OSNews

As I see it, the Office monopoly is (unfortunately) as solid as before, and I've seen the proof in this voting.

Not only have some of the voters been completely irresponsible -- Cuba voting "yes" for a format it is not allowed to use and Azerbaijan also voting "yes" for a format that cannot use the Azeri native language -- but the rest of the voters seemed almost asleep.

Microsoft must have spend a huge amount of time and resources lobbying (and maybe even paying) for votes. News of this unfair behavior has surfaced several times -- but nobody has reacted in any way. As you have suggested, ECMA shouldn't be allowed to fast-track anything else in the future, and the countries that have been shown to vote based on other concerns than those which OOXML "tries" to address (interoperability, consistency etc.) should be banned from voting on it again. This does require a strong reaction though -- which I haven't seen.

I agree that this is Microsoft's success. Not being fast-tracked only means a bit of extra time, just enough to convince a few other voters of the, cough, technical superiority of OOXML.

Frankly, if OOXML makes it into an ISO standard (and I doubt it won't), I can easily see the future -- it's happened again, over and over, in the days of NT vs. NetWare. Open standard first, let everyone adopts it, and then the strategy quickly changes to one that guarantees vendor lockdown and there go another ten years of monopoly.

"Not only have some of the voters been completely irresponsible -- Cuba voting "yes" for a format it is not allowed to use and Azerbaijan also voting "yes" for a format that cannot use the Azeri native language -- but the rest of the voters seemed almost asleep."

That's exactly what happens when you leave decisions to persons that don't have a clue about what they are requested to form an opinion about, or people who value individual financial benefits over honest and educated decisions. Maybe, they are completely desinteressed in the decision process and MICROS~1 tells them "Just vote 'yes' and we won't bother you anymore." Way of the most minimal resistance...?

I don't get it, if OOXML becomes an ISO standard what could stop Cubans from using it? It's not like it's a Microsoft product (like Office), it's just a format.

They can use it with Open Office or any other office suit that supports the format, am I right?

"I don't get it, if OOXML becomes an ISO standard what could stop Cubans from using it? It's not like it's a Microsoft product (like Office), it's just a format."

They can use it with Open Office or any other office suit that supports the format, am I right?"

If it truly was an open standard...obviously, thats the point. I will quote from the article linked to above which is about a page long.

" * for a specification of this size it was not given enough time for review;
* the undocumented features of OOXML prevents its implementation by other vendors;
* dependencies on other Microsoft proprietary formats and their technical defects makes it difficult to fully implement; and
* the overall cost for vendors of implementing multiple standards (hence the lack of OOXML implementations in the marketplace)."

Although you can find more comprehensive details all over the web that go into levels of details in this instance it seems ironic to type "Google is your friend"

Edited 2007-09-16 17:06

That's right, but at least it is a very detailed specification, unlike, say, the ODF specification, which is rather sketchy.



This is a questionable statement. First, the specification is so huge, that we have not had time to thoroughly and fully scrutinize it -- Google says so itself -- thus we cannot say with certainty that some features are not documented.
Second, even if some features weren't documented, we could not know unless we see a feature in action that is not part of the specification. And even then we are just confronted with the issue that MS is obviously not capable of adhering to their own specification.



This is among the justified concerns that stopped the fast track appeal and I have nothing to add.



This is not a strong argument. Third party vendors always implemented the formats of the market leader(s), be it 1-2-3 or MS Word, albeit on a licensing agreement level. The current situation is in this respect already an improvement. The lack of OOXML implementations is owed to the fact that OOXML is not among the market leading formats yet (and hopefully never will be) and not that supporting multiple formats is too expensive.

Anyway, I have no doubt that we will see OOXML pass the standards body and be made into an ISO standard. If this is a good or bad thing largely depends on the circumstance if you believe that the specification is complete and platform independent. I'm not really huge in word processor formats, but there are arguments for both sides.

You know the even more funny part? In government bribery is called "lobbying", and it happens every day. He with the most money buys laws.

I see a pattern forming....

I think people are becoming more aware of the problems surrounding lobbyism all the time; I set up a site recently in the hope of solving this issue to a certain extent: http://virtualvote.net (Still looking for help)

The OOXML issue with ISO is just one example how a supposedly unbiased organization can be easily corrupted.

Edited 2007-09-16 17:56

"I doubt google is able to be perfectly un-bias when it comes to anything related to microsoft."

be very careful. To label Google anti-Microsoft...or any company anti-Microsoft shows, not even the basic understanding of large business.

The best example of this is the cartel formed by companies who are in direct competition over these formats, artificially raising prices, by paying each other off over failed bids to the Government, and I suspect this is worldwide

Now if you look over to your left you will the same and other companies supporting a little format war raging in hi-def that companies have aligned themselves certain allegiances. Some of those may surprise you.

And finally look over to your right you will see the companies involved in pushing the standard though ECMA, now those should really surprise you *even* if you are aware of a few 100 million payout by Microsoft to at least 3 of those companies.

Look them up. Its fun, You will notice that these large companies shift allegiances depending on how they are paid off, what benefits them...they are self serving and the lines between these companies are not clear. In business there are no friends or enemies just *money*.

Edited 2007-09-16 17:03

So you are saying that google would love to give microsoft a helping hand to make ooxml a standard? Doesn't look like it.

I didn't mean just anything microsoft related but specifically the on-topic subject of ooxml I would not expect a google analysis regarding ooxml to be completely un-bias. I am not saying it would be lies and concoctions but would likely be a overly-critical eye considering...

Thanks for modding my post down....for?????

Edited 2007-09-16 17:29

"So you are saying that google would love to give microsoft a helping hand to make ooxml a standard? Doesn't look like it."

I'm saying that the world is not black and white in business. I can follow some twists, make educated guesses. But if your guess is that its about Money you will always be right.

Now have you had a look at the lists I've given you...anything spring to mind?

Without stretching my grey cells I can think of several scenarios where Google might make a deal with Microsoft over proprietary file formats. If you can't you should stop posting.

think of several scenarios where Google might make a deal
Or they may make a deal with SUN and shun MS or make a deal with XYZ or...or..or...

Which would support my statement that google would be hard pressed to not be bias in one way or another - wouldn't it!

Google is likely bias because they are a company and as such would look to further their interests (if they have any) regardless if that is pro or anti microsoft!

A good dictionary would help with the definition of 'bias'

"So you are saying that google would love to give microsoft a helping hand to make ooxml a standard?"

Sure they would, if it would benefit them enough.

yea, and that would still be 'bias'

But in this situation here, the one the thread is about, the article...ya know...a 'helping hand' doesn't appear to be the case.

"Why just let user to decide which Office Suite is better, MS Office or OpenOffice.org, offering them an alternative ?"

Because when it comes down to it, people making decisions can, and will, stick with what they know. Even if it costs more, makes little technical sense, or keeps them in the upgrade cycle.

Allowing the market to decide, when, at this point, Microsoft owns the market, isn't doing ones best to make a fair marketplace for it's consumers.

Well if OO.o has sun behind it and the issues haven't been fixed, What makes you think Google will help? I think that for the next version of OO.o a code refresh is in-order for a couple of reasons. The code needs to be more accessible by people not familiar with the project, they should separate the UI and the core functionality so that different OS can get a UI specific to them (then we won't have the issues with OSX, that we have now) It should also encourage innovation in the UI space of the project since it theory it should be a lot easier to put together a UI without having to go into the depth of the core of the project.

"Well if OO.o has sun behind it and the issues haven't been fixed,"

I got so far unless you say them OpenOffice has none.

I understand the interest in the excellent OpenOffice suite. This announcement is different, and more collaboration on the suite is a good idea. I believe that there are efforts elsewhere to put a web front-end on OpenOffice

The major drawback to OpenOffice is the best way. In transferring documents between parties is to use the .doc which will never be as compatible as Microsofts Office suite, and the overhead of checking documents is not viable.

Sending a document currently in ODF currently relies on the recipient installing a 3rd party plug-in to Office. Or installing a copy of OpenOffice.

What has changed by this announcement is that anyone with a browser can read/edit a document and not just Firefox that will support ODF natively...and people are comfortable using a browser.

Not just every Office Suite,but every application reinforces it as a real standard rather than a Microsoft de-facto one...or a bought one.

Collaboration is an important part of Open-source but Open formats always trump Open-source as they will create true competition, which creates a healthy computer environment. ODF is simply larger than OpenOffice.

From Slashdot: "Lack Of Developers Delays OpenOffice.org" http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/20/2157235

To create an important quantity existing ODF documents, it needed a meaningful number of users, users which try OO and if see inconsistent GUI or miss functionality of applications will give up and go back to old office.

Even compilation of OpenOffice is bit complicated (and different) than ./configure && make && make install, usually is ending with weird errors.

Edited 2007-09-16 22:56

Who the heck compiles OpenOffice.org to install it??

From Slashdot: "Lack Of Developers Delays OpenOffice.org" http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/20/2157235

WOW.

From Phoronix: "OpenOffice.org 2.3.0 Quietly Released"
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjA2MA

It seems OpenOffice was not delayed on the latest version, but released early 3 days ago. In direct contrast with a stack of Applications


Whats also shocking is that I have use Gentoo and have build every version from source of Office since it was put on my machine.

...but again you are of topic. Fortunately on the GNU platform ODF being a standard its available on Other Office packages, you can simply choose one.

...your post is off-topic and not in keeping with current events.

I am fully on topic.

Attacking OOXML to support what? ODF standard ?

ODF standard that can't be supported if there are not well designed and written applications which used.

There are many other opensource applications much more complicated than an office suite - like servers, CAD systems - that just download tar.gz archive and compile without any problem on many OSes.

Lack of developers or interest don't kill OO development just significant slowing-down development process and allowing OOXML to advanced and spread rapidly.

No your off-topic. The reason being ODF is a format not a office suite. It can be implemented...and it has been by packages other than OpenOffice.

I'm not into playing Office Smackdown. A genuine standard like this one should be implemented by *all* and the Office programs should be chosen for their own merit...and that includes Microsoft Office.

I like OpenOffice. I've installed it on friends machines...and most like it. The only two things I ever get asked is "How do I save as a .doc file"(well variations of that), and "where is the clipart?". Because its good enough.

I know that OpenOffice isn't perfect. I assume it has lots of problems, the biggest being its a massive ex-proprietary package gone open-source, and has all the difficulties associated with that.

Now you say you can't compile the source; that it hard locks on X - I want to see bugzilla entries; forum posts; irc logs, or even better your invoice for StarOffice 8.

Now as for your comment about OO development slowing down. I'm more than a little surprised considering 2.3 was released early, and just look at that changelog.
http://development.openoffice.org/releases/2.3.0.html
look its out *today*

I'm also surprised at you pointing out lack of development interest.
http://www.linux.com/feature/119101
Look at that news IBM is starting to to get involved adding their code and resources read it *35* dedicated developers.

Your a liar, The bottom line is this is not about OpenOffice its about KOffice and Google Docs & Speadsheets, and the list of supported applications begin to grow Firefox; Lotus Notes etc etc

Just look at them all.
* Akshar Naveen (multilingual office suite)
* Aukyla (document management system)
* DocMgr (document management system)
* eZ publish (free OS content management system)
* GNOME Office (free collection of desktop productivity apps)
* IBM Workplace (client-side framework for creating server-managed business applications)
* Knomos (workflow and knowledge management application for law firms)
* KOffice (free office suite for KDE)
* Lenteja (text document repository)
* NeoOffice (a port of OpenOffice.org to the Mac OS X)
* Scribus (OS desktop publishing app)
* SoftMaker Office (German office suite)
* TEA (text editor)
* Visioo Writer (OpenDocument file viewer)
* Writely (Web-based word processor, currently in beta)
* Software602's 602PC Office Suite
* JustSystem's Ichitaro office suite, which the Wikipedia identifies as the second most common Japanese office software
* Mozilla Firefox

And more look at all the applications that do ODF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_applications_supporting_OpenDo...

This is not about OpenOffice its about OpenDocument

Edited 2007-09-17 13:03

If Google do little to help OO, just talking, other interested in OpenOffice - RedHat, Novell, Canonical ... - do something ?
It not seeing.

OO still can crash Xorg server and lock the system.
Luckily many times just logging on console via serial port or network interface and killing of soffice.bin unlock keyboard and GUI if X is not corrupted.

I don't think that Google Office can handle documents with hundred of pages, many images or plugins to import, let say, technical drawings, diagrams.

Edited 2007-09-16 23:24

Acutally, Novell is probably only second to Sun in terms of paid developers working on OO. So they are doing something, can't speak to Canonical or RedHat because I don't know how many paid developers they have on OO, though I suspect it's fairly close to zero.

IBM's recent announcement may see some more developers thrown into the fray. Google's assistance would certainly be appreciated as well.

But the problem runs deeper. OO is based on hideous code that is more than a decade old. It needs a tear-down/rebuild if it's going to remain sustainable.

At the rate KOffice is developing, it could conceivably surpass OO, the advantage being that it designed to be modular and based on a fairly powerful existing framework, whereas OO is neither. KOffice 2.0 builds are already running "natively" on win32, so who knows?

Personally, I like the capability of OO, I like the implementation of KOffice, but neither serves my requirements adequately so I'm stuck with MSO. I'd love to see either project grow to the point where I can use it day-to-day.

Just my 2c...

"""
But the problem runs deeper. OO is based on hideous code that is more than a decade old. It needs a tear-down/rebuild if it's going to remain sustainable
"""

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

Great post with a blast from the past!