On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 15:48 -0400, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > The larger point is whether it makes sense for OOo to advocate MSFT's > employment of the ODF.
Hm, there are pros and cons but if MS were not that bothered about the threat of OOo they would not be too bothered about fighting the ODF issue and they would solve the Massachusetts issue simply by supporting ODF. On balance I'd say that if MS do support ODF it will take away another objection to deploying OOo in MSO dominated environment ie most existing office software users. > I think not. OOo is a competitor of MS Office > and will benefit from MS being behind increasingly perceived as being > out of step. That will be true when the balance shifts to OOo > MSO. We are some way off that yet. The easier it is to migrate files bi-directionally and reliably the more the flow will be from high to low pressure, the high pressure currently being MSO. Its just basic physics :-) > Your group, the OpenDocument Fellowship, is of course free to > advocate whatever you will, and I wish you the best. Really? If you believe that getting MS to adopt ODF hurts OOo why would you wish someone the best for doing it? I think that the pressure on MS to support ODF is going to get ever greater so its probably an academic debate in any case. So probably the more substantive issue from a marketing point of view is getting as much high visibility for OOo as possible and preferably in the main stream rather than just geek and technology press. That was what I was pointing at in terms of the "Digg" evidence, I really don't quite see how that gets diverted into the OpenDocument Fellowship, but there we are. -- Ian Lynch www.theINGOTs.org www.opendocumentfellowship.org www.schoolforge.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
