what is the reason that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that ms's implementation is fully compliant with the CURRENT (1.1) spec? nobody is apologizing for lack of compliance, because there IS no lack of compliance. hobbyists got it 'right because they used oo code to do something that i not there in the spec. you can't expect ms to copy code from oo.
the problem is that most people don't love open source or want freedom from monopoly. they just hate microsoft and want it to die. so, instead of improving their shit they keep wasting their time on blamegames, while microsoft is large enough to play games and develop code simultaneously.
Customers don't want excuses. They want interoperability.
don't make me laugh. actual customers don't give a flying fuck. they will save their documents in whatever format that is default in ms office. i wonder why the oo wastes so much time on such irrelevant shit. they do everything except improving their own buggy, crappy, bloated excuse of code.
to get compliance, i need to get my program compliant with the current version of the spec, not some draft. and this thing here is total bullshit:
The ODF 1.0 specification was lacking in detail about how to represent formulas. However, Microsoft's implementation doesn't even get it right with respect to that version.
what the hell does that even mean? if the spec did not detail how to write formulas, how can ms's implementation not get it right? how can i not be compliant with something that isn't there?
it is not insightful. if the spec is so highly broken on fundamental thing like formulas, you cannot exxpect ANYthing to interoperate. whatever microsoft's motivations may have been, fact remains that odf is a shit spec and needs to be fixed before demanding someone else to follow it.
You are missing one ENORMOUS detail: the formulas ARE defined, they are defined by Open Office and every other ODF user as "do what Excel does" (to be pendantic they are "do what Excel does when set to a locale that uses commas as the decimal point").
Microsoft is in the BEST position to do this, better than anybody else including OpenOffice! I believe they have the most accurate implementation of Excel. Or are you going to claim otherwise?
Complicated wording and excuses from Mr Dave Mahugh just show that he is a truly sick and moralless individual. It is blatently obvious how to do the formulas. He is purposly writing stuff he knows as absolute bullshit in order to satisfy his paymasters. A bug in OpenOffice does not mean "don't write any ODF formulas" which is basically what he is claiming. WRONG.
no, the spec does not define formulas. oo has been hacked around with to support excel's way because there is no standard. to get complaince, nobody should need to look at other implementations. you look at the standard and you code. not find out how others do something not defined in the spec.
The whole reason they are doing the ODF thing is pressure from the EU with regards to anti-trust. Part of that pressure is that "You have to do it according to the standard."
So you're arguing that MS's lawyers are completely incompetent and didn't know that being incompatible was a violation of antirust law and that antitrust law doesn't mention anything about standards compliance? I think that's a naive.
no, he's arguing that msoffice's odf implementation is in 100% complaince with the current spec. it is the spec that is shit.
ms office odf complaince and interoperability is near-perfect. try opening an odf created in oo with msoffice. and try opening an odf created in msoffice with oo. unless, you have a spreadsheet with formulas, it will work flawlessly.
The (untrue) assumption that many people seem to hold that Macs are just invulnerable to anything bad happening has finally spread to Apple itself, and they're the last to patch this exploit. Since a lot of Mac advertising used to be based on "Macs don't get Viruses" you'd think they'd have been the first to patch this to maintain their reputation.
Yes I know I'm probably going to get modded down immediately for saying this, but hell, it's the truth.
i think google already does this. i read about a ui designer who left google. he said that google relied too much on experimental data for their colors and ui than his advice. for example, if they had to choose the color of the search button in youtube, dark blue or light blue. so for a day, each color would be tried. due to the sheer volume of clicks, they would be able to see patterns and then decide which color users are more likely to click on. but the key difference here is that changing ui is nowhere as prolematic as reducing speed.
exactly. i really hate relying on someone else for my calendar. and google has been REALLY unreliable these days. but all those "hip metrosexual expensive coffee drinking iPhone using" people have quite a liking for everything online. they don't realize that outside your metropolitan concrete jungle, you can't always stay online.
there are so many ubuntu users who started with drake. myself included. everyone i ask what ubuntu version they first used and usually the answer is dapper drake. i wonder why is it like this?
Slashdot Mirror
what is the reason that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that ms's implementation is fully compliant with the CURRENT (1.1) spec?
nobody is apologizing for lack of compliance, because there IS no lack of compliance.
hobbyists got it 'right because they used oo code to do something that i not there in the spec. you can't expect ms to copy code from oo.
the problem is that most people don't love open source or want freedom from monopoly. they just hate microsoft and want it to die. so, instead of improving their shit they keep wasting their time on blamegames, while microsoft is large enough to play games and develop code simultaneously.
no there are only two implementations. everything else was copied and pasted from oo.
Customers don't want excuses. They want interoperability.
don't make me laugh. actual customers don't give a flying fuck. they will save their documents in whatever format that is default in ms office.
i wonder why the oo wastes so much time on such irrelevant shit. they do everything except improving their own buggy, crappy, bloated excuse of code.
The ODF 1.0 specification was lacking in detail about how to represent formulas. However, Microsoft's implementation doesn't even get it right with respect to that version.
what the hell does that even mean? if the spec did not detail how to write formulas, how can ms's implementation not get it right? how can i not be compliant with something that isn't there?
it is not insightful. if the spec is so highly broken on fundamental thing like formulas, you cannot exxpect ANYthing to interoperate. whatever microsoft's motivations may have been, fact remains that odf is a shit spec and needs to be fixed before demanding someone else to follow it.
You are missing one ENORMOUS detail: the formulas ARE defined, they are defined by Open Office and every other ODF user as "do what Excel does" (to be pendantic they are "do what Excel does when set to a locale that uses commas as the decimal point").
Microsoft is in the BEST position to do this, better than anybody else including OpenOffice! I believe they have the most accurate implementation of Excel. Or are you going to claim otherwise?
Complicated wording and excuses from Mr Dave Mahugh just show that he is a truly sick and moralless individual. It is blatently obvious how to do the formulas. He is purposly writing stuff he knows as absolute bullshit in order to satisfy his paymasters. A bug in OpenOffice does not mean "don't write any ODF formulas" which is basically what he is claiming. WRONG.
no, the spec does not define formulas. oo has been hacked around with to support excel's way because there is no standard. to get complaince, nobody should need to look at other implementations. you look at the standard and you code. not find out how others do something not defined in the spec.
The whole reason they are doing the ODF thing is pressure from the EU with regards to anti-trust. Part of that pressure is that "You have to do it according to the standard."
So you're arguing that MS's lawyers are completely incompetent and didn't know that being incompatible was a violation of antirust law and that antitrust law doesn't mention anything about standards compliance? I think that's a naive.
no, he's arguing that msoffice's odf implementation is in 100% complaince with the current spec. it is the spec that is shit.
ms office odf complaince and interoperability is near-perfect. try opening an odf created in oo with msoffice. and try opening an odf created in msoffice with oo. unless, you have a spreadsheet with formulas, it will work flawlessly.
the thing wrong with buying is that it is not free.
The (untrue) assumption that many people seem to hold that Macs are just invulnerable to anything bad happening has finally spread to Apple itself, and they're the last to patch this exploit. Since a lot of Mac advertising used to be based on "Macs don't get Viruses" you'd think they'd have been the first to patch this to maintain their reputation. Yes I know I'm probably going to get modded down immediately for saying this, but hell, it's the truth.
yes, you were correct about ONE thing,
no, he did not forget. they are just too insignificant to talk about.
i think google already does this. i read about a ui designer who left google. he said that google relied too much on experimental data for their colors and ui than his advice. for example, if they had to choose the color of the search button in youtube, dark blue or light blue. so for a day, each color would be tried. due to the sheer volume of clicks, they would be able to see patterns and then decide which color users are more likely to click on.
but the key difference here is that changing ui is nowhere as prolematic as reducing speed.
...compared to google.
but the home page of live search is great. so i open it everyday and just watch the picture.
disclaimer: i recently ordered an hp dv3t, preferring it over a macbook just due to the price.
why is this troll? not everyone has the money to buy macs. and when windows works as well, why spend more for no reason?
exactly. i really hate relying on someone else for my calendar. and google has been REALLY unreliable these days. but all those "hip metrosexual expensive coffee drinking iPhone using" people have quite a liking for everything online. they don't realize that outside your metropolitan concrete jungle, you can't always stay online.
i don't think anybody uses tapes these days. every camera stores 1080p video on its huge hdd.
wtf? what exactly do you want to say?
yes, i've seen loading animations for about half a second with flashblock turned on, and then the flash object is removed.
i hate flash when i can't play hd youtube videos, even though i can watch 1080p video on vlc easily.
what i loved about iron man was this sentence: "i am iron man." seriously, why do all the superheroes have to be secret?
there are so many ubuntu users who started with drake. myself included. everyone i ask what ubuntu version they first used and usually the answer is dapper drake. i wonder why is it like this?
all fine except you used a ten year old version of windows. use vista and see if you have any of these problems.
what, you wiped off the pre-configured vista without bothering to make sure if xp is supported or not? and then you blame hp. way to go!