Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 21:39:00 +0100
"M. Fioretti" <> wrote:

Firstly, the question of a truly open and compatible format *is*
used when discussing the problems with MSO. Secondly, we are so few,

these are the SAME answers that ruled the scene in 2001. My point is
to suggest that they have not been very effective. Or, at least, that
almost completely ignoring the file format issue in favour of these
approaches didn't work out so well.
Maybe, maybe not. I see ODF and LO being more widely used now than ever
before, and think the arguments are slowly but surely working. If more
time had been spent telling people why the file format was a good thing
(even more time than actualy *was* spent, I don't think it's as little
as you think) and less time had been spent telling them that an
alternative to MSO existed that was just as good, I don't think it would
have worked as well.

what I am trying to say is that sticking almost exclusively to THIS
party line for at least 12 years is EXACTLY what left that translator
with "keep using MS Office" as the only option. Whereas, if there had
been more insistence on the fact that a proprietary format is an
idiot thing no matter what, maybe today MS Office would handle ODF
well enough to not create problems to LO/AOO users.

I think that there has been more use of the "ODF is a better format"
argument than you think.

Also, I don't think the current situation could have been any better,
no matter what argument we used. The fact that it is changing at all is
testimony to our dedication in spreading all the good arguments for Open
Source and ODF. This is, sad to say, the best we could hope for given
how entrenched MSO was.

And 12 years ago ODF wasn't around, as far as I know. It was only
standardised in 2005. So before that the usual "open source gives you
choice" argument was all there was. Once odf came out, almost from the
first I was hearing about how a truly open standard was a better thing.

All this is, of course, personal opinion.

So given how much the argument for the odf format *is* actually touted
today (it's possibly even the main argument people give for switching
to LO), why do you suggest we should do more of it, and how exactly do
you suggest we do that?

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.