Interoperability in this case means, hell, what the dictionary says interoperability means: a way for different implementations of an office document so that they can be opened in others.
Microsoft ALREADY HAD a viable, compliant AND interoperable implementation. In THIS ONE, they CHOSE to NOT interoperate.
They CHOSE to bring confusion to the market and to PROTECT their monopoly.
The only problem is that most other suites implement a DRAFT formula standard (OpenFormula) that mirosoft says will not implement until its out of its DRAFT stage.
However, ODF standard is such that they couldve implemented both THEIR way to do it AND the OO.O/Goffice/Koffice (and others) way to do it without any problem at all. And they actually did precisely that in ANOTHER implementation.
This time they CHOSE to NOT interoperate to bring confusion to the market so they can say : hey, that ODF thing is no standard at all.
Its a ploy of evil people that were welcomed to a standards body and they misused that trust to attempt to destroy it.
They COULD HAVE CHOSEN to interoperate. They even did the right thing with another previous implementation.
This time they CHOSE not to interoperate. They are the ONLY SUITE to have taken this choice. And they did that to THWART COMPETITION and introduce CONFUSION to a market where they are a monopoly.
Well, unreasonable arguments tend to elicit suspicion of astroturfing because you seem a well educated individual pushing pure rubish.
Microsoft had the CHOICE to interoperate or not. Its not a matter of standard quality: the part where interop breaks, is NOT IN THE STANDARD. Both oo.o and mso are fully ODF compliant. That is NOT THE POINT.
The point is that they had a choice to be or not be interoperable. They had even chosen interoperability in this very exactly same issue in a previous implementation.
On the one they are BUNDLING, they CHOSE to break compatibility. In my book, they deserve hell.
Since the non-interoperable part of MS's implementation is NOT in the standard, this is NOT an issue of compliance. Both OO.O and MSO are fully compliant.
Another BSD licensed and MS funded effort, when presented with the exact same standard, CHOSE to make the non-standard formulas inter-operable with most other implementations. They succeded.
This turn, with their own internal ODF implementation, MS CHOSE not to be inter-operable: they made the conscious decision to BREAK compatibility to thwart competition in a market they claim - as monopolies do- as if it was their private property, by using the petty argument that formulas are not specified. And thats why we see all this astrotufers claiming the standard is "wrong". It IS NOT. Both suites comply with them. The problem here is that on the parts of the problem-domain of spreadsheets, Microsoft CHOSE to not be inter-operable.
And that's that chums. I hope the EU nails them to the wall.
Look man: the part where interop breaks is NOT IN THE STANDARD.
They had a CHOICE.
They could either make it interoperable, or not. They actually already had working code that WAS interoperable.
But they CHOSE to break interoperability, they CHOSE to misbehave, they CHOSE to be MS as usual instead of the bullshit "interoperable" microsoft that they peddle this days...
The spec is well written and both oo.o and mso CAN claim full compliance.
Compliance is, thus, NOT THE ISSUE.
The issue is one of interoperability and this MS fuckers went out of their way to BREAK IT: see the links posted by shutdown right here, you will find a neat table that show ALL OTHER ODF implementations do a better job of interoperating than MS and thats that, chum, it has nothing to do with the standard.
plus one, informative: i was actually looking for all of those.
Let geeksterdom judge by itself... and it will. And MS will be found to be the evil bastards theyve allways been because they DECIDED to go out of their way to break interoperability.
And thats all there is to it.
There is plenty wrong you can do without breaking the law. People may not be able to sue you for those things, but they will scorn you. And thats whats gonna happen here.
It doesn't, im just changing the subject to one where i can actually reference documented ill will on MS's part because you where right about me being confused in the ISO issue.
True, but I dont think in this instance it would be too hard for anyone to "defend" themselves: only a matter of showing their implementation which most certaintly is in another programming language (C# vs c plusplus).
The part where it doesnt interoperate has little to do with the standard. Its about things that are NOT in the standard.
If they wanted to WILLFULLY interoperate, they wouldve attempted to do so, as they did with their previous product. They fucked this one because they could.
Nope... to my best knowledge, the only argument of ODF against OOXML is that its inclusion as an ISO standard fucking sucks because it competes with a previous (ODF), ISO standard and that breaks ISO rules.
Absolute nonsense and petty attempt to justify malice.
There IS a standard which was NOT completely respected by Microsoft.
However, we arent talking about that part: in this instance, the only claim you can make against the standard is its failing to provide formula specification for spreadsheets.
This is something that MS and all implementors can be asumed to have known BEFORE starting to implement the standard. All other implementations, INCLUDING the BSD licensed one by a microsoft contractor, chose INTEROPERABILITY, Microsoft in their second and internally executed implementation, chose to BREAK IT, and thus it DOES NOT interperate with anything at all.
You can only claim compliance, but you cannot provide evidence that this choices werent taken with WRONGFUL WILL (them being the evil fuckers theyve always been). It was an ill willed decision, that is obvious and the evidence is that, hey, they DONT interoperate at all when they COULD and actually DID interoperate in OTHER implementations.
Slashdot Mirror
And Microsoft CHOSE to go AGAINST interoperability because they COULD.
Ill willed motherfuckers.
You are absolutely right.
NO.
Interoperability in this case means, hell, what the dictionary says interoperability means: a way for different implementations of an office document so that they can be opened in others.
Microsoft ALREADY HAD a viable, compliant AND interoperable implementation. In THIS ONE, they CHOSE to NOT interoperate.
They CHOSE to bring confusion to the market and to PROTECT their monopoly.
They should be nailed to the wall.
NOT implementing interoperability in this instance has NOTHING to do with the standard: the part which they broke is NOT IN THE SPEC.
They CHOSE to not be interoperable conciously: they had, before, provided an interoperable implementation.
This time around, in the sw they push through winupdate, they chose to BREAK compatibility with all the ill will they could muster.
They should be nailed to the wall by antitrust bodies all over the world.
The issue of interoperability in this instance is OUTSIDE of the standard.
Microsoft CHOSE to NOT interoperate, and thats all there is to it.
The EU should nail their ass to the wall.
Because you are LYING and I find this issue IMPORTANT.
NO this is NOT THE CASE.
The only problem is that most other suites implement a DRAFT formula standard (OpenFormula) that mirosoft says will not implement until its out of its DRAFT stage.
However, ODF standard is such that they couldve implemented both THEIR way to do it AND the OO.O/Goffice/Koffice (and others) way to do it without any problem at all. And they actually did precisely that in ANOTHER implementation.
This time they CHOSE to NOT interoperate to bring confusion to the market so they can say : hey, that ODF thing is no standard at all.
Its a ploy of evil people that were welcomed to a standards body and they misused that trust to attempt to destroy it.
You are an IDIOT.
The problem is NOT IN THE SPEC.
The problem is them CHOOSING to NOT interoperate, when they had chosen otherwise before. The only explaination for that is sheer evil.
And that is that: the EU will NAIL THEM TO THE WALL.
Yes, and that is why this company should be bought and broken apart: monopolistic practices is the only thing they do right.
It has nothing to do with the spec you imbecile troll. The problem lies OUTSIDE the spec.
They CHOSE to not interoperate. That is the choice they made.
The EU will nail their asses to the wall!
They COULD HAVE CHOSEN to interoperate. They even did the right thing with another previous implementation.
This time they CHOSE not to interoperate. They are the ONLY SUITE to have taken this choice. And they did that to THWART COMPETITION and introduce CONFUSION to a market where they are a monopoly.
The EU will NAIL THEM TO THE WALL.
Well, unreasonable arguments tend to elicit suspicion of astroturfing because you seem a well educated individual pushing pure rubish.
Microsoft had the CHOICE to interoperate or not. Its not a matter of standard quality: the part where interop breaks, is NOT IN THE STANDARD. Both oo.o and mso are fully ODF compliant. That is NOT THE POINT.
The point is that they had a choice to be or not be interoperable. They had even chosen interoperability in this very exactly same issue in a previous implementation.
On the one they are BUNDLING, they CHOSE to break compatibility. In my book, they deserve hell.
Here is my argument:
Since the non-interoperable part of MS's implementation is NOT in the standard, this is NOT an issue of compliance. Both OO.O and MSO are fully compliant.
Another BSD licensed and MS funded effort, when presented with the exact same standard, CHOSE to make the non-standard formulas inter-operable with most other implementations. They succeded.
This turn, with their own internal ODF implementation, MS CHOSE not to be inter-operable: they made the conscious decision to BREAK compatibility to thwart competition in a market they claim - as monopolies do- as if it was their private property, by using the petty argument that formulas are not specified. And thats why we see all this astrotufers claiming the standard is "wrong". It IS NOT. Both suites comply with them. The problem here is that on the parts of the problem-domain of spreadsheets, Microsoft CHOSE to not be inter-operable.
And that's that chums. I hope the EU nails them to the wall.
Look man: the part where interop breaks is NOT IN THE STANDARD.
They had a CHOICE.
They could either make it interoperable, or not. They actually already had working code that WAS interoperable.
But they CHOSE to break interoperability, they CHOSE to misbehave, they CHOSE to be MS as usual instead of the bullshit "interoperable" microsoft that they peddle this days...
No matter: We will defeat them.
Mark - My - Words.
You can say FUCK here, no problem with that.
The spec is well written and both oo.o and mso CAN claim full compliance.
Compliance is, thus, NOT THE ISSUE.
The issue is one of interoperability and this MS fuckers went out of their way to BREAK IT: see the links posted by shutdown right here, you will find a neat table that show ALL OTHER ODF implementations do a better job of interoperating than MS and thats that, chum, it has nothing to do with the standard.
plus one, informative: i was actually looking for all of those.
Let geeksterdom judge by itself... and it will. And MS will be found to be the evil bastards theyve allways been because they DECIDED to go out of their way to break interoperability.
And thats all there is to it.
There is plenty wrong you can do without breaking the law. People may not be able to sue you for those things, but they will scorn you. And thats whats gonna happen here.
It doesn't, im just changing the subject to one where i can actually reference documented ill will on MS's part because you where right about me being confused in the ISO issue.
Now someone give me a plus one honest rating.
What "proprietary" implementation, you twit? Its compatible with the openformula draft back and forth.
Do they all include bribing of ISO officials and voters?
True, but I dont think in this instance it would be too hard for anyone to "defend" themselves: only a matter of showing their implementation which most certaintly is in another programming language (C# vs c plusplus).
FUD GALORE
The part where it doesnt interoperate has little to do with the standard. Its about things that are NOT in the standard.
If they wanted to WILLFULLY interoperate, they wouldve attempted to do so, as they did with their previous product. They fucked this one because they could.
Nope... to my best knowledge, the only argument of ODF against OOXML is that its inclusion as an ISO standard fucking sucks because it competes with a previous (ODF), ISO standard and that breaks ISO rules.
Absolute nonsense and petty attempt to justify malice.
There IS a standard which was NOT completely respected by Microsoft.
However, we arent talking about that part: in this instance, the only claim you can make against the standard is its failing to provide formula specification for spreadsheets.
This is something that MS and all implementors can be asumed to have known BEFORE starting to implement the standard. All other implementations, INCLUDING the BSD licensed one by a microsoft contractor, chose INTEROPERABILITY, Microsoft in their second and internally executed implementation, chose to BREAK IT, and thus it DOES NOT interperate with anything at all.
You can only claim compliance, but you cannot provide evidence that this choices werent taken with WRONGFUL WILL (them being the evil fuckers theyve always been). It was an ill willed decision, that is obvious and the evidence is that, hey, they DONT interoperate at all when they COULD and actually DID interoperate in OTHER implementations.
Damn... how much do they pay for astroturfing?
I thought they were aiming for compatibility, not plain compliance.
All other suites interoperate mostly fine. Theirs is the only one that pukes with everyone else's implementation.
ALL OTHER implementations are much more compatible than that of MS.
And thats all there is to it.
Id ask them to fix their fucking office suite, but that has proven ineffective over the years.
Thats why I use OpenOffice.Org.