Study Touting OOXML Over ODF Is Debunked
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.
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.
Money, hookers or blow. Probably a combo of all three. Just a guess.
Je me fous du passé
Why is this topic still going on? I would think that everyone agrees that pdf is the better standard.
I personally prefer problems to be solved instead of improved. But obviously the Burton Group actually likes problems, but doesn't consider the problems of .DOC as good enough, so they are glad that OOXML contains them in an improved form.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
"ODF is controlled indirectly by Sun,"
Oh, and who controls OOXML? Someone you trust more than Sun?
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Think green.