What is Digg?104 Comments
- NX910a, on 10/12/2007, -6/+129Don't worry Microsoft, I am in OpenOffice writing an opposition letter as we speak
- lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -10/+87ODF isn't just about Open Office....it's about not being forced to used proprietary document formats....so it's about not having to buy MS Office.
- deadowl, on 10/12/2007, -11/+83It would be much easier for me to use Microsoft Office if it supported ODF.
- zjmx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46The full text of the proposed legislation that Microsoft wants to block can be found here:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20070406122736199&title=Full+text+of+Ca.+A.B.+1668+-+ODF+...+Microsoft+asking+people+to+write+letters+opposing&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=555168#c555315 - beercosoftware, on 10/12/2007, -13/+43Reading through, most of you don't understand Microsoft's intent.
They could have easily added ODF to Microsoft Office products.
They ONLY made OpenXML because they were literally forced to.
Microsoft's intent by having the door open to their "standard" is actually to shift the balance back to their favor, where they can eventually replace that format with a proprietary format once again, or they can place restrictions on other companys' implementations of their OpenXML format.
The same way they did with .NET, the implementation of mono and winforms with the Novell cross patent deal.
They are pure unadulterated EVIL.
This is not a push for choice, it is a push to knock Open Source back to where it came from(in their opinion)
These people at Microsoft are vicious monsters. Don't ever forget it. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Here's the problem: Governments have budgets. Part of that budget includes buying software. If you lock yourself into a closed format you eliminate any possible competition which may save tax payers money in the long run. The switch over to an open format means the state government can now realistically look at other solutions besides Microsoft Office. Less money spent on software = more money to spend on bigger problems.
- bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35@ajrahim
That's ridiculous. Currently that's exactly what is happening with office suites competing with Microsoft - they have to use .doc,.xls, .ppt etc. And that's through reverse engineering and potentially opening themselves to legal problems.
Microsoft's alternative to ODF is no better and would be the same in forcing competing products to use their format if it succeeds. In the absense of standards Microsoft set their own and had their day breaking compatibility when it suited them. Now there is will be a standard it's up to Microsoft to support it or watch their product become less appealing to its customers. And let us remember ODF may have been based on OpenOffice.org but it is intended as a standard and was created by OASIS so it is not just an OO.o product. Koffice use it too remember. - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -16/+39I just cannot stop all those prseudo-grassroot and astroturfing campaign, can't it? Here are some recent stories...
Here is Microsoft's lobbying effort in Britain (last week)
Microsoft criticized for Open XML petition
,----[ Quote ]
| The petition is an attempt to make it appear that Open XML
| has "pseudo-grassroots" support, argues Mark Taylor, the
| founder of the Open Source Consortium.
`----
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6173625.html
Here is Microsoft using its employees to vote for itself:
Packing The Court At The ISO?
,----[ Quote ]
| ...P member countries ('participating member' countries) sending
| representatives, and I am interested to note the majority of
| their representatives are, as individuals, also Microsoft employees.
|
| [...]
|
| How can they not see that OOXML (ECMA 376) is unwanted by anyone outside of
| Microsoft? How about it Brian Jones? Are you really so desperate that you
| have to resort to that?
`----
http://lnxwalt.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/packing-the-court-at-the-iso/
It is clear that Microsoft is virtually above the law. See how they got not one, but TWO, Mass. CIOs out of their jobs because they did not support Microsoft.
Q&A: Former Mass. CIO feels 'bittersweet pride' after battles with Microsoft,
legislature
,----[ Quote ]
| As CIO of Massachusetts from February to November last year, Louis
| Gutierrez had to endure most of the brunt of Microsoft Corp.'s political
| wrath over a state policy calling for the adoption of the Open Document
| Format for Office Applications, or ODF -- a rival to the software vendor's
| Office Open XML file format.
|
| [...]
|
| Do you see any reason for there to be two standards? If you were
| starting blank-slate, there certainly would not be value to creating
| two separate standards. Over time, it has sometimes been useful to
| have the competition of two standards to keep both sides honest.
| But I don't see particular value in the long-term co-existence of
| two separate standards.
`----
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9012760&source=rss_news50
,----[ Quote ]
| Quinn: Almost to a person, to anybody involved or who knows about
| the ODF issue, they attributed the story to Microsoft, right, wrong
| or otherwise. Senator Pacheco may be a bully but I do not believe he
| is disingenious and would stoop to such a tactic. Senator Pacheco and
| Secretary Galvin's office remain very heavily influenced by the
| Microsoft money and its lobbyist machine, as witnessed by their
| playbook and words, in my opinion.
|
| Quinn: I believe that the ODF decision will stand. I believe MS
| will continue to do anything and everything it can to stop it. And I
| know my seat wasn't even empty and they (MS) took another shot at
| the title, to no avail. This horse is out of the barn and I see no
| way for it to go back in. Remember, all we are asking for was and is
| for Microsoft to commit to open and the standards process; so
| everyone looks really bad if the plug gets pulled at this juncture.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060119232859729
Then, guess what? Microsoft puts its own puppet in charge of the show:
MA Governor-Elect Names MS Anti-ODF Lobbyist to Technology Advisory Group
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20061128161343183 - yunus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Why can't everyone just use .txt its the best format available
:) - babar77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@idiggmacs
If you read the law, it actually doesn't spell out ODF. It spells out a list of requirements for the Document format they want to use. However, based on those requirements, ODF is the clear choice especially when you consider the requirements:
"(2) Fully published and available royalty-free.
(3) Implemented by multiple vendors.
(4) Controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive
process for evolution of the standard."
IMO, I believe that this law is written very intelligently, and I can understand the logic and reasoning behind it. MS knows this and is trying to turn this into a battle of OpenXML vs ODF. All MS would have to do if they wanted OpenXML adopted is to release OpenXML to an open standards organization royalty free, and it could become considered under this bill. So in reality, this is not a question of choice as MS states, they just want control so they can charge potential competitors insane amounts of royalties to prevent them from entering the market. I don't know how many more times MS needs to get whacked with anti-trust laws before they learn their lesson. - Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Dear Microsoft:
Hell no.
Signed,
Sneakernets - antiNeo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20@se1zure
Apache > IIS
G++ > VisualC++
Firefox > IE
Everything else is debatable, but open source has a few clear winners. - Arainach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16jrbrewin: Have you looked at MS's OpenXML spec? It's thousands of pages. It has things like "Handle this like Word 6". And it has an insane amount of unnecessary bloat made not for ease of implementation but to maintain backwards compatibility. It's impossibly complex and vague in many areas. It's not a valid standard at all.
- rmxz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16NX910a: hope you do it soon. Rumors are that there are significant meetings on the bill this week.
- lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Well compare it to HTML and other open standard formats. If everyone has to make their word processors use the same format, then no matter which word processor you use, you'll be able to open documents. Presently, I would rather use OpenOffice to do my school work but they require any assignments to be in MS Word .Doc format. How is that fair to anyone? If ODF were the standard, I could write the doc in OpenOffice and the professor could open it in MS Office. MS shouldn't have that kind of control. It forces people to buy a product when there are alternatives available for free. It'd be like requiring that everyone buy a Porsche in order to drive on Interstates. This move to ODF is like requiring that all car makers make their cars available for anyone to drive on any road. The ONLY people this will hurt is Microsoft. Thats why they are totally against it.
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19I love this attitude about government, as if somehow decisions on important topics have to come after the so called "big issues". People clearly have no idea how government works.
- lolgamoff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18ODF is pretty much better than .doc. Open source is the future, Microsoft needs to open their eyes. They can't stop everything.
- zjmx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I'm a real person - just prefer relative anonymity - in this case from my employer, since we're a very dedicated Microsoft partner (our execs seem more loyal to Microsoft than to it's own employers & shareholders - I wonder what the Microsoft sales guys do for them). If my employer knew who I was, there's a decent chance there'd be retaliation since one of the things they seem to worry about more than anything is tightening our relationship to Microsoft, and certainly this Digg article could damage that.
- TehDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@jrbrewin
If you did research, you would find that, yes, developers have had to reverse engineer these formats to get them to work. The lead programmer for KOffice has explained why you can't save files as .doc and can only open them: he has to look at the files in a hex viewer and figure out how they work for himself. To be fair, the new .docx format is open, but why can't MS just pour their billions into helping get the ODF standard done? I don't think that by making it convenient for people to open other people's files in their app of choice would erode their market share. Hell, I like Office 07, and I'd use it if it worked through Wine, but only once I got the ODF plugin.
"yet on the other very few corporate customers care about it"
I'm sure that a lot actually do care, especially in Europe where the switch to Linux is happening on a large scale. - mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This is yet another stroturfing tactics by Microsoft. Microsoft needs to realize that most of their customers use their product not because they like to use it or it is the best tool for the job anymore. Most people who use Microsoft product nowdays are because they are simply unaware of the alternatives out there.
Many homes have more than one computer nowdays. Does Microsoft seriously expect people to spend $200+ on every machine to upgrade Office? Does Microsoft also expect corporations to spend that much money on every desktop and then spend many times more for training? - lengau, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@se1zure: Ever use Firefox (FF>IE, FF~=Opera)?
- selrahc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Perhaps not, but I'm not going to pay $400 for features I don't use. Many people don't need (insert feature here) so for them the free software makes a lot more sense. For the people that do need (feature), then the software is probably worth the money. Isn't this article about document standards and not software though?
- NYG1988, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm an admitted Microsoft fanboy, but this is ridiculous. It will benefit Microsoft for open source to flourish. And really, what right does MS have to tell a legislature they shouldn't encourage innovation?
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ajrahim
the whole ODF thing make the subject of office programs about OPEN file formats and not about programs. There are at least 3 separate projects working on ODF in MS Office, one even started by Microsoft. Microsoft has enjoyed profits from beaurcratic fiat for years... i.e. nobody passes a law to make them a monopoly, but all the managers "just agree" to keep buying Microsoft products as the prices go higher and higher.
In MA it got all sorts of press because it was a "department" decision instead of the legislature. Even in MA they didn't mandate Open Office, they mandated the state provde and accept all documentation in open formats... ODF was just one. Microsoft was not on the list because they don't really support large scale historical databasing of files in old formats.
What we have now is that department heads just tell everybody to use MS Office to not be contary.. but it's a $400 program and that's not really fair for state agencies to demand offical business be conducted thru only 1 company's products.. especially WITHOUT passing a law about it!!!! - imac600, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm writing a letter to support this right now. (Go OpenOffice!)
- Zipp425, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10When you use ODF, you use it with Hitler
http://nctr.cob.fsu.edu/special/hitler_lg.jpg - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's what I've been saying.
- Hungryhaney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There already IS only 1 document format, and that is made, patented and obscured by Microsoft. Your rant is valid, you just don't realize that you are railing at the wrong people.
Kind of silly of you. - jsleno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4?????
How is ODF clamping down business interests?
If anything, ODF is opening up business opportunities to more software developers. They won't all be judged by how well they utilize Microsoft's proprietary format. They will be judged by how well they use an open, standard format.
If Microsoft's formats are the standard, it stands to reason that no other company will ever be able to handle Microsoft's proprietary formats as well as Microsoft. THAT is what clamps down business interests. - grilw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Anything to take from the rich and give back to the average joes is a worthy cause in my opinion !
Just look at Firefox .... AVERAGE people with BRIGHT ideas came together to give something to the public FOR FREE , and this something is ten times better than the patented, mass produced , EXPENSIVE Internet Explorer .
I can't wait for the day where the system revolves around people-helping-people , rather than corporation-selling-to-people.
Microsoft can whine all it wants . It's a business, use your innovation and make people WANT to pay money , as they currently do . Not for long though . - jasonmacari, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This strategy of trying to lawyer the competition to death is wearing thin. Microsoft should focus on developing products good enough that people want to pay to use them over the free alternatives.
Free Linux does a serviceable job for 95% of what I do on a computer, but I'm willing to spend money on Tiger because of what a great job Apple has done with it. - trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17"They are pure unadulterated EVIL."
I know, their baby eating and kitten decapitations are nothing compared to their opposition as a corporate entity to a word processing format that could make one of their flagship products obsolete, and seriously anger their stockholders ( whom they must appease by law ) . They make Kim Jung Ill look like a Buddhist monk, those evil fire breathing bastards!
( in summery, calm down a little on the fanaticism ) - nickwebb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9The point shouldn't be focused on furthering ODF or OO.org or Office - the real concern should be that the government is trying to force any company to have their software support 'x' through legislation!
If the government had a hand placed in Microsoft stock, which at the very least they do with their adoption of Office alone, then they should lobby for an ODF standard just like every other person and group.
Legislation is not for empowering the government, it's to restrict it. - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ Microsoft
"AB 1668 establishes a "procurement preference" for Open Document Format (ODF) which is an open source software format only supported by a FEW software vendors..."
As opposed to OpenXML which is supported by only ONE which is, the last time I checked, actually LESS than a few... Humm...
"We believe that Open XML represents an exciting advance toward achieving the original vision of XML, where broad interoperability allows documents to be archived, restructured, aggregated and re-used in new and dynamic ways."
That's an exciting advance indeed! Almost as exciting as ODF which has already been doing exactly that for years! Wow! If they "advance" OpenXML some more, perhaps in a few years they might actually refine and simplify it to the point where some other vendor has even a slight chance to be able to read/write it properly!
"It is important to recognize that ODF and Open XML were created with very different design goals [...] ODF is closely tied to OpenOffice and related products, and reflects the functionality in those products."
Right again! OpenOffice and ODF do indeed reflect their design goals of developing a completely functional FOSS replacement for the incredibly expensive Microsoft Office package which has actually *increased* in price over the last decade (as a percentage of an average new computer cost.) And OpenXML was indeed created with a very different design goal: to make sure people can't use alternative application packages on a common data set by ensuring the files saved by the dominant MS Office suite are so throughly borked in the vague and ill-defined OpenXML format that no other vendor has a remote chance of reading and writing them! True again!
Wow! So much truth from Microsoft in such a short paragraph! I'm so glad they are looking out for us! I mean, who in their right mind would possibly want to be able to source multiple applications from multiple vendors which are able to edit/save a common format owned by none of them? Such a level playing field would obviously be a disaster! - rlbigfish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I like to think that they're just really smart business people. I am totally against how they do business, but I acknowledge that they know what they're *****' doing.
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3look at it another way... states are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year to Microsoft.. one company... with nobody actually voting on what they're getting in terms of features... MS Office is "industry standard" so they "have" to buy it. Hell, they're the state!! if they install 50,000 seats of OpenOffice then it BECOMES a standard other people will use. OpenOffice is free and does 90% of what MS Office does. The states are smart and not actually disallowing Microsoft, they're just demanding that data be open so that lots of companies can compete for state contracts, not Just Microsoft... that's a good thing.
Remember, that's what MA was also about... about formats that could be archived and then read in 10 years... needless to say, Microsoft formats fail miserably if you don't convert docs with every single version.... and their formats can't "legally" be read without the software so if Microsoft decides to stop making Word 6.0 converters then the state could have millions of pages unreadable... versus ODF were all the docs can be manapulated with just a text editor and gzip. - bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@strabes
You'd probably say the same about most things that Government look after until it affected you personally. So what - in the absence of ability to say, stop world hunger or lower energy consumption they shouldn't bother working on anything else?
When in doubt, procrastinate. - radiofrequency, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Zealotry is using proprietary, insecure, overpriced products from a convicted monopolist like Microsoft.
- zjmx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What kind of government?
A good analogy is how the Federal Government had to step in to standardize pipe-fittings (sizes & threads)-- which used to be totally incompatible with each other so your plummer was locked in to a specific pipe manufacturer once he started with one pipe.
Microsoft's doing the same with software - having their own standards incompatible with the rest. In both cases it's totally appropriate for the government to insist on standards based components - especially for their own projects. - EruLabs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@se1zure:
OOo is MUCH better than office 07. Hands down. Any day. Except PowerPoint.
Yeah, so what, Gimp is OK and photoshop is one of the best applications ever created on any platform under any operating system in any language. You know how easy it is to get photoshop running on a *nix platform?
And I was beaten to it, but look at OSS's pride and joy, FireFox. - Limp_Trizkit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Don't you mean 'Microsoft doesn't own California'? If the "Governator" was really the one in charge of MS...well, just think of what that would do to his next election.
- jsusanka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@zjmx
good for you - keep up the honesty - glad you submitted
I think it also speaks volumes when a person like this is so afraid of retaliation for speaking the truth.
odf is lightyears better than doc. - Me1000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Do research before you comment!
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ODF qualifies for 2,3 &4 because:
the standard is open and free.. published to ISO in europe and royalty-free
the standard is implemented in not just OpenOfficel.org, but also Abiword, KOffice and some others.
The standard is controlled by ISO, so it's going to be slow changing. The group that wrote the standard is a non-profit funded, but not controlled, by Sun and other companies are free to contribute.
Microsoft is free to implement the standard.. hell, at least 2 other groups of people are already doing that for them, but there are limits to how well it works because of all hte secret, undocumented stuff in MS Office. - jasorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you want to put it into law, the format shouldn't be stipulated. Just open source. Why stipulate xml?
- jsusanka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2speaks volumes about a company that won't support an open standard but will try to influence legislation against it.
I hope the doj is watching this kind of behavior - this is nothing but microsoft showing their muscle and trying to control an industry and refusing to work with other members of the industry that support open standards and not microsoft's proprietary standards. - ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Microsoft is going through it's email and phone lists "
http://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=itsitshg0.gif
/you idiots - zjmx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@cypherz
@jsusanka
Your're welcome - just please send off an letter-or-fax-or-email (if you're in CA). It makes it all worthwhile if this dig posting has an effect. - Me1000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Personally im a Def Leppard fan!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
