Microsoft has extended an olive branch to the open-source community, calling for a sit-down to discuss how the software giant can better work with the open-source world.
Microsoft Reaches Out to Open-Source Community
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“Nobody in the open-source world expects Microsoft to open-source their core products; given their business model that would be insane,” Raymond said.
“But, realistically, they could do some important things. One, open up their file formats. That is, fully document things like the Microsoft Word and Windows Media formats, and make a binding promise not to sue people who write software to interoperate with them,”
In other words:
‘Open up the file formats so that we can steal them and put them into our open source products (and promise not to sue them while you’re at it), and then people would never have a reason to use Microsoft’s products ever again.’
I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t sound like a very sound business model to me. What exactly would Microsoft get out of this? Sure, they’d get the respect of the OSS community, who would all be using OpenOffice at that point, unless MS decides to give away MS Office for free.
Is that an olive branch or a white flag?
“Open up the file formats so that we can steal them and put them into our open source products (and promise not to sue them while you’re at it), and then people would never have a reason to use Microsoft’s products ever again.’ ”
Ah, so you’re in favor of vendor lock in? Or maybe you just don’t see the benefits of cross platform compatibility for all users.
“At this week’s hearing, Dudas said that the patent law should be changed to award a patent to the first person to file a claim. The current rules allow patents to be granted to the first person who devised the invention.”
Sounds like a lot of large corporations know that a majority of patents won’t standup and therefore they want to change the playing field.
I wish there was a way for the public to “blacklist” Politicians who do not act “for the people”, but rather “for the corporations”
What is the Number 1 feature that EVERYONE complains about in Open Office. It doesn’t open my Word documents right.
I am sorry but if yor that stupid to store you personal data in a format that in 2 years you have no way of pulling it back out your the idiot. That’s right .DOC files change with every release. That don’t always support backward compatibility either.
That is a FACT.
If MSFT supported W3C HTML standards, Opened their File formats so that others may work with them, and wrote a secure file system, 90% of the complaints wouldn’t be valid anymore.
I have no problem with Closed Source, I have problems with my computer not letting my get my data, when and where I want.
That would be 99% of politicians, regardless of national origin.
Statism creates these behemoth corporations because they are able to influence politicians with cash and in turn, these politicians will use the state to protect them.
This is usually known as fascism.
>Is that an olive branch or a white flag?
I would like to think it’s the olive branch, but I worry that this is just an empty, political gesture. May time prove me wrong.
In other words:
‘Open up the file formats so that we can steal them and put them into our open source products (and promise not to sue them while you’re at it), and then people would never have a reason to use Microsoft’s products ever again.’
I disagree. MS Office is and will still be used in lots of businesses, specially because of it’s integration abilities with other MS products.
Sure, by opening their file formats they will lose some market, specially the home market, cause people won’t need to buy MS Office to wirte a simple letter, and still will be able to open and create MS Office format files.
But in the end, everyone will win. I think this, because in the end I believe that OSS office software can make a dent in the MS Office acceptance, specially when some large scale utilization begins (organizations looking for some savings), and they verify that the MS Office file formats aren’t usable due to compatibility problems. So, opening those formats might assure they are used as an means of interoperability.
>Open up the file formats so that we can steal them and put
>them into our open source products (and promise not to sue
>them while you’re at it), and then people would never have a
>reason to use Microsoft’s products ever again.’
When Microsoft opens their file formats, they will compete on a level playing field based on merit. In other words, people will use Microsoft Word for its features and price, rather than because they have to.
Maybe OpenOffice.org will never have Clippy, so lots of people will still buy Microsoft Office.
In competition, consumers always win. Read an article recently about how Linux saved Microsoft by making them try harder.
By the way, what’s the deal with MSFT stock? Profits are up, but stock price is flat.
Replace MS products with OpenOffice, that will make people want to impove the software in which they use.
“A”
There is no stealing involved. You probably don’t understand open source vs. close source and freedom vs. dictatorship.
Opening up a fileformat is nothing something you are forced to do – but if you did it, it would be nice, because we can then make our documents work properly in our favorit application – as well as coming with suggestions on how to make your fileformat better.
There is no stealing involved – it’s actually sharing. True sharing and not the M$-sharing, which you obviously are in love with
I really hope openoffice never gets Clippy.. plleeassse don’t even suggest it
At least offer a file format converter for free. Yes-Free.
Ms file “formats” are just a mechanism to hold your data hostage, and force you to upgrade. You know – buy a newer iteration of Office when the one you have already purchased works just fine.
example:
While doing business I use excell spreadsheets created in Office95 and it fills all my needs and works perfectly. Life is good.
Some of my customers buy some new computers and they have Office 2000 pre-installed so the send me some orders in Excel. Guess what? I have to go out now and buy Office 2000 so that I can read their orders and continue to do busines. Then comes Office xp and it starts all over again excepth that now the other folks that have 2000 have to upgrade too.
Then it’s office 2003 and everyone has to upgrade in order to communicate.
Why? Because of the never ending “new and improved file formats”.
The data access is manipulated to force sales – period.
This Homee don’t play that game anymore!
Microsoft has never snuggled up to anything that it hasn’t bought up or destroyed. They extend operability only to cut out competition.
>I disagree. MS Office is and will still be used in lots of
>businesses, specially because of it’s integration abilities
>with other MS products.
Right. And no one is replacing Visual Basic. Many business Microsoft Office users have Office documents full of VB macros. Some of these documents use VB so much they are useless in OpenOffice.org.
Releasing documentation would not help the VB or integration issues.
What is the Number 1 feature that EVERYONE complains about in Open Office. It doesn’t open my Word documents right.
Right. As a user, I understand all that. But you gotta look at this from Microsoft’s point of view. If you want to ask them to open up the .doc format so that people can import them into OpenOffice easier, you’ve got to tell them what benefit this has for them. The best way to negotiate with someone is to present your proposition as a win/win situation for both sides. Personally, I only see the users benefitting from this. And while that’s great, that’s exactly going to have MS jumping for joy.
I am sorry but if yor that stupid to store you personal data in a format that in 2 years you have no way of pulling it back out your the idiot.
So I guess the copy and paste functions don’t work on your computer? What about File->Save As->Rich Text? The formatting may be lost, but the data is in no danger at all.
If MSFT supported W3C HTML standards, Opened their File formats so that others may work with them, and wrote a secure file system, 90% of the complaints wouldn’t be valid anymore.
Right, so if they do that, are you going to encourage the open source community to go out and buy a copy of MS Office now that OpenOffice is 100% compatabile with the .doc format? Yeah, I thought not.
Sure, by opening their file formats they will lose some market, specially the home market, cause people won’t need to buy MS Office to wirte a simple letter, and still will be able to open and create MS Office format files.
Yup, that’s probably why they don’t do it.
When Microsoft opens their file formats, they will compete on a level playing field based on merit. In other words, people will use Microsoft Word for its features and price, rather than because they have to.
Again, I ask you … what is in it for Microsoft to compete on a level playing field?
There is no stealing involved. You probably don’t understand open source vs. close source and freedom vs. dictatorship.
Oh, I understand it perfectly. The fact is this:
The open source community would never us MS Office/Windows unless they absolutely HAD to, or if MS were to release the source code, which would effectively put Microsoft out of business.
And MS knows this … they’re not stupid.
There is no stealing involved – it’s actually sharing. True sharing and not the M$-sharing, which you obviously are in love with
Right, so when you download music off the internet and share it with 40 million people, you’re not stealing .. you’re sharing.
It’s a “we know you don’t trust us, and in 3 years we’re gonna make you look like scum to a jury of idiots using your current distrust” branch.
I think it’ll be a damned if they do, damned if they don’t sort of situation for whoever talks to them. I’m not even sure what they’re talking about doing. Is this going to be a “we promise we won’t sue you?”
They’d get their souls back.
By that logic, Valve is out of business because HL2 was leaked. Microsoft is out of business because chunks of various NT’s were leaked. ID is out of business because of Quake2. I’d mention Sun and Solaris but that wouldn’t exactly make my point
.
Releasing source doesn’t put you out of business. Releasing control of the source coult be devastating I imagine, but just showing it to people isn’t going to be a terrible hurt. The biggest hurt is that people will be able to really easily reverse engineer your file/communication formats and make directly competing software around them.
I quess you were not talking to me because I never said they should open up their code – only provide a free converter.
I do believe THEY are stealing from ME by holding my data hostage.
Let me convert it to something I can use as I see fit. After all it belongs to me.
“Right, so when you download music off the internet and share it with 40 million people, you’re not stealing .. you’re sharing. ”
There is free music available on the internet without breaking the law.
Now, when you say stealing are you referring to morality or legality?
But hey, we all know that all OSS proponents are just penny-penching pirates who aren’t smart enough to pirate software so they use Free software instead. They’re all hippies with long hair and marijuana in their bedrooms. They’re all either 53 or 14 too! And that’s why Microsoft wants to talk to them!
Darius by that logic, Ms would be out of business becouse all NT 4.0 source tree was leaked inc. service packs up to sp5…
It is still on the web. U actualy can *find* some pieces of it…
But m$ is still not out of business.
Stop using their software and then you won’t have these problems. The ruler of a free market is the consumer, do your job.
By that logic, Valve is out of business because HL2 was leaked. Microsoft is out of business because chunks of various NT’s were leaked.
Um, I don’t think so. In the case of Valve, there’s HUGE difference between code being leaked and have them release under something like the GPL, where anyone could recompile it and legally offer it up on P2P, Usenet, or wherever else for free.
I do believe THEY are stealing from ME by holding my data hostage
Right, just like the RIAA is stealing from you by charging $15 a CD, even though you’re the one who went out and bought the shit.
I DON’T use their software any more! But many of the unwashed heathen that I have to deal with every day do.
They (MS) manipulate the hard earned cash from people who don’t know any better. Usually we call that a con game, and prosecute the perpetrators.
”
I do believe THEY are stealing from ME by holding my data hostage
Right, just like the RIAA is stealing from you by charging $15 a CD, even though you’re the one who went out and bought the shit.
”
Lol, that makes no sense whatsoever. When you buy a CD, the RIAA/Musicians own the copyright, you are only buying a license to listen to the music and the media on which it is distributed. He is talking about data that HE OWNS (as in HE OWNS THE COPYRIGHTS TO THIS DATA). Your CD example is an entirely different matter.
The supervillan invites his adversaries in, explains his evil plan to them, and then prepares a overly complicated death for them… I can just see Bill Gates with a monocle.
Seriously I wouldn’t mind Microsoft opening their formats, adopting open formats (Microsoft has a terrible case of NIH syndrome), or even actively working with projects like samba. I’d settle though for Microsoft just not actively trying to break compatability efforts anymore.
I also don’t see why having Microsoft have code GPLd would suddenly result in things winding up on P2P software? Surely if it was GPL’d they’d offer it on their website (as they already do with opensource projects that they use). Also, if you wanted to find the leaked code from Microsoft, P2P is the place you’d find it already, and it hasn’t killed them.
What’s in it for Microsoft? My doubt says this is just a empty gesture. If Microsoft is serious, though, this could be to their advantage.
Word is sort of a de-facto standard as it is. However, organizations with lots of cash are catching that it’s proprietary, and they see alternatives. Take the MA government for example. In the interest of the government, they can require an “open format,” which previously put Microsoft out in the cold.
Also look at the European Union. The EU is fining Microsoft for anticompetite practices, and EU doesn’t like the way Microsoft is cooperating. By competing fairly with open source, Microsoft could avoid huge fines (something like $100 million a day).
Also consider some business that uses a variety of software, including open source software. They are frustrated that Microsoft software doesn’t cooperate with the open source software. Maybe the business will consider this the next time they are doing IT planning, and Microsoft’s obvious vendor-lockin-profit strategy will be the “straw that broke the camel’s back” and the business will choose a different solution.
I am sorry but if yor that stupid to store you personal data in a format that in 2 years you have no way of pulling it back out your the idiot. That’s right .DOC files change with every release. That don’t always support backward compatibility either.
That is a FACT.
Wow your facts are really screwed up. I don’t have a problem opening any version of a word .doc file even mac version.
PR. This sort of thing is excellent propoganda for improving public perception. Reguardless of what happens, they already got the “news” out that they are willing to play nice.
This is very similar to how the Bush administration will do “nice” things months before an election, then switch back to their same ol’ business when their risk of losing the office is postponed for another term.
For Microsoft this might not be so seasonal, but I would guess it has something to do with money. Either they are losing sales or concerned about the recent increase in venture capital in the FOSS arena.
If they continue business as usual they know public perception of their products and services will continue to decline, because they’ve never honestly been interested in making good quality products. Its all a house of cards, painted up nice and pretty. Maybe now, if they are serious, we’ll get to see what they’re really made of. You know a behemoth like that could write some excellent software if they really cared.
”
Wow your facts are really screwed up. I don’t have a problem opening any version of a word .doc file even mac version.”
and that undeniably proves that MS office doesnt have any problem with maintaining backward compatibility for everyone right?
think about it
Don’t have time to read this whole thread, but in response to the first post – Other companies utilize standards (that they have either adopted or created) to make it easier for other apps to use their files, and they do not go out of business (such as psd, png, swf, pdf).
So your argument is based entirely on fear, the fear of what might happen, and not so much on what has actually happened in the past in similar situations.
Whether or not .doc-files are compatible between different versions depend a lot on the “features” you are using. Simpler documents do not give trouble between various M$Office-versions, nor between various M$Office-versions and openoffice, wordperfect etc. However… complex documents tend to be problematic between different M$Office-versions, and between M$Office and openoffice and other office suites.
If the market expected the achieved profit level then the expectations would have already been reflected in the current price.
“”
I do believe THEY are stealing from ME by holding my data hostage
Right, just like the RIAA is stealing from you by charging $15 a CD, even though you’re the one who went out and bought the shit.
”
Lol, that makes no sense whatsoever. When you buy a CD, the RIAA/Musicians own the copyright, you are only buying a license to listen to the music and the media on which it is distributed. He is talking about data that HE OWNS (as in HE OWNS THE COPYRIGHTS TO THIS DATA). Your CD example is an entirely different matter.”
No, that makes a lot of sense. Of course it doesn’t to people using something bogus like reason and logic, but in Darius` delusional little troll-world it probably makes a lot of sense.
“‘Open up the file formats so that we can steal them and put them into our open source products (and promise not to sue them while you’re at it), and then people would never have a reason to use Microsoft’s products ever again.'”
I disagree. First off if the format is made open it doesn’t mean that every other office suite out there will be MS Office, it just means that other office suites will co-exist better with it. Secondly OpenOffice.org works very nicely with its own format and I don’t need to open MS Office files so there is nothing stopping me or many other people in a situation like my own from using OpenOffice.org no matter what the file support for MS Office is like.
If the format is made publicly available that won’t stop people from using MS Office; I don’t need MS Office, in fact I currently use OpenOffice.org exclusively but I am still saving up for a copy of MS Office because that way I can get the grammar checker, extra templates and graphics and some of that nice extra polish that OpenOffice.org doesn’t have at the moment. Having an office suite that is more compatible with what my school uses didn’t really cross my mind with a few rare exceptions, its just a nice bonus.
MS isn’t dumb enough to give up everything as you seem to be implying; they are simply going to make interoperability between different software products better which in my books means that MS software will be more attractive than before.
I encourage this move from Microsoft, then the only thing I’ll have left to resent about the company is that its prices are too high for many K-12 students who don’t get the dicounts and deals commonly offered to college and university students. Some of us don’t have parents who’ll buy newer version of Windows, Office and Visual Studio, even when our school work requires it.
…When facts suggest the opposite.
At European level they (MS) are lobbying politicians like mad in order to pass the infamous software patents directive.
Why else every attempt is being made to pass the directive against any democratic principle?
Here in Italy the Rai, the Italian State television has made the use of WMP compulsory in its broadband services, RaiClick.
It had been using RealPlayer for years. It cannot be because of technical reasons, because RealPlayer worked actually better.
Normally you can still play WMP streaming in linux if you have the codecs. But this time they have put an iron wall: it seems to be aimed at linux, because in Windows you can still open the RealPlayer browser and play RaiClick contents.
How about letting john q public try out msdn downloads of longhorn say and fill out a questionnaire for average user feedback? That way they could get help in the spirit of improving their products for a change. Just a thought…
i’d love microsoft …
if there was internet explorer for linux.
an inability to explore the internet is the one thing holding back linux
you can’t ‘steal’ a file format. Or, more accurately, if there’s something in a file format _worth_ stealing, it’s doing a lot more than it ought to.
My comments here are all in my opinion and for entertainment purposes only:
“Microsoft has extended an olive branch to the open-source community”
That’s a laugh. I wonder if Amiga, OS/2, Corel Linux, and other similar OS which never had a chance (IMO) were offered such olive branches. Honestly, I’m sick of hearing about Microsoft. I’m sick of seeing the name, I’m sick of seeing advertisements for Microsoft, I don’t like their products and I’m just tired of hearing the name! Enough already! It’s time to open up the world to choice in operating systems.
How many years have passed with innovation stifled?
IMO offers like this remind me of times in history where enemies would study their enemy with such ways.
“calling for a sit-down to discuss how the software giant can better work with the open-source world.”
That much should be obvious. Go open source and charge for support, not the software. Until that happens, it’ll just be another game of divide and conquer, IMO and it’s sad because the world loses in such events.
I would ask microsoft to give up ownership of 3 things to the community.
open the video codecs, it would be easier for everyone to view, AND become the defacto standard over the web.
Open source direct X. If the community owned direct x, microsoft wouldn’t be called such a bad monopoly. it would make porting windows games easy. The libraries for direct x would probably get ported to linux very quickly.
open up the programming languages. give them away for free. or include them with a copy of windows. its so much easier to start out programming on linux, because its free, and usually includes programming environments. it costs an arm and a leg to start programming on windows. That can only hurt microsoft in the long term. Also the price of windows is too much. they need to offer windows for about 50-80 dollars. and just offer 1 version equavilent to pro. Also they should do away with the “upgrade” versions. i mean come on, who has never owned windows before? every one who is buying it is upgrading. and they give new computers an OEM discount, that is close to the upgrade price. Why not just make one os, at one price, that includes stuff to get started with programming?
they should also opensource various file formats like the word file format, and excel, ETC. It wouldn’t help microsoft, but it would help all users of computers.
“Right. As a user, I understand all that. But you gotta look at this from Microsoft’s point of view. If you want to ask them to open up the .doc format so that people can import them into OpenOffice easier, you’ve got to tell them what benefit this has for them. The best way to negotiate with someone is to present your proposition as a win/win situation for both sides.”
Sure, here’s your win/win. Users win interoperable files. Microsoft wins in that sane people who understand why everything damn well _ought_ to interoperate and why vendor lock-in for no valid reason is as evil as heck will hate them a little less. Microsoft is an insecure corporation. It wishes dearly not to be hated, which is why its engineering and PR divisions make little gestures like this every couple of months while its legal division continues to churn out the patents and the management continues to devise more vendor lock-in methods…
“”
I do believe THEY are stealing from ME by holding my data hostage
Right, just like the RIAA is stealing from you by charging $15 a CD, even though you’re the one who went out and bought the shit.
”
Lol, that makes no sense whatsoever. When you buy a CD, the RIAA/Musicians own the copyright, you are only buying a license to listen to the music and the media on which it is distributed. He is talking about data that HE OWNS (as in HE OWNS THE COPYRIGHTS TO THIS DATA). Your CD example is an entirely different matter.”
Well, let’s start with the CD analogy. Why do people go out and buy 200-300 CDs for $15.00 a piece, and then blame the RIAA that the price is too high? Hello?? If people weren’t willing to pay that much for them, CDs wouldn’t cost that much. The reason the RIAA charges that much is simple – because we let them. In other words, we have nobody to blame for the situation but ourselves. The RIAA is doing what they’re supposed to do .. selling a product for as much as they can get for it. The problem is that as consumers, we’re not doing our part, and we pay the price for it too. And don’t tell me people pay that much because they don’t know any better. That is complete and utter bullshit. Go ask anyone who’s out shopping for a CD if they think the prices are too high …
Now, let’s take the .doc format:
First of all, let’s establish that with the .doc format, nobody is really locked in. Meaning, I haven’t seen a Word document yet that I couldn’t grab the data out of it and import it somewhere else. I may have to reformat it and the macros might be lost, but the data is kept in tact. Therefore, with .doc files, as long as you are able to export/copy & paste, then vendor lock-in doesn’t really exist.
But even if it does exist, if you go out and plunk down $300+ for a copy of Office, and willing save your documents in this proprietary format knowing that it is proprietary, how are you going to blame somebody else for your stupidity when you essentially just shot yourself in the foot?
The thing is, we as a society could kill Microsoft any time we wanted. If major corporations got together as a whole and started demanding that clients deal with them using open file formats, then things would change. But things won’t change. Why? Because people would rather take the easy way out – we want the government to cut MS off at the knees and spill blood for us instead of taking responsibility for our own actions and fixing the problem that WE helped to create. Same thing goes with CDs – if we decided as a society that we will never buy a CD unless it was $5.00, then either one or two things would happen:
1. The RIAA would sell CDs for $5.00 a piece
2. The RIAA would go out of business
Either option is fine with me
But, maybe consumers are just too stupid to know what’s best for them. That being the case, then maybe we should let the government decide what’s best for them, and let them ban music with explicit lyrics and M-rated video games while they’re at it.
I bet Darius is scratching his head and wondering why RedHat isn’t already out of business, considered the whole CentOS deal.
Someone needs to keep repeating that there are many successful businesses that sell GPL software. When will you ever learn?
LOL … You haven’t tried GNU/Linux nor any other Linux-based OS. GNU/Linux is very capable of exploring the Internet. GNU/Linux did that long before Microsoft was even aware of the Internet.
Have you heard of Firefox,Galeon, Netscape, Mozilla, Lynx, Elinks, Links, Links2, Konqueror, Opera and whatever.
And if you install Wine on GNU/Linux you _can_ run IE. I have tried that, but removed it again, because it made me sick to see IE running on my GNU/Linux. It just didn’t feel right. And I didn’t and don’t need IE to explore the Internet. Regardless of the OS. This is written in Firefox on Windows2000. It could have been written in Firefox on GNU/Linux – it doesn’t matter. Whatever knowledge you might have had once upon time, is extremely outdated.
You’re so funny
Your CD analogy is not at alle comparable. But whatever. Sweet dreams to you, since you’re so tired you haven’t grasped the contents of any of the replies you’ve got so far
You obviously didn’t grasp ssam’s sarcasm.
there’s HUGE difference between code being leaked and have them release under something like the GPL, where anyone could recompile it and legally offer it up
You’re confusing the file format with the program code. No one wants WORD code, they want the DOC format. DOC format is simply the way a document is saved to the harddrive. Opening the format would allow other programs to open the saved file without losing the formatting and metadata. It does NOT mean that it would have all the same features as WORD. The two programs would be competing on who was more user friendly and had the most/better features.
I hope that helped eliminate your confusion on the matter.
Unfortantly, Darius, you are assuming that the music business is a free market. It is absolutely not. RIAA makes their products artificially scarse with copyrights. If it were a truely free market where buyers could find alternative sources for the product, the price would be closer to the true value of a CD’s marginal cost which is just about ziltch. The problem here is really draconian copyright laws that allow record labels to be the sole supplier for music for their entire lives and then some.
The only part that you are right about is the fact that some people are willing to pay $15 for a cd, but what your argument fails to address is that not all people are willing to pay $15 as is whitnessed by the fact that people have been downloading songs en mass. You cannot blame people for bad laws that only exist because of corporate lobbying. RIAA members are not justified simply because the law allows them to do what they are doing.
The price of cd’s really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The problem isn’t that people choose to encode their data in a proprietary document format. The problem is that people don’t know any better (because of propaganda and other reasons), and they often are forced to by people and organizations that require submitted documents to be in one format or another.
I should not have to buy a $300 software package just to view someone else’s work. I should be able to choose whatever evironment I wish not have a corporation’s greed forced upon me. To address your flawed argument that people aren’t truely locked into document formats: your argument assumes that you can open the document in the first place. That requires that 1) you have windows 2) you have microsoft office. Now, please tell me how that isn’t vendor lock in. For it not to be lock in, you would have to be able to open the document without needing the software.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist that was found to use illegal activities to stiffle competition. The only thing people (those of us whom care) want the government to do is to allow competition and return the free market. Having open document formats is the only way to do this. Microsoft has no right to make money, and they certainly have no right to force me to use their products.
Opening the .doc format would be the best thing that MS could do (the AV stuff can wait though it would be nice). I don’t think many here realize how entrenched this format really is. All I can do is groan about statements like the following:
I haven’t seen a Word document yet that I couldn’t grab the data out of it and import it somewhere else.
Let me give you a concrete example: Most grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) still are submitted on paper, with a lot of boilerplate. The boilerplate forms are available in two formats: fillable PDFs and .doc.
I don’t know of a reasonable open-source way to save fillable PDFs, as NIH at the moment do not enable the “save” feature in Reader v7 (and none of the open-source programs work for this either). These forms are HUGE, containing on the order of 40 or more fields per page. Without being able to save the filled forms, PDFs are almost useless. Typewriter, anyone?
So that leaves .doc. OO.org does an OK, but certainly not perfect, job. Maybe the upcoming 2.0 release will work better; I sure hope so.
So to Darius I’ll issue the following challenge: please convert the NIH PHS 398 forms from .doc to something else and maintain the formating. Please be sure to share your results. You may find them at http://www.nih.gov in the grants sections.
Some of my customers buy some new computers and they have Office 2000 pre-installed so the send me some orders in Excel. Guess what? I have to go out now and buy Office 2000 so that I can read their orders and continue to do busines. Then comes Office xp and it starts all over again excepth that now the other folks that have 2000 have to upgrade too.
If all you’re doing is viewing them download the free viewers that Microsoft provides.
Right. As a user, I understand all that. But you gotta look at this from Microsoft’s point of view. If you want to ask them to open up the .doc format so that people can import them into OpenOffice easier, you’ve got to tell them what benefit this has for them. The best way to negotiate with someone is to present your proposition as a win/win situation for both sides. Personally, I only see the users benefitting from this. And while that’s great, that’s exactly going to have MS jumping for joy.
Oh cut the crap Darius, you’re as tired and repeative as N4Cer and other Microsoft fan boys.
Microsoft can *EASILY* still compete by providing a SUPERIOR PRODUCT that USES THAT FORMAT.
Take Word, even IF it were to use an openfile format, OpenOffice.org is STILL too far away from being even a *CLOSE* competitor to Microsoft Office. On one hand you have Microsoft Office, its integration with all the various other products, and on the other hand you have a mish-mashed opensource office suite with features lacking, crappy messaging and collabortion software – that doesn’t even touch the crapiness of the macro interface. To say that Microsoft would somehow but put at a disadvantge, is being silly at best.
As for their media player – whats to stop them from offering services? they have a MSN online unit, why not download movies? music? porn? there are any number of things Microsoft could provide without needing to use vendor lock in to remain competitive.
JF
You’re confusing the file format with the program code. No one wants WORD code, they want the DOC format. DOC format is simply the way a document is saved to the harddrive. Opening the format would allow other programs to open the saved file without losing the formatting and metadata. It does NOT mean that it would have all the same features as WORD.
No, here’s what I’m saying …
If MS did open up the .doc file format, how many more people would use Word than are currently using it? The only reason why people want the .doc format opened is so that they can use it in other programs. The people who are using OpenOffice now aren’t going to suddently switch to Word if the .doc format was opened.
So, I think for the open source community (which the article was referring to), the ONLY way they’re going to start using MS Office is if it was Free (as in speech). Why? Because simply opening up the file formats is not good enough – the OSS community wants the whole ball of wax.
If MS actually did release it under a license such as the GPL, then it would be possible for ANYBODY to compile it and re-release it for free. In that instance, who the hell is going to buy it when you can get it legally for free? I sure wouldn’t. Fact is, unless your application is such that you could rewrite it/customize it for various clients, once you release the source code, the value of your program becomes $0. Even if you could sell customized versions of it to various clients, I’d rather keep it closed and sell it for $300 a pop, especially if people are willing to pay that much. I’m not going to open it up and let people have at it for free when I could make several billion dollars doing it the other way. Is it ethical doing it the second way? Sure, if people are willing to go along with it! It’s not like I’m picking their pocket when they hand me $300
The two programs would be competing on who was more user friendly and had the most/better features.
Nah, if the alternative was 100% compatable, I think people would use it simply because its free (as in beer).
Russell Jackson
Unfortantly, Darius, you are assuming that the music business is a free market. It is absolutely not. RIAA makes their products artificially scarse with copyrights. If it were a truely free market where buyers could find alternative sources for the product
Hmmm, alternative sources … how about indie labels? How about secondspin.com? Hell, why not Ebay or your local pawn shop? And just assuming that there was abosolutely no other place to get CDs besides through the RIAA, so what? Is music (and digital entertainment) like air? Do you HAVE to have it? If you got enough people on your side, could you discipline yourself not to buy any more CDs for a few years until we completely put these bastards out of business?
The only part that you are right about is the fact that some people are willing to pay $15 for a cd
Right, that’s what I’m saying. If you’re one of those people, then you’re part of the problem.
ut what your argument fails to address is that not all people are willing to pay $15 as is whitnessed by the fact that people have been downloading songs en mass You cannot blame people for bad laws that only exist because of corporate lobbying. RIAA members are not justified simply because the law allows them to do what they are doing.
Right, so people don’t want to pay high prices and thus decide to steal it, and then blame the RIAA for all the copyright laws and the DRM crap coming out. Are you shitting me???? Here’s a little something for you to meditate on – if people weren’t stealing the stuff in the first place, would copy-protected CDs even exist?
The price of cd’s really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The problem isn’t that people choose to encode their data in a proprietary document format. The problem is that people don’t know any better (because of propaganda and other reasons)
So basically, people are stupid and should be told what to do by the government, yes?
nd they often are forced to by people and organizations that require submitted documents to be in one format or another.
I should not have to buy a $300 software package just to view someone else’s work.
You could probably solve that problem by telling people to stop sending you documents that requires a $300 piece of software in order to open. Would that work if just you did it? No. Would it work if you and a few other million people did it? Probably.
o address your flawed argument that people aren’t truely locked into document formats: your argument assumes that you can open the document in the first place. That requires that 1) you have windows 2) you have microsoft office. Now, please tell me how that isn’t vendor lock in. For it not to be lock in, you would have to be able to open the document without needing the software.
Alright, so here is the deal – if people used proprietary products in order to lock themselves into a particular file format, how the hell did they do that if they didn’t have the products to begin with?
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist that was found to use illegal activities to stiffle competition. The only thing people (those of us whom care) want the government to do is to allow competition and return the free market. Having open document formats is the only way to do this. Microsoft has no right to make money, and they certainly have no right to force me to use their products.
Well, it’s one way, but not the only way. Another way to go about it is if people quit using these formats altogether.
DrJ
So to Darius I’ll issue the following challenge: please convert the NIH PHS 398 forms from .doc to something else and maintain the formating. Please be sure to share your results. You may find them at http://www.nih.gov in the grants sections.
Hey, I said you could get the data out .. I said nothing about the formatting. If the NIH wants to, can they not use OpenOffice.org? If they can but just won’t, then fuck ’em .. it’s their problem, not mine.
kaiwai
Microsoft can *EASILY* still compete by providing a SUPERIOR PRODUCT that USES THAT FORMAT.
They could compete, but they would certainly lose marketshare that way. As far as I can see, there is simply no advantage to them for opening up the file formats.
What a great Idea!
Where can I download the source or the Slackware package for those?
I am such a fool!
Duh!
Where can I download the source or the Slackware package for those?
http://www.codeweavers.com
Of course, it’s not free, but then again … open source people aren’t penny pinchers, are they?
I won’t trust them, even if they came with a olive-tree plantation.
The best thing that Microsoft or any other proprietary developer could do is open souce PRODUCTS THEY ARE NO LONGER OFFICIALLY SUPPORTING OR SELLING LICENSES FOR under a license that allows ALL developers to use the result like LGPL, BSD, MIT, Python, or Mozilla Licenses. (This would allow them to keep the copyrights on such products for credit purposes and therefore advertising when their OSS code is used.)
As much as they say “I hate Microsoft” in the open source community there is in fact hundreds of open source people who would probably like the CHALLENGE of debugging and fixing Win 9x or office 97 or a Visual Studio 6.
Furthermore releasing old products as open source would keep a lot of old computer restorers in the Microsoft fold rather than going to Linux. In fact I believe that an open source Win 9x, DirectX for 9x, Visual Studio 6 Office 97 combo could be the thing that could kill Linux if Microsoft actually wanted to do it. Not all this dealing with defunct Linux companies converted to lawsuit factories they have been doing before.
I use Slackware (bought it at their store)
I use Mepis (made a contribution)
I use Win4lin (paid for it)
I use Windows 98 (paid for it)
I use Litepc pro (paid for it)
I don’t download music.
I don’t steal from Microsoft.
Maybe the sarcasm missed you.
You still cannot merge data or manipulate YOUR OWN DATA with a viewer.
Forget about freeing Mumia – how about freeing my data. I don’t grudge MS making an honest living, if they would just make it honestly.
The problem is that once you get involved your own property becomes tainted and LESS usable.
Where do YOU want to go today?
> Hey, I said you could get the data out .. I said nothing
> about the formatting. If the NIH wants to, can they not
> use OpenOffice.org? If they can but just won’t, then fuck
> ’em .. it’s their problem, not mine.
Well, in this case the completed form with formatting IS the data, if you will. Without the formatting, there is nothing left. And a proposal will not be accepted without the proper forms. NIH is only using the accepted marketplace standard, one that works for Windows and Mac users, and face it: that is the majority of the world at the moment.
Regarding your expletive, in this case it is MY problem. They have the money, and I am looking for NIH to underwrite some of my work. I can’t tell them what to do; I have to conform to their desires. And NIH funds more research in this country than any other agency, so this is not small potatoes.
Could they use OOo documents? Maybe, but I doubt it would be practical given their user base.
FWIW, I would gladly PAY real money, even to M$, to have Word running on my computer. And please don’t suggest CodeWeavers; they do not support FreeBSD. *sigh* Yes, I would gladly pay for it if it were available. I’ve no issue with paying for software that adds value.
Darius, I realize that you have been beaten up a bit with the comments, but please tone it down a bit.
Want to do build some bridges Opensource?
Provide drivers for filesystems;
Ext2/J
XFS
Reiserfs/Reiser4
Use a opensoundsystem.To have a opensoundsystem you let developers use tools that use sound to function accross multiple OS’s,
Support different CPU architecture with ther programming tools so that developers can use ms tools for multios and architecture.
Embrace Mono/C#. This way you could easily blow the pants of of Java IMHO.
Provide a free tool so that devoloping countries can code for Microsoft Windows. Possibly with WINE or perhaps more with C# again. Obviously this tool would be for BSD/GNU/Linux because users can afford this, while a Unix environment is less resource hungry when using the right distro and software naturally.
On with the direction im taking, why not opensource the Windows Drivers for older software. I’m not sure if they would be usefull for *nix’s but if they are, I don’t see how they are usefull to MS at all. Since the release of Windows XP, and the soon to be released Longhorn , these OS don’t really run adequatly on a old 266.
It would be nice, but since MS has a large market for Videogames, which is the biggest selling next to Movies. I could hope for a shared video standard, but this would mean that people could play games on any puter they wanted. So just dreaming there.
Opensource the winmodem drivers or provide a free one so that the poor can buy a cheap modem and use it in Linux!
Influence hardware manufactuers for things like mice, and camera’s and digital media(flash cards), to opensource there drivers so that everyone is able to buy there products. “Again I don’t see this happening for Videocards, because this is going to be there breadwinner for the future”. At least with openhardware specifications like this the manufactueror really only has to pay someone to code once. I don’t know if patents would stop someone from copying there hardware if they open there specifications.”
I could go one but that at least one cent
Well, in this case the completed form with formatting IS the data, if you will.
Perhaps, in a sense. But if you decided you wanted to switch programs, you can recreate formatting a lot easier than data. For example, if you had 1,000 word documents with full grant info, you can’t really sit down in front of a computer and re-create something like that on the fly as you can with formatting.
NIH is only using the accepted marketplace standard, one that works for Windows and Mac users, and face it: that is the majority of the world at the moment.
So are you saying there’s no other usable/half-decent word processor with a file format built around open standards that works on both Windows and Macs? Hell, no wonder people are using Word documents. If there are no other alternatives, what choice do people have?
Regarding your expletive, in this case it is MY problem. They have the money, and I am looking for NIH to underwrite some of my work. I can’t tell them what to do; I have to conform to their desires. And NIH funds more research in this country than any other agency, so this is not small potatoes.
You said that you had trouble saving PDFs because they were encrypted, right? Hasn’t the open source crowd built a program to decrypt PDFs? If not, you may want to check this out:
http://www.elcomsoft.com/prs.html#apdfpr
Again, not free and not open source, but as I said yesterday .. the software you choose should be based on needs, not license
Gandhi once said, “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
MY computer software is constantly being up-graded KDE 3.0 to KDE 3.4. My computer hardware was paid for a long time ago. My TCO is the cost of the bandwidth to run apt-get, or Synaptic. $20.00 a month with cable modem included. Unlimited Mb’s of download. My computer will run Longhorn or XP. Why bother with Micro$oft, when DEBIAN is avaliable. (DEBIAN) It does really just work!! No virii no spyware no bluescreen, Just linux.
Yeah, these are the very guys(Microsoft) who calls the GPL a cancer and call Linux a cancer, or whatever.
To me it sounds more like a “The Devil and Daniel Webster” type of deal that Microsoft wants to do. I would hear what they have to say but that is it. I wouldn’t go any further than that since they have a history of using you for what you’re worth and than kicking you to the curb once they’re done with you, just as Sendo and IBM.
My $0.02
Cycloneous
Why? Because simply opening up the file formats is not good enough – the OSS community wants the whole ball of wax.
No they don’t. Sorry to disappoint you, but most OSS programmers have a VERY poor opinion of MS code. They ONLY want the file formats because many businesses have been duped or coerced into only accepting documents in an MS format.
Sure, most OSS word processors aren’t as nice as Word… yet. Give them time. Linux used to be well behind as well, but modern distros give any OS out a real run for the money. Similarly, OSS word processors will improve to be as good or better than WORD. They just want to be able to handle DOC format so that people who don’t care for MS products can coexist with those who love MS products.
Microsoft is *VERY* afraid it seem. Open Source is going to be the next big thing. Maybe not now but in a few year they will stand to loose a lot of money and market share. Only thing they are trying to do is systematically sabootage the open source movement. They dont care about open source/free software.
“Microsoft can *EASILY* still compete by providing a SUPERIOR PRODUCT that USES THAT FORMAT.”
They could compete, but they would certainly lose marketshare that way. As far as I can see, there is simply no advantage to them for opening up the file formats.
Oh pulease; There are *MANY* different PDF creators and yet, some how, Adobe just keeps on maintaining their marketshare, pulling in the money, quarter after quarter. Interesting.
Going back to the original argument – you claimed that having open file formats will put them at a disadvantage – based on what assumption? companies can’t move because they require features, and employees won’t use OpenOffice.org because under the Microsoft select licensing, they get a free copy of the software as so long as they’re an employee at the company -so even if, through some act of god, a file format was set upon, any competitor would first have to match the depth of integration and expansiveness of Microsofts software portfolio as to compete.
It would require the merging of SUN + IBM + Oracle + a few other companies *JUST* to get the same minimum functionality – hence, the so-called “threat” is nothing more than an old wives tale.
Small businesses and home users will definatly switch. How long can u survive on corporate money. Sooner or later someone will duplicate the functionality to some extent and m$ will keep loosing money day by day.
Example : mid size corporation A has 10,000 machines installed as workstations. each copy of office cost $100 when bought in bulk. lets do the math. 10000 * $100 = $1000000 every 2 years. hum…use openoffice and pay the money to open source community to develop what u need or out source the development to india. Suprisingly cheaper isnt it. Plus consider that many companies are competing with M$ on different fronts and they hate to pay their competitor (sony, yahoo, oracle…)
And as oss community has demonstrated that they can duplicate functionality even without getting money as incentive. How long can Office market survive.
Microsft will looses monopoly status. Sir Bill Gates cant stand that. lol !
“But, realistically, they could do some important things. One, open up their file formats. That is, fully document things like the Microsoft Word and Windows Media formats, and make a binding promise not to sue people who write software to interoperate with them,”
The least they can do
It’s not very likely to see an open-source version of Longhorn? or it’s successors any time soon.Would be smart for them to do so anyway.As Redhat did with separating it’s products in a open-source and buisiness variant.This way both customer and vendor can benefit from new technologies.Development costs decrease dramatically,the customer gets new features included with any new release instead of all the same stuff that hasn’t been improved over the years.Ms can’t be blamed anymore because the open-source community steers more or less too the direction of the open-source variant with the innovation and proposal of new technology,apps,features,graphics etc.
One can NOT negotiate with a dictator.It always fails.
That’s the reason for this recent Microsoft detente.
(Network effects occur when something is worth more because more people are using it – eg, owning the only Concorde in town’s a mark of status; but owning a Concorde without being able to take off and land because the airstrips are about a mile too short, kinda stinks! Owning the only telephone in the continent looks kinda silly. It’s when your friends have also got telephones that they are actually worth something.
So Microsoft’s worried that the developer community’s going to jump ship?
Well, for what it’s worth, I’m learning the Win32 API, because I have to know MS Win98; and that’s because I’m maintaining (in concernt with a couple of friends) a community centre’s cybercafe’s complement of MS Win98 machines.
I don’t know where I’m jumping to, because I’m still using Linux at home, and using MinGW32 to learn – LCCWin32 doesn’t do C++, and I still haven’t got the hang of much of OpenWatcom’s behaviour, while VisualStudio’s kinda huge, and hugely expensive for what I need it for.
What would I like Microsoft to do to present a more friendly face to the Free/Libre Open Source Software community?
Well, they’ve already made their money with MS Windows98, and they’ve scrapped development with its source tree, so they hardly need that; and besides, it’s still out there, in countless millions of machines still running, an ever-present virus-and-trojan vector, a real and present danger to users of the Net.
As a proof that they’re serious in offering the olive branch, I would want them to release the MS Win9x source tree, as much of it as they have copyrights to. Then I would want them to offer the .DOC and suchlike file formats to be standardized, so that everybody can compete on a level playing field. Ditto for the Win32 API – by now it’s mature enough and diverse enough and has several different implementations – Wine being one – that it warrants a POSIXification a la the Unix Single Standard.
So programmers and companies can compete on real matters instead of wasting time over petty distractions. (When I played Aussie Rules, the game was always decided on goals and points scored and goals and points denied – never on who was the best eyegouger on the field. A matter a bit too simplistic for some, obviously.
they never released source code for dos ! win 98 hum…i wouldnt bet
All Yeah!, Vintage Microsoft Business Tactics.
The same ones they used on Apple back in 80’s.We all know the
outcome.When Microsoft offered to work with apple. Microsoft windows sales surpassed mac os using apple’s technology. I think Microsoft wants to make sure the open source community will not be able to crack it’s Microsost’s own tech: avalon,XAML,WinFS,WinFX. Yeah right, Microsoft all of the sudden got nice to the OSS a year before it launches Longhorn that has alot of…
It would require the merging of SUN + IBM + Oracle + a few other companies *JUST* to get the same minimum functionality – hence, the so-called “threat” is nothing more than an old wives tale.
Or at the very least Sun and IBM combining forces on OpenOffice rather than IBM just taking from the community and not contributing back.
OpenOffice is a fallacy, its StarOffice stripped down as it only seems to be Sun doing any development on it with the odd contribution from Novell and one Redhat developer. IBM should contribute back – their attitude to openoffice shows their real attitude to open source – take it when we can, and if we see a profit in it then been seen to give some back (you think they opensourced Eclipse out of the goodness of their hearts? Its there to get you onto Websphere and Rational tools. I would like to see Eclipse GPL’ed as well, its license is too close to Sun’s CDDL for my liking).
Of course Sun could just get around this by licensing openoffice exclusively under the GPL rather than this silly dual licensing thing that they are doing at the moment. But could Schwartz bare that?
Want to know the sad part? Lotus Smart Suite has/had so much potential. IBM screams on one hand about the virtues of opensource, and they can’t even be bothered opensourcing Lotus Smart Suite – a non-core critical money making asset of their IBM Software division.
should be “non-core non-critical non-cash cow”
All I care about is that they don’t pull some stunt to hurt open source .NET (Mono, etc).
They can keep their file formats and quirky browser closed. It may be a pain, but it would be consistent. It would also be consistent to just let Mono continue to develop and implement the entire .NET API…please don’t screw this up MS.
why mod down me and others that do not trust microsoft, since they have a history of sneaky underhanded tactics and a long track record of it too there is plenty of good reason to not trust microsoft…
The best thing that could happen is that the open source commuity ignores the ‘olive oil voice and guinea charm'(a Godfather quote) and the MS-BS. Obviously open source has some advantage over the MicroSuits, or they wouldn’t be offering anything- case closed.
I say ignore them, ignore their pleas, keep using open source products and slowly starve them to death. They havn’t played fair EVER! Microsoft is a few lines of code away from going the way of the 8 track cassette. I will be playing trombone at the jazz funeral to morn their demise. 😉
Those who don’t understand history are dooooooommmmmmeed to repeat it.
Microsoft understands warfare. In war, you defeat your enimies, obliterate them, destroy them. The last thing you do is get along with them.
Do you really think this is an olive branch? You’re nuts and you deserve to get destroyed. This isn’t an olive branch. They are disarming you with a smile and acceptance. You’re too hungry for it.
“…we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn’t seem to be anything to negotiate about…we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.”
Msft has been very actively attacking F/OSS. F/OSS has been trying to be compatible with msft. If msft wants to stop being scum, all they have to do is stop.
Right, so when you download music off the internet and share it with 40 million people, you’re not stealing .. you’re sharing.
Please don’t use 1984-like language. E.g. “Love is hate”, “War is peace”,..and finally yours “Sharing is stealing”.
Call things for what they really are. Illeagally distributing music over the net is a copyright violation not theft.
The things that takes place in FOSS is something completely different, here the sharing is perfectly legal. What auther of the article was that Microsoft should share some of their file formats. It is their choise to do that or not.
If they chose to share they will have a lot more competition. If they don’t many of their customers will see problems with vender lock in and will swithch to something else if and when that becomes available.
And it will become available, regardless what Microsoft does. The speed of development in FOSS for the desktop areana is incredible right now. Currently one of the best and usable Linux distros for desktop use is Ubunto. Three monts from now that level of usability will constitute the basline of usability for all Linux distros. Then somebody else will take the lead standing on the sholders of Ubuntu.
Before Microsoft releases Longhorn at least two new versions of Gnome will see the light of day, and the third will be very close to reaady. Each of them will be full of usability improvements. In the KDE camp they are regrouping for a MAJOR upgrade (KDE4) and we can expect a lot from them.
As the free desktop matures, there will be more and more applications available. Both closed source and free ones. And guess what, many of these applications will run on windows as well as Linux. FOSS have no reason to limit their software to one platform. Neither will closed source application venders that make applications for the free desktop.
This will force Microsoft into a service based business model as they will not be able to get new users to pay for schrink wrapped boxes to be part of their lock in program. There hasn’t been much business case for upgrading MS-Office since Office 97. If microsoft continues to force expensive upgrades on their users, the users will leave.
E.g. OpenOffice allready have about 10% marketshare with a product that is not 100% compatilbe with its competing product from Microsoft. What do you think will happen when the compatiblity gets better, or should I say even better. Will Microsoft customers still be willing to pay for having their information locked in? Of course not.
The choise Microsoft have is actually share the fileformats and get help from FOSS to make it better, or in the end have to use and support FOSS fileformats themselves making current MS file formats irrellevant.
F/OSS is not at war with microsoft, microsoft is at war with anyone it considers an enemy because they are a corporation with only one objective and that is to make as much money as possible off of their product, since F/OSS conflicts with microsoft’s philosophy of corporate greed they are considered an enemy of microsoft…
hehehe, i am glad F/OSS & Linux is a thorn in microsoft’s side that they can not get rid of…
Not to beat a dead horse, but some of these issues are important.
> But if you decided you wanted to switch programs, you can
> recreate formatting a lot easier than data. For example, if
> you had 1,000 word documents with full grant info, you can’t
> really sit down in front of a computer and re-create
> something like that on the fly as you can with formatting.
To be clear: I don’t use Word for the body of the grant applications — I use troff (and its preprocessors), thought TeX would also be fine. I don’t particularly care much for Word, or any word processor for that matter.
The important thing is that completed forms that accompany the text body are available in two formats: PDF and .doc. They are a critical part of the proposal, and the forms often are longer than the body of the proposal. I have no choice about their formatting, and the formatting really is the content. One can argue about what can or perhaps should be done, but this is the way it is.
> You said that you had trouble saving PDFs because they
> were encrypted, right?
No, that is not the issue. The PDFs in question are fillable forms. Adobe Reader and OSS work-alikes allow text input into the various form fields, which works well enough. The big catch is that the completed forms cannot be SAVED, though they can be printed. So there is no way to store an original, or make later edits (which there always seem to be).
Currently one needs complete Acrobat to save the completed forms. Acrobat is not available on OSS platforms. Or, “hidden” features of Reader (including the saving of altered PDFs) can be enabled by using the right Adobe software on the originating end. Currently, NIH does not use this, and I’m talking with parties there to see if this can take place. I’m not holding my breath, as agencies as large as NIH do not change quickly. There is also one add-on program (see http://www.accesspdf.com) that may work, though it does not seem to be particularly convenient.
The IT eco-system is changing rapidly.It’s not so difficult to notice MS having some steer less people at the top.The OSS community has put itself on the map forever.That’s something to be proud of.The question is whether we need MS or better start looking for “real” allies.
If MS was smart they would have launched an OSS version of XP long time ago.They would still bundle the “proprietary” XP with all the hardware that’s beeing sold around the globe.Nevertheless the development costs would decrease and significant more resources would become available for other projects.The “community” could more or less participate in shaping the technology of the desktop of tomorrow.
It’s hard to reach the hand to someone who has made your life quite miserable over a considerable length of time.The more reason to have the lawyers a close look at what’s feasonable first and bind thereafter most issues on paper before going any further.
“In the world of software development today there is a broad panoply of software development models,” Smith said.
My question: Hum! Maybe they are simply worried about, YET, another anti-trust looming in the near future?
“We’re going to have to figure out how to build some bridges between the various parts of our industry,” he continued. “We’re going to have to figure out how we can bring the various parts of our industry closer together…”
My question: Are they simply worried that open source has already taken the led in the realm of new technologies and MS already hasn’t figure out a business plan on how to exploit that technology? Is it that maybe they realize that by the time they are able to figure out a new business plan each time one of these new technologies comes along it is too late?
Observation: It has been known for a long time that an elephant is often too slow to catch a mouse. Throw in a few million mice and the elephant will panic.
would be to open the source of their MSN search engine under the GPL. That would give them the high ground over Google with many in the open source community, akin to Netscape’s decision to start the Mozilla project in 1998. At least one high profile enthusiast/volunteer project would likely start immediately.
One problem is that until a couple years ago, Microsoft was contracting its search through Inktomi; I’m not sure what they’re using now. Also, they’d have to do a legal pass over the code to make sure it can withstand public scrutiny for patent and copyright infringements.
trying to reach out to the open-source community. i just dont see the point in wasting so much time and resources. ms is a company interested in maximizing profit margins, so why bother with a useless public relations campaign. do they think they are going to impress people? they should just stop all the anti-foss negative marketing sh*t and just make a better product and then they will win in the marketplace. a great product at a great price will win every time. resources should not go toward negative marketing and instead be used to hire more programmers to fix bugs in windows server and client asap.
Even Microsoft’s revenues begin to reflect it now: Microsoft is going downhill at a faster pace than anyone had expected. They are trying everything to cover their losses with the Longhorn failure etc. and about everyone is switching to Linux lately.
Why don’t they open source vb6 which they have just pissed over leaving billions of lines of source without an upgrade path ?
I’ve seen Darius and a few others mention several times that putting out the source to a program (like Word) would kill it as there would instantly be several free versions. They neglect an obvious example of how that is completely false.
Id releases every old game to GPL the XMas after the latest game hits the market. Quake3 code was scheduled to be released last Xmas, but a last second licensee put it off until summer.
The way Id stays alive is to keep improving. It doesn’t matter if V4 code is available for free since you’re already shipping V5 and working on V6. MS could do the same thing. If they wind up losing business, it’s just proof that they aren’t improving the product… but isn’t that the REAL reason they don’t ever release source code?
Word version N is the same as N-1 with the file format changed slightly. This forces customers to upgrade even though the program didn’t improve in the slightest. Id is constantly improving. Why? Because they have to compete fairly in the game business. They do not have a monopoly in the market. If you don’t like DOOM3, you can get HalfLife 2 or any number of other games.
This pressure keeps Id working on making their games better. Since the games improve, they can afford to release old code to the community. This improves their goodwill in the community and persuades some to purchase their products.
What incentive do you have to purchase Word N? The boss got a free copy from MS and now no one can read his memos… that’s a d-mn poor reason to upgrade, but it’s common. MS makes sure that bosses of any decent size business get a free copy of the latest MS product.
I’m sorry, but your analogy is flawed. Since the only thing modern games have going for them is the graphics, they have a limited shelf life. As soon as a new version comes out with a higher polygon count and a couple of new weapons, lemmings are flocking to upgrade their video cards and spend $50 to buy the same game repackaged with prettier eye candy.
If MS released the source code to Word 2002 (or even Word 2000 for that matter), do you think a business with 10,000 employes is going to by the 2003 version when they can get the other for free?
If MS released the source code to Word 2002 (or even Word 2000 for that matter), do you think a business with 10,000 employes is going to by the 2003 version when they can get the other for free?
They will if enough improvements are made. That’s the deal – make it better and people will buy it. MS rarely makes it better – they just make it different and incompatible. The first allows you to compete in an open market, the second requires an illegal monopoly and dirty tricks.
Quote: “I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t sound like a very sound business model to me. What exactly would Microsoft get out of this? Sure, they’d get the respect of the OSS community, who would all be using OpenOffice at that point, unless MS decides to give away MS Office for free.”
How about every major western government introduce laws that every governmental department MUST use open document standards such as .swx etc. There would be initial conversion problems from .doc to .swx, but after that it’d be plain sailing. If Microsoft wants to conform and still have some business then they can open up the interoperability of their file formats. Of course, all it would most probably mean in that example is Microsoft introducing the ability for MS Office to read/write to .swx files, and a conversion tool for taking the formatting from .swx to .doc without issues.
In reality, that is what would make it difficult for Open Source stuff like OpenOffice to get a foothold, because Microsoft is able to “reverse engineer” the OpenOffice file formats and do all the conversions (which we can’t really do vice versa).
The only real way to fix this, is to get rid of the DMCA, and remove the ability to wrap formats in DRM for the sake of protecting them from reverse engineering under the DMCA. The Copyright Act itself allowed reverse engineering for compatiblity sake, and the DMCA has removed those rights (partially). If the US government can see how ridiculous the DMCA is, they’d amend that, thus allowing OpenOffice developers to reverse engineer the MS Office formats for better compatiblity with OpenOffice, and in the end better competition to the public. By using the DMCA and DRM wrapping to protect it’s file formats, Microsoft is simply enforcing it’s monopoly. The lawmakers in the US must be pretty THICK not to be able to see such a simple thing. Or, they simply have the business at heart, not the public. mmm. Maybe both 😉
The other way to possibly work around this is to FORCE Microsoft to port MS Office to both Linux and the BSDs. Any arguments on a small userbase are idiotic, as they currently port MS Office to OS X (which despite what many Apple fans would say has a smaller userbase than Linux).
Microsoft’s real monopoly isn’t with Windows, it’s with MS Office. It’s a tie-in. As soon as that’s broken, the rest of the flood gates will open.
Dave
Quote: “If MS released the source code to Word 2002 (or even Word 2000 for that matter), do you think a business with 10,000 employes is going to by the 2003 version when they can get the other for free?
They will if enough improvements are made. That’s the deal – make it better and people will buy it. MS rarely makes it better – they just make it different and incompatible. The first allows you to compete in an open market, the second requires an illegal monopoly and dirty tricks. ”
Yup, you’ve just about summed it up correctly. I’m always amused that the US DOJ didn’t investigate Microsoft Office, which is where Microsoft’s biggest monopoly is. Funny eh? I still hedge my money on it that the US DOJ case was a farce, with a forced verdict with minimal punishment. I’ve said it again, and i’ll keep saying it, the US Government isn’t going to hurt Microsoft (or any other large business) due to the income ejection into the US economy. To hurt Microsoft would hurt the US economy, and the US government would rather it hurt the freedoms of its people, than lose money. Businesses have NO rights, only individuals. It always amazes me how businesses end up getting so many rights.
Hopefully the European commission hammers Microsoft for not making enough “effort” and starts to fine Microsoft by 1% of their gross worldwide profit per day. And starts enforcing it by freezing all Microsoft bank accounts in European countries. Note I said freezing – not withholding. The withholding can come later 😉 Microsoft is a corporate criminal, nothing more and nothing less, and it doesn’t want to take the punishment metered out to it, but wants to twist and turn the punishment to the way that it sees fit.
To make my analogy a bit more clearer for those osnews readers that are a bit slow…As an example. We have a murderer, convicted. The judge says 20 years. His defence comes back and starts bargaining to get it reduced (to next to nothing, example a year in jail). This is what Microsoft is doing, well, they’re trying to do. If the European commission stands true to the public, and the rulings, and ACTUALLY enforces things, it will be GOOD.
Dave
“Yup, you’ve just about summed it up correctly. I’m always amused that the US DOJ didn’t investigate Microsoft Office, which is where Microsoft’s biggest monopoly is. Funny eh? I still hedge my money on it that the US DOJ case was a farce, with a forced verdict with minimal punishment. I’ve said it again, and i’ll keep saying it, the US Government isn’t going to hurt Microsoft (or any other large business) due to the income ejection into the US economy. To hurt Microsoft would hurt the US economy, and the US government would rather it hurt the freedoms of its people, than lose money. Businesses have NO rights, only individuals. It always amazes me how businesses end up getting so many rights”
I couldn’t agree more, the US is amazing in this respect.
Microsoft dosent need to consult with the Open Source community. The majority of packages that linux uses are based on standards that are available to anyone. All MS has to do is adhere to the same standards as the open source community and there you have interoperability. At least things would be documented.
-nX
NixerX, i agree whole heartedly, Open Standards are the only way to go for interoperability to work…
The real issue is: Can you trust MS?
I mean think about it…
MS has done all they can to undermine Linux and Open-source. From proprietary standards to that so-called public “facts” campaign.
Is this really an olive branch?
Or white flag?
Or some new hair-brain scheme to penetrate and destroy open-source?
We really don’t know.
My gut feeling: Something isn’t right…The sudden change of heart signals something is indeed going on at MS. Whether sinster or not, I don’t know.
What I do know is that if MS is becoming generous all of a sudden, then they have to be getting something out of it.
More like the usual poisoned chalice.