More Shills?

[Leo Mauler]

--- Arthur Pemberton <pemboa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Have you guys seen this?
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/30/2113200

As a couple of Slashdot responders correctly point
out, the "OpenDocument Foundation" is one tiny
organization with a name that is way too big for its
britches, and hardly any bite with its bark.

=====================================
One responder states:
=====================================

""The OpenDocument Foundation", in spite of its name,
is nothing. They are not the "official" foundation
backing ODF. They are just two guys, with a good name
and without a garage, which used to develop a OOXML
ODF converter. Read this for more information: Cracks
in the Foundation [robweir.com]." 

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/10/cracks-in-foundation.html
(http://tinyurl.com/35qge9)

=====================================
And another responder clarifies it even more:
=====================================

Actually, it's just three guys:
http://opendocumentfoundation.us/we.htm 

Not much of a foundation.

The *real* ODF group is:
http://www.odfalliance.org/memberlist.php
[odfalliance.org]

I think that the only honest thing the "The
OpenDocument Foundation" can do is rename itself "The
Compound Documents Format Foundation", since to do
otherwise would be as deceitful as Microsoft choosing
to name OOXML "Office Open XML". But honestly, I doubt
they will. Their comparison chart between CDF and ODF
betrays a few lies:

http://opendocument.foundation.googlepages.com/GOSCON_Chart.pdf
[googlepages.com]
(http://tinyurl.com/2kxf7t)

In particular:

* CDF is not OOXML compatible, nor has any
implementation shown this to be possible. ODF at least
has a not-100% compatible conversion.
* ODF has a lot more big vendor support than CDF
* Neither are universal formats, but ODF is supported
by more vendors and software projects at the moment.

Personally, I think that the reasons for "The
OpenDocument Foundation" changing it's support from
ODF to CDF is self-interest. When ODF was first
introduced, there was money to be made for a small
company to write MS Office/Corel Office/Mac Office
plugins and other conversion services. But then Sun
and others started offering free converters and
conversion services. There's just too much competition
too quickly

CDF, OTOH is not as well supported universally, so
there's a lot more room for a small company. And if
the CDF growth rate is slow, the "The OpenDocument
Foundation" has the chance to become *the CDF
conversion experts* and make a lot of money. Also,
since CDF (if you believe their claims) is more web
oriented, it would be good for transactional
converters of many types that need to be used for each
message. With ODF, you convert your document once and
don't have to worry about going back (by
purpose....ODF is best for documents that have to be
read, as is 100 years from now). The difference in
profit between one-time business and licensed per
transaction business could huge, even if CDF has a
smaller market.

=====================================

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com