Microsoft Pledges Conditional Support for ODF

Macthorpe writes "BetaNews is reporting that Microsoft has announced in a letter that they will support ODF as a format option, if it doesn't 'restrict choice among formats'. Citing their lack of opposition to the ratification of ODF as a standard, they go on to say: 'ODF's design may make it attractive to those users that are interested in a particular level of functionality in their productivity suite or developers who want to work that format. Open XML may be more attractive to those who want richer functionality [...] This is not to say that one is better than the other — just that they meet different needs in the marketplace.'"

Comments

Re:I've got this nice bridge to sell, too.

[monk.e.boy]

Tried wxPython which is the python wrapper. It was approx 1,000% slower to create apps with than C# and Visual Studio.

I wanted to love it, I really did, but Visual Studio is sooo nice.

monk.e.boy

Of course ODF is going to screw MS

[Anonymous Coward]

ODF was created not as an open document standard, but expressly as a way to "get Microsoft". Just like GPL3 was created expressly to "get Microsoft".

It's truly a shame that FOSSies seem to be far more consumed with screwing over Microsoft than they are in creating software. I would say "quality software"... but FOSSies have never actually been too concerned about that. Only people who have incentive to create quality will do so, and FOSS has no such incentive. Loosing market share doesn't do anything... aside from making support easier.

So in a way, you could view FOSS itself as nothing more than a huge group of people looking to "get Microsoft". Which is really sad, because the stated goals are far more noble than how FOSS is currently practiced.

Re:Of course ODF is going to screw MS

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's reality. The FOSSies, especially the Slashdot zealots, aren't interested in putting out quality software, they are only interested in strategically positioning technology as an attack on Microsoft. '

Take a look at the whole "browser wars" non-issue: MS was giving away a browser with their OS, just like Lunix does, just like Apple does, etc. MS was ADDING VALUE to their product, which EVERY company should have the right to do. It's because of MS, and ONLY becuase of MS, that every consumer isn't forced to pay extra for a TCP/IP protocol, for a winsock, and for the browser. That right there was at least $100 in additional software purchases, but MS said "screw that, if everyone wants it, it should be part of the OS". Just like the did with terminal emulation software. Just like they did with disk defragmentation. Just like they did with COMPUTER NETWORKING, and everything OS related.

The problem is that when FOSSies (and MS's competitors) can't succeed in the marketplace, or in the marketplace of ideas, their final resort to sociopathically forcing their will on everyone else is to try winning either in the courtroom or by convincing lawmakers.

FOSSies bang the drum that "consumers should have choice", but what they really mean is "we feel that no consumer should be allowed to choose Microsoft, and are going to force everyone to not choose Microsoft", just like they are trying to do with the BBC. And the truth of that latter statement is being proven time and again, and being proven on in this forum every single day.

Re:Scared? Hardly.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Yeah. Sure. Microsoft is scared of competition in a free market. Because they've failed at it so dramatically in the past.

Actually, they haven't had it in the past.

What they've had in the past is one little leg-up from a deal in which they screwed IBM, and obscene lock-in to maintain that lead when their products were behind their competitors almost all the time, often ridiculously far behind. I have no doubt that they can produce quality products -- just look back at Windows 98 (which is when I switched to Linux), and Windows 2000. It's just that they don't even seem to bother to make their stuff work until competition forces them to, by being enough better that people start to switch away.

Their response is standard operating procedure, and nobody is losing any sleep over the subject.

We have a name for that -- embrace, extend, extinguish.

If they wanted to compete with a level playing field, they'd have started with ODF -- in fact, they'd have started with an open standard in the first place, rather than creating a sort-of open one because governments start threatening to use their competition.

They aren't scared of linux either. They acknowledge the threat, and they move against it. But that's not fear, that's just business.

Notice how they've moved against Linux, though. It isn't by creating a superior product.

It's actually mostly with BS marketing campaigns. From "we have the way out", an anti-Unix website that actually ran on Linux servers, to "We have a bunch of patents that Linux infringes on", to "Open source is communism"...

Re:OpenXML is unworkable and dangerous because....

[JanusFury]

Ignoring the fact that you can do the same thing using ODF, and Microsoft only uses BLOBs to store embedded images and other files, not actual document content... but I wouldn't expect you to know that unless you'd written an OpenXML reader (yes, I have).