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, 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 286720
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: ...
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Member since:

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

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

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.

It would be wise for free and open source software to take a stand and make sure that people can convert their binary office documents to ODF rather than running around like a headless chicken to re-implement the same thing. Should OOXML conversion be required in the future then it will be that much easier.

That's all that's at issue here: OOXML -> ODF to make sure we have a sustainable format.

I wouldn't be the first time, remember DBUS,, etc.

DBUS is very heavily inspired by DCOP, that KDE came up with and used, DBUS is now used throughout the KDE desktop and much of the stuff you will see on Freedesktop has KDE people behind it.

What point are you trying to make?

Reply Parent Score: 8

v RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Sun 25th Nov 2007 21:37 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
RE[5]: ...
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 23:44 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
segedunum Member since:

Tha'ts what KDE developers say, but is not true, lets say they just say it to sleep well, but DCOP was a mess by it self that needed to be rewrited

DCOP was written because CORBA was a God-awful mess, and judging from the usage of Bonobo in Gnome, that was the right technical decision. DBUS is a direct descendant of that thinking.

Imposing a format over the user needs doesn't makes free software better than MS, simple as that.

Users don't care about formats. They open a file, it opens and they work with it.

anything you put for push your agenda in the users trougth just makes you the same or worse than MS.

All we want is a format that everyone can reasonably implement and use. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: ...
by aseigo on Tue 27th Nov 2007 11:37 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
aseigo Member since:

> was a mess by it self that needed to be rewrited,

no, actually, it was serving kde users and developers just fine. when we switched to d-bus, we actually had to push for and implement a large number of improvements to the tool chain around d-bus and in d-bus itself to get even near where we were with DCOP. d-bus is the right way to go (i was one of the early advocates even) but it's not because it's more mature that DCOP was.

there are some nice new features that come with d-bus (i've personally enjoyed exploiting a few them =), but DCOP was still very solid.

and yes, d-bus built on the lessons from dcop. that's why it looks a lot more like dcop than, say, bonobo.

> hey, I wasn't me who says so, read the DCOP mailing
> list.

which dcop mailing list would this be? and which mails to it? or ... are you just writing what you think sounds good? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5