Slashdot Log In
OpenDocument Foundation Closes
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Nov 11, 2007 02:41 PM
from the to-bed-without-your-supper dept.
from the to-bed-without-your-supper dept.
Munchkinguy writes "First, they dropped support for their namesake OpenDocument Format and declared a switch to the W3C's 'Compound Document Format.' Then, W3C's Chris Lilley clarified that CDF 'was not created to be, and isn't suitable for use as, an office format.' Now, the Foundation has mysteriously closed up shop, leaving the following message: 'The OpenDocument Foundation, Inc. is closed. We sincerely wish our friends and associates in the OpenDocument Community all the best and much success going forward. Good-bye and good luck.'"
Related Stories
[+]
OpenDocument Foundation To Drop ODF 325 comments
poet sends us to Computerworld for a story on the intention of the OpenDocument Foundation to drop support for Open Document Format, OASIS and ISO standards not withstanding, in favor of the Compound Documents Format being promoted by the W3C. The foundation's director of business affairs, Sam Hiser, dropped this bomb in a blog posting a couple of weeks ago. Hiser believes CDF has a better shot at compatibility with Microsoft's OOXML, and says that the foundation has been disappointed with the direction of ODF over the last year.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Microsoft shut them down (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Microsoft shut them down (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Another FUD bites the dust ... (Score:5, Funny)
[chorus]
dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
And another one gone, and another one gone,
another FUD bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna see it on youtube
another FUD bites the dust
How do you think OpenDoc Foundations gonna get along
When the M$ bux are gone?
You got all the FUD that they could give,
And kicked them out when you were done.
Are you happy? Are you satisfied?
How long can M$ stand the heat?
Out of Redmond, the chairs do fly,
To the sound of the FUD beat [chorus]
dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
And another one gone, and another one gone,
another FUD bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna see it on youtube
another FUD bites the dust
Parent
Re:Microsoft shut them down (Score:5, Interesting)
On the assumption that these people are not entirely stupid:
1. If they were really working to break MS Office dominance, they would have realised by now that what they have said was completely stupid, and may have brought harm to the "cause", as the damages were amplified by clueless "journalists" and "analysts" (e.g. http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=875 [zdnet.com])
2. If they were MS stooges, the credibility required to carried out their work successfully was pretty much destroyed.
Nothing more to do in either case, to continue hanging onto the empty name of OpenDocument Foundation would be farcical on the same scale as Enderle or DiDio.
Parent
Shut them down? -No, Send a large check? -Maybe.. (Score:3, Informative)
Recently they tried to bribe their way to the Nigerians to get ahead of Mandriva. Then we hear of Blamer throwing chairs around the office yelling "I'm going to fucking kill Google", I really wouldn't put it above them trying to bribe this committee into submission.
In other words, when everything else fails, look for the money trail.
In all honesty, no matter how much I would care about some open s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I read it in a book once.
Fishy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I highly doubt this is true in any case, let alone the borderline edge cases Slashdot keeps making unfounded accusations for.
As fishy as a fishy fisherman's fishy bits (Score:5, Funny)
Nope. Nothing fishy there. I'm sure the OpenDoc Foundation just accidentally ate a ring of teleportation or something.
Parent
Re:As fishy as a fishy fisherman's fishy bits (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
They released a formal statement.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Editing and reading/interpreting it. Those XML files (and the wretched directory structure they fall into) are non-trivial to read. Try opening a docx containing a picture inside of a table cell.
Look on the bright side (Score:5, Funny)
rather tag it "!thisodf" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Good riddance (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Say wha?? (Score:2)
It's ok to say "we messed up" and call a mulligan. Right guys?
Foundation has no official status (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Foundation has no official status (Score:5, Informative)
The open document fellowship [opendocume...owship.com] are the community supporters (i.e., the ODF volunteer organization), while the ODF Alliance [odfalliance.org] are the industry supporters. What did the Open Document Foundation do? Muddy the waters.
They're the Ross Perot [wikipedia.org] of open document foundations - making people think that if they listen to them, that they'll get the real skinny because of their seeming-official status. Good to see 'em go.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Foundation has no official status (Score:5, Funny)
Brian:Are you the Open Document Foundation?
Reg: Fuck off!
Brian: What?
Reg: Open Document Foundation. We're the Open Document Alliance*! Open Document Foundation. Cawk.
Francis: Wankers.
Brian: Can I... join your group?
Reg: No. Piss off.
Brian: I didn't want to code this stuff. It's only a job. I hate closed source formats as much as anybody.
ODA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
Reg: Schtum.
Judith: Are you sure?
Brian: Oh, dead sure. I hate closed source formats already.
Reg: Listen. If you really wanted to join the Open Document Alliance*, you'd have to really hate closed source formats.
Brian: I do!
Reg: Oh, yeah? How much?
Brian: A lot!
Reg: Right. You're in. Listen. The only thing we hate more than closed source formats are the fucking Open Document Foundation.
ODA: Yeah...
Judith: Splitters.
ODA: Splitters...
Francis: And the Popular Alliance for Open Documents.
ODA: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
Loretta: And the Open Document Alliance.
ODA: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
Reg: What?
Loretta: The Open Document Alliance*. Splitters.
Reg: We're the Open Document Alliance*!
Loretta: Oh. I thought we were the Open Document Group.
Reg: Open Document Alliance*!
Francis: Whatever happened to the Open Document Group, Reg?
Reg: He's over there.
ODA: Splitter!
* I Know its ODF Alliance but that doesn't work as well and this is, after all humour/satire.(Based on Movie "the Life of Brian")
Parent
In related news (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Plutocracy".
TWW
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Identify the problems.
Step 2: Come up with potential solutions.
Step 3: Don't give up when you realize that the potential solutions might be more radical than you expected.
The fact of the matter is that the economic system in the United States is very likely incompatible with democracy. I'm not yet convinced that some sort socialist model is the only thing that would work, but hybrid-socialist systems (as in Northern Europe) are the best solution that has been demonstrated in practice.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Resurrect it then (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose.
Anyone?
The worst that could happen is that M$ will pay you a bundle to close it down again.
At best you could shepherd a format that we sorely need promoted.
Choose opendocumentcommunity.org Quick! (Score:2, Funny)
And opendocumentcommunity (.org, .net, .com) domains are vacant. Quickly, choose one and spread FUD!! XD
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Excellent precedent (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an excellent precedent. Maybe the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution [wikipedia.org] will follow their lead.
Still Making News...? (Score:2, Insightful)
In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)
There was a time when a standard was made by.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, so this is a statement that we are getting back to that.
We don't need a foundation. all we need is popular usage....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, so that makes Windows, .DOC(X?), and MSIE the standards. We can all pack up and go home now.
The reason for standards committees is that de facto standards often suck for everyone except the people who invented them.
Please read previous articles. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Now (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Hello! (Score:2)
Yes, I think most people here at Slashdot understand that. And just about everyone else doesn't care. And that's the thing: While there is a good amount of frothing conspiracy theory going on, it really doesn't matter because no one really cared about the "Open Document Foundation" anyway. And that's probably one reason they shut down, they just where not effective FUD.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cute quote. Way to fire up the hordes. Your evidence is, exactly, what?
Oh, I see where your ideas could have come from. Going to share?
Re:Now (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the evidence made public during the anti-trust trial and conviction should be enough for anyone to have a healthy distrust of everything Redmond does, especially anything regarding openness or interoperability or anything else that threatens Microsoft's OS and office suite lock-in and thus their entire business model.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Honestly, (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of word processor documents, the program renders something (unfortunately also called a document) on some kind of device, typically a printer (with various paper formats) and the screen. The difference between HTML with CSS and javascript, and something like MS Word doc format are: built in interfaces to other systems (e.g. compound documents in the case of word), services the underlying rendering platform is expected to provide, plus miscellaneous implementation choices (e.g. VBA vs. javascript). The differences in services provided (e.g. compound document linking and updating in the case of Word) reflect in part the practical differences in the target application domains. And these practicalities do matter, although as HTML matures it is becoming a more practical alternative (in my opinion) for many kinds of documents.
In the case of spreadsheets, they are also a "document" when we are talking about the standard in question, although they are also arguably special purpose programs. The main thing they have in common with "documents" of the prior type is that they are also expected to have graphical renderings.
So really, what we are talking about here are practical ways of achieving various things users need in the course of their work. There are always more than one way to get things done, and accordingly, users could make do with HTML or PDF for many tasks, particularly if they are provided with an editor. With CSS and javascript, there's an even stronger case to be made that there isn't any critical need for a "presentation" document format.
While such solutions would clearly be adequate, they are not necessarily optimal for everyone. For example, HTML does not provide change tracking and commenting capabilities, although this can be a blessing when interchanging documents.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Word processor formats are the computer version of toilet paper. You dont use it for longterm retention of important information.
Obligatory South Park Reference (Score:2)