I like that.

My version is "copy, co-opt, and crush."

You history of Microsoft's attempts to bend, warp, and twist standards is excellent. As I recall, I think their attempt to foist off *.docx" as an open standard was their most recent attempt.

I know one middle-sized organization that uses MS Office where the common practice is to "save as Word 95," because docx is so open to earlier versions of MS Office.

To go back to the original post, MS doesn't care about standards. It never has, except where the success of competition has forced it to (for example, the success of Firefox, the customer frustration over the incompatibility of Windows media formats with players other than Windows Media Player).

Microsoft cares about getting persons into their walled garden and locking them in.

So what happens if ODF cleans house. Will Microsoft eventually conform--based on the history of other standards that won out against Microsoft?

Based on MS past performance, I would expect them to start using it, then, in the next version of the software, start introducing changes so that, ultimately, *.msod? is ultimately no longer compatible with any other Office suite.

That has been their pattern, and it's the only pattern they know.

So then, does the burden of change fall to the open source community, to make our systems & apps more "user-friendly?" Hands down, open source is better. It's more stable, more powerful, more useful. Maybe all we need to do to eclipse Macrosoft (sic) is add some "cosmetics." Really, I think that's the only incentive MSFT gives end-users, and the reason why Microsoft holds sway.

Man, that's jive!--the effect of greed.

not just most BUT ALL media caters to M$ ever seen windoze adds on science channel
and history channel

starting at the same time Revolution OS came out

why on earth would M$ need to run adds for windoze not adds for the newest version mind you
BUT windoze it self

I submit these adds were to keep Revolution OS off the channels

I forgot to say Revolution OS is the story of linux here is a link to it
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...85592627775409

Frankly, the user-friendly war has been won long ago. The "Linux is not user-friendly" myth goes back to before my Linux-time, when getting X to run was a challenge.

Sure, there are some Linux apps that are immensely complex. There are some Windows apps that are immensely complex. I doubt there is a way to make high-level video-editing or photo-editing simple. But the stuff the average user does--look at websites, play videos, write documents, and email stuff--is no more complicated in Linux than it is in Windows.

But what boils down to "user friendly" for most users can be defined as "what I'm used to."

What made Windows successful is that customer brought Windows home with them when the bought a computer. In the minds of many, Windows = computers.

Microsoft knows that comtemproary Linux is user friendly (except maybe for Arch, Gentoo, and LFS, which are build-it-yourself), even as MS promotes the notion that it's not.

Heck, when I started with Slackware, with v. 10, I loaded up a computer with it and sent it to my daughter, who is not a computer person. She used it quite happily for years, because she is a typical home user.

The "Linux is not user friendly" thing is a smoke-screen. The most user unfriendly thing about Linux is having to install it yourself. Most home users have never installed an OS and think is a mysterious and magical process which they cannot possibly understand.

That's why MS fights so hard against major computer makers' making Linux available from the factory.

MS knows that, once users can easily obtain Linux without having to install it themselves, the Windows, dot-net, and ActiveX are dead; that they'll have to rewrite Office to run on Linux; and that it will be starting that run from way behind.

End of tirade.

Microsoft is a publicly traded company, so its' duty/goal is (obviously) to earn cash and keep shareholders happy. They will conform only if doing so will help their main goal. If you want to make them do something, you should look at situation from their position.

1: "user-friendly" has nothing to do with standards or microsoft.
2: Nobody really controls opensource community, so you can't place any "burden of change" upon it. Things happen when many people suddenly decide to do same thing.

No it isn't. "To each his own". Proprietary companies try to dazzle customers with useless features, and opensource constantly delivers half-baked products (plus opensource has ideological fanatics) that never reach final version. Both available options suck. IMO, if you think that one of them is better than another then you don't see complete picture.

Concentrate on only one thing and you'll fail. Quality of "cosmetics" (gui) contributes to overall quality of product and IS important, but if you'll concentrate only on "cosmetics", you'll end up making a bad product.

When did Revolution OS appear?

The movie is made in 2001 - i.e. 10 years a go. For computer world that's quite a lot of time.

I'm not complaining. Heck, I'm really fascinated and sold on Linux. But I've noticed navigating files in Linux is often still awkward, even in the gui.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Is it that MSFT has more "fight" or clout? What effort has the open source community made to win over computer makers?

Also, I think a big weakness we have is that it seems you can't even get a mainstream printer that works on Linux machines. I mean that's an absolute necessary for a computer user (again I'm not complaining, but it's a major issue for me, having to go over to Windows every time I want to print something).

That would be awesome, Windows at the tail!

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if the case with Microsoft is hopeless insofar that they will ever cooperate--with standards, maybe we should make open source software more appealing to the common consumer, assuming we mean to contend with Microsoft.

I agree 100%. Just don't "throw the baby out with the bath water," either.

I find navigating in either Konqueror (I prefer it to Dolphin) or Nautilus easier than in Windows Explorer current. (I have Win7 box so I'm up-to-date.)

As regards printers, HPs work great in Linux. So do many Epsons. I don't think you get more mainstream than HP.

More to the point, where the customers go, the hardware makers will follow. If enough customers demand Linux compatibility, hardware makers will provide it.

Konqueror, that's slackware right? Just installed slack on an old laptop. I tried slack over or about a year ago, but couldn't get it running right, but I think I burned the disks too fast. So far so good, this round.

I'll note that. Thanks.

No, any distro. It's one of the default KDE file manager/web browsers.