People and businesses don't care (enough) about interoperability (yet).
To get market share, OOo must continue supporting the DOC(x) format and
must *dramatically* reduce the suckyness of its interface. I don't care
how many geeks and fanboys claim how superior OOo's UI is - it's not.
Lars D. Noodén said on 03.04.2007 18:01:
Yes, the disadvantage that MS Office 2007 has an extremely restricted,
basically non-existent, choice of platforms also applies to earlier
versions. That doesn't make the further reduction any more acceptable
or helpful. That is one of the reasons why MSO is no longer suitable
for business environments, or for that matter home or school.
OOo, on the other hand, runs on many architectures and platforms. So if
your business says Debian on PPC, Fedora on x86-64 or OpenBSD or ARM, it
doesn't matter.
The ties to MS Sharepoint, last I checked, required either using a local
server including having purchased (rented) the appropriate number of
CALs, or else using remote servers at MS HQ.
Isn't it able to save to DOC for the rare cases when that's needed?
Don't parrot that myth. DOC is not a single format, it's about a dozen
and a half. Regardless, it doesn't matter because the default format
for MSO 2007 is DOCX which is *not backwards compatible*.
As others have or will point out, none of the older versions of MS
Office can read DOCX, nor can the renaissance of non-MS productivity
applications. It has been exactly that forced obsolence which drove
most of the earlier sales of MS Office. Fortunately, MSO 2003 died on
the vine, never achieving much above 10%-15% market penetration.
Anyway, OpenOffice.org seems to have better interoperability with the
old versions of the formats than the expensive, new, and difficult to
use MSO 2007.
Though an increasing number of governments are explicitly requiring
OpenDocument, either by name or by requirments, the World Trade
Organization treaties on Government Procurement and on Technical
Barriers to Trade lay the foundation. Those two treaties require use of
international standards and, as defined in Directive 98/34.
So again, just because a liability is present in multiple versions of MS
Office, doesn't make the problem any more acceptable or helpful. That
includes lack of OpenDocument (ISO/IEC 23600) support, which is a must-
have.
Interoperability can also be achieved via monopoly. See MS Office's
success.
In the same way, rats are successful. Cockroaches are successful, too.
If by success you mean market share, then you're quite right. If by
success, you mean the ability to exchange documents between different
versions, then you seem to have slept through the last 15 years. Forced
obsolence has been the driving factor in the earlier sales of MS
Office. In otherwords, the new formats, like DOCX, don't work with the
old programs. I'm not sure of any way to spin that into a description
of interoperability.
-Lars
Lars Noodén ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Ensure access to your data now and in the future
http://opendocumentfellowship.org/about_us/contribute
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Regards,
Peter Reaper
The browser you can trust: www.GetFirefox.com
Reclaim Your Inbox: www.GetThunderbird.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
