User: jpmcc Date: 2009-01-18 00:00:59+0000 Modified: native-lang/www/planet/atom.xml native-lang/www/planet/index.html native-lang/www/planet/opml.xml native-lang/www/planet/rss10.xml native-lang/www/planet/rss20.xml
Log: Planet run at Sun Jan 18 00:00:46 GMT 2009 File Changes: Directory: /native-lang/www/planet/ =================================== File [changed]: atom.xml Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/atom.xml?r1=1.1198&r2=1.1199 Delta lines: +52 -101 ---------------------- --- atom.xml 2009-01-17 18:00:56+0000 1.1198 +++ atom.xml 2009-01-18 00:00:56+0000 1.1199 @@ -5,9 +5,49 @@ <link rel="self" href="http://native-lang.openoffice.org/planet/atom.xml"/> <link href="http://native-lang.openoffice.org/planet/"/> <id>http://native-lang.openoffice.org/planet/atom.xml</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:51+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:51+00:00</updated> <generator uri="http://www.planetplanet.org/";>Planet/2.0 +http://www.planetplanet.org</generator> + <entry xml:lang="en"> + <title type="html">United we stand, dividedâ¦we are still standing.</title> + <link href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/01/17/united-we-stand-divided-we-are-still-standing/"/> + <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/01/17/united-we-stand-divided-we-are-still-standing/</id> + <updated>2009-01-17T18:14:46+00:00</updated> + <content type="html"><p>Some unfortunate news have been spreading around the web recently concerning « OpenOffice.org dying » and has sparkled some interesting articles. I got interviewed <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/09/interview-with-charles-h-schulz/">here</a>, some <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/what_was_done_for_openoffice">very good answer</a> to those extravagant claims was posted on the Sun OpenOffice.org&#8217;s blog, and I am pretty sure that we will read more and more about it soon.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>I would just like to mention three additional points before describing my view of a â post-Novellâ OpenOffice.org.</p> +<ul> +<li> +<p>The claims made by Michael Meeks, especially the ones related to what kind of data he shows do not take into account the extensions repository. I agree that extensions are by definition not part of the code base, but given the rate of upload of new extensions we&#8217;re having at the moment (50 extensions during December 2008) this starts to become non-trivial. Hence the data does not take into account the contributions made almost exclusively by non-Sun staff.</p> +</li> +<li> +<p>Michael makes all those claims and that&#8217;s his right to do so but -and that&#8217;s not an ad-hominem attack- one should remember that <em>Michael Meeks has not contributed a single line of code to OpenOffice.org since two years</em>. <span>Both his own blog and the logs of the commits show that Michael is nowhere to be seen. What shall we be doing with this? Pretty simply, I value both code and non-code contributions (contrary to Michael), and I have a hard time understanding where Michael stands anywhere in our community. Calling OpenOffice.org anything similar to a dead horse is a strong statement for someone who does not contribute, but only criticizes a project.</span></p> +</li> +<li> +<p> <span>Some time ago stats about CVS commits surfaced and the results were eloquent: Sun was by far the strongest contributor. Others counted Novell, Red Hat, Debian, etc. But these were not the second largest contributor. The label â communityâ was the second one. By this it was meant, people with no âfamousâ affiliation contributed more than anything Novell was.</span></p> +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> <span>So will we survive a fork from Novell? I do believe we will. First, the fork is already made. I haven&#8217; t seen developers leaving in flock to go-give-your-code-and-let-us-make-money-for-ourselves.org</span></p> +<p> <span>Second, a fork is only really interesting if at some point it sensibly differs from its parent. Concerning the parent, I think a lot of work has to be done but things have improved a lot, the product is great, adoption is exponential and the future looks exciting. The fork itself is a bit of a mystery. Of course, we will likely see some bug hunting and a bunch of cool patches that will end up being implemented inside OpenOffice.org unless those patches are actually ported to the fork. There will also be the much-overstated bazaar-like incremental development (so you don&#8217;t need a roadmap in theory) to consider, but above all, my little finger tells me there will be a lot of âcontributionsâ made to ensure the fork will support more and more</span> <strike><span>Microsoft</span></strike> <span>Novell technologies and hence stay the faithful and loyal second of Microsoft Office for ever.</span></p> +<p> </p> +<p> <span>Still excited about go-oo? Be my guest, go ahead and contribute!</span></p> +<p><br clear="left" /></p> +<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=113&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_113" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> +</p></content> + <author> + <name>Charles Schulz</name> + <uri>http://standardsandfreedom.net</uri> + </author> + <source> + <title type="html">Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards » OOo Postings</title> + <subtitle type="html">A weblog by Charles-H. Schulz.</subtitle> + <link rel="self" href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed"/> + <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed</id> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:47+00:00</updated> + </source> + </entry> + <entry> <title type="html">LotusPhere - Here I come</title> <link href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2009/01/lotusphere-here-i-come.html"/> @@ -31,7 +71,7 @@ Okay, sometimes you can read something about Lotus Notes too</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169</id> - <updated>2009-01-16T00:00:45+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:51+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -59,7 +99,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">Histoires OpenOfficiennes et autres...</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/atom.php"/> <id>tag:sophiegautier.com,2009:/blog/index.php/</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:48+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:48+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -97,7 +137,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">A weblog by Charles-H. Schulz.</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed"/> <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:47+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:47+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -134,7 +174,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">A weblog by Charles-H. Schulz.</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed"/> <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:47+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:47+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -161,7 +201,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">Histoires OpenOfficiennes et autres...</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/atom.php"/> <id>tag:sophiegautier.com,2009:/blog/index.php/</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:48+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:48+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -192,7 +232,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">Histoires OpenOfficiennes et autres...</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/atom.php"/> <id>tag:sophiegautier.com,2009:/blog/index.php/</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:48+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:48+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -221,7 +261,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">Ichinoseki, Iwate, Japan</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://openoffice.exblog.jp/atom.xml"/> <id>http://openoffice.exblog.jp/atom.xml</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:51+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:50+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -245,7 +285,7 @@ Okay, sometimes you can read something about Lotus Notes too</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169</id> - <updated>2009-01-16T00:00:45+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:51+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -264,7 +304,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">Histoires OpenOfficiennes et autres...</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/atom.php"/> <id>tag:sophiegautier.com,2009:/blog/index.php/</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:48+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:48+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -289,7 +329,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">Histoires OpenOfficiennes et autres...</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/atom.php"/> <id>tag:sophiegautier.com,2009:/blog/index.php/</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:48+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:48+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -329,96 +369,7 @@ Okay, sometimes you can read something about Lotus Notes too</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169</id> - <updated>2009-01-16T00:00:45+00:00</updated> - </source> - </entry> - - <entry> - <title type="html">[Update]Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren</title> - <link href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/12/tnder-municipality-behind-free-it.html"/> - <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-4373353179933806915</id> - <updated>2008-12-18T17:15:33+00:00</updated> - <content type="html">12 December 2008 - -PRESS RELEASE - -Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren - -In cooperation with the National Software Knowledge Centre under the National IT and Telecom Agency, USB sticks with free Open Source programs will be distributed to all schoolchildren on Wednesday. - -... - -Tønder Taking the Lead - -Morten Kristoffer Hansen, Head of Section in the Knowledge Centre, is</content> - <author> - <name>Leif Lodahl</name> - <email>[email protected]</email> - <uri>http://lodahl.blogspot.com/</uri> - </author> - <source> - <title type="html">Lodahl's blog</title> - <subtitle type="html">OpenOffice.org, open source software and open standards. These are the three things you can read about on my blog. I'll try to keep you updated on news and events in Denmark. -Okay, sometimes you can read something about Lotus Notes too</subtitle> - <link rel="self" href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> - <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169</id> - <updated>2009-01-16T00:00:45+00:00</updated> - </source> - </entry> - - <entry xml:lang="en"> - <title type="html">Plone: a test instance for OOoAuthors</title> - <link href="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1293471/"/> - <id>http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1293471/</id> - <updated>2008-12-17T20:44:59+00:00</updated> - <content type="html">I build a test instance for OOoAuthors with Plone 3.1.7 during the last two weeks. I used for this a buildout script. The instance runs on a server of the association OpenOffice.org Deutschland e.V. now. -One of the things, that are missing now, is content. I will put some test content into the new site. So it would be easier to evaluate, if every thing works. -We will see.</content> - <author> - <name>Andreas Mantke</name> - <uri>http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/</uri> - </author> - <source> - <title type="html">andreasma_at_ooo</title> - <link rel="self" href="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/rss"/> - <id>http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/rss</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:49+00:00</updated> - </source> - </entry> - - <entry xml:lang="en"> - <title type="html">Some thoughts on the Microsoftâs implementation of ODF</title> - <link href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/"/> - <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/</id> - <updated>2008-12-17T17:11:34+00:00</updated> - <content type="html"><p>This post is a bit hard to write. Let me just put it this way: If my predictions below are true, it will mean that Microsoft will offer some crippled and low-level support of ODF 1.1 in its next version of Microsoft Office. It will also mean that OpenOffice.org will have gained a competitive edge on the market.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>Now you may wonder why I find it difficult to write down these things. The reason is <a href="http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oic/email/archives/200812/msg00016.html">the recent post of Doug Mahugh</a> in regard of the support of ODF by MS Office. Instead of providing a detailed review on the matter, Doug explains -a bit laboriously- that interoperability does not mean that each implementation has to do things the same way and that some implementations are more extensive than others. We are then being told that Microsoft Office will have limited support in for ODF tables in Word.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>Doug&#8217;s initial point is true: there are differences in implementation of a standard. When you have a truly open standard, you can expect implementers to be able to deliver some reliable implementation of the standard. Of course, it depends of the implementation&#8217;s focus. Suppose for one moment that I&#8217;m in the business of developing and selling IT systems for ATMs. I have an OS that sports an user interface for ATM transactions, another one for administration, and among several other features, an editor that prints out your receipts and the records of your past transactions on demand. One might expect that this editor can support ODF natively and will create ODF documents. These documents are not very complex, and to say it all, they&#8217;re even very basic. All what is required for me is to implement the bare minimum of ODF to be compliant and adequately call myself compliant. The minimum compliance with ODF is my right, as the vendor of the ATM receipts editor. My business is not print complex spreadsheets, nor fancy presentations, no: my business is to allow cash machines to print customers&#8217; receipts of their cash transactions at the ATM, that&#8217;s all.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>Now you have Microsoft&#8217;s bellydancing and basically declaring that they, who sell the âbest office suite on the marketâ (I don&#8217;t make that claim) will offer poor support on ODF because of product limitations. Am I the only one here feeling that Redmond is trying -again-to play games? Any additional information would be welcome at this stage, of course, but the market should pay close attention to this issue.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>I have hailed and declared myself positively satisfied the inclusion of Microsoft in the ODF committees at the OASIS consortium. I have read the contributions of its employees and they were useful and constructive. This being said, Doug&#8217;s blog leaves me with an odd taste in my mouth.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>To be frank, I feel that Doug has been looking for a way to tell us that Microsoft&#8217;s support of ODF will be crappy and that it was intended to be that way. I realize I have no substantial evidence of what I&#8217;m asserting here, but since when does Microsoft speak of the new features of MS Office with a sorry tone?</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>That&#8217;s why I just don&#8217;t know how to properly assess what kind of message Microsoft is sending right now. The way I see it, Microsoft expects customers will stick to Microsoft Office since it also supports an Open Standard, ODF. However, the support of ODF being of poor quality, customers will roll back to Microsoft&#8217;s formats, and life will go on back like it was in the good old days.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>I realize this is all « prospective » thinking, and that there is nothing solid aside Microsoft&#8217;s announcement of poor support of the ODF file format. I am disappointed by these news, though. Once again, Microsoft&#8217;s declarations turn out to be âall hat, no cattleâ. The way out of it is known: Choose OpenOffice.org, choose ODF, choose any other office suite, but not the one that offers partial support of an open standard that puts the users first.</p> -<p><br clear="left" /></p> -<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=109&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_109" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> -</p></content> - <author> - <name>Charles Schulz</name> - <uri>http://standardsandfreedom.net</uri> - </author> - <source> - <title type="html">Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards » OOo Postings</title> - <subtitle type="html">A weblog by Charles-H. Schulz.</subtitle> - <link rel="self" href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed"/> - <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed</id> - <updated>2009-01-17T18:00:47+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-01-18T00:00:51+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> File [changed]: index.html Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/index.html?r1=1.1198&r2=1.1199 Delta lines: +37 -76 --------------------- --- index.html 2009-01-17 18:00:56+0000 1.1198 +++ index.html 2009-01-18 00:00:56+0000 1.1199 @@ -28,8 +28,44 @@ <a href="rss20.xml"><img src="rss2.gif" alt="Link to RSS 2 feed" /></a> </div> -<p><em>Bloggings on native language topics by project members - see <a href="#disclaimer">disclaimer</a>.<br />Last updated: January 17, 2009 06:00 PM GMT</em></p> +<p><em>Bloggings on native language topics by project members - see <a href="#disclaimer">disclaimer</a>.<br />Last updated: January 18, 2009 12:00 AM GMT</em></p> +<h2>January 17, 2009</h2> +<h3> +<a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net"; title="Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards » OOo Postings"> +Charles Schulz</a> : +<a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/01/17/united-we-stand-divided-we-are-still-standing/";> +United we stand, dividedâ¦we are still standing.</a> +</h3> +<p> +<p>Some unfortunate news have been spreading around the web recently concerning « OpenOffice.org dying » and has sparkled some interesting articles. I got interviewed <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/09/interview-with-charles-h-schulz/";>here</a>, some <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/what_was_done_for_openoffice";>very good answer</a> to those extravagant claims was posted on the Sun OpenOffice.org’s blog, and I am pretty sure that we will read more and more about it soon.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>I would just like to mention three additional points before describing my view of a â post-Novellâ OpenOffice.org.</p> +<ul> +<li> +<p>The claims made by Michael Meeks, especially the ones related to what kind of data he shows do not take into account the extensions repository. I agree that extensions are by definition not part of the code base, but given the rate of upload of new extensions we’re having at the moment (50 extensions during December 2008) this starts to become non-trivial. Hence the data does not take into account the contributions made almost exclusively by non-Sun staff.</p> +</li> +<li> +<p>Michael makes all those claims and that’s his right to do so but -and that’s not an ad-hominem attack- one should remember that <em>Michael Meeks has not contributed a single line of code to OpenOffice.org since two years</em>. <span>Both his own blog and the logs of the commits show that Michael is nowhere to be seen. What shall we be doing with this? Pretty simply, I value both code and non-code contributions (contrary to Michael), and I have a hard time understanding where Michael stands anywhere in our community. Calling OpenOffice.org anything similar to a dead horse is a strong statement for someone who does not contribute, but only criticizes a project.</span></p> +</li> +<li> +<p> <span>Some time ago stats about CVS commits surfaced and the results were eloquent: Sun was by far the strongest contributor. Others counted Novell, Red Hat, Debian, etc. But these were not the second largest contributor. The label â communityâ was the second one. By this it was meant, people with no âfamousâ affiliation contributed more than anything Novell was.</span></p> +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> <span>So will we survive a fork from Novell? I do believe we will. First, the fork is already made. I haven’ t seen developers leaving in flock to go-give-your-code-and-let-us-make-money-for-ourselves.org</span></p> +<p> <span>Second, a fork is only really interesting if at some point it sensibly differs from its parent. Concerning the parent, I think a lot of work has to be done but things have improved a lot, the product is great, adoption is exponential and the future looks exciting. The fork itself is a bit of a mystery. Of course, we will likely see some bug hunting and a bunch of cool patches that will end up being implemented inside OpenOffice.org unless those patches are actually ported to the fork. There will also be the much-overstated bazaar-like incremental development (so you don’t need a roadmap in theory) to consider, but above all, my little finger tells me there will be a lot of âcontributionsâ made to ensure the fork will support more and more</span> <strike><span>Microsoft</span></strike> <span>Novell technologies and hence stay the faithful and loyal second of Microsoft Office for ever.</span></p> +<p> </p> +<p> <span>Still excited about go-oo? Be my guest, go ahead and contribute!</span></p> +<p><br clear="left" /></p> +<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=113&akst_action=share-this"; title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_113" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> +</p></p> +<p> +<em><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/01/17/united-we-stand-divided-we-are-still-standing/";>by Charles at January 17, 2009 06:14 PM GMT</a></em> +</p> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> <h2>January 15, 2009</h2> <h3> <a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/"; title="Lodahl's blog"> @@ -300,81 +336,6 @@ <br /> <hr /> <br /> -<h2>December 18, 2008</h2> -<h3> -<a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/"; title="Lodahl's blog"> -Leif Lodahl</a> : -<a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/12/tnder-municipality-behind-free-it.html";> -[Update]Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren</a> -</h3> -<p> -12 December 2008 - -PRESS RELEASE - -Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren - -In cooperation with the National Software Knowledge Centre under the National IT and Telecom Agency, USB sticks with free Open Source programs will be distributed to all schoolchildren on Wednesday. - -... - -Tønder Taking the Lead - -Morten Kristoffer Hansen, Head of Section in the Knowledge Centre, is</p> -<p> -<em><a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/12/tnder-municipality-behind-free-it.html";>by Leif Lodahl ([email protected]) at December 18, 2008 05:15 PM GMT</a></em> -</p> -<br /> -<hr /> -<br /> -<h2>December 17, 2008</h2> -<h3> -<a href="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/"; title="andreasma_at_ooo"> -Andreas Mantke</a> : -<a href="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1293471/";> -Plone: a test instance for OOoAuthors</a> -</h3> -<p> -I build a test instance for OOoAuthors with Plone 3.1.7 during the last two weeks. I used for this a buildout script. The instance runs on a server of the association OpenOffice.org Deutschland e.V. now. -One of the things, that are missing now, is content. I will put some test content into the new site. So it would be easier to evaluate, if every thing works. -We will see.</p> -<p> -<em><a href="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1293471/";>by andreasma at December 17, 2008 08:44 PM GMT</a></em> -</p> -<br /> -<hr /> -<br /> -<h3> -<a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net"; title="Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards » OOo Postings"> -Charles Schulz</a> : -<a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/";> -Some thoughts on the Microsoftâs implementation of ODF</a> -</h3> -<p> -<p>This post is a bit hard to write. Let me just put it this way: If my predictions below are true, it will mean that Microsoft will offer some crippled and low-level support of ODF 1.1 in its next version of Microsoft Office. It will also mean that OpenOffice.org will have gained a competitive edge on the market.</p> -<p> </p> -<p>Now you may wonder why I find it difficult to write down these things. The reason is <a href="http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oic/email/archives/200812/msg00016.html";>the recent post of Doug Mahugh</a> in regard of the support of ODF by MS Office. Instead of providing a detailed review on the matter, Doug explains -a bit laboriously- that interoperability does not mean that each implementation has to do things the same way and that some implementations are more extensive than others. We are then being told that Microsoft Office will have limited support in for ODF tables in Word.</p> -<p> </p> -<p>Doug’s initial point is true: there are differences in implementation of a standard. When you have a truly open standard, you can expect implementers to be able to deliver some reliable implementation of the standard. Of course, it depends of the implementation’s focus. Suppose for one moment that I’m in the business of developing and selling IT systems for ATMs. I have an OS that sports an user interface for ATM transactions, another one for administration, and among several other features, an editor that prints out your receipts and the records of your past transactions on demand. One might expect that this editor can support ODF natively and will create ODF documents. These documents are not very complex, and to say it all, they’re even very basic. All what is required for me is to implement the bare minimum of ODF to be compliant and adequately call myself compliant. The minimum compliance with ODF is my right, as the vendor of the ATM receipts editor. My business is not print complex spreadsheets, nor fancy presentations, no: my business is to allow cash machines to print customers’ receipts of their cash transactions at the ATM, that’s all.</p> -<p> </p> -<p>Now you have Microsoft’s bellydancing and basically declaring that they, who sell the âbest office suite on the marketâ (I don’t make that claim) will offer poor support on ODF because of product limitations. Am I the only one here feeling that Redmond is trying -again-to play games? Any additional information would be welcome at this stage, of course, but the market should pay close attention to this issue.</p> -<p> </p> -<p>I have hailed and declared myself positively satisfied the inclusion of Microsoft in the ODF committees at the OASIS consortium. I have read the contributions of its employees and they were useful and constructive. This being said, Doug’s blog leaves me with an odd taste in my mouth.</p> -<p> </p> -<p>To be frank, I feel that Doug has been looking for a way to tell us that Microsoft’s support of ODF will be crappy and that it was intended to be that way. I realize I have no substantial evidence of what I’m asserting here, but since when does Microsoft speak of the new features of MS Office with a sorry tone?</p> -<p> </p> -<p>That’s why I just don’t know how to properly assess what kind of message Microsoft is sending right now. The way I see it, Microsoft expects customers will stick to Microsoft Office since it also supports an Open Standard, ODF. However, the support of ODF being of poor quality, customers will roll back to Microsoft’s formats, and life will go on back like it was in the good old days.</p> -<p> </p> -<p>I realize this is all « prospective » thinking, and that there is nothing solid aside Microsoft’s announcement of poor support of the ODF file format. I am disappointed by these news, though. Once again, Microsoft’s declarations turn out to be âall hat, no cattleâ. The way out of it is known: Choose OpenOffice.org, choose ODF, choose any other office suite, but not the one that offers partial support of an open standard that puts the users first.</p> -<p><br clear="left" /></p> -<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=109&akst_action=share-this"; title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_109" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> -</p></p> -<p> -<em><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/";>by Charles at December 17, 2008 05:11 PM GMT</a></em> -</p> -<br /> -<hr /> -<br /> <a id="disclaimer" name="disclaimer"></a> <p><em>Disclaimer: all views expressed on this page are those of the individual contributors, and may not reflect the views of the File [changed]: opml.xml Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/opml.xml?r1=1.1198&r2=1.1199 Delta lines: +1 -1 ------------------- --- opml.xml 2009-01-17 18:00:56+0000 1.1198 +++ opml.xml 2009-01-18 00:00:56+0000 1.1199 @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ <opml version="1.1"> <head> <title>Native Language Confederation Planet</title> - <dateModified>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:00:51 +0000</dateModified> + <dateModified>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:00:51 +0000</dateModified> <ownerName>Native Language Confederation</ownerName> <ownerEmail>[email protected]</ownerEmail> </head> File [changed]: rss10.xml Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/rss10.xml?r1=1.250&r2=1.251 Delta lines: +28 -53 --------------------- --- rss10.xml 2009-01-16 00:00:49+0000 1.250 +++ rss10.xml 2009-01-18 00:00:56+0000 1.251 @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ <items> <rdf:Seq> + <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/01/17/united-we-stand-divided-we-are-still-standing/"; /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-8338255612344603251" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-01-08:/blog/99" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/01/07/doubts-hopes/"; /> @@ -25,13 +26,37 @@ <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:sophiegautier.com,2008-12-21:/blog/95" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1295705/"; /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-641065946779307480" /> - <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-4373353179933806915" /> - <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1293471/"; /> - <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/"; /> </rdf:Seq> </items> </channel> +<item rdf:about="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/01/17/united-we-stand-divided-we-are-still-standing/";> + <title>Charles Schulz: United we stand, dividedâ¦we are still standing.</title> + <link>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/01/17/united-we-stand-divided-we-are-still-standing/</link> + <content:encoded><p>Some unfortunate news have been spreading around the web recently concerning « OpenOffice.org dying » and has sparkled some interesting articles. I got interviewed <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/09/interview-with-charles-h-schulz/">here</a>, some <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/what_was_done_for_openoffice">very good answer</a> to those extravagant claims was posted on the Sun OpenOffice.org&#8217;s blog, and I am pretty sure that we will read more and more about it soon.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>I would just like to mention three additional points before describing my view of a â post-Novellâ OpenOffice.org.</p> +<ul> +<li> +<p>The claims made by Michael Meeks, especially the ones related to what kind of data he shows do not take into account the extensions repository. I agree that extensions are by definition not part of the code base, but given the rate of upload of new extensions we&#8217;re having at the moment (50 extensions during December 2008) this starts to become non-trivial. Hence the data does not take into account the contributions made almost exclusively by non-Sun staff.</p> +</li> +<li> +<p>Michael makes all those claims and that&#8217;s his right to do so but -and that&#8217;s not an ad-hominem attack- one should remember that <em>Michael Meeks has not contributed a single line of code to OpenOffice.org since two years</em>. <span>Both his own blog and the logs of the commits show that Michael is nowhere to be seen. What shall we be doing with this? Pretty simply, I value both code and non-code contributions (contrary to Michael), and I have a hard time understanding where Michael stands anywhere in our community. Calling OpenOffice.org anything similar to a dead horse is a strong statement for someone who does not contribute, but only criticizes a project.</span></p> +</li> +<li> +<p> <span>Some time ago stats about CVS commits surfaced and the results were eloquent: Sun was by far the strongest contributor. Others counted Novell, Red Hat, Debian, etc. But these were not the second largest contributor. The label â communityâ was the second one. By this it was meant, people with no âfamousâ affiliation contributed more than anything Novell was.</span></p> +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> <span>So will we survive a fork from Novell? I do believe we will. First, the fork is already made. I haven&#8217; t seen developers leaving in flock to go-give-your-code-and-let-us-make-money-for-ourselves.org</span></p> +<p> <span>Second, a fork is only really interesting if at some point it sensibly differs from its parent. Concerning the parent, I think a lot of work has to be done but things have improved a lot, the product is great, adoption is exponential and the future looks exciting. The fork itself is a bit of a mystery. Of course, we will likely see some bug hunting and a bunch of cool patches that will end up being implemented inside OpenOffice.org unless those patches are actually ported to the fork. There will also be the much-overstated bazaar-like incremental development (so you don&#8217;t need a roadmap in theory) to consider, but above all, my little finger tells me there will be a lot of âcontributionsâ made to ensure the fork will support more and more</span> <strike><span>Microsoft</span></strike> <span>Novell technologies and hence stay the faithful and loyal second of Microsoft Office for ever.</span></p> +<p> </p> +<p> <span>Still excited about go-oo? Be my guest, go ahead and contribute!</span></p> +<p><br clear="left" /></p> +<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=113&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_113" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> +</p></content:encoded> + <dc:date>2009-01-17T18:14:46+00:00</dc:date> +</item> <item rdf:about="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-8338255612344603251"> <title>Leif Lodahl: LotusPhere - Here I come</title> <link>http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2009/01/lotusphere-here-i-come.html</link> @@ -205,55 +230,5 @@ <dc:date>2008-12-20T20:53:04+00:00</dc:date> <dc:creator>Leif Lodahl</dc:creator> </item> -<item rdf:about="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-4373353179933806915"> - <title>Leif Lodahl: [Update]Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren</title> - <link>http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/12/tnder-municipality-behind-free-it.html</link> - <content:encoded>12 December 2008 - -PRESS RELEASE - -Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren - -In cooperation with the National Software Knowledge Centre under the National IT and Telecom Agency, USB sticks with free Open Source programs will be distributed to all schoolchildren on Wednesday. - -... - -Tønder Taking the Lead - -Morten Kristoffer Hansen, Head of Section in the Knowledge Centre, is</content:encoded> - <dc:date>2008-12-18T17:15:33+00:00</dc:date> - <dc:creator>Leif Lodahl</dc:creator> -</item> -<item rdf:about="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1293471/";> - <title>Andreas Mantke: Plone: a test instance for OOoAuthors</title> - <link>http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1293471/</link> - <content:encoded>I build a test instance for OOoAuthors with Plone 3.1.7 during the last two weeks. I used for this a buildout script. The instance runs on a server of the association OpenOffice.org Deutschland e.V. now. -One of the things, that are missing now, is content. I will put some test content into the new site. So it would be easier to evaluate, if every thing works. -We will see.</content:encoded> - <dc:date>2008-12-17T20:44:59+00:00</dc:date> -</item> -<item rdf:about="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/";> - <title>Charles Schulz: Some thoughts on the Microsoftâs implementation of ODF</title> - <link>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/</link> - <content:encoded><p>This post is a bit hard to write. Let me just put it this way: If my predictions below are true, it will mean that Microsoft will offer some crippled and low-level support of ODF 1.1 in its next version of Microsoft Office. It will also mean that OpenOffice.org will have gained a competitive edge on the market.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>Now you may wonder why I find it difficult to write down these things. The reason is <a href="http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oic/email/archives/200812/msg00016.html">the recent post of Doug Mahugh</a> in regard of the support of ODF by MS Office. Instead of providing a detailed review on the matter, Doug explains -a bit laboriously- that interoperability does not mean that each implementation has to do things the same way and that some implementations are more extensive than others. We are then being told that Microsoft Office will have limited support in for ODF tables in Word.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>Doug&#8217;s initial point is true: there are differences in implementation of a standard. When you have a truly open standard, you can expect implementers to be able to deliver some reliable implementation of the standard. Of course, it depends of the implementation&#8217;s focus. Suppose for one moment that I&#8217;m in the business of developing and selling IT systems for ATMs. I have an OS that sports an user interface for ATM transactions, another one for administration, and among several other features, an editor that prints out your receipts and the records of your past transactions on demand. One might expect that this editor can support ODF natively and will create ODF documents. These documents are not very complex, and to say it all, they&#8217;re even very basic. All what is required for me is to implement the bare minimum of ODF to be compliant and adequately call myself compliant. The minimum compliance with ODF is my right, as the vendor of the ATM receipts editor. My business is not print complex spreadsheets, nor fancy presentations, no: my business is to allow cash machines to print customers&#8217; receipts of their cash transactions at the ATM, that&#8217;s all.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>Now you have Microsoft&#8217;s bellydancing and basically declaring that they, who sell the âbest office suite on the marketâ (I don&#8217;t make that claim) will offer poor support on ODF because of product limitations. Am I the only one here feeling that Redmond is trying -again-to play games? Any additional information would be welcome at this stage, of course, but the market should pay close attention to this issue.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>I have hailed and declared myself positively satisfied the inclusion of Microsoft in the ODF committees at the OASIS consortium. I have read the contributions of its employees and they were useful and constructive. This being said, Doug&#8217;s blog leaves me with an odd taste in my mouth.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>To be frank, I feel that Doug has been looking for a way to tell us that Microsoft&#8217;s support of ODF will be crappy and that it was intended to be that way. I realize I have no substantial evidence of what I&#8217;m asserting here, but since when does Microsoft speak of the new features of MS Office with a sorry tone?</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>That&#8217;s why I just don&#8217;t know how to properly assess what kind of message Microsoft is sending right now. The way I see it, Microsoft expects customers will stick to Microsoft Office since it also supports an Open Standard, ODF. However, the support of ODF being of poor quality, customers will roll back to Microsoft&#8217;s formats, and life will go on back like it was in the good old days.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>I realize this is all « prospective » thinking, and that there is nothing solid aside Microsoft&#8217;s announcement of poor support of the ODF file format. I am disappointed by these news, though. Once again, Microsoft&#8217;s declarations turn out to be âall hat, no cattleâ. The way out of it is known: Choose OpenOffice.org, choose ODF, choose any other office suite, but not the one that offers partial support of an open standard that puts the users first.</p> -<p><br clear="left" /></p> -<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=109&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_109" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> -</p></content:encoded> - <dc:date>2008-12-17T17:11:34+00:00</dc:date> -</item> </rdf:RDF> File [changed]: rss20.xml Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/rss20.xml?r1=1.251&r2=1.252 Delta lines: +28 -53 --------------------- --- rss20.xml 2009-01-16 00:00:49+0000 1.251 +++ rss20.xml 2009-01-18 00:00:56+0000 1.252 @@ -8,6 +8,34 @@ <description>Native Language Confederation Planet - http://native-lang.openoffice.org/planet/</description> <item> + <title>Charles Schulz: United we stand, dividedâ¦we are still standing.</title> + <guid>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/01/17/united-we-stand-divided-we-are-still-standing/</guid> + <link>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/01/17/united-we-stand-divided-we-are-still-standing/</link> + <description><p>Some unfortunate news have been spreading around the web recently concerning « OpenOffice.org dying » and has sparkled some interesting articles. I got interviewed <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/09/interview-with-charles-h-schulz/">here</a>, some <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/what_was_done_for_openoffice">very good answer</a> to those extravagant claims was posted on the Sun OpenOffice.org&#8217;s blog, and I am pretty sure that we will read more and more about it soon.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>I would just like to mention three additional points before describing my view of a â post-Novellâ OpenOffice.org.</p> +<ul> +<li> +<p>The claims made by Michael Meeks, especially the ones related to what kind of data he shows do not take into account the extensions repository. I agree that extensions are by definition not part of the code base, but given the rate of upload of new extensions we&#8217;re having at the moment (50 extensions during December 2008) this starts to become non-trivial. Hence the data does not take into account the contributions made almost exclusively by non-Sun staff.</p> +</li> +<li> +<p>Michael makes all those claims and that&#8217;s his right to do so but -and that&#8217;s not an ad-hominem attack- one should remember that <em>Michael Meeks has not contributed a single line of code to OpenOffice.org since two years</em>. <span>Both his own blog and the logs of the commits show that Michael is nowhere to be seen. What shall we be doing with this? Pretty simply, I value both code and non-code contributions (contrary to Michael), and I have a hard time understanding where Michael stands anywhere in our community. Calling OpenOffice.org anything similar to a dead horse is a strong statement for someone who does not contribute, but only criticizes a project.</span></p> +</li> +<li> +<p> <span>Some time ago stats about CVS commits surfaced and the results were eloquent: Sun was by far the strongest contributor. Others counted Novell, Red Hat, Debian, etc. But these were not the second largest contributor. The label â communityâ was the second one. By this it was meant, people with no âfamousâ affiliation contributed more than anything Novell was.</span></p> +</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<p> <span>So will we survive a fork from Novell? I do believe we will. First, the fork is already made. I haven&#8217; t seen developers leaving in flock to go-give-your-code-and-let-us-make-money-for-ourselves.org</span></p> +<p> <span>Second, a fork is only really interesting if at some point it sensibly differs from its parent. Concerning the parent, I think a lot of work has to be done but things have improved a lot, the product is great, adoption is exponential and the future looks exciting. The fork itself is a bit of a mystery. Of course, we will likely see some bug hunting and a bunch of cool patches that will end up being implemented inside OpenOffice.org unless those patches are actually ported to the fork. There will also be the much-overstated bazaar-like incremental development (so you don&#8217;t need a roadmap in theory) to consider, but above all, my little finger tells me there will be a lot of âcontributionsâ made to ensure the fork will support more and more</span> <strike><span>Microsoft</span></strike> <span>Novell technologies and hence stay the faithful and loyal second of Microsoft Office for ever.</span></p> +<p> </p> +<p> <span>Still excited about go-oo? Be my guest, go ahead and contribute!</span></p> +<p><br clear="left" /></p> +<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=113&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_113" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> +</p></description> + <pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:14:46 +0000</pubDate> +</item> +<item> <title>Leif Lodahl: LotusPhere - Here I come</title> <guid>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-8338255612344603251</guid> <link>http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2009/01/lotusphere-here-i-come.html</link> @@ -186,59 +214,6 @@ <pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:53:04 +0000</pubDate> <author>[email protected] (Leif Lodahl)</author> </item> -<item> - <title>Leif Lodahl: [Update]Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren</title> - <guid>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-4373353179933806915</guid> - <link>http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/12/tnder-municipality-behind-free-it.html</link> - <description>12 December 2008 - -PRESS RELEASE - -Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren - -In cooperation with the National Software Knowledge Centre under the National IT and Telecom Agency, USB sticks with free Open Source programs will be distributed to all schoolchildren on Wednesday. - -... - -Tønder Taking the Lead - -Morten Kristoffer Hansen, Head of Section in the Knowledge Centre, is</description> - <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:15:33 +0000</pubDate> - <author>[email protected] (Leif Lodahl)</author> -</item> -<item> - <title>Andreas Mantke: Plone: a test instance for OOoAuthors</title> - <guid>http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1293471/</guid> - <link>http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1293471/</link> - <description>I build a test instance for OOoAuthors with Plone 3.1.7 during the last two weeks. I used for this a buildout script. The instance runs on a server of the association OpenOffice.org Deutschland e.V. now. -One of the things, that are missing now, is content. I will put some test content into the new site. So it would be easier to evaluate, if every thing works. -We will see.</description> - <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:44:59 +0000</pubDate> -</item> -<item> - <title>Charles Schulz: Some thoughts on the Microsoftâs implementation of ODF</title> - <guid>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/</guid> - <link>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/</link> - <description><p>This post is a bit hard to write. Let me just put it this way: If my predictions below are true, it will mean that Microsoft will offer some crippled and low-level support of ODF 1.1 in its next version of Microsoft Office. It will also mean that OpenOffice.org will have gained a competitive edge on the market.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>Now you may wonder why I find it difficult to write down these things. The reason is <a href="http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oic/email/archives/200812/msg00016.html">the recent post of Doug Mahugh</a> in regard of the support of ODF by MS Office. Instead of providing a detailed review on the matter, Doug explains -a bit laboriously- that interoperability does not mean that each implementation has to do things the same way and that some implementations are more extensive than others. We are then being told that Microsoft Office will have limited support in for ODF tables in Word.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>Doug&#8217;s initial point is true: there are differences in implementation of a standard. When you have a truly open standard, you can expect implementers to be able to deliver some reliable implementation of the standard. Of course, it depends of the implementation&#8217;s focus. Suppose for one moment that I&#8217;m in the business of developing and selling IT systems for ATMs. I have an OS that sports an user interface for ATM transactions, another one for administration, and among several other features, an editor that prints out your receipts and the records of your past transactions on demand. One might expect that this editor can support ODF natively and will create ODF documents. These documents are not very complex, and to say it all, they&#8217;re even very basic. All what is required for me is to implement the bare minimum of ODF to be compliant and adequately call myself compliant. The minimum compliance with ODF is my right, as the vendor of the ATM receipts editor. My business is not print complex spreadsheets, nor fancy presentations, no: my business is to allow cash machines to print customers&#8217; receipts of their cash transactions at the ATM, that&#8217;s all.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>Now you have Microsoft&#8217;s bellydancing and basically declaring that they, who sell the âbest office suite on the marketâ (I don&#8217;t make that claim) will offer poor support on ODF because of product limitations. Am I the only one here feeling that Redmond is trying -again-to play games? Any additional information would be welcome at this stage, of course, but the market should pay close attention to this issue.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>I have hailed and declared myself positively satisfied the inclusion of Microsoft in the ODF committees at the OASIS consortium. I have read the contributions of its employees and they were useful and constructive. This being said, Doug&#8217;s blog leaves me with an odd taste in my mouth.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>To be frank, I feel that Doug has been looking for a way to tell us that Microsoft&#8217;s support of ODF will be crappy and that it was intended to be that way. I realize I have no substantial evidence of what I&#8217;m asserting here, but since when does Microsoft speak of the new features of MS Office with a sorry tone?</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>That&#8217;s why I just don&#8217;t know how to properly assess what kind of message Microsoft is sending right now. The way I see it, Microsoft expects customers will stick to Microsoft Office since it also supports an Open Standard, ODF. However, the support of ODF being of poor quality, customers will roll back to Microsoft&#8217;s formats, and life will go on back like it was in the good old days.</p> -<p>&nbsp;</p> -<p>I realize this is all « prospective » thinking, and that there is nothing solid aside Microsoft&#8217;s announcement of poor support of the ODF file format. I am disappointed by these news, though. Once again, Microsoft&#8217;s declarations turn out to be âall hat, no cattleâ. The way out of it is known: Choose OpenOffice.org, choose ODF, choose any other office suite, but not the one that offers partial support of an open standard that puts the users first.</p> -<p><br clear="left" /></p> -<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=109&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_109" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> -</p></description> - <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:11:34 +0000</pubDate> -</item> </channel> </rss> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
