Slashdot Log In
OpenDocument Foundation To Drop ODF
Posted by
kdawson
on Tuesday October 30, @04:46PM
from the microsoft-cheering-from-the-sidelines dept.
from the microsoft-cheering-from-the-sidelines dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
OpenDocument Foundation Closes 47 comments
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.'"
OpenDocument Foundation To Drop ODF
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 325 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
questions (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://thepeckfamily.us/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 11, @09:07AM)
Is there a difference between Compound Document Formats and the Compound Document Framework. Are the formats implementations of the framework and if so are they supporting a chosen format or the entire framework?
Do any existing office suites support this framework/format?
OpenDocument Foundation? (Score:5, Informative)
As I recall, in spite of the grand-sounding name, the people in that organization don't have anything to do with anything. They're busy recommending this and that, but they don't actually do anything.
Ahh, here we go, here's my source on this [robweir.com]:
Re:OpenDocument Foundation? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.oldos.org/)
OpenDocument is an already vetted ISO format. Why should we return to the back of the line now? We have our format, it's approved, and has support in many applications. No need to start bickering between ourselves when we're already fighting a lot of the corporate proprietary software makers.
Re:OpenDocument Foundation? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.oldos.org/)
Re:OpenDocument Foundation? (Score:5, Funny)
As the founding member of both the OpenDocument Federation, and the OpenDocument Alliance (both very recently founded), I can now officially state that we support a move back to unformatted text files. We are also in favor of increased funding to OpenDocument organizations, people paying attention to us, and we are in talks with Microsoft about our recent "Porsches for founding members" program.
If these initiatives are successful, we intend to combine our operations with the OpenDocument Union, the OpendDocument Pan-Atlantic Pact, the OpenDocument Coven, the OpenDocument Reading Group and the OpenDocument David Hasselhoff fanclub in hopes of getting many more people to pay attention to us.
Re:OpenDocument Foundation? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.tjerkstra.org/)
Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Now then, it's also true that this "Foundation" has no official role in ODF whatsoever. It was started by a couple of random people who do little more than blog, attend meetings, and feed quotes to the press. And right now, the "OpenDocument Foundation" is abandoning ODF for CDF. Let the "Closed Document Format" jokes begin.
So, really, why again should we care about their opinions? They're certainly entitled to them, but like so many Slashdot posts, do they actually matter? Or is this fuss unseemly given that the "support" the OpenDocument Foundation offers amounts to little more than words? It's not like they're actually coding anything, developing the standard, or any actual, useful work.
It's tantamount to trumpeting "Anonymous Coward drops support for Windows!" when I can't really imagine that my opinion of Microsoft's code is worthy of front page news. Though I'll certainly settle for a (+5, Insightful) or two
Re:questions (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, if this isn't some backroom Microsoft inspired posturing, I'd be VERY surprised. The very essence of "CDF" in the way Hiser frames his argument is compatibility with MS OOXML. Who gives a rat's ass about specific compatibility within the framework of a particular document directly with another type of document, thats not the point of the whole exercise the odf format is attempting. The ODF is OPEN for any application to implement 100%, that allows for clearer communication between applications, and as a result, real living people.
Cheers.
Re:questions (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://vistoenbp.net/)
Well, of course, since Esperanto is just as easily learned by people as ODF can be taught to computers...
Universally spreading Esperanto requires an effort from a lot of governments around the world to promote it and teach it; universally implementing ODF requires some programmers, some coffee, and a couple of months, to code a filter that can be then reused in future versions or other applications.
Don't confuse intent with possibility of realization.
Re:questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Next strawman?
Re:questions (Score:4, Insightful)
franca it has to have a base of native speakers who have economic, political, cultural, and/or military influence. It has nothing to do with some special characteristic of English speakers.
Furthermore, the idea that Esperanto is somehow universal in nature is just arrogant Indo-European-centric thinking itself. Tell a Hungarian, or an Eskimo (e.g. Yupik) speaker that Esperanto is 'easier' to learn and they'll laugh their asses off at you. Anyone who claims Esperanto is somehow 'neutral' or incorporates the best of all worlds has never had any meaningful exposure to a non-Indo-European language; that's 95% of the languages of the world, in case you're wondering. Just for reference: Farsi (Iranian), Russian, Spanish, English are all first-cousins linguistically speaking (I bet you think they're *really* different from each-other, right?) Esperanto is their gene-manipulated bastard child.
To any speaker of a truly foreign language like Yupik there is no practical difference between learning any of those languages -- oh, except if she learns English she gets access to the whole world of business, science and international politics, as well as the best chance of asking for directions when traveling; if she learns Esperanto she can talk to a bunch of kooks, assuming she can find one of them.
But I'm sure you and many other amateur Linguists on Slashdot are going to disregard this completely and stick to your preconceived notions about natural languages with completely inappropriate comparisons to designed languages which is eerily similar to ID proponents when talking to biologists. I'm not sure why I even bother to respond to these kinds of posts. *sigh*
Re:questions (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday October 26, @01:12AM)
Well, that's pure bullshit.
The primary value of ODF is that it reduces archival, retrieval, and distribution costs of our largest institutions. You know, the really big and long-lived ones, like nations, states, businesses that have celebrated their centennial year, and so on. We will start to see the benefits in about 10 years, in improved information services, and therefore lower taxes and cost of goods than would otherwise be the case.
The direct costs to implement this are lower than any alternative. There are only two other strategies, and one variant of the ODF strategy, so let's do an exhaustive listing:
The indirect costs of implementation are dependent on how effective Microsoft can be with its campaign of FUD, bribery, and astroturfing. They do not seem to be as good at this as they used to be— their notoriety now precedes them— but they are still a force to be reckoned with.
Hey, you damn astroturfers, get your crap out of our meadow!
Re:questions (Score:4, Informative)
(http://jargon-file.org/)
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Driving to achieve closeness or compatibility with Microsoft formats, except as something kept at arms length, is essentially suicide.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/)
On the other hand, completely ignoring Microsoft formats isn't essentially suicide, it is suicide. Microsoft exists, and dominates the office application market, pretending it doesn't exist and that you can 'do your own thing' without taking it into account is utterly stupid.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm inclined to think it's the latter, personally. It just takes a while.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Until MSFT completely changes the file format and GUI for MSFT OFFice ala MSFT 2007. Then all new training is required because those who need training memorize locations instead of actions. Indeed the loudest complaints about the new interface is from people who don't understand the differences. while I haven't used it yet and most likely won't(I'm sorry but $1000 for an OS and office suite? I don't think so), I do think it is a step in the right direction.
the problem is people are taught Word, and Excel. They aren't taught word processing or spreadsheets. Every time MSFT releases the OS the layout is slightly different. new training is required for those were taught to memorize the interface.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what the hell has been going on with Vista and Office 2007. Not that MS has ever been brilliant about these things, just the monopoly.
Microsoft is in the process of pulling off a in your face, quiet revolution.
A key element of both Vista and Office 2007 is the paradigm of moving the GUI away from sins of the past.
The first and biggest problem with old UI concepts was Menus. They were a fast solution to a big problem. Menus are by nature not a 'graphic' UI element, even though they are synonymous with GUIs today.
If you are using Menus, you are in effect having to memorize a list of commands, and their location. Memorizing lists of words is one of the things GUIs were supposed to remove, and failed.
(Look at the Help Search in Leopard, it is specifically designed to search for Menu Items in applications because even Apple understands Menus are still not the ideal GUI solution.)
Vista and Office 2007 (more noticeable on Office 2007) virtually removed all menus, with the exception of single list contextual menus, and they will be replaced at some point as well.
Microsoft is 'slowly' using their UI research to bring new GUI concepts that are long overdue to the Graphic environment.
What the non-Microsoft world seems to overlook is how far they will take this, and how MS could leapfrog both Apple and the current OSS world if people stop paying attention or discount what Microsoft is doing. This is how it is a 'quiet' revolution, as most people don't get the 'bigger picture' of what Microsoft is slowly moving towards.
If you take Office 2007, Vista, and especially the framework constructs of WPF/Silverlight, notice where they are heading, as the WPF aspects are designed specifically for implementing new UI concepts in new ways. Microsoft plans on bringing the results of their GUI research this to their customers now that they have the frameworks/platform to do it.
So the next time you read an article by a 'tech' person giving Office 2007 or Vista bad marks for something like 'removing' UI Menus, realize the 'tech' person doesn't get it and MS is pulling one over on them even.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, menus are a problem because they're not Gooey enough? Who the fuck decided that being Gooey was the be-all and end-all of UI design anyway?!
No shit, Sherlock! And if you're using "Ribbons," you are in effect having to memmorize a list of icons representing commands, and their location. Memorizing lists of pictures is one of the things GUIs were supposed to encourage, but is fucking stupid, because then you have to memorize the mapping between pictures and concepts (even harder than between words and concepts, by the way, because it's hard to describe a verb by a picture) anyway! How is that an improvement?!
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source can easily afford to take the long view in technical matters, because the bottleneck are the programmers and other volunteers. So if you want open source to thrive, make it interesting and simple for programmers to add a little bit here, a little bit there, and promote technical excellence, not compatibility to today's garbage.
Your concept of market suicide makes no sense for open source. If however some people still want to chase a moving commercial target for "compatibility", they can just put up some money and pay somebody instead of expecting it for free. They'd better do it fast, though, because in two years it will all be out of date again.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.nine-times.org/)
On the other hand, completely ignoring Microsoft formats isn't essentially suicide, it is suicide.
That's why OpenOffice (and many other applications) have the ability to read and write Microsoft Office files (.doc, .xls, .ppt). But trying to make those your standard document formats for your office suite would be completely retarded, since they're not open standards and you don't know the specs. And Microsoft can change the specs and not tell you.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Quick, somebody tell Linus and RMS that MS dominates the OS market as well and they really shouldn't try to roll their own.
That aside, I do understand where you're coming from. We do *lots* of document generation. I mean 100,000+ in a given week. We use XML/XSLT to target PDF, ODF, OOXML and what have you. OOXML is a *major* pain compared to ODF. While we did implement the necessary software to support OOXML due to market situation, I do hope that ODF displaces OOXML. If ODF attains more 'compatibility' with OOXML, what's the point? We have OOXML now. We don't need ODF to become OOXML. We need it to replace it. If ODF becomes the defacto standard by *becoming* OOXML, that'll be a sad day for us.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday September 24 2004, @01:13AM)
I tried to open it in OO on linux and got a blank screen.
So I boot to Windows and open it in Word
Seems that it is simply a Flash animation embedded in a Word document, which gives rise to two questions;
1) Why the hell would somebody embed a flash animation in a fricking word document?
2) Why in the name of all that is holy is Word even capable of rendering Flash?
It is no fricking wonder that the MS Windows+Office platform is such a successful malware attractant when all their apps are capable of doing completely inapproriate things with inappropiate data.
It beggars belief.
Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
That will have agencies and large corporations running away from ODF - and any successors - right into the welcoming arms of Microsoft.
I almost hoped that it was April, 1st - but when I checked, it was still October. Damn.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this posted on theonion?
is taco drunk in charge of a keyboard?
has darl got a new job?
How much has ballmer paid to give such a turnaround?
Oh, My - What will PJ say? (Score:2, Interesting)
someone wake me up please (Score:1)
Instability (Score:1, Flamebait)
(http://dotancohen.com/)
While this decision will only hurt them, I do not think that it will undermine the value of odf, nor will it have governments such as South Africa rethink their open source strategies.
Boards, Foundations and Working Groups, OH MY! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Boards, Foundations and Working Groups, OH MY! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://integramod.tripod.com/)
Re:Boards, Foundations and Working Groups, OH MY! (Score:5, Insightful)
Witness the career of Meng Weng Wong, who naively cooperated with Microsoft in accepting SenderID into his SPF standard and watched Microsoft's proprietary, patented XML lunacy effectively destroy further SPF deployment, while allowing Microsoft and SenderID to take credit for all the good SPF had already done.
It's like dealing with Wal-mart: you may be forced into doing so in the short term by the need for expansion, but in the long term, it's usually death for you company or your project.
Quote from TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.howtobeinvisible.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 04, @07:42AM)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://purl.org/hritcu/homepage)
Have you been bought, sir ? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.webgeekworld.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 27 2006, @07:47AM)
Smells like someone got big check from Microsoft (Score:2)
But...I really don't see any other reasoning here. Compatibility with OOXML?! Last year?! Wtf!
ODF went ISO in 2005. In last year it achieved some kind of visibility because of OOXML ISO fight. What is his arguments?
Thanks a lot, guys. B-( (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday November 02, @02:49PM)
I'm not just annoyed by getting tied to a proprietary format: I'm particularly worried about all the windows tools running, since IMHO our company is a prime target for Spear Phising. (And I know there's been some harvesting going on by ordinary malware because, just today, I got some spam coming in from outside forged to claim it's FROM an internal mailing list.)
I've been pushing for standardizing on an open format - specifically ODF - for some time now. (This has been hard, because the last time I edited a
Now the rug gets pulled out from under my credibility (yet again) by the open community itself.
I'm throwing in the towel on this. I'll just sit back and use the Microsoft tools and let IT handle the malware. Open documents can wait until somebody in upper management drives it when it becomes the latest management fad (which probably means when the winter olympics is held in hell). If the company's crown jewels get stolen by a spear-phisher I'm on record for an "I told you so!" and I have enough squirreled away to retire.
Re:Thanks a lot, guys. B-( (Score:5, Informative)
(http://integramod.tripod.com/)
I've been pushing for standardizing on an open format - specifically ODF - for some time now. (This has been hard, because the last time I edited a
Now the rug gets pulled out from under my credibility (yet again) by the open community itself.
This isn't the "open community", this is a group of shills paid by Microsoft who have cleverly selected a name for their "foundation" to make it appear as if they have some power over the ODF standard. Blame MS for pulling the rug.
Re:Thanks a lot, guys. B-( (Score:5, Insightful)
The denominators for it are not "common", they're nearly fractal in their complexity.
W3C is already owned by Microsoft at this time. (Score:2)
W3C strikes again (Score:1)
For me, that makes the decision easy (Score:1)
I can't believe they bailed on ODF that quickly. Just makes my decision a no-brainer concerning other document standards they push in the future.
Re:For me, that makes the decision easy (Score:4, Informative)
(http://integramod.tripod.com/)
Who's "they"? This OpenDocument Foundation has nothing to do with ODF the format. They're just some shills paid off by MS who picked a clever name for their "foundation" to convince people like you that they're in a position of authority over ODF, which they're not. They just run around trashing ODF, and get paid under the table by MS to do it.
They are *nobody* (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.elpauer.org/)
Some elaboration (Score:5, Insightful)
http://opendocumentfoundation.us/we.htm [opendocume...ndation.us]
Not much of a foundation.
The *real* ODF group is:
http://www.odfalliance.org/memberlist.php [odfalliance.org]
I think that the only honest thing the "The OpenDocument Foundation" can do is rename
itself "The Compound Documents Format Foundation", since to do otherwise would be as
deceitful as Microsoft choosing to name OOXML "Office Open XML". But honestly, I doubt
they will. Their comparison chart between CDF and ODF betrays a few lies:
http://opendocument.foundation.googlepages.com/GOSCON_Chart.pdf [googlepages.com]
In particular:
* CDF is not OOXML compatible, nor has any implementation shown this to be possible. ODF at least has a not-100% compatible conversion.
* ODF has a lot more big vendor support than CDF
* Neither are universal formats, but ODF is supported by more vendors and software projects at the moment.
Personally, I think that the reasons for "The OpenDocument Foundation" changing it's
support from ODF to CDF is self-interest. When ODF was first introduced, there was
money to be made for a small company to write MS Office/Corel Office/Mac Office plugins
and other conversion services. But then Sun and others started offering free converters
and conversion services. There's just too much competition too quickly
CDF, OTOH is not as well supported universally, so there's a lot more room for
a small company. And if the CDF growth rate is slow, the "The OpenDocument Foundation"
has the chance to become *the CDF conversion experts* and make a lot of money.
Also, since CDF (if you believe their claims) is more web oriented, it would be good
for transactional converters of many types that need to be used for each message.
With ODF, you convert your document once and don't have to worry about going back
(by purpose....ODF is best for documents that have to be read, as is 100 years
from now). The difference in profit between one-time business and licensed per
transaction business could huge, even if CDF has a smaller market.
Crawling in the womb (Score:1)
I can understand them wanting to give up ODF if only for solid technical reasons.
What gets me is that they feel compelled to create a standard that is compatible with OOXML. I understand why it might be a bonus, but to consider it mandatory is backtracking on the progress that FOSS has taken lately. I no longer see GNU/Linux as following in Microsoft's footsteps; In many respects it has surpassed what Redmond and others have to offer. We've shown that we can innovate.
While I don't completely agree with the mantra of "Linux MUST be usable by the average Joe," I do see this as our chance to make things happen. So why play follow-the-leader again?
Why would vendors take Linux seriously and start supporting it when they see it as a second-rate O/S that has to feed from leftovers?
On another note: Does this give any credence to Microsoft's claims that OOXML is superior to ODF?
Some will find this confusing until... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.shezphoto.com/)
Some will find this confusing until you see the Open Document Foundation's Slogan: Achieving Universal Interoperatability through Open Formats. I think it's dumb that they are trying to create a format that will magically work with all systems instead of pushing all of the systems to work with one format.
You must love Microsoft tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, it was not supported by Microsoft Office. It was shot down too, with developed plugins already available for organisations.
Third, it was "let's have two formats and let's live together peacefully". Yeah, right. Formats don't get accepted by ISO just because there are "very important to keeping in touch with old good ole Microsoft Office".
And finally, we get "interoperability with Microsoft formats" argument. What a croak.
Get this people - truely open document format will NEVER have anything to do with Microsoft Office wet dream to keep domination. NEVER.
Major Faux Pas (Score:1, Redundant)
Is it possible... (acronyms) (Score:1)
Reading his words... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.linicks.net/)
All he is saying here, in honest truth, is that MS monopoly is allowed to continue.
What ODF was about is OPEN format so that all can produce, create and save documents read by any other. The above statement now concedes that we go back to 'trying' to read a proprietary format designed to lock-in users in a monopoly.
It gets from bad to worse.
Opendocument Foundation isn't related to ODF (Score:5, Informative)
The Opendocument Foundation isn't officially related to the OpenDocument standard. They're just a bunch of guys who took the same name so that they could ride on the coattails of the ODF movement, and doing MS's bidding, derail the process... and look, they're trying hard.
Before taking this article too seriously, you might want to read this posting too:
Cracks in the Foundation [robweir.com]
is it complete? (Score:2)
Isn't the point to be "Open" - not compatible? (Score:2)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/)
Compatibility is a great bullet to have on your feature list, but I think that instead of trying to play catch-up and only be in second place, they should stick with ODF - or even if they do switch to some other format, that which-ever they go with they market by its own merits (being a truly open standard, for example) instead of trying to become a horrid beast created by a committe that wants to always chase MS (or somebody elses) tail...
Re:Isn't the point to be "Open" - not compatible? (Score:4, Insightful)
unacceptable (Score:4, Interesting)
People complain about "the unwillingness of its originators to release it into the Bazaar". Excuse me, it's an ISO and ECMA standard. There should be "nothing to release", this standard should be cast in stone for at least half a decade. If extensions are needed, there should be an extension mechanism (which, I believe, XML namespaces provide).
And what is supposed to replace it? A non-existent W3C standard? Heck, the W3C hasn't even been able to replace HTML with XHTML; the notion that they can replace ODF/OOXML with CDF any time soon is laughable.
Of course, something like CDF is going to happen eventually; but the proper way of introducing it would have been to emphasize ODF as the near term solution and use it as a bargaining chip to get Microsoft to settle on CDF in the long term. What is going to happen now is that Microsoft is just going to declare OOXML the winner and point at ODF/CDF as another example of how open source and open standards are unstable and can't be trusted.
The ODF is handing Microsoft's OOXML victory on a silver platter. How much did Microsoft buy you all off for?
Re:unacceptable (Score:4, Informative)
(http://snogglethorpe.googlepages.com/home)
Ok, I'm confused .. (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday July 05 2004, @09:58AM)
From the article
What this is really about (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://iabervon.org/~barkalow/ | Last Journal: Saturday May 31 2003, @02:01AM)
Furthermore, the OASIS committee responsible for developing ODF has broken down entirely, at least in Sam Hiser's view, over the issue of how this should be handled, with Sun ignoring the need entirely, while the OpenDocument Foundation, trying to go forward in ISO, insists on having something get done.
As far as I can tell, CDF is actually totally irrelevant to this whole thing, except that it's from the W3C, which is simply not the OASIS ODF TC, and hasn't broken down. CDF is essentially the concept "do the obvious XML thing for putting compound documents together". It doesn't specify the format of any component office documents, except for SVG for figures (it specifies a bunch of other formats for particular purposes, but nothing interesting or different). The main benefit of CDF seems to be that the group doesn't have the level of bad blood that there is over at OASIS, so there's a chance of producing some specification for the next version.
On the other hand, it's hard to corroborate any of this with any evidence outside of Sam Hiser.
What a disaster (Score:1)
(http://www.singularityfps.com/)
So whats their name now? (Score:1)
Documents, who needs em?
Paid for by Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole thing sounds like complete malarkey to me. Something is awry. If you can't buy the standard organizations I guess they can buy the ODF key players.
Appears that CDF incorporates ODF (and others) (Score:2, Informative)
Looking at CDF - "Compound Document Format" - appears that it is not so much a document format, but rather a "format aggregator".
I don't see CDF itself replacing ODF, rather, ODF would be one of many formats that could be contained in a CDF file. OOXML very likely could be another such format.
HEY SLASHDOT FIX THIS STORY'S WRITEUP (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.altiva.fr/)
Could this be any *more* misleading? Editors? WTF! (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday May 16, @05:49AM)
For crying out loud, this is a garbage summary that deliberately leaves out necessary context for no other apparent purpose than to mislead the reader into thinking it matters what this "foundation" thinks.
FROM TFA:
--
Toro
On the base of internet! (Score:2)
If w3c standards effect anything, I hope that that they effect a nice Scottish accent.
I'm trying to understand it, but I'm still so confused...
The base of Internet is, of course, 2.
Bored with this tech.. move on.. (Score:1, Redundant)
2) Hype the Tech to oblivion
3) Get bored and pronounce it dead
4)
5) PROFIT!!
List of the currently deceased off the top of my head..
Java, ODF, SecondLife, Linux, Web 2.0
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
(http://decafbad.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 05 2006, @04:17PM)
Dropping ODF (Score:1)
(http://gbollard.blogspot.com/)
A bit offtopic (Score:1)
Thing is , sadly, that I know the answer - tons and tons of little automation done in house using vba. You wouldnt believe how mnay critical production processes rely on these things
I can understand some FOSS advocates... (Score:1, Redundant)
(http://uspoliticsandelections.blogspot.com/)
These people need to go away.
World Wide Web Still The Best Word Processor (Score:2)
The way MS Word handles HTML is very Web 1.0: you make a DOC and then you save a copy as a really badly stamped-out dead HTML document. For Web 2.0, you make a live HTML document. It's as plain as the browser window I'm typing in.
Stuff like this (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Wednesday February 07 2007, @10:52AM)
Re:So is ODF (the format) dead, then? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So is ODF (the format) dead, then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Follow the Money (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.whitepost.org.uk/)
Stop right there. If that is the sole purpose for the organisation to exist, then it makes no sense at all for it to start promoting an alternate format.
The most logical reason for this change of heart I can think of - given that nobody seriously expects "compatability with Microsoft formats" to ever be anything more than a pipedream - is a big bag of cash.
Re:So is ODF (the format) dead, then? (Score:5, Funny)
Miguel de Icaza?
Re:This is Sun's Fault (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.shezphoto.com/)
Re:This is Sun's Fault (Score:5, Interesting)
Citations, please. If you're going to lob grenades like this, you owe it to your readers to offer proof of these accusations. I'm not saying you're wrong — I can see some factions within Sun taking this approach — but it'd be nice if you offered some proof.
Re:This is Sun's Fault (Score:2)
OpenOffice.org is licensed under the LGPL [openoffice.org]. They can not license it under the LGPL unless they allow all associated patents to be used in any LGPL code including LGPL'd code to support competing document formats.
Re:This is Sun's Fault (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.webmink.net/)
Sounds like a populist position, or maybe troll flamebait. I'll be generous and assume the former, despite the fact your post seems like a digest from an anti-ODF briefing paper. Disclosure: My job [sun.com] includes the task of receiving complaints about Sun and trying to get Sun to fix whatever causes the problem. If you have proof of any of your accusations, let me know. I may have some of my facts wrong below as I'm working from memory; I'd welcome correction.
That is indeed the constant assertion that the three guys who comprise the Foundation make. However, I have personally asked members of the ODF working group at OASIS and they tell me its not so.
Naturally every member of a standards group in the traditional standards process is looking out for the code base where they implement a standard, and will have serious questions of any feature that they regard as unimplementable. The features actually put to a vote by the guys from the Foundation would have resulted in very brittle implementations, highly dependent on the version of MS Office with which they were coupled. It may have been possible to come up with a solution that reduced this problem, but the discussion was not sustained. The assertion you make is not true in the general case.
Untrue. The ODF TC [oasis-open.org] can have no more than three members from any one organisation and is not under the control of any organisation. The Foundation guys actually flaunted that rule at one point and sent many, many more representatives - OASIS had to step in to fix it. That intervention is one of the issues they have with OASIS, in fact. Sun happens to employ the people who act as Chair and Secretary to the TC but the voting remains democratic.
I've heard that interpretation of the patent non-assert covenant [oasis-open.org] that Sun has made regarding ODF, but it's untrue. Sun covenants not to enforce any patents against ODF implementations based on any spec it participates in. To the extent that versions of the spec after Sun's departure are based on version in which Sun was involved, that covenant remains in effect even in the unlikely event of Sun leaving the TC. Sun can't stop the TC from continuing its work.
Are you relaying this all as hearsay, or do you actually have data to back up your accusations? If you have, I'd like to see it (genuinely).
Re:This is Sun's Fault (Score:2)
Beyond the addition of an optional "doc" flag, which would contain the Word file encoded using a highly advanced and extended version of double rot13, what else would Microsoft want?