No soft option

[Perdition]

The Sun ODF plugin is a 30MB download and an extra install, the point is not moot.

We can agree to disagree then, the Sun ODF plugin being 30MB is not Microsoft's problem.

Businesses and large organisations care. Who fixes the formatting and macros in thousands of 10 year old documents? This is the same argument used against implementation of OOo.

Agreed, whichever format an organisation chooses to implement will probably incur a conversion cost. The important point here is that they are free to choose which format to use.

That is also a misrepresentation of the facts. MS simply tried to snow the JTC1 members with a large document. It was that much larger because of all the kludges used to get around something fundmentally ill-conceived.
Why else would there be comments like these:

...

All of this seems kind of nit-picky to me. There aren't many standards passed that are completely perfect. That's like wishing for completely bug free software.

While I'm sure my arguments cast me as a Microsoft fanboy that is not the case. I'm a fan of choice. If you all want just one open document format to rule them all why aren't you fighting for The One Linux distribution?

Again this whole hoohaa over a document format has been blown way out of proportion. At the end of the day both formats will live as there are not enough detractors on either side to force the market.

 

[Perdition]

But it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to give up the office suite that they are already comfortable with - MS just needs to support the already established document format: ODF.

No, they don't, however if there is enough customer demand they will. At the end of the day MS answers to its shareholders and if not supporting ODF is significantly hurting their bottom line they will support it.

 

[fskmh]

We can agree to disagree then, the Sun ODF plugin being 30MB is not Microsoft's problem.

Exactly, that makes it the end-user's problem. End-user: "No thanks, I'll take the integrated solution, my time is better spent playing solitaire."

Agreed, whichever format an organisation chooses to implement will probably incur a conversion cost. The important point here is that they are free to choose which format to use.

Agreed. Which is why we need a standard backed by a credible body. Interoperability is good.

All of this seems kind of nit-picky to me. There aren't many standards passed that are completely perfect. That's like wishing for completely bug free software.

When there are real-life consequences for our digital rights we should be picky. I don't agree that it equates with the ideal of bug-free software. That is not the right analogy.

While I'm sure my arguments cast me as a Microsoft fanboy that is not the case. I'm a fan of choice. If you all want just one open document format to rule them all why aren't you fighting for The One Linux distribution?

I never actually mentioned Linux. One GNU/Linux distro would be the opposite of choice. Something like that (United Linux) was attempted already. The whole thing went south when SCO decided that GNU/Linux users owed them something. I seem to recall Steve Ballmer having a similar attack of delusion after the recent Novell-MS deal. Just another reason for the justifiably suspicious attitude to MS's overtures from certain quarters.
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9005171&pageNumber=2

Again this whole hoohaa over a document format has been blown way out of proportion. At the end of the day both formats will live as there are not enough detractors on either side to force the market.

I disagree . My previous post deals with the "why" part. I am certain that MS will take their own format as far as possible, nobody expects anything less. It should not come at the expense of stuffing the ISO JTC1 committee with MS shills, (and undermining its future performance in other matters), or a historic move towards a truly universal document standard.

I suspect that some might read this thread as being anti-MS Office. This is not about MS Office, or Linux (StarOffice and OOo run on Windows and Solaris too. OOo can be compiled on *BSD etc.). What's at stake here is the unfettered ability of all of us to collaborate from the comfort of our own preferred OS. This is too crucial to be left to the whim of any commercial interests.

 

[milomak]

Exactly. A standard document format means we are free to explore our choices without fear. It doesn't mean that MS can't create MS Office to be better than its competitors?

 

[mcleodd]

Microsoft has responded to my column. Details here:

http://www.fmtech.co.za/software/microsoft-responds-to-open-xml-criticism/

 

[pmbellis]

Microsoft has responded to my column. Details here:

http://www.fmtech.co.za/software/microsoft-responds-to-open-xml-criticism/

Out of the referenced article:
"The open-source software development community in particular has responded quite positively with support for Open XML — see the list attached (oss-uses-open-xml.pdf) for example"

I see that Microsoft has made the classic mistake of assuming that support for a format implies endorsement of that format. Not a necessary corollary at all!

 

[chiskop]

Microsoft has responded to my column. Details here:

http://www.fmtech.co.za/software/microsoft-responds-to-open-xml-criticism/

In his response Feirrera mentioned the ODF plugin - is he talking about the Sun 30mb download hosted at sourceforge? Any bets as to whether that'll ever be included in the base Office install? That, or hosting the download at microsoft.com would be support but pointing to some third party project hardly qualifies as as microsoft supporting ODF.

 

[AirWolf]

I agree with chiskop - Microsoft need to clarify how they "support" ODF.