Linked by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 22:24 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Netbook innovator Asustek has announced that it will ship three models of its Eee PC with Ubuntu 10.10 preinstalled. Canonical announced Asus' decision to load the Eee PC 1001PXD, 1011PX and 1015PX with Ubuntu 10.10 from 1 June as one that will "make it one of the most user-friendly PCs on the market". Asus said that "many more" Eee PC models running Ubuntu will be available later this year. Linux fans will hope that in the three years since Asus started shipping Linux on its Eee PCs users will have realised that Linux is far more lightweight and suited to netbook computing than Windows.
Thread beginning with comment 476504
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
silix
Member since:
2006-03-01

OOo supports more documents than MSO and (due to ODF being truly open)

what if my company has already adopted MSO and has a mass of documents in .doc form? what if all my friends and colleagues have Office and any document they send me (or that i send to them) is in .doc? what if .doc is the ONLY format i care about and absolutely totally dont' give a shit whether "more documents" are supported?
actually offers the closest to a guarantee for future compatibility out of the two.

actually, online reviews from some time ago indicated that, out of several competing office suites (yes, you may be surprised to know than there's more beyond open/libre office.. ) it was the one with the more importing and exporting quirks (to little surprise given that, despite availability of doc/xls/ppt specifications at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc313118.aspx, OOo's import filter was developed by reverse engineering), way worse than what the closed but cheap SoftMaker achieved...
The moment you use a proprietary editor that saves in a proprietary format, you are dependant on that company keeping legacy compatibility

of course, but what makes you think MS wouldn't or shouldn't keep it (since they have ALL the interest in doing so and much to lose should they fail) ?
So ironically all the points (bar the MS branding point) you made in favour of MS Office are more true in favour of OOo/LO.
i dont' see how that can be (see above), my points were in favor of company workflow and assets (documents) not of MSO per se
had OOo been as entrenched as MSO currently is, it would be MS the one with a hard time
And before people chip in about XMLOO being open, not the entire spec is. There are extensions that MS Office applications use that are still closed. So users / companies could still run into problems years down the line when MS depreciates XMLOO without opening their proprietary extensions.
premise: i abolutely totally hate both OOXML *and* ODF because they're XML based formats, thus verbose and technically inefficient (and no, i dont' believe the rationale for it according to which human readability, thus the possibility for the user to manually edit the generated xml and edit tags to fix parsing errors, is a must)
anyway, yes, OOXML' spec is tied to MSO and not fully open, but this doesnt't contradict the point - if i have started using office 2007 for any reason (say, the ribbon) i better stay with office and use doc/docx as my archive format forever, than seriously consider migrating
to each his own poison, they say...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


what if my company has already adopted MSO and has a mass of documents in .doc form? what if all my friends and colleagues have Office and any document they send me (or that i send to them) is in .doc? what if .doc is the ONLY format i care about and absolutely totally dont' give a shit whether "more documents" are supported?

OOo works with .doc too.



actually, online reviews from some time ago indicated that, out of several competing office suites (yes, you may be surprised to know than there's more beyond open/libre office.. )

For your information, I've use Lotus Smart Suite, MS Office (both Windows and Mac variants), Google Doc, KOffice OOo/LO, more console/text-based packages than most people would have heard of and a tone of smaller modern projects too.
So do get off your high horse.

it was the one with the more importing and exporting quirks (to little surprise given that, despite availability of doc/xls/ppt specifications at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc313118.aspx, OOo's import filter was developed by reverse engineering), way worse than what the closed but cheap SoftMaker achieved...

I don't think Office's binary format specification was available when OOo started working on compatibility. Plus, and as i said earlier, there's still proprietary extensions which aren't documented. IIRC this is because they call upon certain features that fall outside of Offices direct formatting, however they still need to be rendered and thus still need to be reverse engineered.

I'm not saying OOo is perfect, but it was 3 or 4 years ago since the last time I found a .DOC file that OOo rendered too badly to be usable.

However, and as I said before, if compatibility and future-proofing is an issue then people shouldn't be using proprietary de facto standards. I've seen so many businesses get completely screwed over because they think company xyz is a large business thus blindly accepts xyz's "standards" without really thinking about future ramifications should (or rather when) xyz depreciates that standard and starts trying to sell their next product.

In fact it happens so often that I'm amazed so few businesses have wised up to it.


of course, but what makes you think MS wouldn't or shouldn't keep it (since they have ALL the interest in doing so and much to lose should they fail) ?

The problem is we just don't know.
If you're running a business dependant on data (as you described in your earlier post), then you simply cannot afford to take any gambles on that data. proprietary formats are a long term gamble as you're banking entirely on the owners of said standard to keep porting their decryption/conversion tools to each new platform (both software and hardware).

i dont' see how that can be (see above), my points were in favor of company workflow and assets (documents) not of MSO per se
had OOo been as entrenched as MSO currently is, it would be MS the one with a hard time

You're confusing de facto standards with open standards.

Just because a proprietary standard is more widespread now, it doesn't mean that the owners of said standard will keep porting it. Come Windows 14 on whatever hardware replaces x86 / silicon CPUs, you might find that the owners just didn't see any financial benefit in keeping their proprietary format alive when it was already superseded 15 years earlier (and this is assuming that company is even still around)

However open standards can by ported by anyone as the complete specification is there and free to use.

Now I'm not about to say that open is better. However for the sole example of ensuring long term compatibility (like you raised), open is better/

premise: i abolutely totally hate both OOXML *and* ODF because they're XML based formats, thus verbose and technically inefficient (and no, i dont' believe the rationale for it according to which human readability, thus the possibility for the user to manually edit the generated xml and edit tags to fix parsing errors, is a must)

They're not really that inefficient. In fact it's one of the cleanest way to ensure the markup is kept separate from the document while still having a hierarchical pool of metadata.
So much so that you'll find many proprietary binary blobs using a tagged system like XML (obviously using bytes keys instead of ASCII keywords).

You claim they're verbose, well that's largely needed (for the reason stated above), however it doesn't impact the user as the whole document (which is actually a large number of XML files) is compressed to a ZIP archive and thus dedupped.

anyway, yes, OOXML' spec is tied to MSO and not fully open, but this doesnt't contradict the point - if i have started using office 2007 for any reason (say, the ribbon) i better stay with office and use doc/docx as my archive format forever, than seriously consider migrating

You're still missing the point though (re the lack of garentee that OOXML will be maintained in the future).

If you want to use MS Office 2007+ specifically because of the ribbon bar (though why anyone would is beyond me; I find it counter-intuitive), then that's a perfectly acceptable reason to use one package over another.

However to use MS Office 2007+ because it's a de facto standard and thus you hope that your documents will still be readable in 10 / 20 / 50 years time - well that's just a gamble.

to each his own poison, they say...

Indeed.

Reply Parent Score: 2