Why propaganda is more evil than Microsoft (was: Ecma responses to ISO)

[Ben Scott]

On 3/9/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <maddog at li.org> wrote:
>>   I normally detest propaganda, even propaganda whose nominal cause I
>> agree with.  I suffered a lapse of judgment in this situation.  As a
>> result, it appears I'm once again being taught the lesson as to why I
>> detest propaganda.
>
> What propaganda may I ask?

  For the sake of discussion, let's assume that "OOXML includes a
compatibility mode to support existing spreadsheets that assume a bug
that dates back to before Microsoft even had a spreadsheet product" is
an accurate description of the "Year 1900 bug" issue.

  That is how I take the interpretation advanced by the ECMA response
to the objection.  Also for the sake of discussion, let's assume my
take is accurate.

  Given those assumptions (which may, in fact, be wrong -- again, this
is a hypothetical discussion), it would appear the Groklaw analysis
omitted critical information regarding this issue: (1) That it was an
optional, and (2) It was not an implementation error in Excel, but a
deliberate action designed for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3.

  That makes me distrust the Groklaw analysis.  What if the whole
thing is like that?  Again, I'm not saying it is, but work with me
here for a minute.

  If the whole Groklaw analysis is similarly biased, then objections
based on said analysis and submitted to the ECMA would have seemed
like the ranting of a fringe element obsessed with condemning
Microsoft at all costs.  Such objections are easily countered by
Microsoft.

  This is a hypothetical scenario.  It may turn out to be nothing more
than speculation.  There is no need to argue the finer details.  That
isn't the point.

  The point is that I believe this scenario illustrates why propaganda
-- even propaganda that advances a cause one supports -- is dangerous.
 You run the risk of believing your own propaganda, and basing your
actions on it.  Actions based on propaganda rarely turn out well.

-- Ben