the pits. Anyhow, the point is that what gets chosen to be reported isn't usually what happened. In fact, in my personal experience, what gets reported is almost NEVER what actually happened.

Take the article in the New Sunday Times (Malaysia), dated 26 August 2007, with the headline as so:

Ministry still undecided on Open XML

Hehehe!

The article leads by the following two paragraphs:

KUALA LUMPUR: The Open XML document software has been recognised by the private sector and endorsed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Despite this, the Science, Technology and Innovation Ministry appears to be dragging its feet over an application to support the award of ISO 9001:2000 standard for the Open XML.

Hehehe!

I have to say that this beats the pride I felt over the inclusion of Malaysia as one of the five pilot nations for the Windows Genuine Advantage program. Our esteemed Prime Minister has endorsed a file format. Let me repeat that again for posterity: Our esteemed Prime Minister has endorsed a file format. And this was reported in a Sunday paper, on page 16. Was it a trade rag? Was it in the "IT" section? Noooo! It was the NST. In between reading about bus crashes and retrospectives as we head towards our 50th year of independence ... we get a criticism of MOSTI not supporting Microsoft's Office Open XML file format.

Hehehe!

But, did the Prime Minister actually endorse a file format? Did he actually spend the time to sit through 6039 pages of technical specifications and proclaim, "I have seen it, and it is good"? Or was it a remarkable leap of logic on the part of the reporter?

I accept that the first thing to be thrown out of the window in arguments like this little ODF/OOXML tiff is the truth. But dragging the PM into this is a bit too low, don't you think? I think I shall write to him, and ask for clarification.

In search of ... non-Microsoft OOXML supporters and applications

So I'm a lazy bum what can't be bothered to post anything for months on end. But sometimes, I is compelled, COMPELLED I tells you, to just write something.

The genesis of this post was a week ago when I was at a government agency (can't remember which one -- it's the one inside a big building in Putrajaya) where I was asked about ODF and OOXML. My first answer was that I'm not really an expert in the issue. My second answer was a glib and mischievous one, which went as so (more or less):

ODF is a vendor independent, ISO-certified standard for Office documents. It has all the open standards goodness (no royalties, not controlled by a single vendor, no patent encumbrances, published for free, etc.). It is supported by many applications. It is supported by many nations and states. The open source guys like it too. The Free Software guys don't like the term "open source", but they like ODF too.

OOXML is led by Microsoft.

The rest of the world couldn't give a spit's worth of a donkey's droppings.

After laughing to myself at my one (rather bad) joke, it dawned on me that my audience was at best non-plussed and at worst, totally confused. You see, the way they heard it, ODF and OOXML are neck and neck in terms of adoption, support and application diversity. It dawned on me that I couldn't name a single application apart from Microsoft Office which uses OOXML. Further, apart from the name of Novell (hiss!) and the British Library of Congress (I know, there is no such thing but for the sake of clarifusion, I decided to confabulate the two libraries), I couldn't name other bodies involved in the Ecma OOXML thingmy.

So I did some, admittedly cursory, searches. I needed to, because I must be able to name some of them supporters and applications. It would be unfair otherwise. From the searches, I find statements like:

1. ... (we made changes to the format in our final product based on input from companies such as Apple, Novell, and Toshiba as well as organization such as the U.S. Library of Congress and the British Library) ... in an interview.
2. ... which includes representatives from Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the United States Library of Congress. -- this at Ecma's site, one of its press releases.
3. ... which includes representatives from Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the United States Library of Congress. -- yep, it's the same as the previous one, except this one's on the front page of the OpenXMLcommunity site.
4. The committee included representatives from Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the United States Library of Congress. -- oh yeah, same as the previous two, but it was at some press release which was more or less pasted on Vulture Central's developer site.

Plus many, many more other press coverage and interviews with Microsoft personnel, mentioning the same representatives. It's not very helpful. And don't get me started on the applications that actually use OOXML other than Microsoft Office (right, ok -- and Novell and Corel ...).

So, I was wondering if anyone can help me out here and name a full list of representatives for Ecma 376 in TC45 of Ecma International which is based in Geneva who were deliberating on the Office Open XML standard which was submitted by Microsoft with the (alleged) encouragement of the EU, no less, and the "Organizations all over the world ..." with their billions of documents ... ekcetera.

One has to, after all, be even-handed and fair when asked about ODF and OOXML. After all, according to the people I have been talking to [1], Microsoft has been very even-handed and fair about OOXML and how ODF is an IBM conspiracy. Heck, Microsoft even made a press statement about their support for ODF as an American National Standard (w00t!!).

Finally, I would like us all to consider the following two words: competing and standards. Now, let's join them together: competing standards. Let us then change the word standards for applications. And then let us all wonder if Microsoft representatives know the difference.

[1] Which rather surprisingly, do not include "... representatives from Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the United States Library of Congress."

After the MTS 2007 -- ODF and OOXML

Return from Redmond: 10 fingers, 10 toes. I'm OK.

We is returned. On the final day of the MTS 2007, we met with Sam Ramji to further discuss the issues regarding the storm in a teacup known as ODF/OOXML. As an aside, Tan Loke Uei made a fantastic presentation on Mobile Devices. He was eloquent, the subject matter was presented in a totally fascinating manner and it was by far the most brilliant presentation throughout the entire three days. *gush* *gush*. We weren't there. We were at the time sitting down with Brian Jones and Gray Knowlton, Program Manager and Group Product Manager for Microsoft Office respectively.

During the meeting with Sam Ramji, we reiterated several things regarding the ODF/OOXML issue from the Malaysian open standards/source community perspective. It's a reiteration because we had already said the same things to the Microsoft Malaysia representative who accompanied us to Redmond. These are:

1. To say that the ODF/OOXML issue is simply a vendor fight between Microsoft and IBM is disingenuous and disrespectful of the efforts of the community in pushing for the use of open standards. We made the point that as far as we are concerned, IBM can be here today and gone tomorrow but we would still always push for open standards. IBM is not the boss of us, and we are not the boss of IBM. The way that ODF is embraced by just about everyone who have no vested interest in the matter shows how strongly we feel about having truly open standards. Microsoft and IBM can go bop each other on the head as much as they want, for all we care.
2. We continue to feel that Microsoft should have just extended the ODF format within the standardisation process in OASIS, instead of coming up with something else on their own. Now, Microsoft would say that the development of OOXML involved input from various entities, including the Library of Congress, the British Library, Barclay's and Novell but that still does not explain why Microsoft didn't just haul all these other chaps with them and joined the OASIS Technical Committee for ODF.

Sam raised the matter of how interoperability and standards are viewed, with the pragmatic approach being that if specifications are open (at the very least), interoperability can be achieved. Further, Sam noted that Microsoft had already made their Open Specification Promise, which is all nice and well. However, I couldn't help feeling that anything that Microsoft has done from an "openness" perspective are just reactionary, in response to external pressure.

We were asked the applications that used ODF by Sam, and we trotted out the ones that came into our heads, namely OpenOffice.org, KOffice, Abiword, Lotus and Gnumeric. From his perspective, the main application that uses ODF would be OpenOffice.org, which effectively represents the main competitor to Microsoft Office. While we just nodded, I wish that I had the presence of mind at that point to note that from a standards perspective, I would still view the issue from the flip side. Namely, it's not about the application per se, but about the use of the document format.

When the "community" press for the adoption of an open standard, we remain agnostic on the application that uses the standard. The standard allows for choice in application preference. This has always remained the overarching concern when ODF comes into any conversation.

Which brings me to the issue of choice, or rather limiting choice.

Day 2, Microsoft Technology Summit 2007

First off, let's face it, it's obvious that we won't be mentioning much else of what happened at the MTS2007 apart from the OSS bits. At least I won't anyway, because I'm just too jetlagged to process anything else. Secondly, I don't reckon we'll mention anything about taking a piss at Microsoft anymore after this, because you can only stretch a bodily function joke so far.

Onwards.

Sam Ramji, the Director of Platform Strategy and the lead for Microsoft's OSS Lab took to the stage in the morning to talk about what Microsoft is doing with regards to understanding and supporting OSS. It was ... interesting. Sam notes that there is a generational change within Microsoft today, since the new developers being hired are more likely to be exposed to OSS before being employed by Microsoft. This results in better acceptance overall within the company. He also mentions (during and after the talk) that this process of understanding and acceptance of OSS is an ongoing evolution and that Microsoft is today better disposed towards engaging with the community than before. He hopes and feels that the interaction between the two would only get better over time.

Sam talked about how his crew managed to pressure the product groups within the corporation to, among other things, optimise PHP for IIS 7.0 and to make Samba work properly with Vista. Echoing Bill Hilf's talk a day earlier, he noted that these things are done not so much to help the OSS community but for sound business reasons on the part of Microsoft. For example, he said that a large proportion of PHP applications were coded on Windows boxes which are then deployed on a LAMP platform. Therefore, from a revenue perspective, the Windows platform loses out. In the case of Samba, he guesstimated that there'd be some 50 million users accessing Linux-based NAS devices which wouldn't be able to do so anymore when they upgrade to Vista because there was some implementation changes in Vista which broke Samba connectivity. It's not an optimal reason from an OSS perspective, but I suppose it's reasonable enough from theirs.

We asked him about whether there were conflicts between his group and the various other product groups, and he said sure there were. But they're not the boss of him so he's going to do what he needs to do. For example, he invited some of the Mozilla team over which got on the IE team's tits, but he went ahead anyway.

Microsoft is schizo. But this is normal for any company with thousands of smart people employed. Which goes some way towards explaining why they'd have a team that's trying rather hard to both "interoperate" with OSS, as well as educate the rest of their shower about OSS yet at the same time have another bunch of people dissing OSS.

IBM spent $1,000,000,000 on Linux and yet do not have a native Notes port. Same difference. Superficially, at least.

Here are some random notes:

I think that in some cases Microsoft somehow views standards and interoperability as two rather distinct issues. Which is orthogonal to how most advocates of open standards would view it. From an open standards perspective, the standards begets interoperability and that's the end of that. For Microsoft, interoperability means making sure that their stuff works with other people's stuff, as long as a business case can be made. Occasionally, interoperability is an imperative, infusing them with the spirit of cooperation when they don't actually have a choice in the matter. They'd also be most comfortable using standards which they can control. But that's nothing odd. Other corporations look at it the same way too.

Bill Hilf, Sam and their team feels the pain whenever StevieB (which would be a good name for a member of a Boy Band) says something that riles up the OSS community, like threatening to sue countries for patent violation when using Linux, or that OSS is a cancer and un-American. Sam thinks that they've managed to get StevieB to show some love and understanding towards OSS -- where it also provides benefits for Microsoft.

I'm not sure that the disabled access doors at the Microsoft Conference Center behaves the way that it's supposed to behave. When you press the disabled access button, the outer door swings open but the inner door doesn't. I kept trying it throughout yesterday and today, enough to annoy Dinesh. Seems like itsatrap! Made a video of it, which you can find on YouTube here: The Handicapped Doors.

There are some other things which Dinesh and I discussed that I think should be said, but I'm just too jetlagged now to remember them. So we'll keep those for later.

Oh, and on the ODF/OOXML thing, it'll have to wait a bit. Sam said that we've misunderstood the issue. Or that we're misunderstood. I'm not sure. Same difference.

Forgive me if I am not convinced

Once upon a long time ago, I was the Consulting Project Director for the Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Initiative. While doing the project, I had to occasionally present some papers in "Awareness Programs" which were carried out throughout the country for members of the public sector. Some time in 2004, I was making a presentation on "Emerging Global Trends: Issues and Challenges", where I was to do a tour of countries which had enacted some sort of OSS policy or had made a pro open source stance.

So, I looked around in the web and the available documentation that we had to provide data for my presso. I found lots of other OSS initiatives all over the place. What I also found was a fair amount of resistance against the initiatives. This resistance was led by one large multinational corporation and a few "alliances" -- namely the BSA and the Initiative for Software Choice. There were no other single corporation that protested, campaigned, lobbied or made donations against the disparate initiatives.

There was only one: Microsoft.

All the others -- IBM, Sun, Oracle, SAP, CA, Symantec, Adobe, Autodesk, etc. -- either made supporting noises or kept quiet altogether.

I checked all over the world -- America, Australia, South Africa, India, Korea, Japan, Germany, Peru, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, and more -- and it was all the same.

I remember saying to the assembled audience at the start of my presentation that I was not planning to do a Microsoft bashing presentation, but it sure was going to sound like one. I couldn't find any other examples where the other chaps "doth protested". I even tried to do a positive spin on the whole presso but failed miserably.

After all, how do you explain that a convicted monopolist only have your best interests at heart?

Piracy of a different kind

Courtesy of Slashdot, I discovered that the popular guitar tab site, OLGA has shut down again. The reason given was that the publication of the tabs constitute a copyright infringement, and a DMCA violation. In other words, the people who create guitar tabs of songs are guilty of reverse engineering[1]! Never mind the fact that most of the tabs are awful to begin with.

I used to play the guitar rather badly[2], though the fact that I can play at all is no mean feat considering that I'm tone deaf. However, because I am tone deaf, tab sites are extremely useful to me. Now, it seems that using those tabs can be considered condoning copyright violation (in the US, at least) and is therefore a form of piracy.

Way weird! Heh heh henh heh, hmm heh hnnh heh ... [3]

What has it got to do with Malaysia? Nothing really. Or rather, not yet anyway. But it won't be a stretch to say that someday it will affect Malaysia, due to the "harmonization of intellectual property laws"[5].

So, where will it end? Can't do tabs, can't do lyrics. Maybe, eventually singing along (no matter how badly) will also constitute a violation?

Before long, all we can do is listen to songs, but we can't remember  the lyrics, can't try to work it out on our own instruments, can't change the format to ogg or mp3s. They should really start looking into making different kinds of musical instruments and patent those (e.g. 7-string guitars, say), so that songs can really become proprietary and would therefore "ensure that composers and songwriters will continue to have incentive to create new music for generations to come."

As an aside, I wonder what Lars Ulrich's opinion on tabs is.

[1] I may be wrong on the actual violation. It may not be reverse engineering but something else. Haven't read the DMCA since it's not directly relevant to me and Malaysians in general (yet). The DMCA thing was mentioned in a lawyer's cease and desist letter to another tab site, as shown here.

[2] I stopped playing lately because the missus said that the neighbours are considering a class action suit on me for undue duress and extreme aural and mental torture.

[3] I would like to categorically say the transcribed laugh/giggle above is not a copy of Beavis & Butthead's laugh. If it was, I may have violated the DMCA[4], for all I know. So it ain't anything like that.

[4] If I was an American citizen, which I ain't.

[5] There's lots of links for this. Googling gives this .