- <item>
- <title>Relative popularity of document formats (MS Office vs. ODF)</title>
- <link>Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html</link>
- <guid isPermaLink="true">Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html</guid>
- <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
- <description>
-<p>Just for fun, I did a search right now on Google for a few file ODF
-and MS Office based formats (not to be mistaken for ISO or ECMA
-OOXML), to get an idea of their relative usage. I searched using
-'filetype:odt' and equvalent terms, and got these results:</P>
-
-<table>
-<tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
-<tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:282000</td> <td>docx:308000</td></tr>
-<tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:75600</td> <td>pptx:183000</td></tr>
-<tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:26500 </td> <td>xlsx:145000</td></tr>
-</table>
-
-<p>Next, I added a 'site:no' limit to get the numbers for Norway, and
-got these numbers:</p>
-
-<table>
-<tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
-<tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:2480 </td> <td>docx:4460</td></tr>
-<tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:299 </td> <td>pptx:741</td></tr>
-<tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:187 </td> <td>xlsx:372</td></tr>
-</table>
-
-<p>I wonder how these numbers change over time.</p>
-
-<p>I am aware of Google returning different results and numbers based
-on where the search is done, so I guess these numbers will differ if
-they are conduced in another country. Because of this, I did the same
-search from a machine in California, USA, a few minutes after the
-search done from a machine here in Norway.</p>
-
-
-<table>
-<tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
-<tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:129000</td> <td>docx:308000</td></tr>
-<tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:44200</td> <td>pptx:93900</td></tr>
-<tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:26500 </td> <td>xlsx:82400</td></tr>
-</table>
-
-<p>And with 'site:no':
-
-<table>
-<tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
-<tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:2480</td> <td>docx:3410</td></tr>
-<tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:175</td> <td>pptx:604</td></tr>
-<tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:186 </td> <td>xlsx:296</td></tr>
-</table>
-
-<p>Interesting difference, not sure what to conclude from these
-numbers.</p>
-</description>
- </item>
-
- <item>
- <title>ISO still hope to fix OOXML</title>
- <link>ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html</link>
- <guid isPermaLink="true">ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html</guid>
- <pubDate>Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
- <description>
-<p>According to <a
-href="http://twerner.blogspot.com/2009/08/defects-of-office-open-xml.html">a
-blog post from Torsten Werner</a>, the current defect report for ISO
-29500 (ISO OOXML) is 809 pages. His interesting point is that the
-defect report is 71 pages more than the full ODF 1.1 specification.
-Personally I find it more interesting that ISO still believe ISO OOXML
-can be fixed in ISO. Personally, I believe it is broken beyon repair,
-and I completely lack any trust in ISO for being able to get anywhere
-close to solving the problems. I was part of the Norwegian committee
-involved in the OOXML fast track process, and was not impressed with
-Standard Norway and ISO in how they handled it.</p>
-
-<p>These days I focus on ODF instead, which seem like a specification
-with the future ahead of it. We are working in NUUG to organise a ODF
-seminar this autumn.</p>
-</description>
- </item>
-
- <item>
- <title>Debian has switched to dependency based boot sequencing</title>
- <link>Debian_has_switched_to_dependency_based_boot_sequencing.html</link>
- <guid isPermaLink="true">Debian_has_switched_to_dependency_based_boot_sequencing.html</guid>
- <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
- <description>
-<p>Since this evening, with the upload of sysvinit version 2.87dsf-2,
-and the upload of insserv version 1.12.0-10 yesterday, Debian unstable
-have been migrated to using dependency based boot sequencing. This
-conclude work me and others have been doing for the last three days.
-It feels great to see this finally part of the default Debian
-installation. Now we just need to weed out the last few problems that
-are bound to show up, to get everything ready for Squeeze.</p>
-
-<p>The next step is migrating /sbin/init from sysvinit to upstart, and
-fixing the more fundamental problem of handing the event based
-non-predictable kernel in the early boot.</p>
-</description>
- </item>
-
- <item>
- <title>Taking over sysvinit development</title>
- <link>Taking_over_sysvinit_development.html</link>
- <guid isPermaLink="true">Taking_over_sysvinit_development.html</guid>
- <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
- <description>
-<p>After several years of frustration with the lack of activity from
-the existing sysvinit upstream developer, I decided a few weeks ago to
-take over the package and become the new upstream. The number of
-patches to track for the Debian package was becoming a burden, and the
-lack of synchronization between the distribution made it hard to keep
-the package up to date.</p>
-
-<p>On the new sysvinit team is the SuSe maintainer Dr. Werner Fink,
-and my Debian co-maintainer Kel Modderman. About 10 days ago, I made
-a new upstream tarball with version number 2.87dsf (for Debian, SuSe
-and Fedora), based on the patches currently in use in these
-distributions. We Debian maintainers plan to move to this tarball as
-the new upstream as soon as we find time to do the merge. Since the
-new tarball was created, we agreed with Werner at SuSe to make a new
-upstream project at <a href="http://savannah.nongnu.org/">Savannah</a>, and continue
-development there. The project is registered and currently waiting
-for approval by the Savannah administrators, and as soon as it is
-approved, we will import the old versions from svn and continue
-working on the future release.</p>
-
-<p>It is a bit ironic that this is done now, when some of the involved
-distributions are moving to upstart as a syvinit replacement.</p>
-</description>
- </item>
-