Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Posted Nov 26, 2007 13:49 UTC (Mon) by jdub (subscriber, #27)
In reply to: The GNOME Foundation on OOXML by tzafrir
Parent article: The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

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...)

(Log in to post comments)

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.