Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Mar 2007 23:08 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft Office program manager Brian Jones, whose work has centered around the Open XML document format, now says the so-called format war with OpenDocument is officially over. The winner, he says, is both. Jones made the statement in a blog post over the weekend following the release by Novell of an Open XML translator for OpenOffice. The plug-in enables the free, open source productivity suite to open documents created in the Microsoft format, as well as saving OpenDocument files into Open XML.
Thread beginning with comment 219289
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: because they lost...
by nberardi on Wed 7th Mar 2007 17:59 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: because they lost..."
nberardi
Member since:
2005-07-10

You know it's really amazing seeing you guys talk about Open formats. Because both are Open. You guys are just measuring who is more Open now. It is honestly very juvenile to ignore something a company brings to the table just because you don't like the company.

If Microsoft invented a cure for cancer, and gave it away for free, all you guys would be arguing over if the process for the cure of cancer was open. I have seen the OOS community totally ignore .NET because it came from Microsoft, even though it is more open and more standardized than Java. But since Java isn't produced by Microsoft you don't really care if it is standardized or open. You are just anti-Microsoft, not really pro Open Source.

BTW I know Java has just been recently released. And probably on the path to being standardized. However that still doesn't excuse the last 5 years.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: because they lost...
by ichi on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:14 in reply to "RE[9]: because they lost..."
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

You know it's really amazing seeing you guys talk about Open formats. Because both are Open.

No matter how many times you repeat it, OOXML is only as open as the undocumented specs it inherits. That is, not open at all.

If Microsoft invented a cure for cancer, and gave it away for free, all you guys would be arguing over if the process for the cure of cancer was open.

If a cure for cancer was developed and MS came with a pack of tobacco, you'd be argueing MS' solution was better because it's backwards compatible.

I have seen the OOS community totally ignore .NET because it came from Microsoft, even though it is more open and more standardized than Java.

Well, I don't like java, you'll need another argument to disqualify my opinion on this.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: because they lost...
by g2devi on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:35 in reply to "RE[9]: because they lost..."
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Not true, Java was criticized for ages. For instance:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Also Java is *not* included in most distros even though Mono is (or at least is available in a repository). Java has a lot more open source built on it, but that was mostly because Java was here first and it was here during the dot-com era and .NET didn't start to be popular until the dot-bust era. If .NET were released first, the situation would likely have been reversed.

Java was losing its appeal in the open source world to Mono, but the energy is back with Java since *the reference platform* for Java will be open source. This means that Classpath will no longer have to play catchup with the official Java in much the same way that Mono will have to continue to play catch up to the official .NET (which is not ECMA since even the Mono group use MS .NET as a reference in the same way that Classpath used Sun Java as the reference platform over the JSRs).

Please get this "open source" means "anti-Microsoft" chip off your shoulder. Most people who use open source do so because of the advantages being free from vendor lock-in and the freedom to make customizations and the freedom from being treated like a criminal by default, and not because they are anti-anything. Life's far too short to fill it with hate.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[10]: because they lost...
by segedunum on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:32 in reply to "RE[9]: because they lost..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Because both are Open.

Define open for me. There is a list as long as both your arms and ample evidence that OOXML cannot be implemented outside of Microsoft Office. I suggest you read it.

It is honestly very juvenile to ignore something a company brings to the table just because you don't like the company. If Microsoft invented a cure for cancer, and gave it away for free, all you guys would be arguing over if the process for the cure of cancer was open.

Bo, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo. Everybody hates Microsoft! That's the argument that gets used when people run low on anything useful to say. Sorry, but I suggest you look at the actual objections against OOXML and respond to those.

I think your bus is leaving.

I have seen the OOS community totally ignore .NET because it came from Microsoft, even though it is more open and more standardized than Java.

No, it isn't. .Net is just a wrapper around various Windows specific implementations, just as OOXML is, and it is patented one at that. There is nothing defined within .Net that gives you a functioning and Microsoft .Net compatible environment environment at all (or even a complete bloody CLR), unless you come up with your own underlying implementations and reverse engineer Microsoft's own.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[11]: because they lost...
by nberardi on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:57 in reply to "RE[10]: because they lost..."
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

Define open for me. There is a list as long as both your arms and ample evidence that OOXML cannot be implemented outside of Microsoft Office. I suggest you read it.

Really so the OOXML plug-in for OOo didn't happen and is all vaporware?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: because they lost...
by nberardi on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:59 in reply to "RE[10]: because they lost..."
nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

No, it isn't. .Net is just a wrapper around various Windows specific implementations, just as OOXML is, and it is patented one at that. There is nothing defined within .Net that gives you a functioning and Microsoft .Net compatible environment environment at all (or even a complete bloody CLR), unless you come up with your own underlying implementations and reverse engineer Microsoft's own.

Actually you are totally wrong. Do a search for ROTOR and you will see that it is a BSD release of the mscorlib, compiler, and CLR.

You know what they say about people who assume don't you.

Reply Parent Score: 1