In article <9nltmqhkyrfl.1mvb05d346s82.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Microsoft, Tim, myself, or anyone else are not against ODF, when we say
> > things like "ODF does that too", we're saying you're being a hypocrite,
> > Roy. Not that ODF is bad because it does that.
>
> I'm not anti ODF.
> I think it's a good idea.
I only have two problems with it (or rather, what it will be when the
missing things, like spreadsheet formulas, come in with 1.2).
(1) The limitation of the scope to just what is needed to support
StarOffice and nothing more.
(2) Control has not been turned over to a standards body.
#1 guarantees that we *will* have another standard--the only question is
whether it will be de jure or de facto.
My beef is with hypocrites, as Erik noted, and with FUD. Most of the
anti-OOXML stuff falls into one or more of these categories:
1. Complaints about things where ODF has the same problem. If the
complaint was from someone who is also anti-ODF, that would be fine, but
the complainer invariably is also saying that we don't need OOXML
because we have ODF.
2. Complaints from people who have a financial interest in opposing
OOXML. One complainer Roy frequently cites, for example, makes his
living selling proprietary tools that manipulate Office documents, which
he has reverse engineered. If OOXML succeeds (or even if Microsoft were
to move to ODF), his business would be screwed. Gee, nice conflict of
interest there.
Another Roy frequently cites works for IBM (which has ODF-based software
that competes with Microsoft) and his job is to promote ODF. The term
Roy usually uses for such people is "shill".
3. Outright lies about OOXML.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
