Actually, I think there are far more interesting things to pursue
right now.
The OpenDocument Fellowship is more than welcome to pitch this
argument to KOffice, for instance, or to sell the much-advertised ODF
plug in as you will.
OpenOffice.org at the moment really ought to focus on developing its
own market, both as a product and as a project. That does not
include getting MS Office to use ODF. As MSFT's Alan Yates has
stated, they are content with the work:
""We have always expected that third parties would create tools to
enable the conversion of information from one file format to the
other," Yates said.
'"We have not seen the work, but perhaps it is evidence of how market-
driven technology solutions can address the interoperability needs of
customers," he said."
<http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6069188.html>
Is what's good for MS good for OOo?
Even Gary Edwards, of the OpenDocument Fellowship perceives that OOo
finds the idea of MSFT using ODF problematic:
"The plugin, however, won't please everyone. "The open document
vendors -- IBM, Sun, Novell, KOffice, OpenOffice.org. -- sell
alternatives to MS Office. They're selling a replacement. This will
extend the useful life of MS Office," said Edwards.
"Of course, as Edwards points out, the Foundation is out to move ODF
to the center of office documentation, not to champion any vendor's
or open-source group's office suite."
<http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5139606687.html>
In contrast, OpenOffice.org *does* champion a particular group: ours.
We champion OpenOffice.org. That's what we do.
I think we've had enough of this topic. As I've said before, and as
is publicly in print, the ODF Fellowship has a different agenda than
OpenOffice.org. That's fine: you have your agenda, we have ours.
Best,
Louis
On 2006-05-06, at 11:04 , Daniel Carrera wrote:
Cor Nouws wrote:
Maybe a more *structured* investigtion on this question (MsOffice
addoption ODF is good or bad) could help??
Let's see what such an investigation would look like. The objective
is to estimate the sizes of two groups of people:
Group 1: People who would like to migrate to OOo but don't because MSO
doesn't support ODF.
Group 2: People who would like to stay with MSO but migrate because
they need ODF.
We want to know which group is larger:
* Group 1 includes everyone who thinks that OOo is worth the change
except but is worried about interoperability. That is, people who
are ready to migrate but are locked in.
* Group 2 includes the people who prefer MSO but feel compelled to
migrate to OOo because they require ODF.
Which group is larger? I'm confident that group 1 is much larger.
OOo is a very good product and the reason it has less market share
than it derserves is that people are locked in by a monopoly.
Best,
Daniel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
