- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Brian Jones can't tell why MS customers have to waste billions of dollars on OOXML
|
|
|
Comments (7)
"Sad to see there's no answer"
"New Comments to this post are disabled" at the end of your link has maybe something to do with it?
Brian Jones has his own weblog, hence his own comments section for anything on the Internet.
Great post
Great reply Hans, though I doubt you'll get a reply from him.
Thanks, nice to hear. I see I made some stupid spelling errors in that post now, but the intention of my post is clear. Also, if you want to have a laugh, look for the 'funny' spelling errors which Brian Jones made himself (worse: They could have easily been avoided by using spell check, and he made them on his own blog), which is why several people recommend he uses Firefox. Off course, he doesn't. He's probably afraid it might be better than what he uses.
Usually, Microsoft tries to divide the world in ODF proponents which in their opinion are OOXML opponents and vice versa. However, they forget their clients are a party too, and they don't give about ODF or OOXML, they just want to save money, time and efforts. What I saw happening a lot is an argument of ODF vs. OOXML, but not focusing on the ones who are supposed to benefit from a standard: The clients of IT-companies and the 'everyday office document users'. It's sad to see the latter are (almost) not represented at all in standard bodies, so the 'customer' or 'end user' ends up not being represented at all. Most of them don't know what's going on anyway. They'll find out when it's too late.
Usually, Microsoft tries to divide the world in ODF proponents which in their opinion are OOXML opponents and vice versa. However, they forget their clients are a party too, and they don't give about ODF or OOXML, they just want to save money, time and efforts. What I saw happening a lot is an argument of ODF vs. OOXML, but not focusing on the ones who are supposed to benefit from a standard: The clients of IT-companies and the 'everyday office document users'. It's sad to see the latter are (almost) not represented at all in standard bodies, so the 'customer' or 'end user' ends up not being represented at all. Most of them don't know what's going on anyway. They'll find out when it's too late.
Great post indeed!
On the one hand,
An alleged olive branch Brian Jones not-so-humbly deigns to bestow upon "the [mere mortal] ODF guys" one thinks?
OTOH, (from LXer Bob_Robertson at http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/26791/)
Brian Jones knows that ODF would be the victim of his clearly-intended Catch-22 efforts (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic) ). Thus, he'd be the epitomal Open XML-fanboi , and readers of this post have already realized the diligence of his efforts to specifically promote MS's OfficeXML at all costs.
No wonder Brian Jones will refuse to clearly respond at all to hkwint's comment on the OOXML blog!!
On the one hand,
Quoting:If the ODF guys decide to change their design goals, then they are welcome to reference the Ecma standard and change ODF to also be compatible with the existing base of Office binary documents. It would require a good re-working of their existing format though, and I doubt they will want to do that.
An alleged olive branch Brian Jones not-so-humbly deigns to bestow upon "the [mere mortal] ODF guys" one thinks?
OTOH, (from LXer Bob_Robertson at http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/26791/)
Quoting: OfficeXML ends up being 6000 pages which don't define anything. Implementing the OfficeXML "spec" is impossible without prior full documentation of the _closed, proprietary file formats_ of the previous Microsoft Office editions. That documentation does not exist outside of Microsoft.That is to say here, "the ODF guys" are effectively prevented from changing the design goals that Brian Jones may indeed be suggesting above .
Brian Jones knows that ODF would be the victim of his clearly-intended Catch-22 efforts (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic) ). Thus, he'd be the epitomal Open XML-fanboi , and readers of this post have already realized the diligence of his efforts to specifically promote MS's OfficeXML at all costs.
No wonder Brian Jones will refuse to clearly respond at all to hkwint's comment on the OOXML blog!!
This reply by Brian Jones shows his complicity in fraud.
This reply by Brian Jones, in the comments, demonstrates his ignorance of the situation.
------- Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:37 PM by BrianJones # re: It’s hard damned work trying to make this process look so bad Dave, I don't think you have access to all the facts. Just look at the history. ODF and OpenXML were developed in parallel. ODF had one set of goals and Open XML had another. These are the facts. If we used ODF and didn't create Open XML, 99% of our customers who don't give a lick about file formats would have to suffer. They would lose things from their files, and they would then lose faith in the product. They would go back to using the binary formats, and that would do absolutely no good. If the ODF guys decide to change their design goals, then they are welcome to reference the Ecma standard and change ODF to also be compatible with the existing base of Office binary documents. It would require a good re-working of their existing format though, and I doubt they will want to do that. -Brian --------------
Ok, Brian, tell me: How is ODF supposed to make ODF binarily backward-compatible with _closed, proprietary file formats_?
OfficeXML doesn't do it any better, since those _closed, proprietary file formats_ are pointed to in the "spec", but never defined.
OfficeXML ends up being 6000 pages which don't define anything. Implementing the OfficeXML "spec" is impossible without prior full documentation of the _closed, proprietary file formats_ of the previous Microsoft Office editions. That documentation does not exist outside of Microsoft.
The entire OfficeXML "standard" is a _lie_.
I notice how he never mentions how very good at reading prior MS Office files the various F/OSS office suits are, by the simple but legally tenuous process of reverse engineering.
But then, that wouldn't serve Microsoft's purposes of vendor lock-in.
------- Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:37 PM by BrianJones # re: It’s hard damned work trying to make this process look so bad Dave, I don't think you have access to all the facts. Just look at the history. ODF and OpenXML were developed in parallel. ODF had one set of goals and Open XML had another. These are the facts. If we used ODF and didn't create Open XML, 99% of our customers who don't give a lick about file formats would have to suffer. They would lose things from their files, and they would then lose faith in the product. They would go back to using the binary formats, and that would do absolutely no good. If the ODF guys decide to change their design goals, then they are welcome to reference the Ecma standard and change ODF to also be compatible with the existing base of Office binary documents. It would require a good re-working of their existing format though, and I doubt they will want to do that. -Brian --------------
Ok, Brian, tell me: How is ODF supposed to make ODF binarily backward-compatible with _closed, proprietary file formats_?
OfficeXML doesn't do it any better, since those _closed, proprietary file formats_ are pointed to in the "spec", but never defined.
OfficeXML ends up being 6000 pages which don't define anything. Implementing the OfficeXML "spec" is impossible without prior full documentation of the _closed, proprietary file formats_ of the previous Microsoft Office editions. That documentation does not exist outside of Microsoft.
The entire OfficeXML "standard" is a _lie_.
I notice how he never mentions how very good at reading prior MS Office files the various F/OSS office suits are, by the simple but legally tenuous process of reverse engineering.
But then, that wouldn't serve Microsoft's purposes of vendor lock-in.
That makes a very interesting read.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post