Study Touting OOXML Over ODF Is Debunked

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Tuesday January 15, 2008 @10:53AM from the where-the-bread-is-buttered dept.

The Burton Group, an IT research company, published a study urging that enterprise organizations adapt OOXML rather than ODF. Their reasons include things like "ODF is controlled indirectly by Sun," "MS Office is cheaper than OpenOffice.org," and "OOXML improved many problems of DOC." The Burton Group also claims that although ODF is well-designed, OOXML is better suited for the specific needs of enterprise organizations. The study claims to be impartial in that Microsoft didn't pay for it. Ars Technica now has up a pretty thorough debunking of the Burton study. Ars wonders how the Burton authors can so blithely overlook Microsoft's vote-buying in Sweden, while wielding unfounded accusations of chicanery in Sun's direction.

1 of 203 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

this is one of those issues by sentientbrendan · 2008-01-15 14:48 · Score: -1, Flamebait

that some people in the community seem very excited about, and I can't figure out why. Oh no. Microsoft is getting ISO standardization for a format. For... evil? Gasp!

I also think it is hilarious that so many people can talk about how bad OOXML is, in extremely vague terms. Maybe it is bad. Maybe it isn't. However, virtually none of the people who hold strong opinions about the issue are qualified to do so. Instead, they just seem to be engaging in groupthink.

This is an issue that comes up often, where people with no knowledge will hold a strong opinion. Kind of like how every evangelical christian has a very strong opinion on evolution, and no relevant education.

I guess what I'm trying to say is it seems like this petty technical dispute over OOXML has become a religious issue. A religious issue in perhaps the most boring and pointless religion in the world, the church of the slashdot nerd.