Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Nov 2007 23:31 UTC
Gnome "The GNOME Foundation has issued a statement in response to recent accusations that it has been supporting the acceptance of Microsoft's Office Open XML format as an ECMA standard at the expense of the Open Document Format, the open standard used by OpenOffice.org, KOffice and other free software office applications. However, whether the statement's attempt at logical rebuttal will do anything to reduce the emotions or altruism behind the criticisms is anybody's guess."
Order by: Score:
...
by Hiev on Sun 25th Nov 2007 00:26 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Well, love it or hate it OOXML is here to stay, you better implemented it and promote ODF, just like .DOC, most of us don't like it, but denie its existence or ban it just affects the users.

So, I think the GNOME project is doing the rigth think, always thinking with the cold head for the sake of the user and not jumping into attacks that won't lead to anywhere but isolation.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 00:44 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, love it or hate it OOXML is here to stay...

This is a common argument. OOXML has not reach anything near a critical mass to make it worthwhile, and it doesn't justify it as an implementable standard or the doctored process it has gone through. Saying that Microsoft has come up with it to so it is inevitable is not a great argument.

So, I think the GNOME project is doing the rigth think, always thinking with the cold head for the sake of the user and not jumping into attacks that won't lead to anywhere but isolation.

The rational approach is to help get peoples' existing documents into an open format everyone can work with. That is the only workable, technical solution that can have any benefit for users. Running around trying to support yet another unsupportable format isn't the answer.

Reply Score: 25

RE[2]: ...
by google_ninja on Sun 25th Nov 2007 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

This is a common argument. OOXML has not reach anything near a critical mass to make it worthwhile, and it doesn't justify it as an implementable standard or the doctored process it has gone through. Saying that Microsoft has come up with it to so it is inevitable is not a great argument.


MS Office uses it by default. Since it has more market share then everything else put together, I would say that it has long since hit critical mass, and you really need to come up with good reasons NOT to use it, since it is what the rest of the world operates on.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: ...
by KugelKurt on Sun 25th Nov 2007 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not sure if MS Office 2007 (earlyer versions don't use OOXML by default) has a higher market share than OpenOffice etc.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: ...
by google_ninja on Sun 25th Nov 2007 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I really don't have the numbers, but I do know that Office 2k7 has been selling real well. The point is moot though, if OOXML doesnt have a bigger market share now, it will over the next few years, unless something completely unexpected happens to the office productivity landscape.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: ...
by Almafeta on Sun 25th Nov 2007 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
RE[3]: ...
by gilboa on Sun 25th Nov 2007 08:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

"Microsoft Office."

FALSE.

DOC has critical mass behind it.
For OOXML to reach the same critical mass, MS must first force-upgrade each and every Office 2K/XP/2K3 user.

- Gilboa

Edited 2007-11-25 08:18

Reply Score: 19

RE[4]: ...
by sonic2000gr on Sun 25th Nov 2007 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
sonic2000gr Member since:
2007-05-20

"Microsoft Office."

FALSE.

DOC has critical mass behind it.


Exactly.
And in fact, nobody is rushing to upgrade to office 2007. I know all new systems will eventually have it, but for the time being most people use the older versions.

As a matter of fact, experienced users have a hard time getting the new logic based on the ribbon interface. Maybe new users will find it easier, but for someone used to the classic menu it is confusing and counter productive to begin with (but it may just be a matter of time to adjust).

Biggest problem is office 2007 saves in OOXML by default, novice users don't know about it, they send these files to office XP/2K3 users, and my phone keeps ringing all the time ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: ...
by Downix on Sun 25th Nov 2007 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Downix Member since:
2007-08-21

""Microsoft Office."

FALSE.

DOC has critical mass behind it.

Exactly.
And in fact, nobody is rushing to upgrade to office 2007. I know all new systems will eventually have it, but for the time being most people use the older versions. "
Our office bought 5 new computers, came with "limited" versions of Office 07. Within 24 hours, had complaints from everyone else in the office over these 5 machines documents being unreadable. A comfab with the boss, everyone in the office had Office of every form wiped and an ODF-complient office suite installed of their choice. We were evenly split between Star and Open Office, and one Symphony beta-tester. Complaints dissapeared.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by google_ninja on Mon 26th Nov 2007 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Office 2k7 sales rose 20% in the last quarter, generating MS 4.11 billion dollars in revenue.

As much as we would all like to think places like this are indicidive of the real world IT market, they aren't.

Another interesting fact, in the last quarter, Vista sold 28 million copies, bringing the total copies sold to 88 million, and generating 4.14 billion dollars in revenue.(just happened to read it in the same article, quoting it because it is another example of market reality differing wildly from geeky popular opinion)

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: ...
by tomcat on Mon 26th Nov 2007 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
v RE: ...
by marcusesq on Sun 25th Nov 2007 10:16 UTC in reply to "..."
RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Sun 25th Nov 2007 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Hiev, Its obvious from your posts on this site that you love the gnome project, perhaps even worship it, but be told... it is not the messiah, its just a naughty boy.

I like GNOME because is a project that thinks and behaves like me most of the time.

KDE may verbaly reject OOXML now, but they will implemented it and they will look as hypocrits and give explanations later to justify that movement. I wouldn't be the first time, remember DBUS, FreeDesktop.org, etc.

Think smart the first time and you won't look as an hypocrit or give explanations later.

Edited 2007-11-25 17:51

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I like GNOME because is a project that thinks and behaves like me most of the time.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

KDE may verbaly reject OOXML now, but they will implemented it and they will look as hypocrits and give explanations later to justify that movement.

It would be wise for free and open source software to take a stand and make sure that people can convert their binary office documents to ODF rather than running around like a headless chicken to re-implement the same thing. Should OOXML conversion be required in the future then it will be that much easier.

That's all that's at issue here: OOXML -> ODF to make sure we have a sustainable format.

I wouldn't be the first time, remember DBUS, FreeDesktop.org, etc.

DBUS is very heavily inspired by DCOP, that KDE came up with and used, DBUS is now used throughout the KDE desktop and much of the stuff you will see on Freedesktop has KDE people behind it.

What point are you trying to make?

Reply Score: 8

v RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Sun 25th Nov 2007 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
RE[5]: ...
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Tha'ts what KDE developers say, but is not true, lets say they just say it to sleep well, but DCOP was a mess by it self that needed to be rewrited

DCOP was written because CORBA was a God-awful mess, and judging from the usage of Bonobo in Gnome, that was the right technical decision. DBUS is a direct descendant of that thinking.

Imposing a format over the user needs doesn't makes free software better than MS, simple as that.

Users don't care about formats. They open a file, it opens and they work with it.

anything you put for push your agenda in the users trougth just makes you the same or worse than MS.

All we want is a format that everyone can reasonably implement and use. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: ...
by Hiev on Mon 26th Nov 2007 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

DCOP was written because CORBA was a God-awful mess

Well, try to fix a mess with another mess like DCOP is ridiculos.

Users don't care about formats. They open a file, it opens and they work with it.

Not technically, but if they see that there documents are not suported in n suite just because some developer tryied to puch an agenda it is.

But you do know that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: ...
by anda_skoa on Mon 26th Nov 2007 11:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, try to fix a mess with another mess like DCOP is ridiculos.


No, since it is less a mess than CORBA for the things it was needed for, it is an improvement.

D-Bus takes the same principles and expands the scope, e.g. system bus.
Again an improvement.

We tend to call this succession of improvements progress and the staying at worst solution stagnation.

Since in your opinion seems to be that the direction is reversed, i.e. D-Bus is worse than CORBA for the needs of desktop IPC, you can of course call it a regression. You probably won't get a lot of followers though

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: ...
by aseigo on Tue 27th Nov 2007 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
aseigo Member since:
2005-07-06

> was a mess by it self that needed to be rewrited,

no, actually, it was serving kde users and developers just fine. when we switched to d-bus, we actually had to push for and implement a large number of improvements to the tool chain around d-bus and in d-bus itself to get even near where we were with DCOP. d-bus is the right way to go (i was one of the early advocates even) but it's not because it's more mature that DCOP was.

there are some nice new features that come with d-bus (i've personally enjoyed exploiting a few them =), but DCOP was still very solid.

and yes, d-bus built on the lessons from dcop. that's why it looks a lot more like dcop than, say, bonobo.

> hey, I wasn't me who says so, read the DCOP mailing
> list.

which dcop mailing list would this be? and which mails to it? or ... are you just writing what you think sounds good? ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: ...
by KugelKurt on Sun 25th Nov 2007 10:46 UTC in reply to "..."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it's a difference if you just write a converter for OOXML or if you join OOXML promotion groups on behalf of the GNOME Foundation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by SomeGuy on Sun 25th Nov 2007 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
SomeGuy Member since:
2006-03-20

Right. In one case, you're implementing a shitty standard that's nearly impossible to support properly.

In the second, you're trying to force MS to produce modify the spec to the point where it's possible, if not quite easy, to implement support for OOXML.

Reply Score: 1

RE: But OOXML is absolutedly *not* open
by walterbyrd on Sun 25th Nov 2007 13:15 UTC in reply to "..."
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>Well, love it or hate it OOXML is here to stay<<

That is not the problem. The problem is that OOXML is being certified by the ISO as on open standard, and OOXML is absolutely *not* open.

In many places, the OOXML documentation makes statements like: "do this the same as in Office-97" but the office-97 specs are closed. Hence OOXML is *not* open.

Msft is free to churn out whatever proprietary standards they want. And stupid people are free to be vendor-locked by those standards. Just don't lie about OOXML being open, that is all I ask.

Reply Score: 11

It's Very Simple
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 00:30 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

The criticism is very simple and understandable. While the old office binary formats are pretty much universal, and all office suites generally need to handle them in one form or another, OOXML is not. OOXML is simply the old binary format, regurgitated into a bastardised XML form with some new stuff thrown in for good measure - that isn't XML.

Because of this, trying to implement OOXML is pointless. I should also draw a distinction between OOXML and OOXML as implemented by Microsoft Office, because Microsoft Office is the only test suite we have for OOXML. The Microsoft Office implementation of OOXML is the only one that matters. Any collaboration is fruitless.

This materially harms the support and usage of open formats in open source applications that everyone can implement on a level playing field. Telling us that OOXML is easier to implement is not terribly reassuring that this principle is being upheld, and Microsoft employees using that as proof that OOXML is an implementable, and therefore open, format is not helping:

http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/08/15/why-there-s-no...

I don't find that position to be emotional or paranoid.

Reply Score: 26

RE: It's Very Simple
by butters on Sun 25th Nov 2007 01:28 UTC in reply to "It's Very Simple"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

If there were some sort of international regulatory body that could force Microsoft not to use OOXML as its default file format in MS Office unless it's accepted as an ISO standard, then maybe I'd agree with you.

But Microsoft is only pushing for ISO approval as a half-hearted nod to the "rest of the software ecosystem", and if they can't lie, cheat, and steal their way to official standardization, then becoming a de facto standard will be alright on them.

In fact, if their competitors don't want OOXML to be a standard, then Microsoft has every business incentive to make it a moving target in retribution. "Hey, you guys didn't want a standard, so enjoy chasing our tail lights."

The free software idealists' stance is similar to boycotting an election. Great, you stood by your principles, and now you get to live under the most repressive regime.

The outcome of this format war is obvious: it's a game of chicken to decide which format becomes the pivot, and it's Microsoft's Hummer vs. everybody else on motor scooters. The free software community needs to support OOXML more than Microsoft needs to support ODF.

To quote David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief legal counsel: "We're going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop." Show me the larger force that's going to prevent Microsoft from pushing OOXML and maybe then the free software community can afford to shun it.

Edited 2007-11-25 01:38

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: It's Very Simple
by marafaka on Mon 26th Nov 2007 10:50 UTC in reply to "RE: It's Very Simple"
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

If you ask me, Hummer is a fat piece of crap and on a dirty terrain like this one I can tell you precisely who will be the victim slained in the mud.

If you don't mind to abuse your rhetorical instruments ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: It's Very Simple
by schoate09 on Sun 25th Nov 2007 01:36 UTC in reply to "It's Very Simple"
schoate09 Member since:
2007-08-19

Microsoft isn't the only suite that supports it, IIRC, Apple's iWork 08 also supports OOXML.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: It's Very Simple
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE: It's Very Simple"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft isn't the only suite that supports it, IIRC, Apple's iWork 08 also supports OOXML.

Can you tell me how much of OOXML Apple has been able to implement, how much compatibility they have with Office 2007 and can you point me to the test suite that Apple and everybody else is using so they can work towards a 100% implementation?

This is my very point. Coming up with an exceptionally basic spreadsheet and then opening it up in Numbers and Gnumeric doesn't prove a thing.

Reply Score: 7

RE: It's Very Simple
by google_ninja on Sun 25th Nov 2007 01:37 UTC in reply to "It's Very Simple"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The criticism is very simple and understandable. While the old office binary formats are pretty much universal, and all office suites generally need to handle them in one form or another, OOXML is not. OOXML is simply the old binary format, regurgitated into a bastardised XML form with some new stuff thrown in for good measure - that isn't XML.


That is a common opinion that is going around around. Miguel, talking from his position as founder of gnumeric, says that OOXML has a far more usable spec for spreadsheet apps, and goes into a high level comparison of the two here http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html, but that it is really hard to say one spec is better then the other.

There are really only three main areas not open in OOXML, that is backwards compatibility with binary office formats, clip art, and encryption. That is far from the popular opinion that OOXML is basically an XML wrapper around binary blobs.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: It's Very Simple
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE: It's Very Simple"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Miguel, talking from his position as founder of gnumeric, says that OOXML has a far more usable spec for spreadsheet apps...

Miguel can say this all he wants, but it isn't backed up by facts. Open Office, KOffice, Lotus and Google Docs are all implementing various spreadsheet features like the often criticised formulas part and people are improving it as part of something called a community.

...but that it is really hard to say one spec is better then the other.

There is ample evidence that it is going to be as close to impossible as possible to get a 100%, complete implementation of OOXML that is interoperable with Office 2007. You and Miguel should read it, because we're not going to go over it again.

There are really only three main areas not open in OOXML, that is backwards compatibility with binary office formats, clip art, and encryption.

OOXML is merely various parts of the old binary format thrown into a XML format with most of the implementation not specified. That much is obvious when you read it. Backwards compatibility is a central reason why Microsoft has justified OOXML, clip art is very much a part of the spec, and it is exceptionally inadequate for an international standard as most of it is westernised, and where's the interoperability if you can't open an encrypted document?

Saying something is open does not make it so, but then, that's all the OOXML proponents seem to have in response.

That is far from the popular opinion that OOXML is basically an XML wrapper around binary blobs.

You obviously haven't read the spec documents. Some light reading:

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.h...

Very little of the useful information in a file is encapsulated in XML, and XML doesn't make it usable either.

Reply Score: 10

...
by Hiev on Sun 25th Nov 2007 00:45 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Because of this, trying to implement OOXML is pointless.

There is a 99.99% other programs like Qt, OpenOffice, KOffice, etc. will implement it, you want it or not.

Saying is pointless is saying the same of the other projects, so lets waith and see how everyone else implements it and see how pintless it gets.

Of course, the fact that OOXML is implemented for compatiblity reasons doesn't mean it is worthy as standar.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by aseigo on Sun 25th Nov 2007 01:11 UTC in reply to "..."
aseigo Member since:
2005-07-06

yes, there is a very real difference between implementing a spec and being a part of the standardization process.

sadly, Jody will likely only be a bystander in that process anyways as it is doubtful Microsoft will allow meaningful involvement beyond what helps their own self interests (e.g. allowing just enough input to be able to point and say "hey, see, others are involved too, just like a real standard!").

i understand why Jody and the GNOME Foundation are doing what they are doing, however i also think it's a bit on the naive side of hopefulness and certainly sends the wrong message to the world.

one can certainly implement standards without being involved in their creation. sometimes that's precisely what one needs to do.

when looking for cues as to when to do that, it may be useful to look at what your friends, allies and trusted colleagues are doing.

Reply Score: 20

RE[2]: ...
by jdub on Mon 26th Nov 2007 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
jdub Member since:
2005-08-19

Aaron, we were not involved in OOXML's creation, nor are we contributing to it becoming an ISO standard. Microsoft dumped the spec on ECMA, Jody has been pushing them hard to release relevant documentation for as much of it as he can.

That has actually been of material benefit to the fight against OOXML in ISO, given that Jody has blown out the OOXML specification size pretty well. :-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: ...
by segedunum on Mon 26th Nov 2007 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That has actually been of material benefit to the fight against OOXML in ISO, given that Jody has blown out the OOXML specification size pretty well. :-)

What OOXML specification?

It doesn't matter what the published spec is. The only defacto standard that matters is Microsoft's implementation, and it's already out there. That implementation can, and probably will, change as and when Microsoft sees fit with no regard whatsoever to the published specification.

What is Jody going to be using as his test suite for OOXML? If it's Office 2007, I rest my case.

Anyone who cannot see that is an idiot.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Mon 26th Nov 2007 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Im afraid the only idiot here is you.

You speculate to much of what MS will do with OOXML without probes, and you will recall history saying "MS have done that and that and other". Get a life.

Even if it happens, do you think GNOME is going to be the only one affected? KOffice, Qt, OpenOffice all those are going to be affected because they will implement it too.

BTW. Do you recall them to have changed the .DOC format? no? of course not. They did just in versioning.

Like I said, you are just blinded by choice.

Edited 2007-11-26 20:48

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: ...
by marcusesq on Wed 28th Nov 2007 06:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
marcusesq Member since:
2006-01-18

"Im afraid the only idiot here is you."

"You speculate to much of what MS will do with OOXML without probes"

"KOffice, Qt, OpenOffice all those are going to be affected because they will implement it too.

Pot - Kettle - Black

BTW, As you are a "developer" :-), when do you think QT will implement OOXML?

Edited 2007-11-28 06:30

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by aseigo on Tue 27th Nov 2007 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
aseigo Member since:
2005-07-06

hey jeff =)

"we were not involved in OOXML's creation,"

the whole point of Jody being involved with the ECMA group is to help have a say in OOXML isn't it? that's pretty much "involved in OOXML's creation". perhaps the word "creation" is incorrect; let me replace that with the word "development".

"nor are we contributing to it becoming an ISO standard"

that's merely an unintended side effect of this. i certainly don't believe it is the intention, however. it sucks when intention and results don't match up, i know. =/

p.s. see you at l.c.a in january =))

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by jdub on Tue 27th Nov 2007 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
jdub Member since:
2005-08-19

the whole point of Jody being involved with the ECMA group is to help have a say in OOXML isn't it?


No. OOXML was very much Microsoft's creation, dumped on ECMA. As noted in the statement and my comment earlier, Jody is there to get as much documentation out of them as possible.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by apoclypse on Sun 25th Nov 2007 01:19 UTC in reply to "..."
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

The problem is not in the implementation but in the collaboration. What he was trying to say was that at the end of the day ooxml is an MS office format and that the format will most likely primarily cater to MS office as opposed to being something that all projects can give input on. Even if the format were accepted as an open standard only one implementation really matters, and thats Microsoft's. If every other office suite were to implement the standard to the letter but MS doesn't then the standard is not a standard because all anyone is going to care about is how MS implements the standard, thus MS's version of ooxml (eventhough they wrote this one)is the defacto standard not the one held by the ECMA. Kind of like the Renderman spec. Pixar released a standard spec of their Renderman platform hoping that other rendering systems would implement them, yet Pixar themselves have added things that go beyond the spec (they do update it eventually but note that not all things have to be implemented in-order to be called renderman compatible, but what use is that?) at the end of the day the only "standard" people adhere to is the implementation (product) that Pixar has released and very little focus on the actual standard specification that is released.

What exactly does that mean? It means that the OSS community will always be playing catch-up with MS, Any office suite that implements ooxml will always be one step behind MS, because they have to be compatible with MS's version of ooxml not the one released by the ECMA. The problem is that the ooxml standard actually allows this. ODF was created without MS but that was MS's own fault (or plan?) they did not want to get involved in the standardization of the format, but MS wasn't the only being asked, it wasn't just one company but many all agreeing on the standard, and to adhere to it in varying degrees (if I'm not mistaken, with ODf you can always implement less but not more to the format). That in my opinion is what makes ooxml so dangerous. Its not really a standard that anyone will adhere to and it ill put us back into the same situation we are already in where huge amounts of data is at the mercy of one company with everyone else trying to follow with their half-ass implementations trying to grab stray users who don't want to be tied down.

The biggest example I can think of in the OSS community is Mono. If Mono isn't a poster child for why you shouldn't follow a MS "standard" then I don't know what is. At the beginning Mono was just implementing the standard ECMA version of .Net, then MS releases a whole bunch of things to .net outside of the ecma standard. The devs have to re-implement these things into Mono. It doens't matter that most of these things aren't part of the ecma standard, people expect them because they are standard (on an MS platform) and so Mono has to constantly go sniffing MS's ass trying to re-implement everythign they have added to the platform that are outside of the standard (asp,net, winforms, etc.) That will most likely happen with ooxml.

Edited 2007-11-25 01:22

Reply Score: 24

RE[2]: ...
by wakeupneo on Sun 25th Nov 2007 02:34 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

Spot on.

Reply Score: 2

Its a format for MS
by zizban on Sun 25th Nov 2007 01:42 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

The spec includes gems like table like Word95, info only MS has the info to do this correctly, even though its tagged as optional. How much do you bet MS will use these optional elements?

Second, the spec allows for proprietary extensions. Embrace, extend, extinguish. There are a host of problem with this spec.

And further ODF is already approved, an open spec anyone can use freely. MS could implement ODF support in Office, but they just won't.

Reply Score: 11

Fuck Gnome
by theine on Sun 25th Nov 2007 02:57 UTC
theine
Member since:
2005-09-29

Gnome is f--king corrupted by Novell. I'm sick of this shit. Anybody who takes more than two seconds to figure out that this is solely about Microsoft being able to say "Look, we let other people participate, too." is a f--king idiot.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fuck Gnome
by bedo on Sun 25th Nov 2007 05:11 UTC in reply to "Fuck Gnome"
bedo Member since:
2006-01-03

I'm sorry, but Gnome guys are very naive to think that MS is actually sincere about allowing other people fully implement their format (ie 100% compatible with their MS Office.)

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Fuck Gnome
by marafaka on Mon 26th Nov 2007 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Fuck Gnome"
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

This is beyond being naive. If some people here aren't on the MS payroll yet, they should immediately apply!

Testing: MS.

Edited 2007-11-26 11:03

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fuck Gnome
by marafaka on Mon 26th Nov 2007 11:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fuck Gnome"
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

Holly cow?! Did you know that character M combined with $ sign in posts on this forum is automatically converted into initials of a certain company? I fooocking hope that misspelled words aren't simply deleted ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fuck Gnome
by boblowski on Sun 25th Nov 2007 14:10 UTC in reply to "Fuck Gnome"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23

Rude, but to the point. All this energy trying to be the young boy looking up to the 'big and wise brother' Microsoft is wasted, I'm afraid to say.

It will only make the older brother, not the younger one, look better for the girls -- also known as 'managers'.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Fuck Gnome
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 14:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Fuck Gnome"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It will only make the older brother, not the younger one, look better for the girls -- also known as 'managers'.

Girls are never impressed when you look the part and act the part, only to find your equipment isn't up to the job ;-).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Fuck Gnome
by boblowski on Sun 25th Nov 2007 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fuck Gnome"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23

Girls are never impressed when you look the part and act the part, only to find your equipment isn't up to the job ;-).

True, but when they finaly discover that, it's too late and they're already in bed with them... ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Fuck Gnome
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fuck Gnome"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

True, but when they finaly discover that, it's too late and they're already in bed with them... ;-)

Alas, an inferior repeat performance is not on the cards.

Reply Score: 3

v Foul language
by theine on Sun 25th Nov 2007 02:58 UTC
Will only accelerate...
by tyrione on Sun 25th Nov 2007 04:58 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

...expansion of KDE 4 on the Linux Desktop and both OpenOffice 2.3 and KOffice 2.0.

Reply Score: 6

Orwellian naming
by chrono13 on Sun 25th Nov 2007 09:52 UTC
chrono13
Member since:
2006-10-25

"Open" Office XML is political naming at its finest. It has even fooled a couple of you into believing that it is even *somewhat* open. It isn't.

"autoSpaceLikeWord95" and "lineWrapLikeWord6", these are actual parts of this "open" specification.

And that isn't even the best parts.

If you actually read the specification it's a clear cut case that no-one else but Microsoft can implement it.

Despite the bribes, despite the corruption, and despite causing ISO to "grind to a halt" with deadbeat members ( http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/16/207205 ) why do you think it still lost its ISO fast track?

It lost because it is not a real standard, it is not open, and it can't be either until it loses the Microsoft hook - which won't happen.

Microsoft's goal with OOXML is very clear, and it was never freedom from vendor lock-in or collaboration.

The Danish ISO "No", with comments - a very good, even funny, read (390k PDF):
http://www.ds.dk/_root/scripts/getmedia.asp?media_id=2791 )

(with thanks to Matzon: http://osnews.com/read_thread.php?news_id=18686&comment_id=274777 )

Edited 2007-11-25 09:56

Reply Score: 17

RE: Orwellian naming
by SomeGuy on Sun 25th Nov 2007 19:29 UTC in reply to "Orwellian naming"
SomeGuy Member since:
2006-03-20

Which is exactly why Gnome has to be involved in the specification of OOXML.

If OOXML reaches critical mass, and it very well may eventually, then Linux office apps will more or less have to be able to handle files coming from it. If nobody pushes the standard to the point at which it's more easily implementable by the free desktop, then we've got a problem on our hands.

Really, the two-proged approach is the way to go:
1) Try to prevent OOXML from taking over. Promote free, and truly open, document standards and try to make them win.

2) Make sure that if OOXML does succeed then it's possible to implement it without too much guess and check.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Orwellian naming
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Orwellian naming"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Which is exactly why Gnome has to be involved in the specification of OOXML.

What specification of OOXML? Since it's a woeful dump of Microsoft's existing Office features, what makes you think anyone will have any bearing on it at all?

If OOXML reaches critical mass, and it very well may eventually, then Linux office apps will more or less have to be able to handle files coming from it. If nobody pushes the standard to the point at which it's more easily implementable by the free desktop...

OOXML, as implemented by Office 2007, is already live and out there. There will be no changes made to it. It's not worthy of anyone's time or promotion.

Reply Score: 2

lest we forget...
by karl on Sun 25th Nov 2007 11:51 UTC
karl
Member since:
2005-07-06

For years and years one of the most common complaints concerning Microsoft and its monopoly domination of the market is that this monopoly was held in place through the use of undocumented proprietary formats and protocols. Microsoft in its cynical wisdom actually decided to standardize(not fully open, or fully document) its latest format in response to ODF being endorsed by more and more organizations and institutions.

The fear of loss of this monopoly position drove Microsoft to engage in this standardization process-that Microsoft attempted to bribe and corrupt the standardization process itself shows that far from believing in the superiority of their own format, that they fear monopoly loss and are willing to whatever they deem necessary to maintain it.

However having committed themselves to this standardization process Microsoft began documenting their new format. Their documentation of this new format far exceeds what has been forthcoming from Microsoft in the past. Additionally via this process it became possible for other groups to participate in this process and pressure Microsoft for more information and documentation about the new format.

Jody siezed this oppurtunity to finally have access to documentation-something that he and every other developer of office-compatible software has been clamoring for for years on end. And when he left Novell, he asked for the GNOME foundation to carry on his work in securing documentation.

How many times have we heard the call for documentation? How many times has Microsoft been lambasted for not documenting their formats and using this to maintain their monopoly? Yet when software developers who need access to such documentation in order to provide features for those who use their software(how many times have I heard: "I can't/won't use OOo because it is not 100.00% capable of fully reading/writing/converting the DOC formated documents that I use/coworkers send me/boss requires of me" etc.) join the standards process in order to get access to such documentation they get attacked for supporting proprietary monopolies. Hello?. You can't have it both ways. What a load of hypocritical bs.

The #1 selling point for OOo is it's Microsoft compatibility. We may wish that OOo has some other feature that was it's primary selling point-but MS compatibility trumps all of it's other features-for users, of course for developers the Free software source code and documentation is the real value-but not for the millions of people who use office software in their daily work.

Moreover the we are left wonder what value this documentation really has: right now only one program can realistically offer full ODF compliance and that is OOo-koffice, gnumeric, abiword etc have extremely primitive support of OOo currently-and given the time already passed, better support is not exactly very likely. Now I read this to mean a) the ODF documentation is not sufficient to actually implement full ODF compliance, or b) the relationship between the representation of documents in the GUI of office software and the format for saving and retrieving such documents is much more constraining than we have been lead to believe by those clamoring for more documentation.

Documentation has been the utopic panacea for all problems- if we only had documentation all of our incompatibilities would magically disappear. Well having read the comments from those who have actually written office software the OOXML format from Microsoft is much more thoroughly documented than ODF- and if one takes into account how heavily analyzed this format was leading up to its exclusion from the rapid track ISO standardization(probably an additioal 30,000 pages resulted from this analysis) OOXML is probably by the best documented format in existance and this inspite of Microsofts bests attempts to obfuscate the format.

I too was irked at first when I read the blogs of Abiword developers and how they were so quick to dismiss the relevance of ODF-my reaction was simple- hey guys can't you see this wonderful oppurtunity to leave the days of incompatible formats behind-why don't you simply endorse and embrace ODF-yet the developers of Abiword(and probably gnumeric too) resented being expected to have 100.00% support for ODF which from their point of view offered little in the way of benefits for them-and an unending list of bugzilla complaints by people bitching at them for not properly rendering their OOo documents. Abiword for example was build around RTF, the steps involved to support DOC and OOXML are far easier to implement than that of ODF for those who actually write the software.

And whether we want to admit it or not we are creating impossible situations on all sides: 1) we want to end the MS document monopoly 2) we want ODF to become *the* standard document format(read monopoly, because what we do not want is choice(choice got us into this mess in the first place)-ok we want openness, ideally-but pragamatically which users really care?) ) 3) we demand that office software 100.00% fully support reading/writing/converting a document format which was not developed by those writing alternative office software(yeah and volunteer programmers from Abiword should front large sums of money(travel expenses, membership fees etc) to join in such organizations which created ODF 4) and we will hang such developers out to dry who do join the organization which is producing documentation for OOXML.

This whole situation is just surreal-and to top it off each and everybody is going around making truly grotesque personal attacks on developers who are doing our bidding, what gives?

Reply Score: 9

Well let's see...
by BrendaEM on Sun 25th Nov 2007 14:05 UTC
BrendaEM
Member since:
2005-11-23

Novell bought Ximian, and Novell has a stranglehold on Gnome, which even supports Evilution shareware integration in Gnome as a top priority, and Novell is friends with Microsoft now--is it any wonder?

I think that Gnome should be fair to not just Novell/MS, but all companies. Gnome should be a level playing field--not one that is stacked for one company more than another.

Gnome foundation's only respectful position is to say no to OOXML support.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Well let's see...
by jdub on Mon 26th Nov 2007 12:39 UTC in reply to "Well let's see..."
jdub Member since:
2005-08-19

Novell has a stranglehold on Gnome [...] Gnome should be a level playing field--not one that is stacked for one company more than another.


Novell definitely doesn't have a stranglehold on GNOME, and GNOME is very much a level playing field for more companies than just Novell. Look at all the commercial and individual contributors to GNOME, look at the GNOME Foundation web page to see who is on the Advisory Board.

If anything, Novell's influence in GNOME has waned. Few GNOME developers are pleased with their deal with Microsoft, and quite a few of their influential GNOME developers have left the company. They're actually in a very difficult position in the GNOME community at the moment, and it is very much of their own making.

Novell were not involved in the GNOME Foundation's decision to help continue Jody's participation in ECMA TC45-M.

I hope that's cleared a few things up for you.

Reply Score: 6

v ...
by Hiev on Sun 25th Nov 2007 17:38 UTC
RE: ...
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 20:18 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, and if all of you OOXML will be only used only in Office 2007 just show your ignorance, the OS, the .NET framework and tons of other applications will use it, think in OOXML as a TextProcessor format is plaint wrong.

Telling us that it is inevitable is not addressing the issues with it.

Reply Score: 2

deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

It's Microsoft's way of trying to replay the last 20 years. IF FOSS does not combat this shabby attempt of gaining control AGAIN over the standard office format, then we'll have another 20 years of MS domination. How this domination works:

1. sell the latest PC's with the newest MS operating system preinstalled (this still works altho there are some attempts to sell computers preinstalled with a Linux distribution).
2. Sell an office version that is non-free and that is the standard. This has worked with .doc, .xls, .ppt etc. OpenOffice is the first office suite that actually has a slim chance to compete in this area.

Since the use of an operating system becomes less and less important (you don't need IE to browse the web, because Firefox is often better; you don't need Editor, since Gedit is at least as good as Editor; you don't need Photoshop, because the Gimp does the job (I'm talking about the desktop user) etc. p.p.
So the use of the OS is more or less not interesting anymore. You can easily substitute Windows with Linux. What remains is the office suite. And the question is and remains: Who controls an open standard? A board of members or Microsoft?

Come on, don't be so naiv: MS is just not the friendly little company around the corner. It's the ugly evil empire noone likes, and which likes to create and constantly change "standards".

Embrace it and change it so noone is going to understand it anymore.

Reply Score: 4

...
by Hiev on Sun 25th Nov 2007 21:44 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Telling us that it is inevitable is not addressing the issues with it.

Is not my job to highlight why OOXML sucks, I know it does but ODF is not a complete solution eather, but you and others are mixing reality with passion and using it just to prormote an anti MS agenda, And I as a user, even as a developer and sick and tired of all the whining.

You promote free software step by step not with absolutes, all or nothing, black or white. etc.

But you all are trying to mix passion with technical and practical issues, I by my self know how to separe the message from the messenger.

The ideology of "destroy MS long live to Free standar" is to wasted and is proved that is just makes it worse, do it spep by step, the fact that OOXML is now at least in a way open is a win, but looks like people to passional and with and agenda just seek absolutes and gets blinded to the succes of this. I stopped to drink that koolaid long time ago, and believe me, see the thinks in a more objetive ways is way better,

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by boblowski on Sun 25th Nov 2007 22:24 UTC in reply to "..."
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23

You promote free software step by step not with absolutes, all or nothing, black or white. etc.

I don't think many people here would argue with that.

What they do try to say though, I think, is that by moving the discussion to the "OOXML is a fact we have to live with, let's now discuss how to implement it" point, Microsoft has actually managed to frogleap any questions about the politics and business moral behind OOXML, let alone the consequences for actual businesses and organizations using OOXML. And that would be a bad thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Sun 25th Nov 2007 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

MS has and always will play dirthy, and everytime he does all I see is curses to MS and curse your own luck and never think with a cold head to learn from your own misstakes, and MS will and continue to do the dirthy cheats he does because you all as childs get foolled again.

Don't want to support OOXML? fine don't, and lets see who is the real loser here, the freeworld or MS, but you don't need to much to figure out who is.

You play the game smart, not whining and with "spirit and ideal" speaches because we have had to much of that, people always say those nice speaches that do nothing. If you want to ODF to succes you do it the right and smart way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

MS has and always will play dirthy, and everytime he does all I see is curses to MS and curse your own luck and never think with a cold head to learn from your own misstakes

The biggest mistake is running around supporting other peoples' formats when you don't need to.

Don't want to support OOXML? fine don't, and lets see who is the real loser here, the freeworld or MS, but you don't need to much to figure out who is.

The reason why the non-Microsoft world is in this mess is because we've all had to play these games with formats. It's about time it ended.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Mon 26th Nov 2007 00:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

The biggest mistake is running around supporting other peoples' formats when you don't need to.

Those formats you call are going to be the dominant, you want it or not, you don't like it I can see that, but your patological behavior is just to think people should want what you want anyway.

The reason why the non-Microsoft world is in this mess is because we've all had to play these games with formats. It's about time it ended.

And you end it slowly step by step, because right now no one has the power or resources to kill it and one time period.

Want to keep playing the same "lets hate MS and hide our heads deep in our sorrow"?, fine I wont.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: ...
by segedunum on Mon 26th Nov 2007 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Those formats you call are going to be the dominant, you want it or not, you don't like it I can see that, but your patological behavior is just to think people should want what you want anyway.

How do you think Microsoft got their formats as to be as dominant as they are now? They didn't do it by saying "Oh, Lotus and WordPerfect formats are dominant, so why bother?"

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: ...
by Hiev on Mon 26th Nov 2007 14:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

They did with its monopoly, and even if ODF gets standar MS with its monopoly will be pushing its own format, lets put and example: the www standars are there, do you see them as the dominant format?, or do you see Internet Explorer twisted and low quality implementation as the dominant?

But you are blinded by choise and not for rational reasons anyway.

Edited 2007-11-26 14:16

Reply Score: 0

RE: ...
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 23:48 UTC in reply to "..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Is not my job to highlight why OOXML sucks, I know it does but ODF is not a complete solution eather, but you and others are mixing reality with passion and using it just to prormote an anti MS agenda...

Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, anti-Microsoft.

You do realise that with your little bit of Gnome promotion, and your promotion of Microsoft by telling us all helpfully that we're anti-Microsoft, you're perpetuating the very rumour that this article is about in that Gnome is helping Microsoft?

That may not be true, but that's what it looks like.

The ideology of "destroy MS long live to Free standar" is to wasted and is proved that is just makes it worse...

Not particularly interested in Microsoft. All we want is a document format everyone can use. If Microsoft doesn't like that, well, tough.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Mon 26th Nov 2007 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

bla blah blah Novell sucks. kill Miguel de Icaza.

The same song you repeat.

Reply Score: 1

Open Cd
by matthekc on Sun 25th Nov 2007 22:57 UTC
matthekc
Member since:
2006-10-28

I try to offer a cd of windows open source apps to everyone I think might be interested. In all fairness only about half to a third of them are. If we all did that open source apps could gain a huge following. If open office had a larger share Microsoft would take ODF and interoperability more seriously. If Gimp ate half the photo shop market you might see adobe offer Photoshop with another pricing scheme.

Reply Score: 1

Phuck GNOME
by zaine_ridling on Mon 26th Nov 2007 14:34 UTC
zaine_ridling
Member since:
2007-05-13

MS-OOXML is neither a standard nor even an understandable spec. Check out this basic review of it early on:

http://www.donationcoder.com/Reviews/Archive/WordProcs/

Eventually I can see Microsoft trying to extract payments for using MS-OOXML somewhere down the road. So let's not even go there.

Reply Score: 1