"Failed to deliver on interoperability?" When the source is closed? How can oo.org keep up with patented standards? One example is the Ribbon--openOffice.org (and it does frustrate me) cannot copy it. Because of this, we are stuck with a 2003 style buttons bar. But is that their fault or MS's fault?
The Word,Excel, Powerpoint, etc. file format documentation is freely available from MS. There is also a Windows Ribbon API, but that's sort of beside the point. The fact is, even the CommandBars are something they could have easily kept unusable to others, because it was a part of Office. It's not that hard to write a toolbar control, and a ribbon control is no less difficult (I've done both) additionally, if the developers of an Open Source project are blaming the closed source project for their failings, they've already lost. You don't find two closed source companies complaining that their programs lack features because their competition won't release their own source code.
You know what those closed source vendors do? They match the functionality as best they can. When MS first started using the Toolbar (first called the ribbon, interestingly enough) in Microsoft Excel, None of the other vendors whined and complained that MS wasn't releasing the code to Excel so they could create competing products with that same feature; that's just not the way it works. If you want a bloody feature, you should have to program it yourself, you shouldn't expect either the OS vendor or especially the competition to do it for you. Just because free software is free doesn't mean that commercial vendors have some unsaid obligation to give you throw all the hard work on their plates on a silver platter. MS wrote their first implementation that you so badly want to use; competing companies that wanted that feature wrote their own implementations, they didn't *censored* and complain about how MS didn't release that cool new widget as a reusable control. The only reason MS decided to create things like listview, progressbar, and other controls is because among those that did implement their own versions, nobody could agree on the look and feel of said controls. This is essentially why MS is "dictating" how even Open Source programs work, because Open Source programs use common controls like the listview, progressbar, treeview, buttons, lists, windows, of course,panels, frames, toolbars, coolbars, and so on and so forth. So basically you are complaining that MS is releasing these things that try to set a standard for UI controls and yet at the same time complaining when they don't release said controls for some widgets. that's a circular argument if I ever heard one.
Heck, Borland decided to redesign the bloody OK and cancel buttons, rather then use the stock ones, so they could add culturally sensitive check and x marks. That probably my only beef about any open source project; if you have any complaint about it, the retort will always try to blame the competition for not releasing their source. If the developers of the Open source software in question are as good as everybody says they are and they regard themselves, I don't see why they can't just write one themselves; this is especially the case for OpenOffice, since they could just write a single commandbar/Ribbon implementation and use it across all the various Suite applications. But of course, they don't, and they instead sit on their asses and blame MS for their own incompetence.
"30% more" of the staff? That's because the users had adapted to Windows and MS Office--of course, when Office is re-installed, people will be happier in the short-term. openOffice.org does take getting used to, and the IT staff *would have to* spend *more time* teaching newbies or MS end users how to use the new software.
They need 30% more staff because generally getting OpenOffice means no tech support, on any level (to my understanding), so they need to hire consultants.
"Familiarity with the Microsoft Office interface?" When that's all users grew up with? To become familiar with both, you have to use both. Is it fair that open source always has to adapt to MS standards and appearance for newbies to like it?
Yes. Either that, or you could set another, more intuitive and easier to use standard that shows up microsoft's implementation. hmm... that sounds like a lot of work though... I know! let's complain instead. Much easier.
Especially when they're competing with MS making commercials with millions to spare, and most implementations are closed tight?
Hmm, Firefox hasn't had any problem practically decimating Internet Explorer. And clearly Mozilla is not the heavyweight that MS is and IE is closed source, so I hardly see how that can be construed as a valid argument. "I shouldn't have to try hard to overthrow a stronger opponent" there is no such thing as a handicap setting when it comes to business and software development.
Yes, open XML was *finally* allowed in 2007, but at first, not even Office 2003 users could open it on servers where installing new software (the converters to 2007) are not allowed.
redundant. The Binary formats and their documentation are all free to examine, and have been for years (there was a time you needed to snail mail the request in, but I think that was pre-internet). 2003 allows me to save as "XML Document" but I don't know what format it is... I don't think it's OpenXML.
The part of the video that really got me is the one with the teacher-student collaboration--this is certainly not true, whether in a corporate or student setting. openOffice.org documents, when converted properly,
yeah, that was sorta dumb, but the key phrase there from you is "when converted properly" does OpenOffice provide the tools to do this easily?
Additionally, they even make Office for Macs!
wait... err... how does this discredit Office?
But can we see where this is leading to?
Open source developers and zealots doing what they do best, of course. Blame-shifting. "It's not OUR fault that your laptop screams at a million decibels when resumed from standby! it's the manufacturer's fault! What's that? it works with windows? well, it's a HUGE CONSPIRACY AGAINST US OBVIOUSLY! WE ARE THE VICTIMS!"
MS is saying that why users want Windows or Office is because they're familiar with it--but then, they bash the other software so they *don't* get a chance to get familiar with it (of course, in front of the end user)--which the end user will begin to believe after it's repeated. Then, the cycle of "I'm already familiar with it" will continue into new software; by then, the customers are MS brainwashed. Thus, the pleas to use open source software will be lost.
Do you Open Source peeps think all consumers are that stupid?
Play fairly.
There is asking for the competition to be fair and then there is being a bunch of whiny crybabies. "OMFG MS won't do X and X and it won't release the neat little widget it used in Microsoft X so we can use it in OpenSource project Y". Get over yourselves. If you want a bloody graphical widget, like a toolbar or ribbon, you can either use the already published API'S that MS
DOES provide for those things on some platforms, or, you can do what MS has been doing during the entire time you've been blame-shifting your way out of actual development and write one yourself. If a single person like me can make a functional bloody ribbon and toolbar I don't think and entire team of Open Source developers has any excuse.
