In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 7
<website_has_email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:04:27 GMT
<vTUmh.25135$k74.3924@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> John Bailo shilling for novel wrote:
>
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>
>>>>Dashboard: Office, OpenOffice Ready To Talk
>>>>
>>>>,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| Novell plans to release open-source interoperability technology
>>>>| between the OpenOffice.org productivity suite and Microsoft Office
>>>>| 2007.
>>>>`----
>>>>
>>>>http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196603901
>>>
>>>
>>> "interoperability technology" - wow. The work Microsoft will go to in
>>> order to maintain a proprietary format is amazing. Sorry,
>>> Microsoft/Novell.
>
>
> Exactly my thoughts!
> With open source around pushing out proprietory formats,
> there is no need for interoperability with closed source formats.
> Its a waste of public money and resources.
See below. Of course for new enterprises open formats are preferred.
> There is just the one time conversion from closed
> formats to open formats and the job is done.
That "one time conversion", however, may be considerable,
especially if multiple versions of Word are involved
and something got gunked up way back when.
> There is nothing that closed formats do that is interesting
> or important that governments and local authorities have
> to take note of. The justifications are irrelevant
> particularly as micoshaft is itself now distributing
> supported SuSE Linux, and many of the other equivalent
> Linuxes will work just as well.
>
>> Well, let's take Massachusetts where things went back and forth.
>>
>> With a Novell option, able to standardize on ODF and being able to use
>> legacy Word.documents is feasible.
>
> There is no need for it. Its a waste of public resources.
>
>> The deal benefits Linux.
>
> Nope - it subtracts from open source by having to maintain
> two varieties of formats - closed and open. There are no
> impending benfits of closed source over supported
> and readily available open source.
>
Highly debatable, mostly because of stupid legacy
procedures. Briefly put, if one has an old copy of
Word lying about and a large number of documents created
therefrom, one might have to have two formats -- unless one
wants to spend the time actually converting said formats
to a truly open source. (Presumably, the actual conversion
can be automated, but there are some nasty issues that may
preclude full automation of all conversions; one would
probably want to check all documents if one has time,
or at least spot-check the converted ones and keep the
originals ... just in case.)
I'd consider that a business proposition, and probably
should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Ideally,
we wouldn't have to worry about it -- but then, ideally,
we wouldn't have abusive monopolies either. :-)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
Windows. The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on
a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish".
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
