Google Applauds Standards Group for Rejecting Microsoft
Posted by Emil Protalinski on 16 September 2007 - 01:36 · 43 comments & 11100 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Emil Protalinski
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Emil ProtalinskiContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(3 replies)
#1 Posted by winrez on 16 Sep 2007 - 02:39
- All I have to say is lately I don't like Google very much and this has nothing to do with Microsoft I just have this feeling in 4 years time people are not going to like Google as much.
-
#1.1 Posted by Digitalfox on 16 Sep 2007 - 03:17
- Yeah, i think the same don't know why..
I'm also starting to think about not using google, because of privacy concerns..
And i was one of the first to like google, but now i just don't feel the same liking..
Google is no longer just light, but is becaming darker..
-
#1.2 Posted by Jugalator on 16 Sep 2007 - 03:18
- I have no special problem with Google.. *shrug*
I don't have a big problem with Microsoft either, besides in some special cases, like some of their marketing decisions. Although I dislike OOXML as a standard, that's not really about Microsoft, just their standard.
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by macrosslover on 16 Sep 2007 - 03:07
- well it's too much of an attitude where groups support something just because Microsoft supports the other side. Companies need to stop acting like everything MS does is evil and deceptive. All of these companies want the same thing MS does, full control over everything.
-
#2.1 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 16 Sep 2007 - 22:37
- Your entire post was pretty much bull****. Microsoft's motto on this never changed: Embrace, Extend, Exterminate.
Last edited by tiagosilva29 on 16 Sep 2007 - 22:44
-
(2 replies)
#3 Posted by Jugalator on 16 Sep 2007 - 03:16
- OOXML seems pretty unsuitable as a standard from what I've heard... Too much proprietary stuff to support Microsoft products (like the "formatasword95" attribute) and complexity to it. It seems like a bit of a mess. I'm not saying ODF is much better, but I've at least not heard that to support ODF, you need to support formatting hacks left in to cover specific products.
-
#3.1 Posted by +Brandon Live on 16 Sep 2007 - 18:36
- Umm, perhaps you should actually review the formats before making inaccurate comments like that.
There are a lot of features that just don't work with ODF. -
#3.2 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 16 Sep 2007 - 22:40
- Quote - (Brandon Live said @ #3.1)Umm, perhaps you should actually review the formats before making inaccurate comments like that.
There are a lot of features that just don't work with ODF.
We did. You are the one doing inaccurate comments.
-
#4 Posted by Glassed Silver on 16 Sep 2007 - 03:23
- did we really need this appear on FPN?
honestly, all kinds of unimportant things make it FPN stories today or is it just me?
Glassed Silver:mac
-
#5 Posted by billyea on 16 Sep 2007 - 03:42
- Why would google's opinion on this issue be important anyway?
-
#6 Posted by +Dakkaroth on 16 Sep 2007 - 04:25
- Meh, I think you guys are focusing more on the title than you are the actual article. I can see real reason why they voted no on it. That said, the last thing that got fast tracked ruled in favor of violating our personal freedoms (with the ever-so-cleverly named 'Patriot Act'
.
Really has nothing to do with it being Microsoft in itself, even though they're rival competitors.
Stab the guy that wrote the title, and poke Emil for doing a copy-pasta on the title as well.
-
#7 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 16 Sep 2007 - 05:39
- Clap while you can, Google... You're next.
-
(11 replies)
#8 Posted by Ledward on 16 Sep 2007 - 06:36
- I still haven't found a single firm using ODF files. (Most useless standard ever.)
-
#8.1 Posted by Dan.P on 16 Sep 2007 - 07:58
- Quote - (Ledward said @ #1)I still haven't found a single firm using ODF files. (Most useless standard ever.)
QFE - I've never even come accross one in my time. Would Word 2007 open it? -
#8.2 Posted by shhac on 16 Sep 2007 - 09:46
- Quote - (Dan.P said @ #8.1)Quote - (Ledward said @ #1)I still haven't found a single firm using ODF files. (Most useless standard ever.)
QFE - I've never even come accross one in my time. Would Word 2007 open it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_...Current_support -
#8.3 Posted by kaiwai on 16 Sep 2007 - 11:24
- Quote - (Ledward said @ #
I still haven't found a single firm using ODF files. (Most useless standard ever.)
So I guess those millions of customers who use Lotus Notes are 'useless' given that Notes 8 includes a full blown suite which uses ODF natively. -
#8.4 Posted by night_stalker_z on 16 Sep 2007 - 11:37
- Quote - (kaiwai said @ #8.3)Quote - (Ledward said @ #I still haven't found a single firm using ODF files. (Most useless standard ever.)
So I guess those millions of customers who use Lotus Notes are 'useless' given that Notes 8 includes a full blown suite which uses ODF natively.
I dont know anyone who uses or even heard of Lotus Notes. -
#8.5 Posted by Angel Blue01 on 16 Sep 2007 - 12:52
- Quote - (night_stalker_z said @ #8.4)I dont know anyone who uses or even heard of Lotus Notes.
Niether do I, but it is still widely used...
And many governments are switcihing over to ODF, no government or businiess is offically switching to OOXML. -
#8.6 Posted by Doli on 16 Sep 2007 - 17:16
- I havent seen anyone asking for ODF or OOXML when sending in documents, just the old .doc
Would some of the special features in Office 2007 would be hard to pull off using ODF. Like DrawingML ? -
#8.7 Posted by kaiwai on 16 Sep 2007 - 21:42
- Quote - (Doli said @ #8.6)I havent seen anyone asking for ODF or OOXML when sending in documents, just the old .doc
Would some of the special features in Office 2007 would be hard to pull off using ODF. Like DrawingML ?
How so? good old fashioned SVG could easily handle that.
One however questions the need for such a 'feature' for professional business documents, given the purpose is communication, not the 'gee wizz' factor. -
#8.8 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 16 Sep 2007 - 22:49
- The only bitch about ODF I've been getting so far was from a lot of guys from the Math Dpts. They use lots of TeX/LaTeX and simply can't cope with the XML dialects (MathML).
-
#8.9 Posted by kaiwai on 17 Sep 2007 - 00:50
- Quote - (tiagosilva29 said @ #8.The only bitch about ODF I've been getting so far was from a lot of guys from the Math Dpts. They use lots of TeX/LaTeX and simply can't cope with the XML dialects (MathML).
IIRC that is a new feature to be added in a future standard; things like this take time; its unfortunate that Microsoft worked against the ODF process rather than knuckling in, merging their XML file format features into ODF and adopting the ODF format as the default file format for their office suite. -
#8.10 Posted by PGHammer on 17 Sep 2007 - 04:44
- Quote - (Angel Blue01 said @ #8.5)Quote - (night_stalker_z said @ #8.4)I dont know anyone who uses or even heard of Lotus Notes.
Niether do I, but it is still widely used...
And many governments are switcihing over to ODF, no government or businiess is offically switching to OOXML.
Governments are *discussing* switching to ODF; however, at least in the United States, the ODF *standardization* push is losing both steam and ground, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which was *leading* the ODF charge among state governments. The reason why ODF has stalled? Incompatibilities between ODF and (you guessed it) Microsoft Office (not just 2007, but 2003 and 2000/XP as well). However, in addition to OOXML, the default file format for most Office 2007 applications, Office can spit out other file formats (including the supposedly ODF-compatible Adobe PDF format). The real reason why ODF came about is because Office has become a de-facto (if not de jure) format standard, simply due to it's overwhelming presence (even in the legal community, long a bastion of WordPerfect), and the also-rans realized they needed to have a cross-compatible standard of their own (especially IBM, which having failed at controlling the PC standard and selling said division to Lenovo, is trying to enter via the services back door, including software-as-a-service via Notes). I have no particular favoritism one way or the other (I save documents headed for the Web in PDF format; otherwise, I choose either the Office 97-2003 file formats, or even (for documents) WordPerfect format, if I know the document is headed to someone that doesn't have Word), and I *have* OpenOffice.org 2.x on my computer; however, I still use Office 2007 to do most of my document heavy-lifting (especially e-mail using Outlook). I didn't start with Word (heck, no; I started in document processing with WANG VS and, don't laugh, WordPerfect; in fact, I *taught* WordPerfect from 1991-1995); however, I switched to Word because WordPerfect badly mangled the transition to Windows (and Word for Windows had better compatibility with WordPerfect document formats than WordPerfect for Windows; it also crashed less). I've been hearing promise after promise about ODF; however, they haven't delivered enough yet. -
#8.11 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 17 Sep 2007 - 19:43
- Quote - (kaiwai said @ #8.9)IIRC that is a new feature to be added in a future standard
I hope not. I would work with a much improved MathML rather than TeX objects (or parsers to convert TeX to XML). TeX is a typesetting with tokens, commands, macros. TeX ain't an XML dialect.Quote - (kaiwai said @ #8.9)adopting the ODF format as the default file format for their office suite.
I lol'ed. We all know why it won't happen.
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by RAID 0 on 16 Sep 2007 - 07:36
- Was I the only one to catch the name as Bhorat? That's some crazy ****. They're all like.. "Not so nice!" and "In my country Google is wanted.. but Microsoft.. not so much". Anyone else? I shouldn't post after drinking. Sorry in advance.
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by Lastwebpage on 16 Sep 2007 - 08:25
- MS try to established his own search engine, and have some web based applications too (or planed).
Google is a liar when he say "We want ODF because it's an open standard", "We don't want OOXML, because it's from MS" is the truth. I would be not surprised if Google change his opinion, when MS established similar web based applications then goolge, and google notice that not any Office users use the google services. -
#10.1 Posted by kaiwai on 16 Sep 2007 - 11:25
- Quote - (Lastwebpage said @ #10)MS try to established his own search engine, and have some web based applications too (or planed).
Google is a liar when he say "We want ODF because it's an open standard", "We don't want OOXML, because it's from MS" is the truth. I would be not surprised if Google change his opinion, when MS established similar web based applications then goolge, and google notice that not any Office users use the google services.
Based on what evidence?
Look at all the arguments against OOXML before opening your ignorant uniformed mouth.
-
#11 Posted by guruparan on 16 Sep 2007 - 11:46
- Is Google starting a word war with Microsoft?.... Bad..
Does Microsoft feel HAPPY when some Google product is rejected by users? (they feel happy..but not so public, criticizing over that product failure)
-
#12 Posted by +Octol on 16 Sep 2007 - 12:31
- Yes, I know this Borat! I have very good relation with his sister in Kazahkstan. Very reasonable price, yes? Much appreciate!
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by +James7 on 16 Sep 2007 - 13:49
- The very fact Microsoft don't put ODF in their products is reason enough for the ISO to avoid letting them have their way with OOXML. It shows that Microsoft aren't really interested in open standards, unless they make those standards (and make them so complex and confusing that no one else can easily devise compatible software, which is another reason, beyond quality issues, that OOXML was rightly rejected by many).
-
#13.1 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 16 Sep 2007 - 23:14
- Quote - (James7 said @ #13)The very fact Microsoft don't put ODF in their products is reason enough for the ISO to avoid letting them have their way with OOXML.
Okay... but there's a problem: that's not how ISO works. -
#13.2 Posted by +James7 on 17 Sep 2007 - 06:31
- Quote - (tiagosilva29 said @ #13.1)Quote - (James7 said @ #13)The very fact Microsoft don't put ODF in their products is reason enough for the ISO to avoid letting them have their way with OOXML.
Okay... but there's a problem: that's not how ISO works.
You're right but it does show that Microsoft is hostile to open standards. If they had added an option to open and save ODF documents into their products, then people (other than Microsoft fanboys and the officials Microsoft bribed) might think their intentions were a bit more genuine.
-
#14 Posted by tareqsiraj on 16 Sep 2007 - 14:07
- Interesting reading if anyone has time (its kinda long) Microsoft Office XML Formats? Defective by Design?. This guy seems to have quite a bit in-depth knowledge about the format and the xml standards. Unfortunately I dont have Office2007 to try out the Excel exploding document trick
.
-
(2 replies)
#16 Posted by ozgeek on 16 Sep 2007 - 16:32
- Good! MS is always finding their way into every computer idustry component.
Microsoft this, microsoft that. Please let others have a chance to compete and stop trying to take over the industry. I don't wanna see the industry run by MS. -
#16.1 Posted by +Brandon Live on 16 Sep 2007 - 18:38
- Yeah seriously... what did Microsoft ever have to do with office productivity software and defining document storage formats.
Oh wait. You were serious. -
#16.2 Posted by billyea on 16 Sep 2007 - 19:52
- If MS creates excellent products, then so be it, let them be the best of that field. If they can make a better webmail, I'll use it. If they can make a more powerful Office suite, I'll use it. If they can design a programming language, IDE, and standards-compatible web design tool, I'll use it. If everyone else makes the programs I want for their OS, I'll use it.
-
#18 Posted by freeeekyyy on 17 Sep 2007 - 03:59
- ISO is right to do this, but only because ODF already exists.
Bhorat notes that Google disapproves of OOXML because it is incompatible with Open Document Format, which is already an ISO standard for XML-based documents. Other reasons Google supports the ISO decision are that the company believes there was not enough time to review the specification: there are undocumented features of OOXML that prevent implementation by other vendors and dependencies on Microsoft proprietary formats and technical defects makes OOXML difficult to fully implement. Bhorat also used the post to stump for ODF, which Google supports in its Web-based office applications. IBM, Sun Microsystems and other Microsoft rivals also are vocal supporters of ODF.