Linked by David Adams on Tue 4th Dec 2007 19:39 UTC, submitted by michuk
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "It may be a brave opinion but I predict that Ubuntu Linux and Windows Vista are going to be the two operating systems that will take over the largest chunk of the desktop OS market during the next couple of years. This comparison is based on my experience with both systems during the last couple of weeks on two different computers."
Thread beginning with comment 288579
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Silly
by lemur2 on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Silly"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

OOXML isnt an abuse of their monopoly, it is a switch in formats (and a move in the right direction). Adding hidden APIs to the operating system for use only in microsoft products, or pressuring hardware venders to not offer alternative operating systems pre-installed are anti-competitive.


Pffffft.

OOXML is riddled with references to Microsoft-proprietary APIs.

It is explicitly designed to be able to implemented fully only by Microsoft, and it is explicitly designed to be able to be run fully only on Windows platforms.

It is ABSOLUTELY an abuse of Microsoft's near-monopoly.

If Microsoft truly believed (as their OOXML spin claims) that "competing formats are good, let the market decide" then why do they not provide native file open & save support for the ODF format within MS Office, so that their locked-in market is able to decide?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[7]: Silly
by kaiwai on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:34 in reply to "RE[6]: Silly"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If Microsoft truly believed (as their OOXML spin claims) that "competing formats are good, let the market decide" then why do they not provide native file open & save support for the ODF format within MS Office, so that their locked-in market is able to decide?


If it were such an issue, the said company would download and install the Sun ODF plugin to Microsoft Office, which would allow end users to save their files in ODF format.

But hey, you keep bashing Microsoft - you seem to have a lot of fun doing it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Silly
by cyclops on Wed 5th Dec 2007 00:40 in reply to "RE[7]: Silly"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

""Install the Sun ODF plugin to Microsoft Office, which would allow end users to save their files in ODF format. ""

I read...re-read that so many times, I can't even be bothered telling you what is so wrong with that statement.

Although I'm sure that Microsoft could have will use you in there next anti-trust defense. At least having IE explorer on the Desktop made it faster(sic).

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[8]: Silly
by lemur2 on Wed 5th Dec 2007 03:07 in reply to "RE[6]: Silly"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If it were such an issue, the said company would download and install the Sun ODF plugin to Microsoft Office, which would allow end users to save their files in ODF format.


That Sun plugin isn't written by Microsoft (der), and Microsoft have managed to this very day to have still kept some parts of the document-in-memory format and their file formats (and the translation between the two) as trade secrets. So the Sun plugin does not convert documents to and from MS Office memory to the full fidelity of the ODF specification. There will be data loss.

Further, Microsoft "accidentally" introduced a "bug" in Office 2007 so that even if a suitable plugin is installed and the user attempts to open a file with an extension that indicates it is formatted for that plugin to handle, MS Office 2007 still uses its own internal format filters to try to read in that document. So it turns out that you cannot install any plugin for reading ODF via the "file open" command on MS Office 2007, no matter what you do or how good your plugin is.

Since MS Office 2007 cannot be made to read in an ODF document via the "file open" in MS Office 2007, it turns out that you cannot set MS Office 2007 as the default format for ODF files and have them open properly if you double-click on an ODF document in the file manager. In turn, this means that you cannot handle ODF files properly using sharepoint. Of course, the MS-sponsored CleverAge ODF converter is also useless in this respect.

Funny about that. Such a shame that you can't use those Sun plugins to their full potential.

<sarcasm>What a nasty and regrettable bug to have crept in to Office 2007 at the very last minute, hey! I'll bet Microsoft programmers are really really nose-to-the-grindstone fixing this one, hey! Round-the-clock efforts at Redmond here, no doubt. The pressure to ship it must be enormous.</sarcasm>

Edited 2007-12-05 03:09

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[7]: Silly
by google_ninja on Wed 5th Dec 2007 05:47 in reply to "RE[6]: Silly"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I can't believe how easy it is to get modded up here. Think about what you wrote

OOXML is riddled with references to Microsoft-proprietary APIs.

It is explicitly designed to be able to implemented fully only by Microsoft, and it is explicitly designed to be able to be run fully only on Windows platforms.

It is ABSOLUTELY an abuse of Microsoft's near-monopoly.


How in the world is MS changing their own internal file format anti-competitive? How is opening the majority of it up to the public abuse? Sure, not all of it is open, but how is that worse then NONE of it being open?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Silly
by lemur2 on Wed 5th Dec 2007 06:08 in reply to "RE[7]: Silly"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

How in the world is MS changing their own internal file format anti-competitive? How is opening the majority of it up to the public abuse? Sure, not all of it is open, but how is that worse then NONE of it being open?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OASIS_%28organization%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument

"The OpenDocument standard was developed by a Technical Committee (TC) under the OASIS industry consortium. The ODF-TC has members from a diverse set of companies and individuals. ... The standardization process involved the developers of many office suites or related document systems. The first official ODF-TC meeting to discuss the standard was December 16, 2002"

OK, that is the first point. There was a demand (mainly coming from governments) for an open, future-proof, consensus industry standard for electronic document storage. Microsoft was on this committee, from day 1. Even Microsoft agreed that existing obscure binary formats had to go, and be replaced by an XML-based document format. Here was the god-given opportunity for industry-wide interoperability on this.

Microsoft attended every meeting, and said not one word the whole time.

"; OASIS approved OpenDocument as an OASIS Standard on May 1, 2005. OASIS submitted the ODF specification to ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC1) on November 16, 2005, under Publicly Available Specification (PAS) rules."

Not fast-track rules, but PAS rules. Harder to get passed, and it took longer ...

"After a six-month review period, on May 3, 2006 OpenDocument unanimously passed its six-month DIS ballot in JTC1, with broad participation, after which the OpenDocument specification was "approved for release as an ISO and IEC International Standard" under the name ISO/IEC 26300:2006."

... but pass it did. Unanimously. No unanswered objections. Industry consensus reached.

Microsoft at this point simply said "but we are not going to do it". They also claimed (at that time) "there is no demand for ODF".

Then they produced their own bastard-child XML specification for a document format, requiring as many dependencies on Microsoft-only technologies as they could think of, and essentially mandating that any compliant application had to be written to run on a Windows platform and no other.

If there was no demand, why did Microsoft produce OOXML?

Microsoft changed their tune. They now claimed that "ODF was not designed to support the information in billions of legacy documents".

If that was so, tell us exactly were the deficiency lies? And why did they not speak up before, at any time during the four-year "consensus" development process they attended?

OOXML is worse than none of it being open, because it is written to explicitly undermine the ISO-standard for electronic document formats by PRETENDING to be open, and PRETENDING to be an alternative.

Give it up Microsoft. Just go with the ODF standard that you yourself agreed to.

Reply Parent Score: 6