totally agree
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jsusanka Feb 19, 2007 6:41 AM EDT |
ya when I read their letter - the first thing that popped in my mind was that their argument was retarded. they are the ones that are afraid of competing - they want to compete with standards and not products. this is retarded. can you say LOCK-IN. standards will make it a true level playing field and that is what they are afraid of. people will actually be able to chose products because of what they like and not because their documents are in a certain format. this will help with piracy too because people won't want to steal work's office software just so they can work at home. this letter is the whole problem with microsoft - it is that bill gates thinking - they still think like bill did in the netscape video tapes. they still continue with their monopolistic practices and show no sign of changing their ways - in fact they are going the opposite way in my book - they are getting even worse with their monopolistic practices. |
| purplewizard Feb 19, 2007 7:43 AM EDT |
In XML-based file formats, which can easily interoperate through translators and be implemented side by side in productivity software, this exclusivity makes no sense I already highlighted this snippet of the Microsoft letter in other posts. Basically they are saying it is so easy to convert between standards that there should be others that compete. When actually their argument actually points to 1/ if it is so easy to convert 2/ aren't the standards therefore effectively equivalent and interchangeable 3/ why therefore not just use the one already in existence and accepted as an open standard. The clear conclusion must be that they are deliberately not saying is they won't be compatible, they won't therefore be convertable and therefore the whole basis of the argument they present is in fact a lie. It just seems to be a magicians twirl of deception while they pick your pocket. |
| bigg Feb 19, 2007 8:16 AM EDT |
> In XML-based file formats, which can easily interoperate through translators and be implemented side by side in productivity software, this exclusivity makes no sense Considering that MS Office formats had been a de facto standard for years, and MS could have opened them years ago, this is an issue because MS felt it was optimal to leave the development of an open standard years ago. How do they explain their exclusivity? Microsoft's answer before was always an extension of the middle finger when someone else made a suggestion regarding the Office formats. The Office formats were designed in such a way as to maximize Microsoft's profits. Why should they get anything less than an extension of the middle finger now? Why do they think they had a right to force their profit-maximizing schemes on others before, but now they have a right to say anything about this issue? I guess it's always difficult for the abuser to come to grips with the fact that things have changed. "Well it's only fair that you let me control you six hours a day." If someone wants to use a specific file format, why should that make any difference to Microsoft? What difference does it make to them if they want to save documents in broken Chinese? Who's the customer and who's the supplier? It's always hard to give up the monopoly mindset. |
| Abe Feb 19, 2007 11:52 AM EDT |
Quoting:In XML-based file formats, which can easily interoperate through translators and be implemented side by side in productivity software, this exclusivity makes no senseCompatibility via Standard Formats beats translators hands down. MS prefers translation for multiple reasons a) It is time consuming & troublesome to convert and consequently users will be deterred from migrating to ODF when they want because it wont be easy. b) MS isn NOT writing but rather out sourcing the translator plug-in development for a reason. If there are issues, and there will be, their customers can't blame them for inaccuracies and deficiencies. c) MS OOXML Schema is controlled by MS only. So they are free to do whatever they want, whenever they want without notice. They also can change the promise to start charging for using the schema any time they want after many are hooked. d) They can add their old office format documents as binary into OOXML without disclosing its format |
| swbrown Feb 19, 2007 5:04 PM EDT |
Translators fundamentally don't work for the normal workflow case, as they don't preserve the features not supported, so it's a lossy conversion only suitable for doing once. The application itself needs to understand the format so it can preserve the features it doesn't understand while editing. The format needs to be designed in a non-'must-understand' manner as well. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!