From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 1/27/26 17:34, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Microsoft's Office also includes PowerPoint too.  Here's an Open Lit   
   file that I've held onto that is a poster child test case.   
      
      
      
   > This is where DFS will chime in and tell us how great   
   > Microsoft's suite is, but he is hardly objective.   
      
   Not relevant, because I've already noted this as a shortcoming, plus if   
   DFS wants to claim otherwise, they can use the above link to recover   
   that file and provide it in a current PPT format as proof.   
      
      
      
   -hh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)