What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
70 Comments
- DickBreath, on 10/12/2007, -7/+52Microsoft, just like any other software provider, could support ODF
...which is already an international standard
...which is created and maintained by an open organization with a defined process for creating and evolving the spec
...which is free of any submarine EyePee issues (MS OOXML is patented)
The OOXML name is deliberately designed to cause confusion. Things related to OpenOffice.org are often abbreviated with OO or OOo. Microsoft purposely chose "Office Open" xml (OOXML) to be misleading.
In contrast ODF (Open Document Format) intentionally has a name that is neutral of any product, such as OpenOffice.org. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -7/+49"Microsoft wants their open standard ratified so they can compete in places where legislation mandates this"
As opposed to Microsoft simply adding support for ODF to Office?
"The only reason I can see anyone protesting this is that they want OSS software to be the only option in this market."
It's not like only open-source software can support open document formats. Nobody's trying to shut out Office itself, just its proprietary locked-in file formats. - thaibox1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38@willcode4beer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Criticism says it all. It's not a standard if the only way to render properly is by using proprietary software. There are tags in OOXML that cannot be rendered in anything other than MS Office products. - Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+44Just goes to show you how fake our Democratic government really is. It is run for the powerful and bought by the corporations. Hell, now we even have Congressmen joining in with RIAA and MPAA's Extortion tactics and helping pass laws so they can milk more money out of a public that is growing to hate them. Why should this be any surprise?
- DickBreath, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31IF it is open. But is it really open?
Look at the objections of 20 countries! The spec is over 6000 pages, ten times the size of the ODF spec. ODF relies on many existing international standards, like SVG, for instance. OOXML, in typical MS fashion, reinvents the wheel for everything: date bugs, color names, xml tag names for drawing elements, etc.
Even if the spec is published, is it really effectively open if MS is the only one that can perfectly implement it? - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -19/+41I wonder how much Microsoft paid to get this support for their "open" standard.
- DickBreath, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23@DuNuNuBatman
The ODF spec INCLUDES document types for presentations, spreadsheets, drawings, math, and word processing, etc. - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22No. It's that "Microsoft" and "Open" usually don't fit in the same sentence. It's just....odd.....
- Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19@willcode4beer
They do ***** like create an "Open Standard" that contains ***** that still contains lock in stuff, like machine specific fonts and configuration, etc. Security that fits MS platforms that don't natively work on Mac or Linux without transformers etc.
There already is an ODF, this is a reason for MS not to support it strongly. It's a reason to pretend to be in favour of open when they truely try to lock people out.
It might start off standard and then we get "Microsoft Extensions for...." which can't be turned off from an Office default save and suddenly were back where we started, where we have to play catch up to MS constantly.
Everyone knows that every year MS change .Doc format purely to obfusicate other software from using it. - Cynoclast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Is this the standard that has things like, "do this like Microsoft Word 95"?
- jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Whats with all the people commenting here? It's not "open" at all, that's just the name. It's filled with crap that makes it so only Microsoft software can utilize it. It will marginalize all other office applications, and certainly is the furthest thing from an open standard.
- Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I defy *anyone* to prove this is open. PROVE IT!
Give me a spec that anyone could go out and write an implementation for and THEN it'll be open.
Right now it's not worth the thousands of pages it's written on.
PS: Watch the turfers bury this challenge - pentium4borg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I just fell out of my chair.
- logomancer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12To those of you saying that the fast-tracking is irrelevant because: 1) it's an open format or 2) that nobody will use it anyway, allow me to counter.
First, it's not a truly open format. As has been pointed out, the spec requires that programs following the standard replicate bugs found in Microsoft products. In order to fully support the standard, programmers would have to either look at Office's source code (ha, fat chance), or attempt to reverse-engineer Microsoft's bugs (leading to a poor emulation and possible legal trouble if MS decides to be *****). Thus, this makes the MS Office suite the only possible software to follow the standard fully and correctly. This does not strike me as very open.
But I don't think that's Microsoft's goal. I think they want a standard that's been dubbed "open" by the ISO so they can go to Massachusetts (and wherever else CIOs say no to Microsoft due to its openness) and demand that their standard be accepted. If the government refuses, MS will sue their pants off. Once it's in the procurement running, Office will probably win out due to inertia -- nobody wants to use new software, a new version of Office will meet little resistance (except for those they'll see as "open source hippies" to be ignored), etc. And once the government accepts it, it becomes easier for the rest of us to justify the decision to stay with Office. This appears to be Microsoft's goal -- to increase their market share through subverting the open standards movement.
I hope that the standard was fast-tracked so the full committee could kill it and get it over with. ISO certification should go to truly open standards. - pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"Lets judge it for its merits (or lack of)."
"We" already have. It's just a dump of Microsoft's binary formats to XML. It's just a duplication of what ODF has already done and we don't need it or want it. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Lucky you had that spare keyboard on the floor.
- swizzcheez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"In this day of $100/100gig hard-drives lets ditch all binary documents."
Absolutely. I want to make sure my pics are viewable as either full blown bitmaps and thumb nailed as ASCII art through notepad. :) - Raian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12You mean that file format that no one can seem to open... unless they have Word 2007...
Great News! - neuroticus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17At this point, anyone that believes in supporting new MS formats as an open-source standard is an idiot.
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@willcode4beer:
Microsoft's "Office Open XML" is open in much the same sense that Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" was truthful. It's a propaganda technique: if you want to trick people into accepting something that's objectionable, give it a name that calls it the exact opposite of what makes it objectionable.
(If you live in the US, the "PATRIOT Act" is another good example of this technique...) - GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9http://digg.com/software/Microsoft_Office_Open_XML_and_A_Lie
FTA:
"Where Open XML fails in this definition is the following, “anyone with the necessary technical know-how and resources can build products that work together with those of the other vendors that base their designs on the standard”. The problem exist in the fact that Microsoft is in a unique position to understand and implement such elements of the standard as “2.15.3.6 autoSpaceLikeWord95 (Emulate Word 95 Full-Width Character Spacing)“. This is akin to asking Bob Uecker to hit a baseball like Babe Ruth. No matter how much Uecker tries, only Ruth could hit like Ruth." - sirhomer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11People need to fight this. If we let Microsoft do whatever they want they will continue to control the software industry.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"Thanks for using Microsoft Open XML! Please enter your 45-digit license key to continue using it. Thanks!"
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -20/+26If its "open", then who cares?
If its useful developers will use it, if not, then not.
really, who care if MS is behind it. Lets judge it for its merits (or lack of).
"the best thing about standards is there are so many to choose from" - TetchyTony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's a while since I looked at ISO rules, but there's a pretense of 'democracy' there and each 'Member' (national standards institute) gets a vote weighted roughly by country-size, in the relevant ISO 'Technical Committee'. On very many things some big countries don't know or care enough and routinely abstain or vote 'yes' for peace and quiet - so if you can find who is on the corresponding 'national' standards committee (that sets their national vote), in your own country, or a friend in another (big) country, you can remind them how necessary voting is. If you leave it to the ISO 'Secretariat' (usually held by an 'interested' member), inertia rules OK. Anyone got better info? Links to current names?
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11"Microsoft is damned no matter what they do."
They are....especially since they've been investing tons of money and time into CRUSHING open standards for many years. - GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yes
- riccohasdug, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8*pulls up chair and grabs a beer*
This is gonna be a good one. - DuNuNuBatman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Even though they are xml based documents, the content in them is zipped. From what I've seen, the size of these files are pretty small.
- deathguppie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Basically to reiterate for those people who can't RTFM. Microsoft's Open XML is NOT OPEN.
ODF is an open format in that it is a portable set of tags that can be used with any application. Microsofts OOXML was written specifically to handle Microsofts Office documents and and will ultimately be illegal to use in any other office program.
IT IS NOT A STANDARD!! - zmaniacz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=941B3470-3AE9-4AEE-8F43-C6BB74CD1466&displaylang=en
You can read the 2007 file formats with 2003. Just one little download. - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -43/+47I have been utterly appalled to find the extent of lobbying which took place in Mass. and appears to carry on at the ISO. I sometimes wonder how many threats are involved because there is a lot of money at stake -- a cash cow which accounts for 60% of the profits in that Department/Division.
Would you believe that two Mass CIO were pushed out of their jobs because they did not have the "Microsoft religion"? Well, it's true. Here's the first one.
From the previous CIO, Peter 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... 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
The successor did aninterview with ComputerWorld the other day. The stories he tells were similar.
I have assembled a list of references which show occasions where lobbying and extortion is known to have taken place:
MA Governor-Elect Names MS Anti-ODF Lobbyist to Technology Advisory Group
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20061128161343183
The Sorry State of Massachusetts
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=2006111603531029
How about the following bunch?
Microsoft offers schools in Mass. free software (to stop ODF adoption)
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6090196.html?part=rss&tag=6090196&subj=news
Microsoft playing three card monte with XML conversion
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=959
Microsoft plays Massachusetts Senate card
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32515
Naughty, naughty. But it's only part of the picture. They play the same games in Europe and the Amercian government:
Politics and tech companies: follow the money
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061110-8194.html
Report Says Nonprofits Sold Influence to Abramoff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101200889.html
Open Source Foes In Bed With Abramoff
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/12/2036223&from=rss
EU official joins consultancy serving Microsoft
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-10-03T134311Z_01_L03693228_RTRIDST_0_TECH-MICROSOFT-OFFICIAL.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna
US ambassador to the EU was former Microsoft lobbyist
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34706
US politicians go to bat for Microsoft
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/26/microsoft_eu_political_lobbying/
Then consider having lobbyists on the panel of education. As expected, they try to portray Open Source as nasty and then change reports.
Changing the Report, After the Vote
http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/01/commission
Is there hope for justice? Only hope. But exposing the reality will help stop the corruption. - jspiro, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14Moving away from doc, yes... but just because Office needs features doesn't mean that it deserves a standard. A USEFUL standard is a shared standard that accomodates the concept of "documents" as we've come to understand and use them... with extension points. M$ should patent this if they want a venue for their implementation.
- kipmarlowe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8You don't have to be a Socialist to wince when Microsoft lobbies for a proprietary format. Please stop making it so personal. You're most likely a decent guy, maybe even a good guy, but you're ***** up digg.
Though I don't agree with the delivery, I have to agree with the message, that "Microsoft is damned no matter what they do." Though, I'll admit that it's begrudgingly, and that it's taken time for me to digest and admit this to myself, as a Mac switcher and enthusiast of many months.
Fact is, if we alternate OS users attack Microsoft's every frigin' move then it's understandable that one such as OddTSi gets sick and tired of it to the point where he's just flat out suspicious. It's become like the (fan)boy, blogger, tech analyst, paid apologist who cries wolf every time, exaggerated or selective in its emphasis for maximum result. Scream every time, and there will always be those who can't possibly allow themselves to buy it because everything is so spun to death in our information-savvy society, it's hard to believe ANYthing anymore.
I sincerely have a hard time believing each successive attack on Microsoft — even though I am biased toward Apple. And what a pain in the ass it is to find a singular article or blog that tells both sides of the story. Reading the news now entails reading at least 2 articles for every topic or event. When I'm too busy, I just go forward never quite sure about what the hell is truly going on with certain issues . . .
It's a real shame because ALL legal monopolies or just companies the sheer size of Microsoft — and all political parties, or any other concentration of power — must be scrutinized in a free market that more & more accomodates larger & larger (mega)corporations, multinationals, and conglomerates, that are allowed greater & greater access to our political parties.
Can we at least all agree on that? - thx11384eb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2add another reason why I despise Microsoft for there disrespect and hostility towards anything they cant contaminate or lead direction is a threat to them.
"oh no! .... an open source format everyone can use that we can only adhere too..... not on our watch!, we don't want people to see how middle of the road our overpriced software is really no better then the free open source equivalent. Quick before its too late lets 'influence' (bribe / intimidate) to see it our way (our way or the highway)
(random thoughts of a microsoft executive.....)
Its reasons like this I tell my friends now that if you are having problems with your windows box that they are on there own, I absolutely refuse to touch a windows box and the issues that come with them anymore. I unfortunately have to deal with windows boxs at work..... I even go out of the way to tell my friends the awful things that are in vista that are restricting and hurting what they can do with there computers. I try and keep it from completely nagging on microsoft, but to highlight the features that intrude privacy and fair-use and system performance. The only way to stop things like this is to make people aware that there is choice and it doesn't always have to be to give up more for less. - setrajonas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3or you could convert your ooxml into the old formats
- Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3
Did you land in the street? - Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No offense but the statement that ODF doesn't include some features of MS is moot. The point isn't to force MS to use ODF, its that a closed, proprietary and patented format should not be adopted as a 'Standard'. If Microsoft wants to have a format that is all their own, they are welcome to it. But Standards should not be made out of something that would cost people to implement it.
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Until MS Office 2003 can open the Office XML files, most people wont use it. I have Office07 at home and Office03 at work. Most people wont use it for this reason alone...
- havaloc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5You can open and save the new Office 2007 formats in Office 2000, XP and 2003 with this free download from Microsoft. (Office 2000 is quite old, and it's still supported by this update).
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&displaylang=en
or
http://tinyurl.com/ykums3
if the link is too long. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This would be acceptable if the entire standard could be produced from the open documents. Forget the insanity of re-inventing the wheel, forget how mad the standard is. The fact you need closed information to implement this 'open' standard should be enough to kill it. Given the huge number of objections this suggests something dodgy is going on. It's unprecedented and should be resisted. The ISO have damaged themselves.
- Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@ willcode4beer (Again)
read my comment above - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That one company did it is not a problem. The standard is not fully defined. MS could implement a closed standard within this open standard easily.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Best comment on this thread. MS have arranged their format like the magic circle. This is either stupidity or corruption.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"No offense but the statement that ODF doesn't include some features of MS is moot. The point isn't to force MS to use ODF, its that a closed, proprietary and patented format should not be adopted as a 'Standard'."
Then you MUST hate MP3's. And JPEG images. And GIFs. And TIFFs. And MPEG video (1/2 or 4). And PDF files. The list goes on and on...
We as an industry adopt proprietary formats ALL THE TIME! Your criteria ignores 30 years of historical counter arguments! - jsusanka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hope they are doing this just because they don't want to deal with and it will fail like a ton of bricks and they will be done with it.
this isn't an open standard - you cannot define it as open with one company in control of the standard.
here's to hoping it will fail like a ton of bricks.
and to all those countries that are going to get money and call from microsoft within the next five months please tell them you are busy and vote no - we don't need this standard. - scomartha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Quite strange It makes me bored.
- EEdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow! Bloat, sluggishness, and flaws to the nth degree (where n is a large number). And it's possibly going to be a standard? Who paid off the committee? And are there any real engineers on it?
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"The ODF spec INCLUDES document types for presentations, spreadsheets, drawings, math, and word processing, etc."
But does it include document types that support ALL of Microsoft's features? Hell No. And if microsoft took ODF and did their "embrace and extend" trick the open source community would be up in arms! So they took their proprietary stuff and made it an ECMA standard and (soon) an ISO standard and still people feel slighted. I mean c'mon! It's easy to bash Microsoft but jeez, this isn't needed. What's microsoft to do? Drop features that don't fit into ODF? Yeah, that would fly.
Whatever Microsoft's motives were, this was good for everybody. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"I defy *anyone* to prove this is open. PROVE IT!
Give me a spec that anyone could go out and write an implementation for and THEN it'll be open."
Prove it's open? Ok. The Ecma doc is available for download. That makes it as "open" as any other standard. The point here is not whether or not it's open. The point is whether or not you'll get sued if you try and implement it. Microsoft has said it won't but i take it that you don't believe them. Let's look to history for a moment.
Take the TIFF specification for instance. It is (or at least was) freely available but NOBODY implemented a complete implementation. They didn't have to. They supported what they wanted. TIFF was put forth by Aldus (now part of Adobe). Another corporation figured out that interoperability was good. Ever hear of Adobe suing for TIFF? They made no claim that they would never sue. They just didn't sue and people trusted them to not sue. They didn't PROVE that they wouldn't sue.
For that matter, you haven't PROVEN to me that you won't sue anyone either. You must be evil for that single reason.
By the way, you don't have to implement most of it if you don't want to. It's built into the DotNet framework so any windows program can use office docs without implementing anything! If you are on Linux or OS/X then you will need to wait for the open source versions of dotnet (there's two of them: mono or dotgnu) to catch up. Again, no need for the typical programmer to implement this standard.
But if you are a purist, go and write as little or as much of the spec as you like. Nobody is stopping you. Including Microsoft -
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is