Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Nov 2007 23:31 UTC
Gnome "The GNOME Foundation has issued a statement in response to recent accusations that it has been supporting the acceptance of Microsoft's Office Open XML format as an ECMA standard at the expense of the Open Document Format, the open standard used by OpenOffice.org, KOffice and other free software office applications. However, whether the statement's attempt at logical rebuttal will do anything to reduce the emotions or altruism behind the criticisms is anybody's guess."
Thread beginning with comment 286553
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
...
by Hiev on Sun 25th Nov 2007 00:26 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Well, love it or hate it OOXML is here to stay, you better implemented it and promote ODF, just like .DOC, most of us don't like it, but denie its existence or ban it just affects the users.

So, I think the GNOME project is doing the rigth think, always thinking with the cold head for the sake of the user and not jumping into attacks that won't lead to anywhere but isolation.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 00:44 in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, love it or hate it OOXML is here to stay...

This is a common argument. OOXML has not reach anything near a critical mass to make it worthwhile, and it doesn't justify it as an implementable standard or the doctored process it has gone through. Saying that Microsoft has come up with it to so it is inevitable is not a great argument.

So, I think the GNOME project is doing the rigth think, always thinking with the cold head for the sake of the user and not jumping into attacks that won't lead to anywhere but isolation.

The rational approach is to help get peoples' existing documents into an open format everyone can work with. That is the only workable, technical solution that can have any benefit for users. Running around trying to support yet another unsupportable format isn't the answer.

Reply Parent Score: 25

RE[2]: ...
by google_ninja on Sun 25th Nov 2007 01:31 in reply to "RE: ..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

This is a common argument. OOXML has not reach anything near a critical mass to make it worthwhile, and it doesn't justify it as an implementable standard or the doctored process it has gone through. Saying that Microsoft has come up with it to so it is inevitable is not a great argument.


MS Office uses it by default. Since it has more market share then everything else put together, I would say that it has long since hit critical mass, and you really need to come up with good reasons NOT to use it, since it is what the rest of the world operates on.

Reply Parent Score: 4

v RE[2]: ...
by Almafeta on Sun 25th Nov 2007 01:51 in reply to "RE: ..."
v RE[2]: ...
by tomcat on Mon 26th Nov 2007 09:18 in reply to "RE: ..."
v RE: ...
by marcusesq on Sun 25th Nov 2007 10:16 in reply to "..."
RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Sun 25th Nov 2007 17:36 in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Hiev, Its obvious from your posts on this site that you love the gnome project, perhaps even worship it, but be told... it is not the messiah, its just a naughty boy.

I like GNOME because is a project that thinks and behaves like me most of the time.

KDE may verbaly reject OOXML now, but they will implemented it and they will look as hypocrits and give explanations later to justify that movement. I wouldn't be the first time, remember DBUS, FreeDesktop.org, etc.

Think smart the first time and you won't look as an hypocrit or give explanations later.

Edited 2007-11-25 17:51

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: ...
by KugelKurt on Sun 25th Nov 2007 10:46 in reply to "..."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it's a difference if you just write a converter for OOXML or if you join OOXML promotion groups on behalf of the GNOME Foundation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by SomeGuy on Sun 25th Nov 2007 19:35 in reply to "RE: ..."
SomeGuy Member since:
2006-03-20

Right. In one case, you're implementing a shitty standard that's nearly impossible to support properly.

In the second, you're trying to force MS to produce modify the spec to the point where it's possible, if not quite easy, to implement support for OOXML.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: But OOXML is absolutedly *not* open
by walterbyrd on Sun 25th Nov 2007 13:15 in reply to "..."
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>Well, love it or hate it OOXML is here to stay<<

That is not the problem. The problem is that OOXML is being certified by the ISO as on open standard, and OOXML is absolutely *not* open.

In many places, the OOXML documentation makes statements like: "do this the same as in Office-97" but the office-97 specs are closed. Hence OOXML is *not* open.

Msft is free to churn out whatever proprietary standards they want. And stupid people are free to be vendor-locked by those standards. Just don't lie about OOXML being open, that is all I ask.

Reply Parent Score: 11