What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
58 Comments
- StanStutter, on 12/28/2007, -2/+38If MS doesn't want to be ODF compatible, someone else will do it for them:
http://www.sun.com/software/star/odf_plugin/index. ... - Senn, on 12/28/2007, -2/+36Any government that relies on Microsoft to do good for them doesn't deserve to be governing anything.
- Bicep, on 12/28/2007, -3/+36MS should be ODF compatible - and I'm not talking about Office 2007 being able to open ODF and immediately switching it over to OOXML(.docx) either. Get with the program Microsoft, WTF?
- baalzebub, on 12/28/2007, -3/+33what the world needs to realize is microsoft's first priority is to make as much money as possible & satisfy their stock holders, the customers are nothing more than cash cows to be milked for as much as they can get...
- Rubuntu, on 12/28/2007, -7/+34Microsoft will do what ever it takes to reach into the pocket of every living person just to get some money from them, even if $1
- Phocion55, on 12/28/2007, -4/+30This whole Office XML thing gets more ridiculous every day. Hilarious.
Only Microsoft could make a "standard" so incredibly confusing and obfuscated.
I'm not sure if this is because MS just can't get their act together, or if they're doing it on purpose. - _skin_, on 12/28/2007, -1/+24It can't be considered a standard if you change it every day.
- RLillySR, on 12/28/2007, -3/+22We generally always think about the Word Documents, but infact spreadsheets are almost as popular and billions of them archived. Well what about this in the proposed draft:
"multiplyLikeExcel2007" (Emulate Excel 2007 multiplication product output.) The * operation, previously known as "multiply" shall be replaced with a new operation * which will be known as multiplyLikeExcel2007. A description of this function shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (Microsoft Excel 2007) when determining the function output of values whose product in this universe was previously assumed to be the decimal integer 65535. The OOXML standardized resulting output shall behave identically to Excel 2007 whereas all (most or some) products equal to 65535 decimal have been normalized to 100,000 decimal. [Guidance: To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors (erroneous, random or otherwise) and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications (perhaps using a table or random number generator?) It is recommended that applications not intentionally replicate this behavior as it was deprecated due to issues with its output, and is maintained only for compatibility with existing documents from that application. end guidance] - Breepee, on 12/28/2007, -0/+16That's why you need software not from company's but from communities.
- Phocion55, on 12/28/2007, -1/+17The scary thing is that they tried to "fast track" Office XML standardization four months ago claiming it was "ready", and they STILL have no idea what's going on.
Microsoft knew the spec wasn't anywhere near complete, yet they decided to fast track it anyway - much like a 7th grader who writes a 10 page paper the night before it's due.
For something that governments and major companies will rely on -- this is just totally irresponsible and despicable on their part. - fajita, on 12/28/2007, -0/+14confused about what to put into it? I thought they have already put just about everything, I swear I saw something about a kitchen sink in the spec.
- Phocion55, on 12/29/2007, -2/+15JavaScript was developed by Netscape/Mozilla, and Dynamic HTML is not a standard but an extension of HTML.
Try again.
Buried as typical MS troll stupidity. - Urusai, on 12/28/2007, -3/+15Money = power = impunity. Microsoft is a criminal organization, duly convicted as such, but I hardly think Bill loses any sleep. The biggest surprise about the DoJ's case against Microsoft was how long it took Bush to drop it after taking office.
- fiendskull9, on 12/29/2007, -0/+9glad those are all microsoft patented languages and all
- baalzebub, on 12/29/2007, -2/+11microsoft is not just trying to make some money, they are trying to maintain a monopoly in a business who's customers are seriously wanting to look elsewhere to satisfy their needs and microsoft is playing dirty pool to maintain that monopoly to the point of criminality...
- balazsbela, on 12/28/2007, -1/+10"Because the quest for profit maximaization forces companies to put out the best product they can."
Not in a monopoly. - HonoredMule, on 12/29/2007, -0/+7Is there really any question?
- Giga, on 12/28/2007, -2/+9Is that why Excel 2007 believes 77.1*850 = 100000? (Should be 65535)
- Rubuntu, on 12/28/2007, -1/+8 it is not based on bias against MS, it is the fact that the format they are proposing flies in the face of everything ISO has been trying to do for almost 2 decades. Let them implement it compliant wise, let third parties demonstrate that OOXML can be implemented almost 100%, get rid of all the Legacy stuff, revoke patents and then you start moving towards an ISO standard.
- HonoredMule, on 12/29/2007, -1/+7You couldn't be more wrong. Wanting to USE software for your OWN BENEFIT is the perfect incentive to make that software good, because there is no alternative that satisfies the root motive. Microsoft's root motive is profit, which only ensures that they will ensure copies of their software sell. And as any buffoon can clearly deduce from their consistently anti-competitive actions, software quality has never been a big part of their strategy for financial success, while market control has.
We pick on Microsoft because they have the most power in the software market, and are demonstrably corrupted by that power, which they ceaselessly abuse. But the same logic applies to all proprietary for-profit software and disassociates software quality concerns from "financial future" motivation, and that is why in general, community efforts consistently outperform proprietary software.
There is A LOT less incentive to do quality control when you're not even making your own dog food.
And I wouldn't jump to call "FAR superior" any product that doesn't even manage to support its own formats, let alone industry standards.
Even so, Office is an example of the best the proprietary world has to offer, a statement I make based on its qualification as a VERY old product developed by a company with DECADES of experience developing that particular product. While I consider OpenOffice a radically better product in 90% of all possible evaluation criterion, that something so much younger with so much less resources dedicated to it should even be considered worthy of comparison by a significant number of rational individuals is staggering praise to both OpenOffice and the open source community in general.
Wow, listen to me...I sound like I'm responding to an intelligent, rational individual rather than a mindless corporate puppet/raving troll. I feel kind of silly now, but I'm sure others will appreciate a thoughtfully-composed and rational comment, so here you go. - inactive, on 12/29/2007, -0/+6Baryn is either the world's greatest fail troll or an actual MS employee. One and the same anyway.
- foreplay, on 12/28/2007, -5/+11How exactly have microsoft tried to fix it. Face it the standard is an attempt to retain a monopoly by using their current bugs. Im just really glad vista was a bit of a flop so office 2007 is rarely used in businesses these days. still im starting to get a few more docx documents arrive by email these days and i send them back asking for plain text as i just cant open them. give it a few years and i this wont be an option if i want business.
- qwuinc, on 12/29/2007, -0/+6KitchenSinkLikeTheOneAtMicrosoftHeadquarters?
- inactive, on 12/29/2007, -0/+4@HonoredMule,
You talk like a person who has never used Open Office. It makes me think you haven't the first clue what you are talking about, or how office software is used. Sure, maybe you have loaded onto a computer or two, but I don't think you have ever used it for any length of time, for a project or task of even minimal complexity. - inactive, on 12/28/2007, -10/+14Just as Apple would do. Or any successful company.
- einfeldt, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5What other category would you prefer? There is no category for standards. I am open to suggestions, really.
- peaceninja, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Industry News?
- Breepee, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5But that doesn't make it right nor desirable for us the people.
- MWeather, on 12/29/2007, -1/+3I thought the point of a standard was that it isn't tied to any one vendor.
- KloroFormd, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4@bingobongony
How so? - MWeather, on 12/29/2007, -1/+3Considering the vendor lockin present with Microsoft Office, why do you feel bugs in the programs would hurt Microsoft?
- r3zonance, on 12/30/2007, -0/+1Some companies just do so with a little more panaché and style.
- einfeldt, on 12/28/2007, -2/+3What other category would you prefer? There is no category for standards. I am open to suggestions, really.
- rahuldj, on 12/29/2007, -1/+2If ODF were a product, and OOXML were a competing Microsoft product, it would have been easy to get it right, well... just copy the functionality and integrate it with Outlook or something and voila! You have a fantastic product.
Oh wait... standards HAVE to be different somewhere, don't they? I guess what Microsoft lacks is an existing standard for "reference" purposes. - jejones, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Well, yes... but in a free market the only way to do that is to give people what they want.
- MWeather, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1Can you give an example?
- pilobilus, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Anyone who does not stand to make money directly from promoting Microsoft's obsolete trashware security nightmare office suite over, for instance, Open Office, should simply disregard OOXML as meaningless noise. That's what it is, after all: An illegal marketing tactic intended for the sole purpose of diluting the trade names of Open Office and the Open Document Format. As for calling OOXML a "Standard", here's a look at the WHOLE future of ISO now that Microsoft has shown industry the way. From a Microsoft internal memo:
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed â" just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. - foreplay, on 12/29/2007, -1/+2The problem is that they are not cutting it out they are just moving these bits they have labelled deprecated to an independent annex to stop people saying we cant implement this part so it cant be approved.
Do you honestly think Microsoft will remove these features from office 2007's current docx format. what happens a few years down the line when people start using these formats and find that the office 2007 files cant be opened in other products that follow the standard. will they blame Microsoft for not following the standard by adding extra functions or will they blame open office for not supporting it properly even if it does.
you must remember people saying "this site doesn't work with firefox so it must be broken" when in fact it was just the site was not standard compliant to cater to the majority market share of internet explorer. - tomtom83, on 12/29/2007, -1/+1Oh great another insecure and expensive Microsoft proprietary standard!
- dkoon, on 12/28/2007, -5/+4As the article states Microsoft is cutting part of the OOXML, which the "Open Source Advocates" say it has too much information. I don't know if they can fix it or not, probably not seeing Microsoft's track record. But whatever the result is, Microsoft still deserves the right to let ISO boards review OOXML fairly. What's the point of having a standard if you don't trust them? If the ECMA 376 is a bomb disguised as a standard, then I guess every single EMCA standards can be a bomb too. We should not just reject it because it's Microsoft.
- timbo458, on 12/29/2007, -2/+1Microsoft is confused about making workable software!
- inactive, on 12/29/2007, -3/+2You fail to understand the problem. Excell calculated that correctly.
On the other hand, Calc has numerous issues with basic maths, and common spread sheet functions. For example, try to keep your small retail stores daily sales in Calc for a year and you will see what I mean.
I realize you were just being snarky, however you still fail. - kingofpenguins, on 12/28/2007, -13/+10I don't think they're so concerned about money as they are about power and controlling other people's lives.
- TomPhoolery, on 12/28/2007, -5/+1talkin bout the ron paul blimp *****
- inactive, on 12/28/2007, -10/+6As is the same of EVERY company. Apple. check. Nintendo. check. Google. check.
- mdollarsign, on 12/29/2007, -7/+2FUD
- chris9902, on 12/28/2007, -8/+3damn Microsoft. They are the only company in the world that wants to make money. That's shocking!
- inactive, on 12/28/2007, -8/+2Dude, it is not even fair comparing them. I become deeply suspicious when ever someone suggests OO. My reaction is always something like... Have you used open office? Because my continuing experience with OO is that it is not even ~finished~ and until they make something resembling a completed product I don't think it is fair to start qualifying it as good or bad or whatever.
Also if you had to compare it to something, it is much more appropriate to compare it to something like Microsoft Works, it just lacks too many features to begin to compare it to something like Office... - harlowsmonkeys, on 12/28/2007, -11/+4If Sun hadn't vetoed adding a small number of things to ODF to make it easy to deal with existing Office documents, that might have happened. Sun's position is that ODF will support EXACTLY what StarOffice needs--no more, no less. And since Sun won't actually make ODF open, what Sun wants is what goes into the standard, even though the majority of those working on ODF standardization wanted those things to go in.
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is