Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> HI Researcher Continues OpenDocument FUD
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Having just made a big deal of Microsoft vs OpenOffice.org, he then calls
> | on the "zealots" to focus on the merits of ODF. Even though I have written
> | in my responses how ODF is more mature and more "open" than Microsoft's own
> | XML, Titch never even touched the merits of Microsoft's XML or ODF
> | himself. He never addressed why Microsoft could not have contributed
> | to OpenDocument's development.
> `----
>
> http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/62901/index.html
interesting piece. it seems the fuddites are trying to redefine the
argument. they can't argue value added for msft's software, so they
counter that odf HAS TO BE associated with consulting fees.
THIS IS A STRAW MAN.
going odf doesn't mean outsourcing IT. they are two different issues
and it is intellectually dishonest to tie them together in this manner.
i have to agree with the article you posted.
this guy is either incredibly inept or he's getting some form of
renumeration worth more than his integrity. i'm not sure if that is a
lot of money (or value of some sort) or whether it didn't take much at
all.
|
|
