Linux.com

How are OOXML and/or ODF going to be integrated into the GNOME desktop? What non-productivity-suite applications do you forsee for these formats?

#

This podcasting ended up being very disappointing and had me questioning the future of gnome.

#

Please make Roy back up his statements with verifiable fact rather than the "it looks like", "smells like", "sounds like", "I think", "I assume" rubbish that he posts on his boycott novell site. It's not fair to make Jeff defend positions which are demonstrable conjecture and FUD-raking on the GNOME project.

#

This question could only come from Pia or Jeff Waugh, whose use of GNOME for personal aggrandisement lies at the heart of the issue. As ever, these two use blanket statements to malign their opponents as above, instead of providing a point-by-point rebuttal. It's a technique they learned from Miguelcrosoft de Icaaza.

I look forward to hearing Jeff attempt to defend the indefensible, no doubt as above, with misdirection and "shoot the messenger" hysteria.

Roy Schestowitz isn't on trial here, He's not the one who has aligned GNOMEs activities with the goals of Microsoft corporation.

#

Starting an argument with an ad-hominem isn't a great start, a false one at that.

Take a look at this prime example of "Boycott Novell investigation":

<a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/27/novell-gnome-openoffice/#comments">
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/27/novell-gnome-openoffice/#comments</a>

Jeff isn't defending the indefensible, he's being asked to defend the risible straw man. Jeff rebutts it specifically point-by-point, but he's essentially shadow boxing because Roy never accepts the answer, he shifts onto some other piece of equally unsupportable nonsense. If Roy even did *basic* research, he'd know the "Novell OOo" he's so worried about is carried by, oh, every single Linux distribution bar SuSE.

If Boycott Novell did a. basic research, b. issued *real* corrections (not "correction , see comments below"), c. stopped re-gurgitating material proven wrong, and d. stuck to the facts, I would bet few people would have a problem with it. It would get fewer readers and generate less advertising revenue though, so I don't see that happening....

#

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071206131310362#comments

Does this change anything?

#

Well, linux.com is now off my list of places to go for reliable Linux information. It's hard enough fighting Linux disinformation without having a site like linux.com promoting a FUD spewing troll site like boycottnovell.com. It's also disingenuous to call Schestowitz a "regular contributor" there--it makes it sound like he is merely a submitter to someone else's site, implying that his material is vetted before being published. In fact, he is an editor there, and his submissions are not quality or fact checked--and so are rife with errors. Worse, when an error is pointed out, he does not correct it, and repeats the original post in many other forums.

#

As has been stated on the mailing lists, according to the GNOME Foundation, GNOME's involvement in OOXML's standardization process does not imply a tacit approval of the specification and its worthyness as an ISO approved standard. I find that position very hard to reconcile with the Foundations actions in the matter. Let's fantasize a bit. Suppose the GNOME Foundation really very much was in favor of OOXML. Could you then think of a better way to aid Microsoft in getting the specification through than signing up GNOME to their working group (TC-45) and appoint one of the worlds most qualified engineers (Jody) to work on resolving technical problems with the spec?

#

I hate Microsoft as a company and most of their products are less than desireable. I really don't care about OOXML one way or the other. It is so similar to ODF it's really silly. They did a great job in Office2007. It's about time they did something good for the user. I don't give Microsoft kudos very often.

Why is GNOME really backing OOXML? Why do they even care? What's in it for them? Is this some ploy for Microsoft to get further into the Linux world and start claiming intellectual property on code that they couldn't write to save their lives; effectively sedning Linux into a downward spiral and taking GNOME with them? Any "ally" Microsoft attaches to almost immediately starts feeling remorse for their actions and a desire to repent for their sins. GNOME, be careful of what you are doing. You could spell disaster for the rest of us unwittingly. Is this yet another Microsoft conspiracy thoery? Only time will tell.

#

"It is so similar to ODF it's really silly."

Actually, no, they're poles apart in both style and substance. About the only thing they have in common is they use XML, and even then MS's XML is not written in 'proper' XML style but instead is a mess that makes real XML pros want to rip their eyeballs out.

#

It seems to me that there has been an awful lot of misinformation about GNOME for a long time now. For example, people think GNOME Foundation was instrumental in getting Jody to contribute to OOXML, rather than being supportive, and that general GNOME policy is to embrace Mono and OOXML. To the extent that any open source project can dictate to contributors what they work on, the idea is pretty far-fetched, but it seems to stick to GNOME.

What is GNOME doing wrong to get this kind of unfair criticism, and how can GNOME better engage the wider open source community so that misunderstandings like this don't reoccur in the future?

#

How would Roy like to see GNOME implement OOXML? Is it: a) not at all, b) not right now, maybe in a few years, or c) right now, but not by participating in the TC to gain information about the fileformat?

And how would he balance that with the needs of GNOME users like me who are already receiving OOXML files and having to battle older versions of Office to read them?

#

why is there an mp3 link and no ogg vorbis link?

#

I was a bit perplexed by this aswell.

#

Such a waste of time.
Days, months, and years are spent developing Open Source.
Likewise in debate of same.
With the general public so wary of internet porn and identity theft,
what better way to waste 98% of this effort than to affix terminology like
"X..." and "Open..." to describe it?
[Modified by: Anonymous on December 10, 2007 04:02 PM]

#

What's up with the MP3? Why isn't the podcast available in OGG/Vorbis? This is _linux_.com fer cryin' out loud!

#

ditto... on the mp3 comment.! it is lame (pun intended) to make people call in on the phone if they don't want to use proprietary formats. please make an ogg version available in the future. Is it really that hard? Heck I wonder if someone has created an open source streaming program? ;-)

#

<a href="http://www.rizecity.com/">Youtube, film indir, rize</a>

#

http://loadingvault.com

#

The discussion was interesting except for the Roy Schestowitz person who seemed more interested in promoting his for-profit boycott sites then actually discussing issues. It's unfortunate that extremists and zealots like Schestowitz continually hijack the development of linux in order to promote their own financial agenda.

If Roy Schestowitz were a genuine contributor and had anything worthwhile to offer then it would be different. But he is clearly under informed and has yet to make any contribution to GNU/Linux. His only purpose is to bolster hits to his own (for profit) websites... websites which unfortunately are an embarrassment to the llinux community.

#

Very useful rapidshare search. It includes over 4 000 000 files. Fileshunt.com is a best search engine designed to <a href="http://fileshunt.com"> search files </a> in various file sharing and uploading sites. My favorite, rapidshare search engine is Fileshunt.com it’s the most powerful an easy to use. :)

#