this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
500 points (94.0% liked)

memes

10383 readers
2712 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] loutr@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

what force might have coerced Microsoft to behave more reasonably, in that situation?

Strong antitrust and anti-corruption laws. Their actions were not "unreasonable", they were straight up illegal.

Edit: also you should read up on the whole thing. They didn't break compatibility with their own office suite of course. What they did is lie to (and almost definitely pay off) the standardization body: "here is the spec for OpenXML, you see we're open it's right here in the name, anyone can implement it and be interoperable with us". So OpenXML was standardized along with OpenOffice's OOXML (at the start of the process, only OOXML was considered for standardization).

Once the deed was done, they of course didn't implement OOXML in MS Office (as is their right), but they also didn't implement their own OpenXML spec properly, which means OpenOffice still had to reverse-engineer an intentionally obfuscated and broken format to try and read/write documents compatible with MSO.

So the whole thing has been absolutely useless, except for a couple of "experts" from the panel who came out of it a bit richer.

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

See, here's the thing, though:

Imagine what might have been accomplished if everyone who has ever oh-so-aggressively proselytized to their fellow citizens, trying to get them to adopt Linux had TALKED ABOUT THIS SHIT, INSTEAD.

Not as a reason to adopt Linux. Not as a way to try and grow Linux's 1-4 percent of the market share up to oooooh, maybe 8 percent. No. Imagine if they had set that shit aside and expended all that effort, getting the vote out for candidates who would have supported anti-trust enforcement.

And don't get pessimistic on me, now. If you're enough of a die-hard, lost-cause enthusiast to believe Linux can grow from 1-4 percent of the userbase to somehow, some way take over Microsoft's dominant position, one of these decades....well, you can't very well turn around and say "nah, all politicians are the same, there's no hope for change in that area."

Either be a pie-in-the-sky dreamer who never gives up hope OR DON'T.

In all honesty, I think most Linux street-preachers would actually rather open source never get any more traction. At least, not in the actual desktop operating system realm. Deep down, I think most of them prefer to be the poor, noble, beknighted underdog. Always preaching the truth, always being ignored by the idiot masses. It's a phenomenal way to stroke one's own ego.

[–] loutr@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

Yeah that's all we talked about over at Slashdot at the time. Nobody else gave a fuck.