From: crude@sausa.ge   
      
   On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 15:47:16 -0500, -hh wrote:   
      
   > On 1/27/26 15:37, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 13:35:54 -0500, -hh wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 1/26/26 19:43, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   >>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:44:59 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:57:02 -0500, DFS wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 1/26/2026 3:30 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And yet they can produce a higher-quality distribution than   
   >>>>>>> Microsoft can manage with an operating budget several orders of   
   >>>>>>> magniture greater.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You know better than that.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All I know is, one outfit has done, not one, but *two* “emergency”   
   >>>>> patches for serious problems with this month’s update, while the   
   >>>>> other has not.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Like I've said before, it's just a matter of time before DFS is   
   >>>> affected by one of these updates and potentially loses all his   
   >>>> previous Excel files. When his computer become unbootable or he loses   
   >>>> tons of data for no good reason, he might realize that Linux is not   
   >>>> so bad.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, MS has been known to abandon their own MS-Office formats, but   
   >>> this does raise an interesting question on if they're unique in doing   
   >>> this.   
   >>>   
   >>> For example, I can recall past advocacy claims about how one doesn't   
   >>> need to pay for MS-Office because their files are compatible in some   
   >>> of the FOSS "Office" products.  Was this a correct & true statement?   
   >>>   
   >>> FWIW, I'm guessing Open Office and/or Libre Office were likely   
   >>> examples.   
   >>>   
   >>> Because if that is so...   
   >>>   
   >>> ...doesn't this together then imply that the issue of MS file format   
   >>> abandonment is solved by simply using a current copy of OO/LO to open   
   >>> those ancient formats, because they never abandoned their   
   >>> compatibility?   
   >>>   
   >>> FWIW, I have an ancient PowerPoint that I've kept for years, as I'd   
   >>> like to recover to its original format:  it is available as a test   
   >>> case.   
   >>   
   >> For me, the only way to make sure that a document written in a format   
   >> does not eventually get lost or suffer from incompatibility is to use a   
   >> format which is by default open, with OpenDocument being the only one   
   >> which is truly open.   
   >   
   > A reasonably fair point ... today ...   
   >   
   > But it wasn't really something that we thought about 30+ years ago.   
   >   
   > Plus this observation doesn't really address the question that I'm   
   > posing, which is that since FOSS clones have been around for NN years,   
   > have they done a better job in being backwards-compatible to Microsoft's   
   > older and now orphaned file formats?   
      
   Well, I don't have any old .doc or .xls files lying around, so I have no   
   way of testing. This is where DFS will chime in and tell us how great   
   Microsoft's suite is, but he is hardly objective.   
      
      
   --   
   CrudeSausage   
   John 14:6   
   Isaiah 48:16   
   Pop_OS!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)