On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 00:00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote: > Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * People don't trust Microsoft now. They are under the radar of a lot > > of world governments, and people expect them to try dirty tricks. > > I'm afraid 99% of the PC users just use Microsoft software, and don't > think about it.
True, but when those users' IT managers change to an application with native ODF format they'll use that without thinking about it, that is the nature of the corporate market. > > > * OOo is the reference implementation of ODF. > > What is required are at least two independent implementations that > support it. Having one reference implementation is a start, but not > sufficient. There is already, see below > > > * OOo has a larger market share than MS Office 2003. > > I don't believe this. 99% of the PC users just store documents in .doc > format. The reference is to MSO *2003* not MSO in general. MSO 2003 has a competing XML format and it's adoption has been blocked by continued widespread use of MSO's non XML iterations, ie: MSO '97, 2000 and XP. Even 2003's usage will be irrelevant in terms of the adoption of the standard because MS Office 12 MSXML is completely different to the 2003 version anyway. So in fact ODF is in far more widespread use than it's MSXML equivalent because it is still vapourware. > > > * ODF is already supported by KOffice, SO, IBM workplace, and soon > > by Abiword ang Gnumeric. > > Are these independent implementations? I've been told that most of > them use or share OOo code. You've been badly informed. OOo, StarOffice share the OOo 2.0 codebase and IBM Workplace uses OOo code from the 1.1.x branch. Koffice, Abiword and Gnumeric however, are completely different. > > > Microsoft currently blames OOo for not being able to open MS Office > > files completely. > > Interesting statement. "I store data in a format that I won't tell > you, and it is your fault that you cannot read it". Heh! Interesting is one charitable way of putting it. ;) > > > Consider the other benefits of signing the petition. > > No problem. I was just worrying whether forcing MS to support ODF > could backfire. ODF implementation goes beyond the needs of individual applications. But that is both the point and the reason that MS will have to adopt it. They don't want to because then there will be a level playing field where customers won't be locked in to a particular application because of the volumes of legacy documents that are in a proprietary format. Though I am wondering, given many reports coming from ex MS employees, whether they may be incapable of implementing ODF within the given time frame. Given their size and resources you would think it would be a minor matter... but one wonders... -- Graham Lauder, OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html INGOTs Assessor Trainer (International Grades in Office Technologies) www.theingots.org Member OpenDocument Fellowship www.opendocumentfellowship.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
