RE: [xml-dev] Recent allegations about me

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

It would be interesting to know what kinds of facts are in dispute for the
topic of OOXML.  As far as a Microsoft customer is concerned, OOXML can only
be a good thing.  

For the rest of the market, it seems that even expert editing is not good
enough; only adversarial slices that keep the issues in play without
resolving them into a fair analysis.  

The tabloid web press rejoices because their registers fill up with the
marketing placements that have to be purchased to offset the free press
given to the Microsoft competitors.   Profiting by this, the press has no
incentive to figure out what is and is not true.  

Analysts are similarly rewarded.  The customers are left to figure it out on
their own or to purchase ever more expensive consulting.  

Instead of trending toward an open information system that benefits the
public, government and industry, the web becomes the ties that bind them to
ever rising costs for IT infrastructures.

So be it.   A cool Vista emerges before us.

We see the arc of mob violence as the villagers go calling at the windmill
when the one-armed constable calls them to stab the beast in Redmond with
their pitchforks.   Because this has become a habit, it is no longer cool
but because it continues to erode market share, it requires a forward
looking strategy.

Perhaps it is time for Microsoft to acknowledge that every attempt they make
to open up their products will be forked over by the village idiots who do
not buy their products to the detriment of the village idiots who do.
Perhaps it is in the best interests of their customers to close the products
the same way that Apple does even as Apple advertises itself as the 'cool
computer'.  Apparently, closed systems are 'cool' because they are easier to
use.  Given the political problems and higher costs of interoperability, it
may be in the interest of Microsoft customers to dedicate the resources to
improving productivity and ease of use, the hallmarks of the cool closed
system. 

Sun and IBM can continue to bear the costs of their populist but uncool
ideals on the backs of their stockholders.  Other companies can decide if
they wish to continue paying their engineers to work on open source
products.   Municipalities, States and nations that wish to work with those
products can continue to pay consultants to cobble them together and cross
their fingers that their evolution continues and can keep pace technically
with the closed systems.  That's fine.  Civil servants are never cool
anyway.

There will be no legal or moral obligation for the closed systems to
interoperate past those legally obligated by signed contracts among paying
cool customers.  They pay for cool clothes and more
expensive-because-they-are-cool-when-closed earPods so this isn't a stretch.
The public of course will benefit from such arrangements as they have in the
past by buying the cool products and the knockoffs.

Since it seems unlikely that this or other groups can openly fairly and
rationally formulate a means to discipline editing of open resources such as
wikipedia, or determine formal means to categorize and ascertain the truth
of these articles, it will become necessary for other groups to take on the
task of labeling these resources much as product test groups do.  Such
criteria and test results will be published and those who wish to ensure
that their family, employees or customers use high quality useful
information can subscribe to these just as they now subscribe other kinds of
site filters.

I'm cool with all of that... one idiot to another.

len

From: Manos Batsis [mailto:manos_lists@geekologue.com] 

Tei wrote:
> But political editing, comercial editing, and other partisan editing
> is discouraged. Because NPOV works better with neutral people behind
> facts and discusions.

I may be missing the context here, but neutral parties are often 
incapable of realizing important parts of disputed issues. Ideally, 
community based information sources should equally allow supporters of 
different views to demonstrate those.

When that occurs in the same chunk of information (i.e. a wikipedia page 
or an article elsewhere) the reader(?), enjoys a round-up that allows 
the drawing of his or her own conclusions. Well, in theory.

It often the case that a dispute does not occur (only) due to 
misinformation or distortion of facts. Some times people simply 
appreciate different, conflicting facts or theories over a subject.

Sadly, the only meaningful definition of "neutral" in this case, is 
being responsible of including all views and claims in the information 
presented. This function, when practiced correctly, naturally results in 
bearing the complaints of every side involved.

All the above are generalizations of course, but also my view on the 
matter. I have no doubt on Rick's integrity or quality of work. I just 
do not really believe the setup serves any real purpose :-)