Google has released a statement regarding the decision not to fast-track Microsoft’s OOXML for certification. “Google welcomes the ISO decision to not approve the fast track of Office Open XML proposed standard DIS 29500 (ECMA 376). Our engineers conducted an independent analysis of the OOXML specification and found several areas of concern, which we communicated both to the ISO and to the public.”
Although its pleasing that another company is moving to support ODF, allowing access to this format through any computer that has a browser installed.
I *never* thought for a second that the Office Monopoly would be threatened so easily. I thought it was rock solid.
As good news as this is. My sense of justice cannot stomach that the discrepancies over Microsoft openly buying votes has not been addressed. Even less that they have been covered up…openly. They should have been banned from submitting any specification, and an investigation of members taken place, and those found to be corrupt removed…without this the same creeps will be about in February. Additionally ECMA should not be allowed to fast-track *anything* from now on their behavior has been disgraceful, and OOXML should have immediately reverted to the standard submission procedures, anything less and its open season for *any* company to buy a standard although few companies hold the kind of money/influence that Microsoft has.
I actually consider the voting to be a success on Microsoft’s behalf this time. They got away with it *again*. All we will see in February is them making token changes addressing the more minor concerns raised about OOXML even without a real time frame to raise *all* the concerns, and the crooked feeling more confident for voting for a format that shouldn’t exist.
Edited 2007-09-16 14:11
As I see it, the Office monopoly is (unfortunately) as solid as before, and I’ve seen the proof in this voting.
Not only have some of the voters been completely irresponsible — Cuba voting “yes” for a format it is not allowed to use and Azerbaijan also voting “yes” for a format that cannot use the Azeri native language — but the rest of the voters seemed almost asleep.
Microsoft must have spend a huge amount of time and resources lobbying (and maybe even paying) for votes. News of this unfair behavior has surfaced several times — but nobody has reacted in any way. As you have suggested, ECMA shouldn’t be allowed to fast-track anything else in the future, and the countries that have been shown to vote based on other concerns than those which OOXML “tries” to address (interoperability, consistency etc.) should be banned from voting on it again. This does require a strong reaction though — which I haven’t seen.
I agree that this is Microsoft’s success. Not being fast-tracked only means a bit of extra time, just enough to convince a few other voters of the, cough, technical superiority of OOXML.
Frankly, if OOXML makes it into an ISO standard (and I doubt it won’t), I can easily see the future — it’s happened again, over and over, in the days of NT vs. NetWare. Open standard first, let everyone adopts it, and then the strategy quickly changes to one that guarantees vendor lockdown and there go another ten years of monopoly.
“Not only have some of the voters been completely irresponsible — Cuba voting “yes” for a format it is not allowed to use and Azerbaijan also voting “yes” for a format that cannot use the Azeri native language — but the rest of the voters seemed almost asleep.”
That’s exactly what happens when you leave decisions to persons that don’t have a clue about what they are requested to form an opinion about, or people who value individual financial benefits over honest and educated decisions. Maybe, they are completely desinteressed in the decision process and MICROS~1 tells them “Just vote ‘yes’ and we won’t bother you anymore.” Way of the most minimal resistance…?
I don’t get it, if OOXML becomes an ISO standard what could stop Cubans from using it? It’s not like it’s a Microsoft product (like Office), it’s just a format.
They can use it with Open Office or any other office suit that supports the format, am I right?
“I don’t get it, if OOXML becomes an ISO standard what could stop Cubans from using it? It’s not like it’s a Microsoft product (like Office), it’s just a format.”
They can use it with Open Office or any other office suit that supports the format, am I right?”
If it truly was an open standard…obviously, thats the point. I will quote from the article linked to above which is about a page long.
” * for a specification of this size it was not given enough time for review;
* the undocumented features of OOXML prevents its implementation by other vendors;
* dependencies on other Microsoft proprietary formats and their technical defects makes it difficult to fully implement; and
* the overall cost for vendors of implementing multiple standards (hence the lack of OOXML implementations in the marketplace).”
Although you can find more comprehensive details all over the web that go into levels of details in this instance it seems ironic to type “Google is your friend”
Edited 2007-09-16 17:06
That’s right, but at least it is a very detailed specification, unlike, say, the ODF specification, which is rather sketchy.
This is a questionable statement. First, the specification is so huge, that we have not had time to thoroughly and fully scrutinize it — Google says so itself — thus we cannot say with certainty that some features are not documented.
Second, even if some features weren’t documented, we could not know unless we see a feature in action that is not part of the specification. And even then we are just confronted with the issue that MS is obviously not capable of adhering to their own specification.
This is among the justified concerns that stopped the fast track appeal and I have nothing to add.
This is not a strong argument. Third party vendors always implemented the formats of the market leader(s), be it 1-2-3 or MS Word, albeit on a licensing agreement level. The current situation is in this respect already an improvement. The lack of OOXML implementations is owed to the fact that OOXML is not among the market leading formats yet (and hopefully never will be) and not that supporting multiple formats is too expensive.
Anyway, I have no doubt that we will see OOXML pass the standards body and be made into an ISO standard. If this is a good or bad thing largely depends on the circumstance if you believe that the specification is complete and platform independent. I’m not really huge in word processor formats, but there are arguments for both sides.
@B.Janssen
If your trying to play some kind of smack down on formats. I don’t care. I can read your lies, they are pretty transparent, and trivial to refute. I don’t actually care take it up with Google or the countries that voted it not to be standard. The numerous experts around the net. I only wrote the comment because the information he was asking for was in the article.
The bottom line and the article says it. ODF was approved unanimously, Microsoft couldn’t get it approved even after abusing the voting system, seriously how bad does it have to be to *cheat* and still not get it approved. We are not talking a small scale abuse 11 countries had their voting status changed, and other countries had massive influxes of new members. Microsoft couldn’t pay for it to be approved.
Edited 2007-09-16 18:09
Wow, you seriously need to calm down and learn the difference between a civil discussion and a personal attack.
Personal attack? Looked more like stating the obvious to me.
I’m afraid in this instance you are mistaken, although I suspect you are trying to paint a different picture of the situation.
I simply refuse to engage in *any* discussion regarding the validity of the OOXML as an open standard. The limited number of supporters have openly been paid off. I read your reasons called them lies and moved on.
In my opinion even discussing it as an open standard is a nonsense. You don’t have to look very hard on Live.com to find *experts* discuss how bad it is.
I regret posting *Google’s* own findings which aren’t out of line with the 100’s posted on the net. Simply because that is not the *News* here.
I’m not here to tell you what to do or think, just consider spending less time divining what my intentions are and more time addressing what I wrote.
Technically this should actually be possible, since my stated opinions don’t touch upon the status of OOXML but on the structure of the arguments geared against the fast-track proposal and a (any) second document format. Anyway, considering your hostility towards differing opinions I guess we have to agree to disagree on the validity of those arguments.
The ODF specification is pretty much as detailed as the OOXML specification, just instead of having to document every piece of the existing standards in a slightly different way. By reusing existing standards, software is able to use existing implementations of the standards and make their own specification a lot shorter without sacrificing the detail.
“The ODF specification is pretty much as detailed as the OOXML specification, just instead of having to document every piece of the existing standards in a slightly different way. By reusing existing standards, software is able to use existing implementations of the standards and make their own specification a lot shorter without sacrificing the detail.”
This could have been achieved by Microsoft as well, if the standards OOXML re-uses would be open and widespread. If it was using SVG and MathML, for instance, it would be perfectly fine, since many apps with potential OOXML support already support these. But this is not the case; OOXML uses VML (which is proprietary) and DrawML, which lost the “war” with SVG a couple of years ago for becoming a W3C standard. This is hardly “re-using” standards — with standards that haven’t been used at all in years! This is hardly what I would call re-use.
At the end of the day, it pays off to see the problems involved in elaborating a format based purely on business interest and not based on public consultation. ODF has been improved in time. OOXML could be improved, if the company behind it would be interested in improving it, rather than just consolidating a monopoly.
edit: ffffh, sorry to say but you’re not even close. There are several applications that support ODF and can compete with Microsoft Office, with OO.org and SunOffice being only a few. The number of bugs is irrelevant here; there’s no way to know how many bugs MS Office has.
ODF can be, and is supported by several applications that are quite widely used for a domain that is dominated by a monopoly. There are several cases when standards have prevailed despite being respected only by a minority of users; see the case with W3C’s standards, which are a major concern for every web developer today, despite Microsoft not caring about them until Firefox came along.
Edited 2007-09-17 14:10
A pretty good example was something like <Wordperfect 50header>, or something along those lines. There is NO definition of how a Wordperfect 5.0 header should work.
You know the even more funny part? In government bribery is called “lobbying”, and it happens every day. He with the most money buys laws.
I see a pattern forming….
I think people are becoming more aware of the problems surrounding lobbyism all the time; I set up a site recently in the hope of solving this issue to a certain extent: http://virtualvote.net (Still looking for help)
The OOXML issue with ISO is just one example how a supposedly unbiased organization can be easily corrupted.
Edited 2007-09-16 17:56
While I agree with the statements regarding ooxml, I doubt google is able to be perfectly un-bias when it comes to anything related to microsoft.
“I doubt google is able to be perfectly un-bias when it comes to anything related to microsoft.”
be very careful. To label Google anti-Microsoft…or any company anti-Microsoft shows, not even the basic understanding of large business.
The best example of this is the cartel formed by companies who are in direct competition over these formats, artificially raising prices, by paying each other off over failed bids to the Government, and I suspect this is worldwide
Now if you look over to your left you will the same and other companies supporting a little format war raging in hi-def that companies have aligned themselves certain allegiances. Some of those may surprise you.
And finally look over to your right you will see the companies involved in pushing the standard though ECMA, now those should really surprise you *even* if you are aware of a few 100 million payout by Microsoft to at least 3 of those companies.
Look them up. Its fun, You will notice that these large companies shift allegiances depending on how they are paid off, what benefits them…they are self serving and the lines between these companies are not clear. In business there are no friends or enemies just *money*.
Edited 2007-09-16 17:03
So you are saying that google would love to give microsoft a helping hand to make ooxml a standard? Doesn’t look like it.
I didn’t mean just anything microsoft related but specifically the on-topic subject of ooxml I would not expect a google analysis regarding ooxml to be completely un-bias. I am not saying it would be lies and concoctions but would likely be a overly-critical eye considering…
Thanks for modding my post down….for?????
Edited 2007-09-16 17:29
“So you are saying that google would love to give microsoft a helping hand to make ooxml a standard? Doesn’t look like it.”
I’m saying that the world is not black and white in business. I can follow some twists, make educated guesses. But if your guess is that its about Money you will always be right.
Now have you had a look at the lists I’ve given you…anything spring to mind?
Without stretching my grey cells I can think of several scenarios where Google might make a deal with Microsoft over proprietary file formats. If you can’t you should stop posting.
think of several scenarios where Google might make a deal
Or they may make a deal with SUN and shun MS or make a deal with XYZ or…or..or…
Which would support my statement that google would be hard pressed to not be bias in one way or another – wouldn’t it!
Google is likely bias because they are a company and as such would look to further their interests (if they have any) regardless if that is pro or anti microsoft!
A good dictionary would help with the definition of ‘bias’
I think that’s a given. Google is obviously putting some of its weight behind the actual ISO standard (while supporting MS’s .doc and .xls formats – haven’t tried with docx and xlsx yet), and therefore it’s going to point out flaws in the format. It’s in their interests, but it’s also in the interest of users.
I personally thing OOXML is a lure. Brian Jones itself has admitted that future versions of office will not necessarily follow changes made to OOXML. Furthermore, from a strategic point of view, I don’t think MS ever really intended to make their Office suite use a truly open file format. It’s the cornerstone of their desktop empire, after all.
For MS, OOXML is first and foremost a way to keep governments from adopting ODF without committing to suporting OOXML as a standard when, and if, it passes ISO certification. Office still has a virtual monopoly (though OpenOffice usage is undoubtedly inching up), and it is one of MS’s main source of income. MS simply does not have anything to gain from using truly open file formats.
I’m not sure about that. Imagine what would happen if Microsoft did decide to fully support ODF (so that it could be opened directly, and set to be the default save format) in Office 2007.
Instantly, Microsoft could claim ISO compliance for Office 2007.
Instantly, Office 2007 would once again become unquestionably the best office product for now and going forward into the future.
Microsoft would no longer have to support an expensive campaign to get ISO approval for OOXML against the overwhelming tide of technical opinion.
Since Office 2007 would now be ISO complaint, then governments worldwide could easily specifiy it for procurement.
PR gains for Microsoft would be significant.
Sales of Office 2007 would undoubtedly increase considerably.
… all of that seems like significant benefits to Microsoft to me.
I’m afraid you’ve got it all wrong. MS Office has nothing to gain from using a truly open file format, because it needs to lock users in in order to maintain its alread-dominant position.
It seems the cause of your error is to believe that MS Office can make important gains as far as market share goes. In reality, it’s very hard for Office to gain a bigger market share than it already has (up of 90%) – basically, the only it can go now is down. If ODF became *the* standard and MS Office actually supported it, people would be free to use any Office suite out there and not worry about document compatibility. Far from increasing MS Office sales, that would mean a lot more people using “good enough” alternatives, such as OpenOffice.org. It would also mean more competition from other commercial packages.
“So you are saying that google would love to give microsoft a helping hand to make ooxml a standard?”
Sure they would, if it would benefit them enough.
yea, and that would still be ‘bias’
But in this situation here, the one the thread is about, the article…ya know…a ‘helping hand’ doesn’t appear to be the case.
Why just let user to decide which Office Suite is better, MS Office or OpenOffice.org, offering them an alternative ?
Google should involve deeply in OO development or sponsor devs to do that.
There are many problems at user level interface, even lack of functionality, problems that can be solved.
Writing good documentations, advanced or entry level for basic/python, can attract new developers (even users of MS Office).
Having good opensource Office suite(s) (any of OO, Koffice or GNOME Office) doesn’t matter if OOXML is standardized by ISO.
Edited 2007-09-16 21:31
“Why just let user to decide which Office Suite is better, MS Office or OpenOffice.org, offering them an alternative ?”
Because when it comes down to it, people making decisions can, and will, stick with what they know. Even if it costs more, makes little technical sense, or keeps them in the upgrade cycle.
Allowing the market to decide, when, at this point, Microsoft owns the market, isn’t doing ones best to make a fair marketplace for it’s consumers.
Well if OO.o has sun behind it and the issues haven’t been fixed, What makes you think Google will help? I think that for the next version of OO.o a code refresh is in-order for a couple of reasons. The code needs to be more accessible by people not familiar with the project, they should separate the UI and the core functionality so that different OS can get a UI specific to them (then we won’t have the issues with OSX, that we have now) It should also encourage innovation in the UI space of the project since it theory it should be a lot easier to put together a UI without having to go into the depth of the core of the project.
“Well if OO.o has sun behind it and the issues haven’t been fixed,”
I got so far unless you say them OpenOffice has none.
I understand the interest in the excellent OpenOffice suite. This announcement is different, and more collaboration on the suite is a good idea. I believe that there are efforts elsewhere to put a web front-end on OpenOffice
The major drawback to OpenOffice is the best way. In transferring documents between parties is to use the .doc which will never be as compatible as Microsofts Office suite, and the overhead of checking documents is not viable.
Sending a document currently in ODF currently relies on the recipient installing a 3rd party plug-in to Office. Or installing a copy of OpenOffice.
What has changed by this announcement is that anyone with a browser can read/edit a document and not just Firefox that will support ODF natively…and people are comfortable using a browser.
Not just every Office Suite,but every application reinforces it as a real standard rather than a Microsoft de-facto one…or a bought one.
Collaboration is an important part of Open-source but Open formats always trump Open-source as they will create true competition, which creates a healthy computer environment. ODF is simply larger than OpenOffice.
From Slashdot: “Lack Of Developers Delays OpenOffice.org” http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/20/2157235
To create an important quantity existing ODF documents, it needed a meaningful number of users, users which try OO and if see inconsistent GUI or miss functionality of applications will give up and go back to old office.
Even compilation of OpenOffice is bit complicated (and different) than ./configure && make && make install, usually is ending with weird errors.
Edited 2007-09-16 22:56
Who the heck compiles OpenOffice.org to install it??
From Slashdot: “Lack Of Developers Delays OpenOffice.org” http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/20/2157235
WOW.
From Phoronix: “OpenOffice.org 2.3.0 Quietly Released”
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjA2MA
It seems OpenOffice was not delayed on the latest version, but released early 3 days ago. In direct contrast with a stack of Applications
Whats also shocking is that I have use Gentoo and have build every version from source of Office since it was put on my machine.
…but again you are of topic. Fortunately on the GNU platform ODF being a standard its available on Other Office packages, you can simply choose one.
…your post is off-topic and not in keeping with current events.
I am fully on topic.
Attacking OOXML to support what? ODF standard ?
ODF standard that can’t be supported if there are not well designed and written applications which used.
There are many other opensource applications much more complicated than an office suite – like servers, CAD systems – that just download tar.gz archive and compile without any problem on many OSes.
Lack of developers or interest don’t kill OO development just significant slowing-down development process and allowing OOXML to advanced and spread rapidly.
No your off-topic. The reason being ODF is a format not a office suite. It can be implemented…and it has been by packages other than OpenOffice.
I’m not into playing Office Smackdown. A genuine standard like this one should be implemented by *all* and the Office programs should be chosen for their own merit…and that includes Microsoft Office.
I like OpenOffice. I’ve installed it on friends machines…and most like it. The only two things I ever get asked is “How do I save as a .doc file”(well variations of that), and “where is the clipart?”. Because its good enough.
I know that OpenOffice isn’t perfect. I assume it has lots of problems, the biggest being its a massive ex-proprietary package gone open-source, and has all the difficulties associated with that.
Now you say you can’t compile the source; that it hard locks on X – I want to see bugzilla entries; forum posts; irc logs, or even better your invoice for StarOffice 8.
Now as for your comment about OO development slowing down. I’m more than a little surprised considering 2.3 was released early, and just look at that changelog.
http://development.openoffice.org/releases/2.3.0.html
look its out *today*
I’m also surprised at you pointing out lack of development interest.
http://www.linux.com/feature/119101
Look at that news IBM is starting to to get involved adding their code and resources read it *35* dedicated developers.
Your a liar, The bottom line is this is not about OpenOffice its about KOffice and Google Docs & Speadsheets, and the list of supported applications begin to grow Firefox; Lotus Notes etc etc
Just look at them all.
* Akshar Naveen (multilingual office suite)
* Aukyla (document management system)
* DocMgr (document management system)
* eZ publish (free OS content management system)
* GNOME Office (free collection of desktop productivity apps)
* IBM Workplace (client-side framework for creating server-managed business applications)
* Knomos (workflow and knowledge management application for law firms)
* KOffice (free office suite for KDE)
* Lenteja (text document repository)
* NeoOffice (a port of OpenOffice.org to the Mac OS X)
* Scribus (OS desktop publishing app)
* SoftMaker Office (German office suite)
* TEA (text editor)
* Visioo Writer (OpenDocument file viewer)
* Writely (Web-based word processor, currently in beta)
* Software602’s 602PC Office Suite
* JustSystem’s Ichitaro office suite, which the Wikipedia identifies as the second most common Japanese office software
* Mozilla Firefox
And more look at all the applications that do ODF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_applications_supporting_OpenDo…
This is not about OpenOffice its about OpenDocument
Edited 2007-09-17 13:03
Really ?
And way there are no significant/visible changes from a long period of time in Impress, Drawing or even Write.
And tell me which of this long list of applications that can read and write ODF files types, which one can create create presentations PowerPoint or handle diagrams in Visio style and in same time is opensource, cross-platform and can compete with MS Office?
And about bugs search in bug report reports from Ubuntu and Debian.
Please re-read my post it covers all your points including a list to many applications. I understand all applications have bugs if that is your point I agree, I’ve pointed to list where many bugs are fixed. I thought you said you had a problem with it hard-locking X I was expecting a link to your bug reports, forum post etc etc. clearly if you cannot supply these then I am suspicious of your motives.
…but an additional point this is not an Open source discussion. This has nothing to do with Open source this is about an Open Formats.
I would *love* for Microsoft and *any* company to implement ODF regardless of whether the code is available or not.
“I would *love* for Microsoft and *any* company to implement ODF regardless of whether the code is available or not.”
I know it’s offtopic but I can’t help. I just voted your post up for this phrase. I agree completely; companies can keep their code secret if they think it’s such a great asset. What I care about is being able to use whatever I want, regardless of what my friends and colleagues use.
BTW, Visio is not a “true” Office application. It was bought recently, and is not as well-integrated as other Office apps.
As far as PowerPoint goes, Impress is sufficient for the vast majority of presentations. Having had to sit through too many “pimped up” presentations, I can safely say that adding features to PowerPoint has only made the situation worse, not better.
Anyway, all of this is irrelevant. ODF is an approved ISO standard. It’s also a clean, non-patent-ecumbered standard, and not a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing design to preserve Microsoft’s desktop dominance like OOXML.
It is also extensible, in a practical sense. If Corel comes in and says “Hey guys, we need this addition to ODF to support this cool feature of WordPerfect”, there is a pretty good chance it will get in. Now… imagine Corel going to Microsoft and saying “Hey guys, we need this addition to OOXML to support this cool feature of WordPerfect”. What do you think are the chances that it will get in?
Not everyone was included in the first round. But in successive rounds, I think we can expect an expanded ODF standard. How many more players will contribute to the next OOXML “standard”, I wonder?
Edited 2007-09-18 01:03
Google is a big company. Most of them are doing other things and are not rabidly anti-Microsoft.
The “Open Source” group is a different beast, apparently. Looking at this article, which is just another parrotting of the GrokDoc/Rob Weir claims, and the behavior of Chris DiBona on OSI License-discuss about the Microsoft Open Source licenses, one could argue that the Google Open Source group is just another one of those FOSS organizations that are more anti-Microsoft than pro-FOSS. After all, the Program Manager (Chris) of this group was a former Slashdot editor.
If Google do little to help OO, just talking, other interested in OpenOffice – RedHat, Novell, Canonical … – do something ?
It not seeing.
OO still can crash Xorg server and lock the system.
Luckily many times just logging on console via serial port or network interface and killing of soffice.bin unlock keyboard and GUI if X is not corrupted.
I don’t think that Google Office can handle documents with hundred of pages, many images or plugins to import, let say, technical drawings, diagrams.
Edited 2007-09-16 23:24
Acutally, Novell is probably only second to Sun in terms of paid developers working on OO. So they are doing something, can’t speak to Canonical or RedHat because I don’t know how many paid developers they have on OO, though I suspect it’s fairly close to zero.
IBM’s recent announcement may see some more developers thrown into the fray. Google’s assistance would certainly be appreciated as well.
But the problem runs deeper. OO is based on hideous code that is more than a decade old. It needs a tear-down/rebuild if it’s going to remain sustainable.
At the rate KOffice is developing, it could conceivably surpass OO, the advantage being that it designed to be modular and based on a fairly powerful existing framework, whereas OO is neither. KOffice 2.0 builds are already running “natively” on win32, so who knows?
Personally, I like the capability of OO, I like the implementation of KOffice, but neither serves my requirements adequately so I’m stuck with MSO. I’d love to see either project grow to the point where I can use it day-to-day.
Just my 2c…
“””
But the problem runs deeper. OO is based on hideous code that is more than a decade old. It needs a tear-down/rebuild if it’s going to remain sustainable
“””
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Great post with a blast from the past!
Is it possible that we are finally seeing the beginning of the end to the decade-long era of designed-in lock-in in computing as practiced by Microsoft?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070917053717322
…
Edited 2007-09-17 10:08