Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Jul 2006 10:41 UTC
Features, Office Microsoft is giving in to the unrelenting pressure to be more open, particularly with regard to its Office Open XML file format and interoperability with the Open Document Format alternative. The company will announce July 6 that it has set up an open-source project to create a series of tools that allow translation between the OpenXML format and the ODF format, and which will be developed with partners. The Open XML Translator project, as it is known, will be posted on SourceForge, the open-source software development Web site.
Thread beginning with comment 141184
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: OH COME ON!!!
by Shkaba on Fri 7th Jul 2006 21:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: OH COME ON!!!"
Shkaba
Member since:
2006-06-22

What's wrong with changing positions?

Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with changing positions, providing that it is sincere and not just for the sake of PR, desperately trying to prevent further erosion of customer base, and for the purpose of bying time. What makes me very doubtfull about this initiative is MS push to obtain ISO for "OpenXML". What benefit is there to having two standards? Look at metric and imperial standards, isn't the existance of the two just a source for confusion and costly mistakes(NASA)?. If ODF indeed presents some limitations why not join in and make it better for every one's benefit ... Instead MS chooses, like always, to break established practices (ie PATH in unix and windows) and re-invent the wheel albeit a crooked one but MS-wheel nonetheless

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: OH COME ON!!!
by sappyvcv on Fri 7th Jul 2006 23:15 in reply to "RE[6]: OH COME ON!!!"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok, what don't you understand here?

There wasn't a high customer demand originally, so they didn't want to do it.

There became more of a demand for it and they started to realize that more and more customers would be asking for it, so they decided to go ahead with it.

It's driven by customer demand and that's how it should be sometimes.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: OH COME ON!!!
by Shkaba on Sat 8th Jul 2006 01:32 in reply to "RE[7]: OH COME ON!!!"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

I don't understand you, or better the point you are trying to make if there is a point to be made. Are you an MS employee, in marketing dept. maybe? Because it would appear that you are familiar with customer's demands and their "change". When a state in US (Mass.) presents a demand to support an open document format does it not qualify as customers demand, or when a govt. of a country(Belg) asks the same...? These demands are not new. If I know about them for almost a year I suspect MS knew way earlier and yet they thought they can strong arm them. They couldn't!! Hence the title "...Bows to the pressure...". All that wasted time and nothing to show for it. The reason for most people looking at this change of heart with suspicion is due to MS track record as a very iresponsible leader of IT (MS spyware, security flawed OS, bugg ridden browser, non-compliance with court rulings, etc)
The one, and only, thing where MS truly shines at is using catch frases and adopting somebody elses inovations while modifying them in such a way that nobody else can use them.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: OH COME ON!!!
by hal2k1 on Sat 8th Jul 2006 08:30 in reply to "RE[6]: OH COME ON!!!"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//What benefit is there to having two standards? Look at metric and imperial standards, isn't the existance of the two just a source for confusion and costly mistakes(NASA)?.//

I don't find it a problem when there are two standards if institutions just choose the sensible one. In the case of metric and imperial, that is a no-brainer - just use metric throughout and consistently.

Similarly for office documents - again a no-brainer. Just use the one that carries the best guarantee of no lock-in to a single source supplier. Choose the most open and unencumebered one. Choose the one designed from the ground up for platform-independence.

Something tells me though that the US will choose the opposites. Their track record in no-brainer choices such as these so far is not good at all.

Edited 2006-07-08 08:30

Reply Parent Score: 1