__/ [ Philip ] on Thursday 20 July 2006 18:59 \__
> BearItAll wrote:
>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not too long ago, worldwide pressure forced Microsoft to turn around on
>>>its decision not to support ODF, and it came up with an ODF plugin.
>>>For reasons of expediency, this ODF "support" of course wouldn't be made
>>>easy to use, but what the heck - for once, Microsoft actually seems to
>>>have listened to the rest of the world.
>>>
>>>And with MS having unlimited access to both the comprehensive ODF
>>>specifications and documented source code of existing ODF supporting
>>>applications, one would expect the correct translating and handling of ODF
>>>documents to be a no-brainer for Microsoft. The result? Another shining
>>>example of Great Software, as we've come to expect from Microsoft ...
>>>
>>>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060720063746488
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Richard Rasker
Oops. I posted a duplicate. Also noticed a typo after I had posted.
>> A poor implementation could be more damaging than no implementation. Users
>> will just fall back to MS's own formats then MS can say the consumer has
>> decided the issue.
It'll be the same issue with Xen virtualisation. Rather than install or using
a Live CD to test Linux, people will run it under Windows in 'crippled mode'
and get the wrong impression.
>> From what is said on justlinux.com they is a general concensus that this
>> is what MS have in mind, destroy it by simply making it look crap compared
>> to their own.
>>
>> MS didn't even write their addon.
>
> Reminds me of IE for unix. Which was done to check off procurement
> requirements.
There are similar cases to be made for Mac OS. If you make IE5 available,
then you could argue that IE /is/ the standard, rather than have to
accommodate standards.
|
|
