OSNews

Clearly sir, you have not got a clue.
The European Parliament is the deciding body for the European Union.

The European Union is the biggest single market in the world.

You make it sound like the lion with no teeth.

It is NOT the deciding body of the EU. The European head of states have much more influence. Power is quite distributed in the EU.

On the other hand, ignoring the EU Parliament is not smart either.

I guess that in this stage, MS is not in trouble yes. But, like the article in Ars mentioned, it IS a sign that Europe keeps an eye on MS. And with good reason.

Clearly sir, you have not got a clue. The original poster is correct. This is a tiny faction in a large, burocratic organization with limited power making some noise in hopes of getting some news coverage.

Look I'm a supporter of the EU and I really wish it was more effective than it is. But the simple truth is that when it comes down to it the teeth on the EU parliament are limited and largely symbolic. Without the backing of the national governments all it really can do is write angry letters. Look at the number of of times member nations have flaunted EU parliament decrees and see how pathetic the EU parliament has responed.

Criminals are not considered **competitors** once they are convicted. Thats why the law say that they are not permited to enter procurement procedure. This legal move is a way to enforce the rules with political support for the law or look for a Polical pardon to let Microsoft participate.

Your mixing one court case with a political proceding , Microsoft is in so many procedure for breaking the law that it's understanding that you can't keep up.

Hyperbole. Nobody has been "convicted" of criminal wrongdoing. This is a civil case. If you don't know the difference (and you've made this mistake before despite repeated attempts to clarify it to you), get some education. Sanctions have been applied, Microsoft was punished, the EC is monitoring its activities. So, really, what we're talking about here is going above and beyond the sanctions that the EC already asked for -- and, worse, creating a situation where there are even fewer competitors in the market. That may appeal to anti-MS continentals, but it's actually pretty stupid.

Hyperbole. Nobody has been "convicted" of criminal wrongdoing. This is a civil case. If you don't know the difference (and you've made this mistake before despite repeated attempts to clarify it to you), get some education. Sanctions have been applied, Microsoft was punished, the EC is monitoring its activities. So, really, what we're talking about here is going above and beyond the sanctions that the EC already asked for -- and, worse, creating a situation where there are even fewer competitors in the market. That may appeal to anti-MS continentals, but it's actually pretty stupid. "

You know, as well as I do, that these anti-Microsoft zealots love using "court of law" and "convicted" as if it were to add some sort of legitimacy to their mouth frothing hatred of Microsoft. I think the greater issue at play isn't this, but the reactions by some who define their whole life on the hatred of a corporation.

If these Microsoft haters spent as much time on fixing up their favourite product (aka Linux) as they do spitting and cursing over Microsoft, Linux would already be a viable option on the desktop. If they spent as much time on producing some decent desktop applications for their chosen operating system (Linux) as they do with spamming this board with their mouth frothing and venting - no one could care about the lack of Adobe Creative Suite (Photoshop/Indesign/GoLive! etc. etc).

As for 'choice restricted' - nothing EVER stopped someone from purchasing a Mac or a PC, then loading it with Linux (or some other alternative OS); until the day I see BIOS being setup to refuse to book alternative operating systems - I'll refuse to believe that Microsoft is some how 'teh evil' as zealots here claim.

YOU make the choice whether or not to use Microsoft products. I *CHOOSE* to run Office 2008 on my Mac, I CHOOSE to purchase a Mac, and before that I *CHOSE* to replace Windows with OpenSolaris - I made these choices myself, without needing the Linux illuminati lobby government and demand that Linux is to be wedged onto every device shipped so that people get a 'choice'. What about my choice of not having linux within a 100km radius of my machine?

Edited 2008-04-15 05:07 UTC

All that you have both have shown is to be pro-criminals and anti just and equal law enforcement.



Look , I have not killed anyone , learn the meaning of the word you use. Or come and make your proof and case that I am a zealot in a CANADIAN court , because obviously murder is important and I killed someone and I was not punished for that crime.



The only one who are frothing at the mouth are those who like you dispute just and legal process as cowards under anonimousity without offering any real proof or shred of the beginning of a factual argument to point to something wrong and that was not doing properly.



My hole life is not defined by you and your false painting and projection of your reverse hatred.



I am not spitting or cursing and I do spend a lot more time saling , fixing , servicing Microsoft product then I do GNU/Linux.



It already is.

That's why most of the major OEM have GNU/Linux division shipping desktop solutions.

" If they spent as much time on producing some decent desktop applications for their chosen operating system (Linux)"

The application are so good that they are working on all OS where the developper recompile the code on it for ...



Another word you don't know the signification for , Spamming is not being made once in a comment on a forum.



No one care about those software on GNU/Linux , seriously , it's the user's who let themself be tied to one single solutions that you name who have a problem with them not being available. They are not vital to anyone anywhere.



Ecept the contracts and EULA.



It's not a religion , it's the law , your belief and believing and defining of where that law as to be crossed to make you call something by a name of your choosing to demonize it is not respected or cared by anyone.



Again I haven't killed anyone ...



That's not what the courts say.



Actually it's not your Mac ... And you did not replace anything you used something else.



No , you did not.



Again usage of another word without knowing the significance.



The funny thing is Microsoft loobied to make Free Software illegal , the government came to agree whit the Free Software movement after having heard and been shown both argument and exemple extensively.



There is no **demand** , people are free to use it unlike wih other proprietary OS.



You need to go in space at 200km from the nearest satelites , Because GNU/Linux is the #1 OS in everything by usage. It's in pretty much everything by choice of the owners. Your not the owner of the 100KM radius around you either , you are not the owner of the Mac your just a long time user.

Your hatred of GNU/Linux and your insanity is making you endorse that criminals be allowed to break the laws everyone agreed to follow and call just and appropriate.

The problem with that is instead of investing Billions in making something compatible and the best solution around , they spend money on lawyers in order to break the laws , they pay lawyers to keep not making compatible products and they keep paying fines and auditing and being convicted as criminals because they break the laws.

That 500$-2000$/hour on all those lawyers would be better spent on paying developers to make softwares or fixes the bugs and create the missing or broken drivers in Microsoft softwares.

You are the one who is defined by is hatred.

Edited 2008-04-15 06:32 UTC

so your frothing with hate of all the OS based on the Linux kernel is different in some way from zealot frothing about win32/64 based OS?

I'm as likely too question someone so over the top about windows so realize that i'm simply pointing out your choice to behave in the very way you complaine about.

personally, i don't like reducing competition either. if this causes improved behavior from MS then the end user and technology may benefit. that is what is important but MS won't change until corporate law does and governments actually enforce it.

It's a bit late to comment on this.
But do you realise you were the first in this thread to actually mention the word "Linux"?
Very interesting, psychologically.

Microsoft did. That's the point of the question being asked before the government body of the EU. If they had been an honorable company and followed the law then they would have been found not guilty of breaking the law and not been sentenced/penalized/fined of anything.



No , *This* is a political question asked before a government body. Try to keep up.



I know the difference , Both are crimes , only the punishment and it's application/applyer differs.



I am not the one who is a mistake , making a mistake , it is a crime to break the law. If you are found to have broken the law you are a criminal , be it judged by the criminal court or the civil court.



I am not the one who always try to re-invent the world and cherry pick the law I choose to follow.



Some sanctions have been applied , in some cases , Microsoft was aquited and convicted in some case and is still pending in other cases.



No , that's what your talking about , alone. Your also trying to suggest anyone with any self respect and intelligence is going to take your insanity and fabulatory reinvention of reality on Microsoft at face value.



As already pointed out criminals are not competitors and it's a good thing to remove them from all process , market , business , they participate in.



You forget that in reality you must follow the law of the governement of the market where you are doing business or not be in that market. Some ignorant have this false notion that only one market exist and that what they do there apply in all markets , not only is that wrong it's punishable too.



Criminals being removed is only disturbing to criminal themselves or there associates and partners in crime , the rest of world actually applaud there removals.

You might want to adjust your racist geo-targeting , your talking to a Real American from CANADA. Your also projecting your hatred and bias in reverse , I don't hate Microsoft , but I will admit to hate criminals and there actions.

Edited 2008-04-15 05:23 UTC

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/TLDR

Great contributiuon there ( not serious here ) , I am wondering what's the new penalty for writting : "JUST SHUT THE f--k UP" that you have to use an external link to cover your track.

TI;DR (Too Incoherent; Did not Read)

Look, there's very little point in discussing these issues with you, when you continually insist on mischaracterizing the civil action taken by the EC against Microsoft as "criminal". It's not clear to me whether you are being deliberately dense -- or whether it's inherent. My guess is the latter.

Here's a clue: Courts don't file criminal charges against entire corporations; rather, they file criminal charges against individuals. Criminal defendants are booked, arraigned (where they file a plea), and a trial is subsequently held. If you've been paying attention, no individual from Microsoft was named as a criminal defendant. So, while it may appeal to you to throw around terms such as "criminal" when referring to the civil action filed by the EC, you don't know WTF you're talking about.

Do yourself a favor and reply to somebody else from now on. I've wasted enough time educating you.

Tomcat stop fabulating , your not teaching me or anyone else anything. Your wrong and you can't face reality.

Your racism and ignorance are part of the problem here. But they don't excuse or make your nonsense right.

Microsoft is a convicted criminal organisation they where convicted as such long before those additionnal proceedings. You don't accept that , then don't participate in a Microsoft discussion as your denying reality.

You break the laws you are a criminal. You can't do the time or pay the fine don't do the crime.

As if you would know reality even if it jumped up and slaped your face.



Now ignorance thats something you would know about...



Wrong. Microsoft isnt a organisation... and they havent been found guilty in anything criminal. They have been found guilty violating corporate law not criminal law.


[/q]

Now your just being silly... Criminal law arent the same as civil law or corporate law.

Now your just being silly... Criminal law arent the same as civil law or corporate law.

Would mod you up if I could, but well, these two sentences pretty much say it all: you are a criminal if you have broken any criminal laws, if you have not broken any criminal laws then you just aren't a "convicted criminal". Microsoft has broken some civil and corporate laws, atleast according to EU (I don't take a stance here), and they can be judged by those laws but that still doesn't make them criminals.

Yes , I do , unlike you that's why I use my real name and thing I said in the past actually happened , we already established that.



Yes , I admited to being ignorant in some subject , your insanity concluded I was ignorant at everything , but that's a problem you have , but not about the subject I discuss here , there are an infinite number of subject I have little knowledge about. This is not one of those case.



They are recognised as such ... That's why the US DOJ wanted to break them into smaller organizations.



We already established that they did. Witch is why the question about there accessibility to procurement proceeding is put into a question before a governemental body.

[/q] They have been found guilty violating corporate law not criminal law. [/q]

Both.



hamster , your the one who is always silly , we already established that.

You break the laws and get convicted for it you are a criminal. Be they judged by the Criminal court or the civil court.

Your not a criminal when you are aquited of any wrong doing and are exonerated from all charges.

BTW how many fake name do you have and plan on using this time ?

First time trying to get him/her to understand stuff? Don't you just love when people who think they are all that show that they really arent anything..?

Amen, brutha. ;-)

If Microsoft were truly interested in "choice" for their users, and in "competition" in the market place ... then why don't Microsoft provide openDocument format as an option for default load/save in Microsoft Office?

That way, Microsoft would actually offer their users a choice in how they stored their own data, and Microsoft would in fact be competing with other Office Suites in a free market.

Since Microsoft refuse to compete on a level playing field, and continue to insist with their attempts at lock-in to Microsoft products, then barring Microsoft from bidding for open tenders (since Microsoft don't want competition anyway) seems to be the entirely appropriate thing to do where a government of a free market economy actually wants to make that economy work properly.

One can play a CD on a CD drive made by any manufacturer. This fact reflects a basic principle of competition of a free market. There are a number of different manufacturers offering CDs and CD players to play them on for sale, all competing on price & features around the same common open standard.

Similarly, one should be able to read and manipulate an electronicly-stored Office document using Office software made by any manufacturer. There is utterly no reason why the same free market principles should not apply here as they do clearly already apply to the case with the CD player.

Since Microsoft are clearly refusing to operate in a free market, then they should be excluded from operating in the market at all. It is entirely appropriate.

Lock-in to Microsoft products benefits only Microsoft.

There are all of these industry players lined up on the other side of the field all wanting to copmete for your IT dollar:

http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members

Everyone on the planet (except for Microsoft) is far better off if all of these players can compete for your IT business. True interoperability is the only way to achieve a free market situation in IT.

Not valid point.



No it's not. It's an "I SOLD OUT" standard and the process of it's acceptance is probably being investigated right now. Until they explain all the obvious corruption in some acceptable manner (which is of course impossible) the OOXML is just a fluke in regards to ISO.



Nope, see above.



They just made a way to store data. Anyone did that, for different stuff. The point here is that governments as representatives of the people with responsibility to the future require proper standardised formats (see above again) which cannot be locked out in any way.



M.$ is a monopoly, which means there's no choice and even if they weren't customers never make choices, ads and "tricks" do (tricks like paying the reseller to only include your goods, or to put competition in the corner etc.). Don't be naive.



Embracing OOXML is not only almost impossible to do in practice (because it's a bloated piece of sh.t), but would only make them viable for future M.$ attacks. I'm not sure "how" they will do it but I'm sure M.$ didn't push OOXML just for the standard. They wanted the monkeys to use it.

You're either an extremely naive person with a chronic problem of defending a law-breaking corporation, or.. which I think is obvious a payed astroturfer.

I'm going to ignore your replies so you might just as well ignore mine. This was mostly for other people.

Edited 2008-04-15 09:00 UTC

Oh. If you say so. LOL.



Ah, so you're another conspiracy theorist. Good luck finding the "grassy knoll shooter".



The format of the data has inherent value; otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about this right now.



That's the point of ISO certification. Game over.



That's funny. Maybe you can point to a court ruling where Microsoft was found to have a monopoly on Office collaboration products? Didn't think so: None exists.



Yeah, it's so "impossible" that somehow Microsoft managed to persist all of their Office document formats in it. Crazy. Absolutely crazy.



The OOXML standard speaks for itself. You may not like it, but the fact of the matter is that it no longer belongs to Microsoft. It belongs to the world.



I'd love to get paid to post on websites. Where do I sign up?

Edited 2008-04-15 18:38 UTC

So you think that it was all fine and legitimate, no corruption whatsoever? Man where did you buy your pink glasses? Oh wait let me guess.. M.$ payed for them!



Game? Well if you think it's one.. that's your pejorative. The point isn't the fact that an organization with a standardization process which can be pretty much directly controlled with money gives a stamp on it.

The point is that it's completely and utterly unencumbered and there's no way that the originator could force you to pay, or do something just because you use the given format. Plus the fact that the format is documented in a readable and understandable way and it's feasible.



Doesn't mean they're not monopoly. I don't know the numbers, neither do you but I'd bet on at least 80% if not more office suite market share is held by M.$.



They didn't? They don't use OOXML as standardized, there's not a single full implementation and probably never will be.



That ISO gave it's stamp only means that the structure is documented "in some way". Pretty useless.



You tell me...

P.S: I broke my promise, won't do it again.

Perhaps you aren't aware that the ISO committee that ratified the OOXML standard is comprised of members that are located all over the world, with different concerns, different interests, and different perspectives. Maybe YOU want to believe that Microsoft paid all of them off but, frankly, that doesn't hold a lot of water, given the diverse set of perspectives.





That's really an amusing viewpoint. Completely bogus, but amusing, nonetheless.



MS doesn't own OOXML anymore. It belongs to the world.



Your anecdotal assertion doesn't carry the weight of a court of law. That's all that matters, as far as antitrust is concerned, and until a court rules that MS has a monopoly on Office collaboration products, it doesn't.



Care to provide specifics of how they don't use OOXML as standardized? I've heard a lot of anti-MS bigots throwing around that assertion, but I have yet to see proof.



Ah, I see. So, "standards" are only useful and meaningful when you guys are promoting something you like (ie. ODF). What narrow bigotry.

Everyone has one goal.. get stinking rich. That's what the one system working in the world today has done. Yes I'm talking about capitalism. And actually this diversity only makes it easier to corrupt. You pay some funny sums to small nations for their vote. That's exactly how they did it.



M.$ doesn't "own" CLI either but they can persecute you for it via patents. Owning isn't required for control anymore.



I'm not viewing the world from courtrooms, I hope you're not either, it's a sad view. I prefer reality.



True, I don't have them. It's just some stuff I read, and choose to believe (bible talk anyone? ) that states this. From what I remember, M.$ Office uses a somewhat different OOXML format than the standardized one. But that's understandable...



This is why I broke my promise again. Show me once when I said anything about ODF. You are ranting here as if I was some sort of ODF proponent but never did I mention the word. I guess that kind of explains why you try to fight reality so much.. you're getting paranoid. Everyone is an ODF supporter! Evil evil!!

I don't give a damn about ODF. I didn't even know when it got standardized and stand behind my remarks and say that in both cases the ISO stamp is completely useless.

Care to provide specifics of how they don't use OOXML as standardized? I've heard a lot of anti-MS bigots throwing around that assertion, but I have yet to see proof. "

This is not even contested ... even ECMA state that there is no reference implementation of OXML (ECMA 376).

http://www.fanaticattack.com/2008/a-deluge-of-facts-kos-ooxml-offic...



Further:


Edited 2008-04-17 01:29 UTC

A. ODF provides insufficient fidelity for Office document content. OXML does. Read the "Criticisms" section for ODF on the wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument. "

These are just Microsoft say-so. ODF can support any fidelity level required. If there is anything still obscured in Microsoft legacy formats that ODF does not support ... that is only because Microsoft obscured it ... no other reason. Microsoft had five (5) years or more to put anything they cared to specify into the ODF format (and they still have that opportunity even now) ... but Microsoft chose not to participate. If there are any shortcomings of the current ODF specification (and that is very doubtful because we have only Microsoft's say-so on this) ... then Microsoft have only their own silence to blame for that.



ISO standard? ... yes Microsoft has paid for that, probably destroying ISO in the process. Open standard? No. Read Microsoft's OSP (Open Specification Promise) ... there are exclusions. Ergo ... not open. QED.




Failed argument. OXML is an open ISO standard. "

Not a bit of it. Read the OSP ... there are exclusions, therefore the spec is not open. OXML is not the MS Office 2007 file format. There are no implementations of OXML in existence. It is "fantasyware".

The failed argument is yours.





BS.

Microsoft's file format is a deliberately obscured monstrosity made as torturous as it is for the sole purpose of making it as hard as possible for WordPerfect to open Word files. (The reverse is just as true, sop don't get your knickers in a twist). Even so ... there is no reason (other than to pander to Microsoft) why we should have to put up with that cruft any longer.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080414181840439



Mind you ... that is ODF 1.0. ODF 1.2 is actually far more finished, and it beats the socks of Microsoft's should-have-been-condemned-by-now cruft.



Clearly, the customers who continue to buy their products disagree.

--- No, they don't agree or disagree ... they are very often merely unaware that they have any actual alternative.



Again, if you want an interoperability standard, you've got OXML. Rather than fighting over ODF vs OOXML, these "industry players" should beat Microsoft at its own game by embracing OXML. [/q]

--- No. OXML is not Open ... there are bits that Microsoft has reserved as "only for Microsoft" ... and there is no implementation of OXML anyway. MS Office 2007???, I hear you ask ... well, it doesn't produce OXML (or ODF for that matter). Sorry about that. There is no actual OXML implementation in existence, so no-one competes with anyone via OXML.

Finally ... I note that you utterly fail to even come close to answering the question ... "If Microsoft really believes in 'choice' for its customers and 'competition' in the market ... then precisely why doesn't Microsoft give its customers a real choice of OpenDocument, and why doesn't it compete in an open market?

Edited 2008-04-15 11:54 UTC

No, this is reality.



Emphasis on can. Not does. You do know the difference, right?



Ah, so it's Microsoft's fault that ODF doesn't support full-fidelity with Office content? Amusing viewpoint.



We don't just have Microsoft's say-so. Here's a test. Create a sufficiently complex document in Office (ie. tables, charts, graphs, bullets, etc). Try opening it in OpenOffice (good luck with that, btw). Then, try saving it in ODF, and then loading it back in. Much of the content will be mangled. Why? Because ODF lacks the ability to represent all the content that is reflected in the criticisms on the Wiki. It isn't opinion. It's reality.

No, this is reality. "

No, it is jsut Microsoft's say so.



Emphasis on can. Not does. You do know the difference, right? "

Yes, does. Everything that an Office document needs to have stored can be (and is) stored in an OpenDocument format file.

You can of course come up with something that can't ... right?

No?

I thought not.



Ah, so it's Microsoft's fault that ODF doesn't support full-fidelity with Office content? Amusing viewpoint. "

Amusing? Not at all.

What is amusing is your blind belief that "Office file" and "Office document" is defined by Microsoft's implementation of same. It isn't.



We don't just have Microsoft's say-so. Here's a test. Create a sufficiently complex document in Office (ie. tables, charts, graphs, bullets, etc). Try opening it in OpenOffice (good luck with that, btw). Then, try saving it in ODF, and then loading it back in. Much of the content will be mangled. Why? Because ODF lacks the ability to represent all the content that is reflected in the criticisms on the Wiki. It isn't opinion. It's reality. "

You still don't get it, obviously.

Here is another test:
"Create a sufficiently complex document in OpenOffice (ie. tables, charts, graphs, bullets, etc). Try opening it in MS Office (good luck with that, btw). Then, try saving it in OOXML, and then loading it back in. Much of the content will be mangled."



No. Wrong. Just plain wrong.

The lack of round-trip fidelity is not caused by any lack of OpenDocument's ability to store information. This is easily demonstrated by doing the round trip in reverse ... the other way around if you will ... and starting with creating the document in OpenOffice.

The lack of round-trip fidelity, and loss of information during document conversions, is caused purely by Microsoft's deliberately obscuring the way that information is stored in their file formats. Nothing else.

Name one thing that you can put in a document that isn't supported by OpenDocument.

I'm not talking about fidelity of conversions between formats ... I'm talking only about the capability of the format to store the information that a document might contain.

PS: I looked at the criticisms of ODF in wikipedia. Those criticisms have indeed been attempted to be raised. There is no valid criticism of ODF 1.2 amongst them. ODF 1.2 is the version that OpenOffice and KOffice and other ODF-compliant applications actually now use.

Edited 2008-04-15 23:59 UTC

Emphasis on can. Not does. You do know the difference, right? "
The same as in "tomcat can be objective eventually about MS business practices" ?


Good luck with *that*...

Except for LaTeX and maybe FrameMaker, I've yet to see a good & stable complex documents software.

But that's not the point.
EU rules *its* market law. MS should get over it.
*You* should get over it.
Or just move away from EU market. Period.
Both of you.

For some reason, millions of people who use Office everyday to create complex documents disagree with you. They must all be wrong, eh?



I'm not questioning the EU's ability to administer its own arbitrary rules -- and, make no mistake here, its rules are purely arbitrary and nationalistic. Quite frankly, I would love it if those smarmy bureaucrats would ban Microsoft products from Europe. I'd love it! Because, then, we'd get to see the EU's member economies turn into flaming piles of shiznit. The turmoil would be a wonderful thing to see. Go, EU! Shoot yourselves in the feet!

Pffft. Utter rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordprocessor#History

There is a great deal of history here well before Microsoft (and especially before Microsoft Office) even existed.

The Wang Office Information System (OIS) circa 1976 was probably the progenitor of what could be thought of as a modern Word Proccessor, and hence its document storage format was the original "invention" here.

Of the two current "ISO standard" Office document storage formats, Microsoft played absolutely no part in the development of OpenDocument (ODF) format, and hence own no IP in it ... and no-one implements OXML at all, not even any Microssoft product.

Edited 2008-04-15 13:49 UTC

Trying reading for comprehension next time. I wasn't claiming that Microsoft invented word processing, you dolt. Here's what I wrote: "Microsoft invented the Office document formats on its own." Get it? The file formats. That's what we're talking about here. Sheesh.



Clue phone: You know you're twisted when your illogic requires you to believe that the ISO organization -- which is comprised of people from many different countries and different interests around the world -- has been corrupted by Microsoft. It's sad. And kind of pathetic, in a way, since you guys were so excited when ODF was approved. I guess it must be convenient to be able to pick and choose your own reality.




It sounds like you have a gripe with the ISO committee that approved the OOXML standard. Maybe you should take it up with them, instead.



You don't have to. Just use OOXML. Game over.



Do you hear yourself: "ODF 1.2 is actually far more finished". Microsoft didn't have the luxury of waiting for the ODF cabal to get its sh*t together to produce a standard that actually covers all of the Office document persistence issues. The folks that worked on ODF were more interested in hobbling Microsoft at every turn than creating a meaningful standard. And you wonder why Microsoft didn't bend over and just take it up the rear?



Most of Microsoft's customers are enterprises. Are you seriously trying to tell me that enterprise customers are unaware of the existence of Corel, WordPerfect, StarOffice, OpenOffice? I can't believe you would even type that with a straight face. No wrong. Does not compute. More likely, the corporates realize that these products (while good and useful and laudable, on their own merits) don't cover all of their needs.

Edited 2008-04-15 18:55 UTC