[odf-discuss] Gnome Foundation and ECMA

[Pamela Jones]

Interoperability is of value to some, but only depending on what you 
have to do to get it.  Samba got documentation access, without 
compromise, just as an example. There will eventually be a regulatory 
answer, because the world's governments are getting it. They are going 
to Linux, because of security concerns and costs, and that means 
eventually Microsoft will have to be interoperable, like it or not. 
People want and desire to do business with China and that means they 
will have to work things out with Linux.  And if you don't compromise 
now, it will happen faster.  The more the community lets itself be 
corroded, the slower it will happen, because you make the choice not 
such a choice after all. You guys seem to be thinking in US-only terms.

I left Microsoft products to get away from them, speaking for myself. I 
never have any difficulties.  If someone sends me an Office 2007 file, I 
ask them to send it in a format I can read, and they do.  It has 
happened exactly once.

I hope it's an education for them too to realize that Microsoft has them 
in a box, and that they can't interoperate with people who don't use 
Microsoft. I personally would like people to realize it, and to know 
they have a better choice.  But if you guys keep it up, there won't be a 
choice that matters much any more.


Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="M. Fioretti">
> 
>> "Jody's participation is principally about to make OOXML easier to
>> tolerate and generate/distribute OOXML even by Free Software users"
> 
> Wouldn't it be great to have the SMB/CIFS protocol documented? Perhaps parts
> of the Win32 API for interoperability reasons? Why not the Microsoft binary
> and XML formats? Should we not interoperate with Microsoft at all? How would
> you expect our software to be embraced by users in the real world if we were
> entirely unable to interoperate?
> 
> I understand that advocates may have different points of view to those of us
> who actually have users and ship software, but please consider the logical
> conclusions of what you are suggesting.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Jeff
>