What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.76 Comments
- chad78, on 10/12/2007, -13/+50The ISO isn't known for having multiple standards for the same thing. That's why you have a standard - one way of doing something. OpenDocument is an XML-based structure for office files - the MS submission is also an XML-based structure for office files (I use the word office files not to mean Microsoft Office, but any office suite). That would be like having two ISO standards for Petroleum and natural gas industries -- Drilling fluid materials -- Specifications and tests. It would negate the reason for having a standard.
Besides, I said "This *LIKELY* means..." - shoover, on 10/12/2007, -8/+39IMO, if it doesn't make the front page, it's not a dupe. The fact that *this* article made it to the front page and the other one didn't should tells you the submitter was justfied in his strategy.
- CritterNYC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24If you're interested in a comparison of the two formats, see here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051125144611543 - DoctorWhohaa, on 10/12/2007, -13/+27I can find nowhere in the article that states that Microsoft's Open XML format would be rejected. Microsoft's submission is "also headed for consideration by ISO/IEC, is still in process within Ecma. Upon completion, it would be submitted to the same voting process"
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"No, Microsoft won't sue because the DMCA has provisions allowing reverse-engineering for compatibility purposes."
Well, DeCSS was originally created because people wanted to watch DVDs on Linux and there were no licensed players for that platform. That's certainly reverse-engineering for compatibility, but DeCSS is banned anyway.
Microsoft or anyone else can file a lawsuit anytime they want. The DMCA's reverse-engineering provision would be an obstacle to Microsoft *winning* such a lawsuit, but they can still file one just to intimidate the defendant with the high cost of putting up a defense, and they have enough legal power that they could likely get the judge to grant an injunction anyway.
Agfa Monotype's legal counsel used the DMCA to threaten a college student regarding a program he wrote to change the embeddability flags (two bits, unencrypted and completely in the open) in fonts that he himself had created. Common sense does not always prevail.
(http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/twm/embed/dmca.html) - afex, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20shoover is correct. lots of people use ONLY the front page of digg, and if an article never got there, then it never existed for them. I rarely look at in the queue, so when stuff hits the front page and people scream 'DUPE!!' i always go 'really? must have missed it...' and then it turns out that the 'dupe' had a crappy headline, no description, and 2 diggs.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18It really only matters what companies use, not what ISO says the standard is. If 90% of companies are still using Office and the MS format, very few will change just to be ISO certified in what document format they use.
- chad78, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19With an open standard, you are guarenteed access to your own data. While Microsoft Office's formats are widely used, they are not openly documented, meaning when a third party creates a filter for those formats, they are usually reverse enginneering the filter. That means unless they are working directly with Microsoft and given access to the format, they are guessing at how to render the files. They usually do a very good job at reverse enginneering - but there's no guarentee that you will be able to open your file if Microsoft were to ever stop making Office - or if they started suing everyone who reversed engineered their format. So basically, if that were to happen, you'd have to pay Microsoft for access to your own data. With an open format, especially one supported by the ISO, you will always be able to access your data.
This may explain to better:
http://openoffice.blogs.com/openoffice/2006/03/microsoft_owns_.html
or this:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2002 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"IMO, Firefox killed IE for 2 reasons: extensions and themes"
*looks at marketshare*
hmm. nope still alive to me - Dradis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I thought the same thing, DigiRaven. I used MS Office for years and years; I then decided to give OO.o a spin, and I haven't looked back. Try it out some time, if you don't like it, at least you can say you can say you gave it a shot.
- chad78, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/archives/2005/Ref974.html
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=38920&ICS1=37&ICS2=100&ICS3=99
The use of PDFs is an ISO standard - ISO 19005 - hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Welcome to the tabloid version of Web 2.0
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10PDF isn't exactly a closed format. Adobe created it, but you can download the spec from their website for free, and anyone can implement it.
- DickBreath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a format and software?
Using ODF does not mean that, in theory, you could not use Microsoft Office. It would be possible to implement import/export filters for MS Office to read/write ODF. In fact, if ODF becomes important, Microsoft themselves may do so.
I predict that everyone who is interested in *long* term document storage will want to use ODF. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is interested in ODF because they want to store documents for centuries. (They already use documents that are two centuries old.)
Which document format do you think is more likely to be readable in 100 years? MS Office binary only formats or ODF? There could be MS's OfficeXML format, but will implementations proliferate? If the standard is not truly open, and you run a risk of being sued for patent infringement for implementing an MS Office XML reader/writer, then will knowledge of the format continue to exist? - DickBreath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8There seems to be a big confusion beteen Open Document Format, a specification, and a software application known as OpenOffice.org.
Hint: these are two different things.
Another hint: there are multiple software applications (even office applications) that work with ODF.
It would be *possible* to implement new import/export filters for MS Office to read/write ODF.
Why do you see the success of ODF as some kind of pressure for you to switch from Microsoft Office to something, say, OpenOffice.org? - ArcusOfSV, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Ok. *puts on penguin suit and lights torch*
Honestly if this is the case I am glad an pen standard got the jump. - jo42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10This simply means that there will be at least two ISO standards for this form of data...
- m00nmaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's *FREE*. What do you lose except for another chance to get a front page story on Digg while you were testing OO.org?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8*puts on flame-proof jacket*
man! its hot in here! - noof, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well, the benefit for me is that I can do something fun for the €450 (that the standard version of office 2k3 costs) that I save. And it's also a plus that I can use whatever word processor I want (except for office that is).
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7But the real problem is that it usually ends up being a cube
- ArcusOfSV, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14"In contrast, Microsoft has decided to reinvent the wheel at every turn. " - Like they always do. THIS is why I despise MS.
- leohart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You go OO. More standard might lead to more adoption and contribution. One day, we might be able to see a small group of users from the business segment who will be using OO instead of Microsoft Office. Then another day, we will see a bigger group. We should cheer for the Open Source Community for their constant contribution. *CHEER*
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Maybe it was in the early days. Definitely not now, though -- it's even been published by Addison-Wesley.
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html - danielc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Microsoft's XML format provides nothing that OpenDocument doesn't provide. It should't receive ISO approval. Sure, Bian Jones has been waving his hands saying that it can do some things better, but I've never actually seen an example of anything it can do better. He says it can represent legacy features better, ok, which legacy features can MS XML support that OpenDocument can not? I haven't seen a single one.
- strcmp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4For ODF to gain popularity there need to be some good programs to manipulate the format. I assert that there will be no 3.0 branch of OpenOffice.org, simply because the codebase is so large and complex that it is next to impossible for new developers to hack on it. Some parts of the code are written in German. I furthermore predict that KOffice will become the dominant open-source office suite, especially after it is ported to Qt 4 and thus Windows and Mac.
- tokachu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14No, Microsoft won't sue because the DMCA has provisions allowing reverse-engineering for compatibility purposes.
Learn to do a bit of research before spreading FUD. Scare tactics make you no better than Microsoft. - michaelbuddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm all good with openoffice, use it almost exclusively. I hate to say this, but Excel did perform better yesterday. I was trying to open a .tab file tab delimited. Excel opened it like a spreadsheet. OO.o opened with all the contents of each line in the first column. Was it my mistake?
- einfeldt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There are a number of projects and products that use the ODF standard. Here's a quote from Jeremy Reimer of Arstechnica.com.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060303-6313.html
"A consortium of companies and organizations have banded together to form the "ODF Alliance," a group dedicated to promoting the office software file format first implemented by OpenOffice.org. The alliance consists of more than 35 members from various countries around the world. It includes companies such as Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Sun Microsystems, and Corel, and governmental organizations such as the American Library Association and the Information and Communications Technology council for the city of Vienna.
"The OpenDocument file format was formed by the industry consortium OASIS, a group headed by Sun Microsystems, and was based on OpenOffice.org's native file format. OpenOffice.org is itself an open-sourced version of Star Office, the proprietary office suite that Sun purchased when it acquired the German company Star Division in 1999. The idea behind OpenDocument was to use a text-based XML format (compressed in a zip file to conserve disk space) in order to make it easy for other products to interoperate with it. The specification was finalized in 2005 and OpenOffice.org was the first software suite to support it. Other projects, such as KOffice, AbiWord, and IBM Workplace are adding support for the ODF format, either natively or through plug-in format translators." - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"This is huge news for open standards and for anyone who wants to actually own their data."
Huh? - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@orbitalleader- Thank goodness we have your non-biased views to everything non-Microsoft. To rehash some of your prior comments:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Stable_Linux_Kernel_2.6.16.12_Released
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Building_A_LowCost_LAMP_Server_For_Your_Webhosting_Business_With_CentOS_4.3
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Oracle_to_become_a_Linux_power_ - maverick1972, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This sort of thing is bound to happen with closed source and vendor lock-in. Like it or not, Open source is going to gain more and more steam and people will eventually begin to see the benefits.
- Dryth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"While Microsoft Office's formats are widely used, they are not openly documented, meaning when a third party creates a filter for those formats, they are usually reverse enginneering the filter."
To repeat: Huh?
Part of the MS XML mission and proposal means making it documented as an open standard. Just like they did (contrary to claim) with their previous Office XML formats: http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/default.mspx
Moreover Microsoft's format being accepted by ISO would presumably be conditional on them keeping it standard. - m00nmaster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5If Microsoft died today, I'd be on a Mac or Linux. I'm not there yet because I'm waiting for Leopard and the problems with the Macbook to be fixed.
- sixister, on 10/12/2007, -16/+17Guarteeneed!!! Yayyyyy!
- mtbikemj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Format comparison between ODF and MS XML
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051125144611543 - diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3since when does microsoft follow standards?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Guarteeneed? Jesus Christ, I think we have a new record for most misspellings in one word.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I hope you're right. OpenOffice pissed me off when they decided to clone Microsoft Office's interface and make you use Java if you don't want a feature-challenged installation. I instead took my business to KOffice, although nowadays I do everything in LaTeX anyway (including presentations).
- Indrek, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9So... since the other article wasn't sufficiently Microsoft-bashing, it was imperative that you correct that "shortcoming"?
- culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11I hardly think throwing a fallacious and inflammatory headline means that the title was better. This submission is just a pig with lipstick.
Enough with the "Microsoft is the devil" already. Like it or not, at least half of you wouldn't even be using a computer if it wasn't for them. If you've got all that fury and you need to direct it somewhere, direct at the REAL enemies... Sony, the RIAA, the MPAA, big oil, big pharma, asshat senators in the pockets of all of the aforementioned, etc.. - madIvan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8And why would any normal person want to skin the OS in the first place? People who want to get something actually done aren't really interested in skinning. Or OpenOffice. ^_^
- DustyPorch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This will have little to do with OO vs MSOffice in the medium/longer term. 'IF' MS' OpenXML standard is denied, and 'IF' OpenDoc becomes an important purchasing point, the MS will add OpenDoc support to Office 2007! Problem solved, and it will keep things as they are now....
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2oh, sorry sbrown about that comment. I thought you were flaming the guy that posted this story for making too many linux posts.
- chad78, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I very much doubt MS will support OpenDocument unless they are forces to by some sort of legal action. (Like, say, a country or state saying all files must be in the OpenDocument format.)
- DigiRaven, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I'll still keep my Microsoft Office as my standard. nothing has gone wrong with it yet so why change. I see no benefits by switching to openoffice.
- apavluck, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6I just downloaded it and I think it sucked. I just don't understand why the whole suite needs to lauch instead of a single app. I am always the first to dump microsoft products but I think that office is going to be a tough nut to crack. It is the one product they have the is very solid. Plus it speaks to what they do best, it is a business focused app that does not require any customization.
IMO, Firefox killed IE for 2 reasons: extensions and themes
Windows blows because it can only be themed with hacks or 3rd party apps.
Office does not need to be customized, just run fast and be stable - check, check. - DoctorWhohaa, on 10/12/2007, -22/+19Chad78, from what I understand, the implementation of the two file formats is substantially different, enough to allow standardization. There is no reason why the two standards could not co-exist.
And with a company as large as Microsoft asking for ISO, it's going to get ISO. - LukePsywalker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1/tinfoil hat time
Do you think Microsoft hires people to troll open source digg discussions? Or are people really just that ignorant (arrogant)?
Watch this get modded down just like every other comment I make..... - eviltandem, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1You're telling others to stop the hate? All those industries server a purpose. Why does profit = evil in your mind?
Why is big oil evil? Prices have gone through the rough, but their percentage of markup has gone down. Americans are buying more oil than ever. If you are buying more oil than you were last year of course they are making more money. You want outrage, look-up how much you pay in tax-per-gallon. Having large oil companies creates entities capable of spending tons of money on exploring and extracting new oil deposits.
Big pharma. Yes, because making drugs to cure people is evil. Creating drugs is unbelievably expensive, and there's no knowing which drugs will get tripped up at the last stages. There are many pharma companies making drugs for everything they can dream up, so they keep each other fairly well in check. There are few cases where there isn't more than one option for an ailment. Small pharma companies often die because it takes so much time and money to bring a drug to market. -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is