begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Saturday 08 July 2006 00:31 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> __/ [ nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Thursday 06 July 2006 14:33 \__
>>>
>>>> Quote:
>>>> ----------
>>>> [PJ sees similar tactics by MS in ODF and Adobe disputes.] So,
>>>> Microsoft will let you download Adobe's PDF, if you absolutely insist,
>>>> and install it yourself, but alternatively you can just use Microsoft's
>>>> competing software, with its built-in competing PDF-like tools, making
>>>> Adobe obsolete.
>>>>
>>>> Zap. Buh-bye, Adobe.
>>>>
>>>> Is Microsoft clever, or what? Ditto with ODF. Here's the choice it is
>>>> trying to posit: You will have to download their ODF translator
>>>> yourself and install it. Or, just stick with Microsoft's one-stop
>>>> competing solution that is built in to their software offering.
>>>> Considering Microsoft's monopoly position, and my mom's and most
>>>> governments' typical technical skills, guess what Microsoft hopes moms
>>>> and governments will choose? I see a plan in not building the ODF
>>>> translator into Microsoft's software. So truly clever. It looks open.
>>>> But it's marginalizing ODF. I think the press release might better have
>>>> been titled, "Microsoft announces what it hopes will be its ODF
>>>> killer."
>>>> --------------
>>>> End quote
>>>>
>>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060706064747376
>>>
>>> While that's quite true, since the plug-in is there, at least everyone can
>>> demand colleagues, friends and family to send documents in ODF format.
>>> After all, it's an ISO standard which is interoperable, much like PDF.
>>> Asking somebody to install OpenOffice 2 just to export a PDF or produce an
>>> ODF file has been harder thus far.
>>>
>>> Either Pamela plays devil's advocate or she simply realises that any
>>> decision made by the convicted monopolist is profit-driven, not
>>> ethics-inspired.
>>>
>>
>> Nah - she's right. What she hasn't mentioned, but I expect that it'll
>> happen, is perhaps a deliberate slow-down as was done for the word2 to
>> word6 converter (there were no versions of word from 3-5, afairc). It
>> took an age to save a word2 file, you had to get it from a special menu
>> entry, there was positively no need, other than to put pressure on
>> none-word6 users to "upgrade" (whatever upgrade actually means in the
>> context of Microsoft software).
>>
>> I anticipate that it will be unusable in any normal sense, if MS's
>> previous practice is a reasonable guide. If, on the other hand, they've
>> suddenly become all ethical, then I could be wrong... hehe.
>
> Can you (fore)see PDF getting the death knell? Portability (the 'P' in PDF)
> is exchanged with Openness (the 'O' in ODF). Rather than be imprisoned by
> Adobe's patents (although products other than Adobe Reader can happily
> handle PDF), you are left with simplified specs, essentially an archive of
> XML files with a clear, rhetoric directory hierarchy.
The PDF spec was an important step forward, and there's still some
value, I think, in having standardised rendering spec, but we've already
got postscript for that anyway... I've nothing particularly against
adobe and PDF, but I'd prefer open specs.
>
> I can't comment much on backward-compatibility in Office because I haven't
> sufficient experience in that area. All I know is that when I saved .doc
> files on one machines, they would show up (and thus be printed) differently
> elsewhere. Probably versioning is to blame... bad software design... even
> for a 'pixel perfect', WYSIWYG paradigm.
>
Word backwards compatibility has been awful over the years; competing
products have been better able to handle "older" ms formats than ms word
has been able to. Obviously, this has been to put pressure onto users
to pay more money to MS for a new version of the same thing (Microsoft
call it "upgrade"). Interestingly, it's quite clear that this has been
deliberate. How do I know? It's simple! Excel's backwards compability
has been fine all the way through, and for good reason, too. If MS had
broken Excel, then companies would've screamed long and loud that their
key financial tracking spreadsheets were not supported going forward;
but MS were far too cute to fall for that - they managed to persuade
the public that a spreadsheet could have backwards compatibility, but a
word processor could not! The really amazing thing is how many people
fell for it.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
VMS must die!
|
|
