Some Counterpoint to Our ODF/OOXML Report

Blogger: Guy Creese

There's been some disagreement with our ODF/OOXML report, to put it mildly. Unfortunately, many of the criticisms are from people who have not read the report and are reacting to second- and third-hand interpretations of it.

In happy contrast to this "I'll react to the headline" mode, there have been some thoughtful discussions of the issues:

• Leadership by Numbers: A blog post by an IBM/Lotus/Linux/Java consultant in the DC area who characterizes himself as "leaning strongly towards ODF."
• ODF Alliance: The ODF Alliance has published a counterpoint to our report, and based on comments from OASIS and a branch of OpenOffice.org, does a nice job of summarizing an opposing viewpoint.
• Erwin's StarOffice Tango: A blog post by Erwin Tenhumberg, a marketing manager at Sun, entitled, "Dispelling Myths Around ODF."

If you are interested in the ODF/OOXML debate, we encourage you to read our report in its entirety, as well as the counterpoint resources above. We interviewed people at Adobe, Altova, IBM, Microsoft, Novell, and Sun in the course of putting it together, and they all offered feedback/corrections before we published it. However, it is still our opinion, and others disagree. From our point-of-view, the best thing that can happen as a result of this report is a civil, rational discussion of the issues--and not the religious war that this debate has often nosedived into.

For those who have asked when we plan on updating the report, we plan to in the next quarter, with an eye to (1) accepting or rebutting arguments made by others, (2) taking into account the result of the ISO vote, and (3) clarifying points that people misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Comments

[David M Wilson]

Over the course of about a week, it is still not possible to read the PDF, or to download it in an *uncorrupted* form. Apparently, that is a great way to claim that people haven't actually read it, because you can be sure that that is true. If the file is deliberately corrupted, you are absolutely correct that no one can read it.

For that reason, your protestations of hurt feelings because interested parties haven't actually read the piece ring awfully hollow.

Post an uncorrupted file, in a standard PDF format, and allow your critics to read the piece. Until that happens, the perception will continue to be that you are M$ shills, and not to be taken seriously.

Further, waiting until after the February ISO meeting to correct the specific errors in your report just add to the perception that the report was not honest to start with, that you knew that before publishing it, and that correcting your errors would indeed negatively prejudice Micro$oft's forum packing in that meeting.

No sense in actually reporting the truth, when that would make your paying client look like the convicted criminal, predatory monopoly that they have been adjudged to be.

[G Fernandes]

I can only commend you on your very naive belief that Microsoft really wants to open it's formats.

Of course, you don't have to worry about being naive - you don't compete directly or indirectly against Microsoft. You have the luxury of indulging in naivity.

Contrast this with IBM - ask them about OS/2. Contrast this with Netscape - ask them about Navigator. Contrast this with Wordperfect - ask the owners of Wordperfect how the lack of a public, open IMPLEMENTABLE (as opposed to a BINARY MEMORY DUMP - OOXML) format have meant that they're always tracking Microsoft Word for document compatibility.

And these are but a few examples - read the in-depth report from the DoJ regarding Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.

A monopoly is bad. Period. There is no way to justify it. Regardless of how naive you may be.