In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch

wrote
on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:43:55 -0400
<8pyjjbs7217d.dlg@funkenbusch.com>:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:59:34 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> alt espoused:
>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:51:37 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> My conclusion: If OOXML passes, Microsoft wins everyone else loses.
>>>>> OOXML is NOT in the best interests of anyone _except_ Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> That's bull. It's in the best interest of anyone that wants to
>>>> interoperate with Microsoft office documents. It's disingenuous to say
>>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> Bull****. Microsoft could easily release full and proper documentation on
>>> their formats. They don't need to put it into an ISO format. If Microsoft
>>> was truly interested in interoperability, they would've released that
>>> information years ago. They aren't, so they haven't. Instead they get
>>> their little minions to parrot the party line that the ISO format will
>>> ensure compatibility.
>>>

>>
>> Microsoft have said themselves that they have no intention of supporting
>> the standard anyway.

>
> That's a lie, Mark.
>
> Microsoft has said they can't commit to supporting it, which is not the
> same thing as saying they have no intention of supporting it.
>
> They are simply saying the same thing everyone else says about ODF, they
> don't commit to supporting it, but they will so long as it meets their
> goals.


No point in supporting ODF as OOXML is the better standard anyway.

No, not because we say so, not because open source software
developers say so, not because business types say so,
not because lawyers say so.

It's because Microsoft says so...and for them, it *is*
better, as they have tools that can consume and produce it.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux makes one use one's mind.
Windows just messes with one's head.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com