The GNOME Foundation on OOXML [LWN.net]

The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Posted Nov 26, 2007 10:38 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
Parent article: The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Not surprising but very disappointing. Point 5 has been Microsoft core argument all along, and
have been disproved on many FLOSS forums, so repeating it shows a singular lack of attention
and in-depth analysis of the whole issue (and that after being forced by public opinion to
make a statement).

> We accepted Jody's proposal to make sure that OOXML was documented enough
> such that FLOSS implementations were possible without a huge amount of pain 

... is also highly misleading and playing right in MS fud machine hands, as there are lots of
things in OOXML Jody has no intention of looking at. What Jody is looking at is documenting
the OOXML subset Gnumeric may use, and Microsoft usual "embrace and extend" tactic will mean
what Jody is not interested in will be used to blacklist FLOSS software, especially once it is
enshrined in an ISO document. In this case the extend part is already built-in so you really
have to play head-in-sand austrich not to see it.

The GNOME Foundation has tried a traditionnal cover-our-asses "balanced" statement, but
sometimes when issues are so polarized and clear-cut there is no way to make such a statement
without taking position de facto for one side. Which means you have to do careful analysis
before issuing a text, and the GNOME Foundation people obviously thought they could skimp on
this part.

Very sad.

(Log in to post comments)

The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Posted Nov 26, 2007 12:42 UTC (Mon) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

So you stand behind that point despite the fact that ODF is used by various other things
besides the OpenOffice.org codebase?

The prime example is probably KOffice, which uses ODF as its native file format. Its
developers seem to be happy with that.

/me smells a gnome vs. kde flame :-)

The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Posted Nov 26, 2007 12:50 UTC (Mon) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]

So you stand behind that point despite the fact that ODF is used by various other things besides the OpenOffice.org codebase? The prime example is probably KOffice, which uses ODF as its native file format. Its developers seem to be happy with that. /me smells a gnome vs. kde flame :-)

Which point is that? Sorry, I don't see any relevance to some kind of KDE vs. GNOME debate in this. I was replying to a comment that suggested we hadn't thought the entire statement through -- we have and we stand by it.

The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Posted Nov 26, 2007 13:34 UTC (Mon) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

First off, thanks for your detailed answers.

However, I referred to a specific point made in the first paragraph of the OP, which I feel
that has been left unanswered.

That last line was with a :-) 
Ignore it...

The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Posted Nov 26, 2007 13:49 UTC (Mon) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]

However, I referred to a specific point made in the first paragraph of the OP, which I feel that has been left unanswered.

That "Point 5 has been Microsoft core argument all along"? Oh, was the first poster saying that in response to, "Both ODF and OOXML are very heavily influenced by their implementation heritage" from the statement?

No matter how much the KOffice folks contributed to making ODF better (and they did, no doubt about it), ODF is obviously heavily influenced by its software implementation heritage. I just don't see the point of trying to argue this.

It's more important to beat OOXML in ISO on its merits, within the terms of the ISO process, than bicker about the quality or heritage of ODF. Particularly because ODF is not relevant to the terms of the ISO process!

As we say in the GNOME project, "FOCUS, YOU BABOONS!"

(Which is a nice way of telling someone to get back to the point and keep their eyes on the prize, and also a self-deprecating reference to some of our shitty software creations in the past...)

The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Posted Nov 26, 2007 14:55 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

What you wrote in your statement is OOXML and ODF are basically the same and one should not
refuse one or the other.

This is true on a qualitative plan. There's been uglyness both sides, there are technical
weaknesses in both standards.

This is blatantly false on a quantitative plan. OOXML has several orders of magnitude more
problems than ODF (on every plan: FUDing, technical, etc). 

Pretending otherwise and refusing to argue problems because there are problems everywere has
been the MS party line all along. "What if we're evil, IBM is evil too, so disregard our
evilness. Everything is relative and basically equal, so being equal there's no reason to
refuse to make our format a standard, peace and love live and let live".

Of course once you've given up on a sane appraisal of the format in public forums like ISO,
the arguments radically change and it's not "live and let live" anymore. Except there is no
public scrutinity anymore, so once you've conceded the only place where FLOSS and proprietary
solutions can be compared on equal terms, FLOSS advocates can be quietly rolled over without
no one caring.

You don't have the luxury of playing nice when the other side is playing hardball and BTW owns
95% of the battle field already. Someone will pick up the tab for your moment of gratuituous
enlightened OOXML forgiveness and I hope for the GNOME project it will have better answers
then.

The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Posted Nov 26, 2007 15:02 UTC (Mon) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]

What you wrote in your statement is OOXML and ODF are basically the same and one should not refuse one or the other.

No, that really is not the case. We did say that they were both products of their software implementation heritage, but that does not mean the same thing. We really don't see this as a black and white issue, nor do we see that it's healthy for us to approach it as a black and white issue. We do recognise others in the community see it that way, and we're willing to take the hit. There are plenty of others who see what we're doing as a clever way to hack Microsoft's otherwise totally controlled ECMA process. :-)

The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Posted Nov 26, 2007 15:40 UTC (Mon) by mgb (guest, #3226) [Link]

You talk like a judge, but you lack the power of a judge.  To the real judges you seem
confusing and ineffective.  You need to talk like an advocate.  This is not to say GNOME is a
bad person.  Just that you're out of your depth.  Please reconsider.