User: jpmcc Date: 2009-05-23 23:00:55+0000 Modified: marketing/www/planet/atom.xml marketing/www/planet/index.html marketing/www/planet/opml.xml marketing/www/planet/rss10.xml marketing/www/planet/rss20.xml
Log: Planet run at Sun May 24 00:00:13 BST 2009 File Changes: Directory: /marketing/www/planet/ ================================= File [changed]: atom.xml Url: http://marketing.openoffice.org/source/browse/marketing/www/planet/atom.xml?r1=1.1906&r2=1.1907 Delta lines: +29 -43 --------------------- --- atom.xml 2009-05-23 17:00:29+0000 1.1906 +++ atom.xml 2009-05-23 23:00:50+0000 1.1907 @@ -5,9 +5,29 @@ <link rel="self" href="http://marketing.openoffice.org/planet/atom.xml"/> <link href="http://marketing.openoffice.org/planet/"/> <id>http://marketing.openoffice.org/planet/atom.xml</id> - <updated>2009-05-23T17:00:22+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-05-23T23:00:28+00:00</updated> <generator uri="http://www.planetplanet.org/";>Planet/2.0 +http://www.planetplanet.org</generator> + <entry> + <title type="html">Notes on informatic autonomy, architecture, Foss, 2009-05-23</title> + <link href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/2009/05/notes-on-informatic-autonomy.html"/> + <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564.post-594174081437080870</id> + <updated>2009-05-23T17:45:52+00:00</updated> + <content type="html">I have to confess I&#x2019;ve become an economics and political science junkie. Obviously, a lot of it has been prompted by the set of crises we are globally facing now: economic, social, political, ecological...and there is no sharp boundary among them: thus we defeat a long Western tradition of thought that distinguishes A from B from C and envisions the social as distinct from, say, the ecological, and so on. <br /><br />(To be sure, there have always been efforts to braid the threads, and many are represent quite well-known efforts, and arguably any ideological account always does this, as it strives to narrativize the seeming incidental as the consequence of a primary cause, however complex. But I refer less to early ideological efforts--not sure if there are any now, and I certainly don&#x2019;t hold by any--nor far more sophisticated Foucautian or New Historicist accounts as to the daily politico-economic speech of imagining boundaries around the social, political, ecological, economic, etc., as if what happens in one does not necessarily affect the other, and the processes of A work more or less in isolation from those of B and of C and so on. A straw man, yes, no one is so simplistic, I hope, but showing surprising life.)<br /><br />So, how does this relate to OpenOffice.org? (For I feel the compulsion to speak of OOo in a blog whose general title is &#x201c;OOo-speak.&#x201d;). I guess I could escape that and say that given the above, all would relate to it :-). But here&#x2019;s a more particular way.<br /><br />Foss is, I&#x2019;ve been arguing, <em>sustainable</em>, in that it (ideally) does not depend for its sustenance on the injection of cash or resources from afar but rather develops <em>local</em> business, academic, financial ecosystems. Obviously, not all Foss projects do this and in fact most probably do not. Nevertheless, that is the goal--what I and others have also called &#x201c;informatic autonomy&#x201d;--and it&#x2019;s a worthy one. It also differs from &#x201c;independence,&#x201d; in that I see no real virtue in being fully independent and in fact see that as a fetish and an illusion. No one and no thing is independent, we--individuals, groups, nations--all interdependent, like it or not. To imagine otherwise is dangerously foolish. <br /><br />Lacking informatic autonomy, and thus a sustainable program of development and distribution, means that the polity is determined by the interests of others. Sometimes this does not matter, a there might be happy agreement over the determinations. But say that a disagreement occurs or that a calamity of one sort or another changes the balance. <br /><br />But how to calculate the balance between international efforts and local ones? It&#x2019;s not a question of &#x201c;should&#x201d; but of &#x201c;how,&#x201d; for what we&#x2019;ve seen is that insularity (a form of independence) can&#x2019;t work now, at least not if the issue in question has national effect, as a lot of Foss does. Of course, the answer lies in the vary nature of Foss, which is famously structured as a distributed and geographically unspecified &#x201c;community.&#x201d; And in conceiving that structure, or rhizome, to be more accurately descriptive, a modularity is also imagined, so that a contributor working on one element or module can do so more or less independently, and it is only when finally compiled and the (chosen) modules integrated that the assemblage can assert its identity as a specific thing, a whole, fully articulated by the efforts of the locally autonomous groups who work under the banner of a license that grants them what I&#x2019;ve elsewhere called horizonless collaboration.<br /><br />But what happens when modularity is not present? How then is the local autonomy and for that matter, the articulation of effort to produce the whole? (And with that tease, I&#x2019;ll leave off this entry and go on a bike ride while it&#x2019;s still light and unrainy ouside. A glorious spring here in Toronto--we&#x2019;ve moved from the yellow season of early spring to the lilac, and even those are fading in favour of the iris.)<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width="1" height="1" src="http://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4649039904546083564-594174081437080870?l=ooo-speak.blogspot.com" /></div></content> + <author> + <name>oulipo</name> + <email>[email protected]</email> + <uri>http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/</uri> + </author> + <source> + <title type="html">ooo-speak</title> + <subtitle type="html">Mostly on OpenOffice.org, FOSS, and everything else.</subtitle> + <link rel="self" href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> + <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564</id> + <updated>2009-05-23T23:00:17+00:00</updated> + </source> + </entry> + <entry xml:lang="en"> <title type="html">SF Community Choice Awards</title> <link href="http://www.mealldubh.org/index.php/2009/05/23/sf-community-choice-awards/"/> @@ -43,7 +63,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">News and interesting stories about OpenOffice.org and other open source solutions.</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://ooomarketing.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4887643299605448632</id> - <updated>2009-05-23T17:00:20+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-05-23T23:00:26+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -111,7 +131,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">Mostly on OpenOffice.org, FOSS, and everything else.</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564</id> - <updated>2009-05-21T11:00:19+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-05-23T23:00:17+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -140,7 +160,7 @@ <title type="html">jpmcc's shared items in Google Reader</title> <link rel="self" href="http://www.google.co.uk/reader/public/atom/user/06203502505240591501/state/com.google/broadcast"/> <id>tag:google.com,2005:reader/user/06203502505240591501/state/com.google/broadcast</id> - <updated>2009-05-23T17:00:16+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-05-23T23:00:15+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -190,7 +210,7 @@ <title type="html">jpmcc's shared items in Google Reader</title> <link rel="self" href="http://www.google.co.uk/reader/public/atom/user/06203502505240591501/state/com.google/broadcast"/> <id>tag:google.com,2005:reader/user/06203502505240591501/state/com.google/broadcast</id> - <updated>2009-05-23T17:00:16+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-05-23T23:00:15+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -273,7 +293,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">News and interesting stories about OpenOffice.org and other open source solutions.</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://ooomarketing.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4887643299605448632</id> - <updated>2009-05-23T17:00:20+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-05-23T23:00:26+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -326,7 +346,7 @@ <title type="html">jpmcc's shared items in Google Reader</title> <link rel="self" href="http://www.google.co.uk/reader/public/atom/user/06203502505240591501/state/com.google/broadcast"/> <id>tag:google.com,2005:reader/user/06203502505240591501/state/com.google/broadcast</id> - <updated>2009-05-23T17:00:16+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-05-23T23:00:15+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -361,7 +381,7 @@ <title type="html">jpmcc's shared items in Google Reader</title> <link rel="self" href="http://www.google.co.uk/reader/public/atom/user/06203502505240591501/state/com.google/broadcast"/> <id>tag:google.com,2005:reader/user/06203502505240591501/state/com.google/broadcast</id> - <updated>2009-05-23T17:00:16+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-05-23T23:00:15+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -510,41 +530,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">News and interesting stories about OpenOffice.org and other open source solutions.</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://ooomarketing.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4887643299605448632</id> - <updated>2009-05-23T17:00:20+00:00</updated> - </source> - </entry> - - <entry xml:lang="en"> - <title type="html">ODF with no excuse</title> - <link href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/06/odf-with-no-excuse/"/> - <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/06/odf-with-no-excuse/</id> - <updated>2009-05-06T17:12:09+00:00</updated> - <content type="html"><p> Reports start to appear in the press about the ODF support quality enabled by the Service Pack 2 inside Microsoft Office 2007. I could say that I&#8217;m not surprised,<br /> -but I somewhat had also expected the contrary. Unfortunately it seems we have here a poor implementation of ODF. If further reports confirm it (and I have no serious doubt they will),<br /> -we will have the case of a monopolistic vendor messing up its own implementation of an open standard and have no viable excuse for doing so.</p> -<p>If we are to believe several reports who all link to <a href="http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html">Rob Weir&#8217;s own thorough review</a> ,<br /> -Microsoft has not only done a poor job implementing ODF, it has also ended up into a quite unique <em>endless loop phenomenon</em> . What this basically means is that in some instances<br /> -ODF documents created by Microsoft Office will only be readable and editable in&#8230; Microsoft Office. How was this possible? Apparently when you want to mess up something, you always find ways to do so.</p> -<p>It would be very tempting to assume that if such a loop, as I call it, was possible, then the real technical flaw has been lying inside the standard&#8217;s specification for quite some time. And you know what?<br /> -This is obviously the case&#8230; otherwise it would not have been possible, or else, MS does not produce conforming ODF documents. But the worst part may not even be there.</p> -<p>What we should perhaps realize today, is that one company charged of monopolistic abuse, after having imposed its own office document standard at the ISO (this one being itself under investigation),<br /> -is now trying to break the existing interoperability with the ODF standard. It would not be the first time Microsoft would have had this strategy. But it just reveals how little has changed inside this company.</p> -<p>The intended effect, or should I say the risk, is that given a market share gained and maintained mostly by monopolistic practices and network effects, Microsoft Officer will lock its users in its very own,<br /> -incompatible and uninteroperable version of ODF. This is called <em>format filibustering</em> and it is an art Redmond has mastered over the years. I do urge Microsoft to reconsider these biased and unproductive practices.<br /> -They will only end up harming its customers. As for ODF, things are going to become very interesting, I think. This time, there is a real chance the market will not let Microsoft fool it again.<br /> -And what the market will ask for will be pure, unbiased ODF that can interact with various ODF-capable systems. This time, there will be no excuse.</p> -<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=124&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_124" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> -</p></content> - <author> - <name>Charles Schulz</name> - <uri>http://standardsandfreedom.net</uri> - </author> - <source> - <title type="html">Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards » OOo Postings</title> - <subtitle type="html">A weblog by Charles-H. Schulz.</subtitle> - <link rel="self" href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed"/> - <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed</id> - <updated>2009-05-21T11:00:16+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-05-23T23:00:26+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> File [changed]: index.html Url: http://marketing.openoffice.org/source/browse/marketing/www/planet/index.html?r1=1.1913&r2=1.1914 Delta lines: +15 -31 --------------------- --- index.html 2009-05-23 17:00:30+0000 1.1913 +++ index.html 2009-05-23 23:00:51+0000 1.1914 @@ -36,10 +36,24 @@ <a href="rss20.xml"><img src="rss2.gif" alt="Link to RSS 2 feed" /></a> </div> -<p><em>Bloggings on marketing topics by project members - see <a href="#disclaimer">disclaimer</a>.<br />Last updated: May 23, 2009 05:00 PM GMT</em></p> +<p><em>Bloggings on marketing topics by project members - see <a href="#disclaimer">disclaimer</a>.<br />Last updated: May 23, 2009 11:00 PM GMT</em></p> <h2>May 23, 2009</h2> <h3> +<a href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/"; title="ooo-speak"> +Louis Suarez-Potts</a> : +<a href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/2009/05/notes-on-informatic-autonomy.html";> +Notes on informatic autonomy, architecture, Foss, 2009-05-23</a> +</h3> +<p> +I have to confess I’ve become an economics and political science junkie. Obviously, a lot of it has been prompted by the set of crises we are globally facing now: economic, social, political, ecological...and there is no sharp boundary among them: thus we defeat a long Western tradition of thought that distinguishes A from B from C and envisions the social as distinct from, say, the ecological, and so on. <br /><br />(To be sure, there have always been efforts to braid the threads, and many are represent quite well-known efforts, and arguably any ideological account always does this, as it strives to narrativize the seeming incidental as the consequence of a primary cause, however complex. But I refer less to early ideological efforts--not sure if there are any now, and I certainly don’t hold by any--nor far more sophisticated Foucautian or New Historicist accounts as to the daily politico-economic speech of imagining boundaries around the social, political, ecological, economic, etc., as if what happens in one does not necessarily affect the other, and the processes of A work more or less in isolation from those of B and of C and so on. A straw man, yes, no one is so simplistic, I hope, but showing surprising life.)<br /><br />So, how does this relate to OpenOffice.org? (For I feel the compulsion to speak of OOo in a blog whose general title is “OOo-speak.”). I guess I could escape that and say that given the above, all would relate to it :-). But here’s a more particular way.<br /><br />Foss is, I’ve been arguing, <em>sustainable</em>, in that it (ideally) does not depend for its sustenance on the injection of cash or resources from afar but rather develops <em>local</em> business, academic, financial ecosystems. Obviously, not all Foss projects do this and in fact most probably do not. Nevertheless, that is the goal--what I and others have also called “informatic autonomy”--and it’s a worthy one. It also differs from “independence,” in that I see no real virtue in being fully independent and in fact see that as a fetish and an illusion. No one and no thing is independent, we--individuals, groups, nations--all interdependent, like it or not. To imagine otherwise is dangerously foolish. <br /><br />Lacking informatic autonomy, and thus a sustainable program of development and distribution, means that the polity is determined by the interests of others. Sometimes this does not matter, a there might be happy agreement over the determinations. But say that a disagreement occurs or that a calamity of one sort or another changes the balance. <br /><br />But how to calculate the balance between international efforts and local ones? It’s not a question of “should” but of “how,” for what we’ve seen is that insularity (a form of independence) can’t work now, at least not if the issue in question has national effect, as a lot of Foss does. Of course, the answer lies in the vary nature of Foss, which is famously structured as a distributed and geographically unspecified “community.” And in conceiving that structure, or rhizome, to be more accurately descriptive, a modularity is also imagined, so that a contributor working on one element or module can do so more or less independently, and it is only when finally compiled and the (chosen) modules integrated that the assemblage can assert its identity as a specific thing, a whole, fully articulated by the efforts of the locally autonomous groups who work under the banner of a license that grants them what I’ve elsewhere called horizonless collaboration.<br /><br />But what happens when modularity is not present? How then is the local autonomy and for that matter, the articulation of effort to produce the whole? (And with that tease, I’ll leave off this entry and go on a bike ride while it’s still light and unrainy ouside. A glorious spring here in Toronto--we’ve moved from the yellow season of early spring to the lilac, and even those are fading in favour of the iris.)<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width="1" height="1" src="http://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4649039904546083564-594174081437080870?l=ooo-speak.blogspot.com"; /></div></p> +<p> +<em><a href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/2009/05/notes-on-informatic-autonomy.html";>by oulipo ([email protected]) at May 23, 2009 05:45 PM BST</a></em> +</p> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<h3> <a href="http://www.mealldubh.org"; title="Meall Dubh » OpenOffice.org"> John McCreesh</a> : <a href="http://www.mealldubh.org/index.php/2009/05/23/sf-community-choice-awards/";> @@ -460,36 +474,6 @@ <br /> <hr /> <br /> -<h2>May 06, 2009</h2> -<h3> -<a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net"; title="Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards » OOo Postings"> -Charles Schulz</a> : -<a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/06/odf-with-no-excuse/";> -ODF with no excuse</a> -</h3> -<p> -<p> Reports start to appear in the press about the ODF support quality enabled by the Service Pack 2 inside Microsoft Office 2007. I could say that I’m not surprised,<br /> -but I somewhat had also expected the contrary. Unfortunately it seems we have here a poor implementation of ODF. If further reports confirm it (and I have no serious doubt they will),<br /> -we will have the case of a monopolistic vendor messing up its own implementation of an open standard and have no viable excuse for doing so.</p> -<p>If we are to believe several reports who all link to <a href="http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html";>Rob Weir’s own thorough review</a> ,<br /> -Microsoft has not only done a poor job implementing ODF, it has also ended up into a quite unique <em>endless loop phenomenon</em> . What this basically means is that in some instances<br /> -ODF documents created by Microsoft Office will only be readable and editable in… Microsoft Office. How was this possible? Apparently when you want to mess up something, you always find ways to do so.</p> -<p>It would be very tempting to assume that if such a loop, as I call it, was possible, then the real technical flaw has been lying inside the standard’s specification for quite some time. And you know what?<br /> -This is obviously the case… otherwise it would not have been possible, or else, MS does not produce conforming ODF documents. But the worst part may not even be there.</p> -<p>What we should perhaps realize today, is that one company charged of monopolistic abuse, after having imposed its own office document standard at the ISO (this one being itself under investigation),<br /> -is now trying to break the existing interoperability with the ODF standard. It would not be the first time Microsoft would have had this strategy. But it just reveals how little has changed inside this company.</p> -<p>The intended effect, or should I say the risk, is that given a market share gained and maintained mostly by monopolistic practices and network effects, Microsoft Officer will lock its users in its very own,<br /> -incompatible and uninteroperable version of ODF. This is called <em>format filibustering</em> and it is an art Redmond has mastered over the years. I do urge Microsoft to reconsider these biased and unproductive practices.<br /> -They will only end up harming its customers. As for ODF, things are going to become very interesting, I think. This time, there is a real chance the market will not let Microsoft fool it again.<br /> -And what the market will ask for will be pure, unbiased ODF that can interact with various ODF-capable systems. This time, there will be no excuse.</p> -<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=124&akst_action=share-this"; title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_124" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> -</p></p> -<p> -<em><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/06/odf-with-no-excuse/";>by Charles at May 06, 2009 05:12 PM GMT</a></em> -</p> -<br /> -<hr /> -<br /> <a id="disclaimer" name="disclaimer"></a> <p><em>Disclaimer: all views expressed on this page are those of the individual contributors, and may not reflect the views of the File [changed]: opml.xml Url: http://marketing.openoffice.org/source/browse/marketing/www/planet/opml.xml?r1=1.1906&r2=1.1907 Delta lines: +1 -1 ------------------- --- opml.xml 2009-05-23 17:00:30+0000 1.1906 +++ opml.xml 2009-05-23 23:00:52+0000 1.1907 @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ <opml version="1.1"> <head> <title>Marketing Planet</title> - <dateModified>Sat, 23 May 2009 17:00:22 +0000</dateModified> + <dateModified>Sat, 23 May 2009 23:00:28 +0000</dateModified> <ownerName>Marketing Project</ownerName> <ownerEmail>[email protected]</ownerEmail> </head> File [changed]: rss10.xml Url: http://marketing.openoffice.org/source/browse/marketing/www/planet/rss10.xml?r1=1.746&r2=1.747 Delta lines: +8 -22 -------------------- --- rss10.xml 2009-05-23 11:00:35+0000 1.746 +++ rss10.xml 2009-05-23 23:00:52+0000 1.747 @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ <items> <rdf:Seq> + <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564.post-594174081437080870" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.mealldubh.org/?p=695"; /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4887643299605448632.post-7194914077082123947" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/20/links-for-the-20th-of-may-2009/"; /> @@ -32,11 +33,17 @@ <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/08/should-we-waterboard-rob-weir-and-other-crucial-questions/"; /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.solidoffice.com/?p=1141"; /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4887643299605448632.post-1717840200492303771" /> - <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/06/odf-with-no-excuse/"; /> </rdf:Seq> </items> </channel> +<item rdf:about="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564.post-594174081437080870"> + <title>Louis Suarez-Potts: Notes on informatic autonomy, architecture, Foss, 2009-05-23</title> + <link>http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/2009/05/notes-on-informatic-autonomy.html</link> + <content:encoded>I have to confess I&#x2019;ve become an economics and political science junkie. Obviously, a lot of it has been prompted by the set of crises we are globally facing now: economic, social, political, ecological...and there is no sharp boundary among them: thus we defeat a long Western tradition of thought that distinguishes A from B from C and envisions the social as distinct from, say, the ecological, and so on. <br /><br />(To be sure, there have always been efforts to braid the threads, and many are represent quite well-known efforts, and arguably any ideological account always does this, as it strives to narrativize the seeming incidental as the consequence of a primary cause, however complex. But I refer less to early ideological efforts--not sure if there are any now, and I certainly don&#x2019;t hold by any--nor far more sophisticated Foucautian or New Historicist accounts as to the daily politico-economic speech of imagining boundaries around the social, political, ecological, economic, etc., as if what happens in one does not necessarily affect the other, and the processes of A work more or less in isolation from those of B and of C and so on. A straw man, yes, no one is so simplistic, I hope, but showing surprising life.)<br /><br />So, how does this relate to OpenOffice.org? (For I feel the compulsion to speak of OOo in a blog whose general title is &#x201c;OOo-speak.&#x201d;). I guess I could escape that and say that given the above, all would relate to it :-). But here&#x2019;s a more particular way.<br /><br />Foss is, I&#x2019;ve been arguing, <em>sustainable</em>, in that it (ideally) does not depend for its sustenance on the injection of cash or resources from afar but rather develops <em>local</em> business, academic, financial ecosystems. Obviously, not all Foss projects do this and in fact most probably do not. Nevertheless, that is the goal--what I and others have also called &#x201c;informatic autonomy&#x201d;--and it&#x2019;s a worthy one. It also differs from &#x201c;independence,&#x201d; in that I see no real virtue in being fully independent and in fact see that as a fetish and an illusion. No one and no thing is independent, we--individuals, groups, nations--all interdependent, like it or not. To imagine otherwise is dangerously foolish. <br /><br />Lacking informatic autonomy, and thus a sustainable program of development and distribution, means that the polity is determined by the interests of others. Sometimes this does not matter, a there might be happy agreement over the determinations. But say that a disagreement occurs or that a calamity of one sort or another changes the balance. <br /><br />But how to calculate the balance between international efforts and local ones? It&#x2019;s not a question of &#x201c;should&#x201d; but of &#x201c;how,&#x201d; for what we&#x2019;ve seen is that insularity (a form of independence) can&#x2019;t work now, at least not if the issue in question has national effect, as a lot of Foss does. Of course, the answer lies in the vary nature of Foss, which is famously structured as a distributed and geographically unspecified &#x201c;community.&#x201d; And in conceiving that structure, or rhizome, to be more accurately descriptive, a modularity is also imagined, so that a contributor working on one element or module can do so more or less independently, and it is only when finally compiled and the (chosen) modules integrated that the assemblage can assert its identity as a specific thing, a whole, fully articulated by the efforts of the locally autonomous groups who work under the banner of a license that grants them what I&#x2019;ve elsewhere called horizonless collaboration.<br /><br />But what happens when modularity is not present? How then is the local autonomy and for that matter, the articulation of effort to produce the whole? (And with that tease, I&#x2019;ll leave off this entry and go on a bike ride while it&#x2019;s still light and unrainy ouside. A glorious spring here in Toronto--we&#x2019;ve moved from the yellow season of early spring to the lilac, and even those are fading in favour of the iris.)<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width="1" height="1" src="http://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4649039904546083564-594174081437080870?l=ooo-speak.blogspot.com" /></div></content:encoded> + <dc:date>2009-05-23T17:45:52+00:00</dc:date> + <dc:creator>oulipo</dc:creator> +</item> <item rdf:about="http://www.mealldubh.org/?p=695";> <title>John McCreesh: SF Community Choice Awards</title> <link>http://www.mealldubh.org/index.php/2009/05/23/sf-community-choice-awards/</link> @@ -304,26 +311,5 @@ <dc:date>2009-05-07T11:21:55+00:00</dc:date> <dc:creator>floeff</dc:creator> </item> -<item rdf:about="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/06/odf-with-no-excuse/";> - <title>Charles Schulz: ODF with no excuse</title> - <link>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/06/odf-with-no-excuse/</link> - <content:encoded><p> Reports start to appear in the press about the ODF support quality enabled by the Service Pack 2 inside Microsoft Office 2007. I could say that I&#8217;m not surprised,<br /> -but I somewhat had also expected the contrary. Unfortunately it seems we have here a poor implementation of ODF. If further reports confirm it (and I have no serious doubt they will),<br /> -we will have the case of a monopolistic vendor messing up its own implementation of an open standard and have no viable excuse for doing so.</p> -<p>If we are to believe several reports who all link to <a href="http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html">Rob Weir&#8217;s own thorough review</a> ,<br /> -Microsoft has not only done a poor job implementing ODF, it has also ended up into a quite unique <em>endless loop phenomenon</em> . What this basically means is that in some instances<br /> -ODF documents created by Microsoft Office will only be readable and editable in&#8230; Microsoft Office. How was this possible? Apparently when you want to mess up something, you always find ways to do so.</p> -<p>It would be very tempting to assume that if such a loop, as I call it, was possible, then the real technical flaw has been lying inside the standard&#8217;s specification for quite some time. And you know what?<br /> -This is obviously the case&#8230; otherwise it would not have been possible, or else, MS does not produce conforming ODF documents. But the worst part may not even be there.</p> -<p>What we should perhaps realize today, is that one company charged of monopolistic abuse, after having imposed its own office document standard at the ISO (this one being itself under investigation),<br /> -is now trying to break the existing interoperability with the ODF standard. It would not be the first time Microsoft would have had this strategy. But it just reveals how little has changed inside this company.</p> -<p>The intended effect, or should I say the risk, is that given a market share gained and maintained mostly by monopolistic practices and network effects, Microsoft Officer will lock its users in its very own,<br /> -incompatible and uninteroperable version of ODF. This is called <em>format filibustering</em> and it is an art Redmond has mastered over the years. I do urge Microsoft to reconsider these biased and unproductive practices.<br /> -They will only end up harming its customers. As for ODF, things are going to become very interesting, I think. This time, there is a real chance the market will not let Microsoft fool it again.<br /> -And what the market will ask for will be pure, unbiased ODF that can interact with various ODF-capable systems. This time, there will be no excuse.</p> -<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=124&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_124" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> -</p></content:encoded> - <dc:date>2009-05-06T17:12:09+00:00</dc:date> -</item> </rdf:RDF> File [changed]: rss20.xml Url: http://marketing.openoffice.org/source/browse/marketing/www/planet/rss20.xml?r1=1.746&r2=1.747 Delta lines: +8 -22 -------------------- --- rss20.xml 2009-05-23 11:00:35+0000 1.746 +++ rss20.xml 2009-05-23 23:00:52+0000 1.747 @@ -8,6 +8,14 @@ <description>Marketing Planet - http://marketing.openoffice.org/planet/</description> <item> + <title>Louis Suarez-Potts: Notes on informatic autonomy, architecture, Foss, 2009-05-23</title> + <guid>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564.post-594174081437080870</guid> + <link>http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/2009/05/notes-on-informatic-autonomy.html</link> + <description>I have to confess I&#x2019;ve become an economics and political science junkie. Obviously, a lot of it has been prompted by the set of crises we are globally facing now: economic, social, political, ecological...and there is no sharp boundary among them: thus we defeat a long Western tradition of thought that distinguishes A from B from C and envisions the social as distinct from, say, the ecological, and so on. <br /><br />(To be sure, there have always been efforts to braid the threads, and many are represent quite well-known efforts, and arguably any ideological account always does this, as it strives to narrativize the seeming incidental as the consequence of a primary cause, however complex. But I refer less to early ideological efforts--not sure if there are any now, and I certainly don&#x2019;t hold by any--nor far more sophisticated Foucautian or New Historicist accounts as to the daily politico-economic speech of imagining boundaries around the social, political, ecological, economic, etc., as if what happens in one does not necessarily affect the other, and the processes of A work more or less in isolation from those of B and of C and so on. A straw man, yes, no one is so simplistic, I hope, but showing surprising life.)<br /><br />So, how does this relate to OpenOffice.org? (For I feel the compulsion to speak of OOo in a blog whose general title is &#x201c;OOo-speak.&#x201d;). I guess I could escape that and say that given the above, all would relate to it :-). But here&#x2019;s a more particular way.<br /><br />Foss is, I&#x2019;ve been arguing, <em>sustainable</em>, in that it (ideally) does not depend for its sustenance on the injection of cash or resources from afar but rather develops <em>local</em> business, academic, financial ecosystems. Obviously, not all Foss projects do this and in fact most probably do not. Nevertheless, that is the goal--what I and others have also called &#x201c;informatic autonomy&#x201d;--and it&#x2019;s a worthy one. It also differs from &#x201c;independence,&#x201d; in that I see no real virtue in being fully independent and in fact see that as a fetish and an illusion. No one and no thing is independent, we--individuals, groups, nations--all interdependent, like it or not. To imagine otherwise is dangerously foolish. <br /><br />Lacking informatic autonomy, and thus a sustainable program of development and distribution, means that the polity is determined by the interests of others. Sometimes this does not matter, a there might be happy agreement over the determinations. But say that a disagreement occurs or that a calamity of one sort or another changes the balance. <br /><br />But how to calculate the balance between international efforts and local ones? It&#x2019;s not a question of &#x201c;should&#x201d; but of &#x201c;how,&#x201d; for what we&#x2019;ve seen is that insularity (a form of independence) can&#x2019;t work now, at least not if the issue in question has national effect, as a lot of Foss does. Of course, the answer lies in the vary nature of Foss, which is famously structured as a distributed and geographically unspecified &#x201c;community.&#x201d; And in conceiving that structure, or rhizome, to be more accurately descriptive, a modularity is also imagined, so that a contributor working on one element or module can do so more or less independently, and it is only when finally compiled and the (chosen) modules integrated that the assemblage can assert its identity as a specific thing, a whole, fully articulated by the efforts of the locally autonomous groups who work under the banner of a license that grants them what I&#x2019;ve elsewhere called horizonless collaboration.<br /><br />But what happens when modularity is not present? How then is the local autonomy and for that matter, the articulation of effort to produce the whole? (And with that tease, I&#x2019;ll leave off this entry and go on a bike ride while it&#x2019;s still light and unrainy ouside. A glorious spring here in Toronto--we&#x2019;ve moved from the yellow season of early spring to the lilac, and even those are fading in favour of the iris.)<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width="1" height="1" src="http://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4649039904546083564-594174081437080870?l=ooo-speak.blogspot.com" /></div></description> + <pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 17:45:52 +0000</pubDate> + <author>[email protected] (oulipo)</author> +</item> +<item> <title>John McCreesh: SF Community Choice Awards</title> <guid>http://www.mealldubh.org/?p=695</guid> <link>http://www.mealldubh.org/index.php/2009/05/23/sf-community-choice-awards/</link> @@ -289,28 +297,6 @@ <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 11:21:55 +0000</pubDate> <author>[email protected] (floeff)</author> </item> -<item> - <title>Charles Schulz: ODF with no excuse</title> - <guid>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/06/odf-with-no-excuse/</guid> - <link>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/06/odf-with-no-excuse/</link> - <description><p> Reports start to appear in the press about the ODF support quality enabled by the Service Pack 2 inside Microsoft Office 2007. I could say that I&#8217;m not surprised,<br /> -but I somewhat had also expected the contrary. Unfortunately it seems we have here a poor implementation of ODF. If further reports confirm it (and I have no serious doubt they will),<br /> -we will have the case of a monopolistic vendor messing up its own implementation of an open standard and have no viable excuse for doing so.</p> -<p>If we are to believe several reports who all link to <a href="http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html">Rob Weir&#8217;s own thorough review</a> ,<br /> -Microsoft has not only done a poor job implementing ODF, it has also ended up into a quite unique <em>endless loop phenomenon</em> . What this basically means is that in some instances<br /> -ODF documents created by Microsoft Office will only be readable and editable in&#8230; Microsoft Office. How was this possible? Apparently when you want to mess up something, you always find ways to do so.</p> -<p>It would be very tempting to assume that if such a loop, as I call it, was possible, then the real technical flaw has been lying inside the standard&#8217;s specification for quite some time. And you know what?<br /> -This is obviously the case&#8230; otherwise it would not have been possible, or else, MS does not produce conforming ODF documents. But the worst part may not even be there.</p> -<p>What we should perhaps realize today, is that one company charged of monopolistic abuse, after having imposed its own office document standard at the ISO (this one being itself under investigation),<br /> -is now trying to break the existing interoperability with the ODF standard. It would not be the first time Microsoft would have had this strategy. But it just reveals how little has changed inside this company.</p> -<p>The intended effect, or should I say the risk, is that given a market share gained and maintained mostly by monopolistic practices and network effects, Microsoft Officer will lock its users in its very own,<br /> -incompatible and uninteroperable version of ODF. This is called <em>format filibustering</em> and it is an art Redmond has mastered over the years. I do urge Microsoft to reconsider these biased and unproductive practices.<br /> -They will only end up harming its customers. As for ODF, things are going to become very interesting, I think. This time, there is a real chance the market will not let Microsoft fool it again.<br /> -And what the market will ask for will be pure, unbiased ODF that can interact with various ODF-capable systems. This time, there will be no excuse.</p> -<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=124&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_124" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> -</p></description> - <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 17:12:09 +0000</pubDate> -</item> </channel> </rss> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
