On 10/25/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 14:09 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: > > *suppressing the urge to scream "I told you so!"* > > > This list is about marketing OOo, not squealing with delight at any > prospect that OOo might fail, your bad manners and contempt of the other > people in here are lamentable.
No, I'm not happy that OOo might fail. In fact, I know OOo *won't* fail. Good lord, Ian. OOo somehow managed to survive for *5 LONG YEARS* without ODF, and I imagine, will be able to do so just fine for another 5 or 10 or 30 without Massachusetts's requirement of ODF. I'm delighted to be proven right in my proclaimation that Mass was premature. I'm delighted to be proven right that ODF is not important, at all. Casual users of OOo are likely not going to use ODF, just like very few ever used the old OOo format, (except by accident). There is far more for OOo to offer than a file format no one else, (but Koffice and OOo deveritives) will ever use. It's just like I've been saying since this whole OASIS thing started over a year ago. ODF doesn't matter. This is just some evidence to that fact. And I'm delighted, squealing with delight, as it were, to be proven correct. -Chad Smith
