"Microsoft's embattled Office Open XML document format received ISO fast-track approval after receiving support from approximately 86 percent of the national bodies that participated in the vote. ISO approval will be broadly perceived as a sign of validation for the document format which has received widespread criticism from technical experts and standards advocacy groups."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-08
I think you are mixing completely different scale things.
When talking about package managers we are talking about software alternatives. There's nothing wrong in having lots of software alternatives in package management, or also in the world of office software, like word processors.
When talking about electronic document format standards, we are talking about an aim to have a common open document standard that could support not restrict the existence of competition and alternatives in the software world. So that an electronic document could be opened and edited as well as possible in all alternative apps now and in the future.
Now, having two main standards for electronic documents is not too much, and in itself might be quite ok. The potential problem with OOXML is, however, what kind of a standard it is. Is it really an open standard that supports and not restricts interoperability and competition in software? Maybe it will be and we may hope so - but lots of experts have had serious doubts about it so far, however.
Member since:2005-11-13
When talking about package managers we are talking about software alternatives.
Except that, as I pointed out, I was talking about package formats, not package managers.
So, what I am saying is:
- Having 10 office suites using 1 document standard = good
- Having 10 office suites using 10 different document standards = bad
- Having 10 package managers using 1 standard package format = good
- Having 10 package managers using 10 different package formats = bad
To me, it is the same kind of deal. The same goes for GUI toolkits, sound frameworks, directory layouts, and everything else I mentioned, plus several things I didn't. Before the FOSS crowd starts hurling sh*t at MS for introducing more than one standard, they need to practice what they preach. As the old saying goes, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
And for the guy who said rpm was the standard, if that is the case, how come Linspire with its 'Click n Run' and other Debian-based distros (along with others) don't use it as their default?
Member since:2005-07-06
Actually, when it comes to Linux package managers, the standard (as in Linux Standard Base) is that compliant distros should be able to handle rpms.
So, yes, there is ONE standard, and there should be ONE standard for document management as well. It could be ODF or something else. Now we already had ODF, so why was it so impossible to improve on that instead of making a new incompatible one, especially as Microsoft had all possibilities in the world to have add to it when it was made.
Member since:
2005-11-13
Well, to answer that question with another question, when it comes to package managers, why isn't .rpm or .deb enough? Why can't we just have one standard for package management? Along those same lines, why not build just one solid toolkit for GUIs, one sound framework, and why do we need multiple distros, some with their own directory layout and startup procedures?
Look, I agree with you.. maybe ODF needs a little bit of work, bit it really should be enough.
But ODF is mainly a FOSS thing (which is why I bring up all those other examples above), and it seems that if the FOSS crowd wants only one standard for formatting documents, it should put its money where its mouth is and come up with one standard for everything else as well. Afterall, wouldn't that be better for everyone in the end?
For example, every time I suggest that maybe there should be a single way to build packages (well, maybe one binary and one source) that works across all distros that everyone standardize on, I am immediately rebuked for having the nerve to even utter such an abomination. (Note: I'm not talking about package managers, but rather a specific way packages could be built so that any package manager that supports the standard could use.)
Apparently, it's ok to have several dozen variations of everything else, but when it comes to ODF, that should've been enough.
Personally, I think people are just pissed because this is a Microsoft thing. I'm sure they had their reasons for inventing OOXML and I'm also reasonably sure that it had more to do with business reasons than technical. But hell, at least it's a stanard, which means that for the FOSS crowd, it is better than it was before, no? You didn't really expect MS to implement ODF did you? It might've been a great service to mankind, but it ain't going to earn them more bankroll.
Edited 2008-04-02 22:33 UTC