Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 76.191.215.166]
on September 25, 2008 06:12 PM
Thanks for the informative article on current file format standards issue.
If one stands back and takes a critical look at how the Linux community supports ODF, does it seem like the level of support is very high?
Is there more than one popular free office product with decent ODF support (popular enough to be on the Distrowatch package list)? Don't many Linux enthusiasts advocate otherwise-capable office alternatives that offer no support? Pointing a finger at one developer is unfair given that popular open source office products generally promote their own unique file format, but at least one ODF Alliance member has a popular office product that does not support ODF.
Reviewers don't mention it when a live desktop Linux CD includes office software that doesn't support ODF... as if it isn't important that office users and potential converts are capable of editing ODF documents.
Critical self examination is difficult in the Linux community, because it's not right to just belittle the current efforts and it's awkward to be complimentary and critical at the same time. Besides, in this particular matter it could be that the support of Linux enthusiasts and desktop distro developers isn't nearly as important as the actions of the IT industry players.
However I wonder if, instead of just looking at ISO and MS actions, maybe some self-examination would result in better support for IBM (and ODF) in this matter.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
IBM takes a stand against bad standards
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 76.191.215.166] on September 25, 2008 06:12 PMIf one stands back and takes a critical look at how the Linux community supports ODF, does it seem like the level of support is very high?
Is there more than one popular free office product with decent ODF support (popular enough to be on the Distrowatch package list)? Don't many Linux enthusiasts advocate otherwise-capable office alternatives that offer no support? Pointing a finger at one developer is unfair given that popular open source office products generally promote their own unique file format, but at least one ODF Alliance member has a popular office product that does not support ODF.
Reviewers don't mention it when a live desktop Linux CD includes office software that doesn't support ODF... as if it isn't important that office users and potential converts are capable of editing ODF documents.
Critical self examination is difficult in the Linux community, because it's not right to just belittle the current efforts and it's awkward to be complimentary and critical at the same time. Besides, in this particular matter it could be that the support of Linux enthusiasts and desktop distro developers isn't nearly as important as the actions of the IT industry players.
However I wonder if, instead of just looking at ISO and MS actions, maybe some self-examination would result in better support for IBM (and ODF) in this matter.
#