Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Eases Licensing On Office 2003 Formats
kfiller writes "Microsoft has negotiated a deal with the state of Massachusetts to lower licensing restrictions on the Excel and Word XML formats in Office 2003, in exchange for the state to reconsider their focus on adopting 'open standards' to adopting 'open formats'. Is this just another move to encroach on the open source community?"
Is this just another move to encroach on the open source community?
Short answer.... YES.
Extend and embrace. (tm)
Microsoft must have doing that type of thing, they love to keep everything to themselves. They even copy writted the tabbing process, ah well, what can be done
state: We're going to go to open formats!
MS: Psst.. if you pay us, you can stay with closed formats instead! You know, the ones we use to squeeze you for $$$ ever other year?
state: Great idea! We love paying to be locked in!
Bah.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Will it be possible for openoffice to *read* (not write) these files under the new licensing restrictions. If not, then they are not open enough for exchangability. Write support I can understand MS wanting to keep proprietary. The old non-XML format is used as the lowest common denominator between nearly all word processors/spreadsheat applications. However, I would like to see this MS-XML fail due to OOo's XML, and eventually force MS to include support.
They are trying to get Microsoft jealous by flirting with opensource to get Microsoft to lower their prices. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
I did RTFA and it's a little unclear as to whether this is what's actually happening or not, but I can certainly hope.
"Is this just another move to encroach on the open source community?"
Well...yes. Why would you expect Microsoft to do anything different? Open source is one of Microsoft's primary competitors - they're certainly not going to do anything to help it along.
This space intentionally left blank.
PJ at groklaw has a good read on this at1 8070774.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050114
The devil is in the licensing details, but maybe Microsoft has [decided|been forced] to play nice in order to not be excluded.
For all software developers to use documented, open, royalty-free standards for file and other information interchange formats?
If the formats are open, then anyone can write software to read and write them. Surely this is at least a good first step in that direction?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Bribes.
... so what are the terms of this new licensing model?
Is the new license only available in Massachusetts, or did the State work on Microsoft to get them to open the formats for everyone?
If it's a state-only thing, then Microsoft knows it already lost, and is just doing damage control, no?
Microsoft is no longer the monopoly. They can't enforce their ideas, "either you do it our way or not at all"
I'd disagree with that. Microsoft is still the monopoly insofar as relatively few large installations of Windows/Office have seriously contemplated switching. But I reckon MS have seen the future, and have deduced that unless they tread very carefully, they're not in it.
Monopoly or not, this amounts to the same thing - they're suddenly forced to compete. Not something Microsoft is terribly experienced or indeed good at, so it'll be interesting to see if (how?) they adapt.
The question really is what can the OSS community do to negate the effect of these so called concessions and really force Microsoft into a different way of doing business?
Just my $.02...
I
Is the state of Massachusetts stupid enough to drop the long term benefits of open standards and open formats for an indeterminate, short term gain?
Since with proprietary software there is always kickbacks involved, you just have to stir that up with a few politicians and my money is on the state going for the MS "solution".
I'm cynical because I've seen a lot of governments (esp. UK) talk a lot about open formats but it just doesn't happen. Hence, UK govt sites being littered with .doc's :(
The Machine stops.
If the state was able to eliminate spending completely on software, the state IT department's budget would be considerably lessened. In a bureaucracy like the Mass State government, the larger your budget, the more power you have. So when faced with the option of suddenly cutting their budget requirements by a large amount, of course the suits jumped at an offer that allowed them to maintain the prestige of spending massive amounts.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Do you really believe that?
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Interesting
Policy makers in general really don't understand the differences between open source, shared source or open standards or open formats. And maybe they don't even care most of the time, since the majority of their voters also do not understand or do not care. They can present this as a victory, while only a small minority cares about the details.
Note that their WinOS-WMP version will only be offered in the EU, e.g. they've estimated they can still tip the market to WMP with the rest of the market plus those in the EU who want the WinOS+WMP version.
I think MS will simply make an open standard friendlier version _ONLY_ available to MA government while continuing to encourage (read push) their own proprietary format there. I doubt whether the MS/MA agreement actively excludes the option of reading/writing MS-Word.doc formats.
Just think of the number of times you've seen "Warning: You are saving this in a format which may not support all the formatting you've entered. Are you sure? Enter Y to possibly lose data, N to save it in [our] standard format (recommended)."
MA government may have the option to save their docs in an Open format, but MS are certain to make it an undesirable option.
Even the big guys have to compete sometimes. About 1988 or 1989, IBM was making the PS/2 line, which was 3.5 floppy only. You could get an external 5.25 floppy (low density), but it was expensive and a PITA.
A lot of people wanted 5.25 internal at that time and IBM said 'NO'. Our way or the Highway.
All of the sudden a large number of major corporations and *Government* agencies were buying computers with a specification that said 'Internal 5.25 HD FDD'. I was actually at a event where an IBM rep was trying to tell a major customer that they didn't really need this. One of the effects of this was to automatically remove IBM from the bid process.
Sometime in 1989 or 1990, IBM introduced a 5.25 internal HD FDD for the model 80.
The Moral of this Story?
If enough people wave enough money that someone can't touch, it get's their attention. Even Microsoft.
eric
from the link in CRN that TFA referes to : "[Microsoft] has made representation to us recently [that] they're planning to modify that license, and if they're to do so, ..."
For those that were fooled by the language of the story and TFA to think that this is done
Microsoft is making moves like this to prevent the open source community from encroaching on them. They've got the lead, so they're the ones trying to keep the hounds at bay.
I'm not so sure they can pull it off, though - Windows won't be getting knocked off the perch any decade soon, but the competition is starting to show up on the radar screen again. As Microsoft's reactions show.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
This is just a case of someone threatening to go opensource in order for Microsoft to lower their prices. That being said, Microsoft can't do this forever. Eventually they will actually have to start offering a better product. Because even if Microsoft costs the same or less, oss is always the smarter choice.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Microsoft is losing customers, particularly European and American state governments, because they don't like Microsoft. Microsoft really does have the best office suite in a technical sense. OO.o is generally less intuitive, and has less features (particularly in spreadsheets, but even the word processor lacks much advanced functionality). Costs are hard to judge, but most studies suggest that using a free office suite instead of MS Office won't pay off over the time periods that corporations and governments make long range financial plans. Switching to OO.o is about politics, not technical or financial superiority.
It's also difficult to switch right now, partially because of proprietary lock-in to the file format. That's one of the things that makes switching so expensive (although probably not the major one, with OO.o import filters being somewhat decent). Customers want to be free to switch. They also want to be free to generate documents from sources other than MS Office and import them natively, and they want to be able to process documents using their own custom tools. Open file formats help all of those things, and so customers are happy.
Microsoft really wants to make customers happy. Opening file formats helps, so Microsoft is doing that. There are risks; if customers continue to hate Microsoft, and Microsoft makes it easier to switch away from them, the obvious result is losing customers. The upside is that they may make customers happy, convincing more to stay. Being a nice guy is directly connected to making customers happy.
From an open-source community view, opening file formats is good. It makes interoperability easier. By itself, though, it's not enough to make customers happy, or to make Microsoft a friend to the OSS community. More moves are necessary, and what they are and when (if ever) the will come is still a big question.
Just a question here, what would Microsoft have to do for you to consider them to be a friendly corporation, rather than an evil and menacing corporate giant? I kind of like them already, but I know I'm unusual in that regard.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
actually hes right, this is a perfect example of competition. Because of a possible substitute to their products the overall demand curve for their product diminuishes (ie movement of the curve).
Now you are right that microsoft still has a huge advantage and so the market resembles a situation of monopoly, but the fact that because of another product MS is forced to diminuish their prices just shows how even slight competition directly benefits the well-being of the customer.
You could find this as being bad news, because in the end MS gets his way, I see it as the beginning of the end of MS's quasi-monopoly!
Who knows, me might even start to see some evolution in Office software resulting from this.
Certainly is an attempt to encroach. Blur the line and maintain confusion about exactly what "open standard" means by introducing another term, "open format". The PHB will see "open" in both and think they're the same.
the bar is lowered by this quite desperate move on microsoft's part. in an attempt to keep at least one customer, they get to give away what they have been ordered to release _anyway_, and everyone gets it, and so everyone benefits...
Damn Microsoft, if you would just let us switch to Open Source without your bitching, maybe we can focus on spending less for maintaining our state systems and giving some money back to the community. I have no clue how much Mass has to pay Microsoft but I can ensure that it will always be more than just going with open source. And Microsoft's little Open Source Initiative is a joke. I'm going to try and get some of the source but I highly doubt I'd get anywhere close to it. "Ohh, you're a college student looking to find out why Windows is programmed and structured in such a bizarre manner. Sorry, only businesses whose individuals we can keep a close watch on can view our code because we know that once large enough segments of our code gets leaked, we're pretty much fucked."
"You see them trees out back, I take care of them. I'm a tree, I'm a tree wizard." - Crazy Homeless Guy
Does this mean that I can start making perfect doc format documents in Abi Word and Open Office? Where is the documentation on the open standards so we can start fixing the open source apps to be compatible with the open formats.
I will not hold my breath.
Cheers,
Adolfo
Oh, you can't do that?
Well, I'm sure you can at least get Firefox pre-installed.
Oh, not that either?
What this is is Microsoft attempting to prevent a State from breaking away from the Microsoft monopoly.
The proprietary, binary extensions in MS's version of XML are patented. That gives MS a lot of power when agreeing to a deal like this.
Just look at MS's work to "extend" SPF and how their license was determined not to be Free enough.
The list of approved formats include
If it passes with MS's formats allowed, then it won't.
I hate how much effort it is to even pull plain text out of Word and Powerpoint documents.
:-) of advice for organizations who must use Microsoft office: OpenOffice.org has a batch processing option to recursively search nested directories for Word documents and write out fairly equivalent OpenOffice.org Writer documents (that use a very nice XML format). If I had a company with thousands of Word documents on my servers, I would have an automatic "save to OpenOffice.org, then archive" backup strategy and not have my long term Document store backups in native Word format.
I just finished up work on a commercial Java text mining package and I spent far too long on code to read Word and Powerpoint files while handling PDF, OpenOffice.org, and AbiWord was fairly simple.
I do have a word (no pun intended
It is not going to happen, but I would love to see pressure from user groups and governments force Microsoft to use the OASIS open XML based document formats. If Microsoft really wanted to give maximum value to their customers, then they would do this on their own (yes, just wishful thinking).
This is where Open Source might be a less effective rallying point than Free Software. Since Open Source encourages practical reasons why someone using software distributed with source ( like the arguments Eric Raymond gives in "The Magic Cauldron" of cost sharing, risk spreading, or the arguments that file formats are open if the code is visible, etc.), they are designed to appeal to companies and organizations that want to reduce cost and risk. Free Software is much more moralistic that computer owners should be able do as they wish with their machines, and anything less than full right to change and redistribute source code is evil.
The Massachusetts state governments IT department doesn't care about open source. What they do care about is that a MS Word document created by one of the users they support can be read by another user. Or by the same user five years later. Or that the documents can be manipulated by other tools (like automatic indexing, automatic taxonomy generation, or even virus scanners.) They used the request for "Open Standards" to solve this particular issue, and to their satisfaction Microsoft licensing changes solve this problem as well
The advantage of the practical arguments for Open Source is that one can find just need to find one of the arguments compelling to come on board. The disadvantage is that you can lose them just as easily by solving that same issue in a closed source manner. The argument for Free Software is much more absolutist, and it may be easier to get someone to join, but you won't lose them nearly as easily.
We remember Microsoft's TCP stack being a little bit different, which sped things up - if you were talking MS-to-MS. Sometimes. And sometimes it broke stuff badly.
We remember Windows explicitly not talking to DR-DOS, and the solitary little bit of encrypted code in the installer to achieve that.
We remember CIFS back when it was called LANMAN, and please pass me that bucket.
We remember last week when a customer's WinME machine refused to tune into the same wavelengths as XP SP2. We remember another customer who has to run one CAD machine on Win98SE and the other on WinME otherwise for no discernable reason they can't talk to the big plotter.
We remember MS-DOS being deliberately built to not run Lotus 1-2-3.
We remember M80 being different to every other Z80 assembler on the planet.
We remember Bill choosing \ for a path separator when everything else bar a few (VMS comes to mind) used
We remember not being able to authenticate against MS-Exchange because it only trusted Outlook's proprietary and secret authentication protocols.
We remember unilateral extensions to Kerberos that broke practically everything else using standard Kereberos.
We remember a company which knew so little about its own network protocols that it went to the Samba team for information - and today is working pretty much as hard as it can (without getting obviously unclean hands) to slow down development of that same Samba.
Odd. That's what most of the larger game developers said.
Hey, did the penny drop for you yet?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
In earnest, is anyone using Microsoft Office XML for anything?
Martin Kotulla
SoftMaker Software GmbH
SoftMaker Office for Windows|Linux|Android
MS isn't indestructible but they are fighting to maintain their share of the market. If Linux programemrs and OSS could make their software more user friendly, drop the "RTFM noob" attitude, and put ads on TV for Joe Six-Pack, things would get better.
Then you're not talking about Microsoft's so-called XML. Unless you're referring to their brain-dead stripped-down version which sits somewhere between text/plan and text/html in terms of "richness".
Why don't MS just make an OASIS ioslave for MS-Office? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I own a business and I compete with competitors by improving my service, not bribe the customers.
Why is the motivation even in question? They see a market threat, and go after it the best they can.
Geesh..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What are you talking about? I realize this is a visceral reaction and probably won't do anything for my karma...
.DOC format. Despite the ubiquity of the software, there's no guarantee that anything other than MS Office will be able to read those files in the future.
Of course this isn't any positive sign that MS wants to kill F/OSS projects; they've put it out in black and white. It should never be forgotten, though, that what is really a threat to the MS business model is the whole ideology behind F/OSS. It's much classier to knock Linux as a program than to knock the idea of open-source as evil. Freedom is supposed to be treasured in the US, and MS has a harder job arguing freedom-supporting programmers are communisits than they do arguing Linux is an inferior product with remarkably higher TCO.
Notice that this is MS being willing to open up a file format that is (already? or going to be) obsoleted by their Office production cycle in no time at all. They're talking here about handing out specs to a file format they're ready to break, anyway. Not much magnanimity to be had there, eh?
It's important for end users of MS Office to understand the works they create therein are essentially co-opted by Microsoft into its latest, obfusticated
It's a mealymouth argument, but a couple good slogans would really help... Something like "[OpenOffice, Gnumeric, AbiWord]: Becuase they're your documents."
Corporations are fine, it's the fools that run them. They hide behind the incorporation like liberals hide behind the Consitution (like the rest of us) and deny they did anything wrong, the corporation did it. If CEOs, et al take personal responsiblity for their actions, good and bad, then people would respect them instead of playing politics and using PR and marketing to "fix" a problem they have.
Release all source code with no strings attached.
Maybe, we could make Windows 95 work better than they did.
Maybe, we could finally discover what a crappy piece of software internet explorer really is.
It would be interesting to see how much spaghetti code is in there.
It would also be interesting to see if they adhere to good programming ethic like commenting code, etc.
But my wager is they don't.
Actually, I've lost too much time with Microsoft problems (products) I may never like them.
This is actually what the EU commission thinks is an open standard:
It's a very strict definition. For example, PDF doesn't qualify as an Open Standards, because it's controlled by Adobe and doesn't have an open decision-making procedure
I think Microsoft is pretty scared about this, because most EU member states are going to use this definition, together with previous or future decisions to move to Open Standards. That would mean that MS Office either has to support these Open Standards or it will just be replaced by software that does.
Otherwise, this is just a scam to
Massachusetts should insist on *open* formats, not PR gimmicks. If that one company can take the keys to unlocking public data to its grave, where will that leave MA after all that investment? Not to mention, what are the privacy ramifactions of a format that phones home for every read, write, open, close, save, copy, print, and mail?
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The OpenOffice 2.0 codeline has this exact same warning when you save in any non-sxw format, be it doc, rtf, etc. I usually save rtf or doc, since nothing except OpenOffice can read sxw, and EVERY time I save, not just the first time, I get a dialog about how I might be losing data if I save in a different format. The kicker is that the default option is Yes, which saves in the OpenOffice format, so you have to click No to save in the existing format. It's very very unintuitive, and annoying to get a dialog every time you save.
Office 2004 for Mac has the right idea for saving in different formats. It can do a compatibility check on a document, and let you know what formatting, if any, you will lose if you save in a certain format. And it will warn you (the first time you save it) if you will lose formatting. But if you aren't going to actually lose anything by saving in a certain format, it won't bother you about it. It would be nice if OpenOffice could do that.
And what's up with it asking if I want to save my document if all I've done since saving it last is printing? I'm told that there's an option for that, but surely it should not ask you to save after printing by default...
Just some rants, after having to deal with OpenOffice since the company I work for decided to switch to StarOffice instead of Word. Why pay $79 each for StarOffice when OpenOffice is free? Who knows, we definitely don't use any of the magic templates it comes with...
> I would INSTANTLY switch to "open source" operating systems and applications if I could find some that met my needs.
I did so years ago, and seldom if ever have a need to boot Windows due to applications that I need myself.. I do have a need for Windows due to customers using it tho.
> Who wouldn't?
Obviously many people.
There are applications to suit the needs of the average user in many cases, but the average user is not willing to invest the time in making those work and learning to use them. I did because I already had another need for open source software (well, actually for a Unix like system, and buying a sun/sgi/hp/ibm unix box was out of the question for me at that time)
What people often forget is that OSS software might be free as in beer, but you have to work a bit harder to use it for now.
Linux and FreeBSD and similar systems have come to a point where for a knowledgable user, they may be as easy or easier to install and use then Windows and even OS X, but that doesn't really help the average user. Fetting a machine with a reinstalled and preconfigured Linux desktop and modern installers for comemrcial software for Linux go a long way to making this a possibility, but as long as the default offer from your average computer shop is some x86 box with XP home, it will take a long time to get there.
Oh, and even for those who do know a bit about computers in general, a different system still takes a bit of time to get used to, and not all of them are prepared to put in that time.
Sure Everyone wants 100% compatibility with .doc, .xls,...and OSS to have as much play in the business arena as Microsoft, but besides being free software, has anyone thought about the administrative benefits that Microsoft software has that OSS software lacks? Lets face it, in business environments being able to push the software out via a server and configure every aspect of the software to the administrators needs without ever touching the users workstation is a very real concern and also an area that OSS needs to work on to compete with MS in the business environment.
Just my thoughts.
Its a trap to woo them away from open source and then dump them at convinence.
-- There are applications to suit the needs of the average user in many cases, but the average user is not willing to invest the time in making those work and learning to use them.
Why should they, if they can get away without taking the time?
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
I am the paying customer who has made you rich.
You shall have no other priorities before me.
You shall not make for yourself a priority in the form of monopoly or world domination. You shall not seek them; for I, the paying customer, am a demanding customer, punishing the bottom line for the sin of management to the third and fourth product lines of those who are greedy, but showing love to a thousand product lines of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not lock-in the customer, for the customer will not hold anyone guiltless who locks him in.
Remember the law by keeping it holy. Within the law you shall labor and do all your work, but outside the law you shall do no business. Outside the law you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your employee, nor your contractor, nor your family. For the customer is a citizen who has taken part in creating and maintaing the law, but he despises criminals. Therefore the customer blessed the law and made it holy.
Honor the open standards, so that you may live long in the profits the customer is giving you.
You shall not make buggy, insecure, or generally bad products.
You shall not conspire with or attack other businesses.
You shall not steal.
You shall not deceive anyone.
You shall not covet the paying customer's remaining cash. You shall not overcharge him, obsolete his product, break his systems, or covet anything that belongs to your paying customer.
Do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up my commandments.
Most of the people who work in Redmond are hardcore technodweebs who just always have to use the latest and coolest technology. That's why Microsoft apps break compatibility with every release, and everything you learned about one version of the platform is obsolete with the next one. And it's why they're so infatuated with XML, even though XML is something of a threat to their monopoly: because it's cool.
Working with XML instead of RTF or a binary format helps, because XML is so much easier to manipulate, and because there's so much really good XML software out there. So you'll get big improvements -- but you'll still face the basic messiness issue.
If you want 100% compatibility, you need to go the other way -- use these new Office features to force Office software to use non-proprietary formats. You can do this because Office now allows you to do your editing around an arbitrary XML schema. (This is necessary so that Word and Excel can function as Web Services clients.) So it's perfectly feasible, for example, to write Word and Excel plugins that manipulate Open Office formats instead of Microsoft formats. Then you can tell your employees, "OK, you can continue to use Word and Excel, but you have to use these plugins so that all our new documents are in a non-proprietary format, and we no longer have all that Microsoft lockin."
Governments do not follow the same rules that a regular business does. Governments make the Laws.
To do business with a Government, the business must follow the Laws that that Government has written.
That is why Microsoft is so worried about this. If the Government mandates specific file formats, then the businesses working with/for that government will use those file formats.
And it cascades from there.
Posting quote:
Microsoft has negotiated a deal with the state of Massachusetts to lower licensing restrictions on the Excel and Word XML formats in Office 2003, in exchange for the state to reconsider their focus on adopting 'open standards' to adopting 'open formats'.
---
This statement is not correct. The open format policy is an EXTENSION of the prior open standards policy that still remains in effect. This error is now widely replicated on the net. Please correct.
Open formats will be an additional requirement in the future, not a substitute for open standards. There was no deal in exchange for anything.
Eric Kriss
Secretary, Administration & Finance
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Boston, MA
Case #1. Microsoft fails to get their file formats approved. No problem.
Case #2. Microsoft succeeds in getting their file formats approved.
a. We will need a clean TEST IMPLEMENTATION of
1a. Reader
2a. Writer
b. We will need a way to document any variations between Microsoft's output/input and the Test Implementation.
I don't trust Microsoft NOT to break the published "standard" in small, but important ways.
If Microsoft gets this included, then their program's output must be validated against the standard. If it doesn't meet the standard, then it isn't an option for the government.
And with every Hotfix and ServicePack, Microsoft has the option to introducing irregularities to their output/input.
Learn from the past. Microsoft did similar crap with the beta of Windows 3.0 and DR-DOS.
The REAL problem is that Microsoft will get their file formats approved, get their software into use, then start changing the format they save in. Just a little with each "update".
Eventually, the "open" format is just as proprietary as their closed format is now.
Lawyers are NOT the Government.No, it is not. Because WalMart cannot pass laws or fine you for not following them.
If WalMart wants to open a store in MA, then they have to fill out the paperwork. They have to file the tax forms. Their insurance company has to file the insurance forms.
If they don't file, they're fined.
Linux and FreeBSD and similar systems have come to a point where for a knowledgable user, they may be as easy or easier to install and use then Windows and even OS X, but that doesn't really help the average user.
I sincerely hope that most government and corporate support techs are knowledgable users and that the average users have little or nothing to do with software installation.
As for day-to-day ease of use, there is almost no difference between Windows, Mac or Linux desktops. Even retraining is on the order of "You used to click the blue circle, now you click the orange star."
Of course there will be resistance to changing systems but, as long as you are on the MS treadmill, you get that every two to three years anyways. Assuming the users' apps are more or less the same, their stress should be no worse than the "acceptable" level produced by an MS-MS transition (for the average user there are more differences between '98 and XP than between XP and KDE).
We remember a company which knew so little about its own network protocols that it went to the Samba team for information - and today is working pretty much as hard as it can (without getting obviously unclean hands) to slow down development of that same Samba.
That sounds interesting! Do you have more information, a link,... ?
How can anybody trust a company that desperately begs you not to use open formats?
Why doesn't Microsoft open its formats, and remove all restrictions?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Notice of license
Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License
> Why should they, if they can get away without taking the time?
Except for the few cases where such applications are actually better (asterisk comes to mind) or the comemrcial applications are very expensive (and the user does not want to pirate the software), none for the average user. The argument that the applications don't exist is usually not true however.
For some users having a lot more control over what their computer runs is a good argument either for technical or political or ideological reasons.
Did you (and the person who mod'ed you up) somehow miss the trial between Netscape and Microsoft? You remember, the one where Microsoft was legally classified as a monopoly?Strange, it used to happen. I was able to get Netscape preinstalled on a computer.
So it will never happen, but it used to happen.
There have been over 10 million Firefox downloads. That's a sizable market. Yet you won't see Dell offering to preinstall Firefox (but you used to be able to get Netscape preinstalled).
I see why you posted that anonymously.
When talking about a Monopoly I really don't understand they (MS) have not sued about this.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
You can find more information and share your knowledge about open formats here.
Whats wrong with this picture?
"Massachusetts Consumer Protection Litigation Case"
Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft unlawfully used anticompetitive means to maintain a monopoly in markets for certain software, and that as a result, it overcharged Massachusetts consumers who licensed its MS-DOS, Windows, Word, Excel and Office software. Microsoft denies Plaintiffs allegations and believes that it developed and sold high quality and innovative software products at fair and reasonable prices. The parties settled the case, and on June 28, 2004, the Court conditionally certified a Settlement Class (defined in the notice) and preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement. The Court will decide whether to grant final approval of the Settlement at a hearing on December 3, 2004.
> I sincerely hope that most government and corporate support techs are knowledgable users and that the average users have little or nothing to do with software installation.
So do I, I try to make a living from exactly that.
OIn the meantime, established Windows users pay most of my bills tho.
> As for day-to-day ease of use, there is almost no difference between Windows, Mac or Linux desktops. Even retraining is on the order of "You used to click the blue circle, now you click the orange star."
Heh.. for most things, yes, and for business use this is quite feasable.
There is an interesting thing to this whole desktop market however, it is dominated by commodity software, and as a result, the home user is all important. Not because of the money a single home user has to spend but for the force they present when it comes to mass selling things. Forget those and you automatically reduce yourself to niche markets. There is little wrong with that in itself of course.
> Of course there will be resistance to changing systems but, as long as you are on the MS treadmill, you get that every two to three years anyways. Assuming the users' apps are more or less the same, their stress should be no worse than the "acceptable" level produced by an MS-MS transition (for the average user there are more differences between '98 and XP than between XP and KDE).
As long as you stay away from configuring/managing the system? there are very few differences between 95 and 2k, more with xp, but with a preconfigured desktop, many people will not notice those either. The actual 'feel' of applications is the same as it has been for almost a decade now, the look is a bit different indeed.
When comparing Windows XP with KDE, at first there is little difference because KDE can be made to act and look a lot like XP. How applications will behave is an entirely different matter and depends a lot on what toolkit the app uses and how it is configured (if at all)
Again, I see little in the way of using Linux or FreeBSD or similar systems in environments that are large enough a dedicated system admin anyway, and that don't allow user modifications to installed systems.
For the small business and home user you basicly need a 'plug and play' computer that just works with whatever 'plug and play' device they connect, and does their basic browsing, emailing and word processing and a bit of a spreadsheet. Something only OS X does well enough imho, but it has this pricetag of requiring Apple hardware.. WIndows? it tries to, and often good enough for most people, and better then many Linux distros.
Of course the Debian install did this for all hardware it supports out of the box, which is everythign except for my video card, wireless network card and the scanner of a hp multifunction device. A few apt-gets, a cvs get, some reading and compiling 1 (or 2 in my case due to running a kernel for which there is no binary nvidia module) modules further and all worked.
Could Joe sixpack have gone out to the shop, buy a wireless thingy for the pc, and just expect it to work? (and no, that doesn't matter in a business environment, I know)
I would add that they should care about whether a citizen of their state can interact with their government without having to purchase software from a third party.
So a big question is whether or not the format is open enough to allow for the creation of a real alternative reader and editor.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
...but I can't find the list archive entries any more; the second part was a highly informed personal opinion expressed to me by a couple of gentlemen who really, really ought to know and are prized by many for their honesty and insight but would prefer to not be named.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...but seriously, see a post or two previous to this.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...on Samba in a serious way in about late 2002. So you should probably be hunting for evidence of the request to use docs in around 2000-2001.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If there are any patent restrictions or copyright restrictions, then this should be DOA.
I also agree that the Open Source community should make itself heard on this issue. Particularly in regards to educating the Massachusetts' officials on the problems with those restrictions (both the immediate problems and the opportunities they provide Microsoft to make problems at a later date).
Microsoft will not give up on this issue. There is far too much at stake for them to lose an entire state. They will play whatever political games they can and they won't care about the cost.
Second, Far Cry and Half-Life 2 DO work in Linux!
So, "until then" has come and gone. Now what's your excuse?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What is the timeline for support of the OpenDocument format?
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I start by saying I *use* open office for my work at home, and I date back to WordPerfect. I have also had to use-or-support Samna Word, some Dedicated IBM office gear from the 1970's and 1980's, and I remember Wordstar (and probably have it on floppy around here somewhere). My experience of word processors is "uncharacteristically vast". That being said...
OpenOffice *IS* (IMHO of course) very much less intuitive than Word, or WordPerfect. I will now cite examples:
1) On OO.o you don't "have outlines in your document", your entire document is *ONE* outline. This is a major P.I.T.A. if you want to, say, put an outline *IN* a document, and it is essentially impossible to put *TWO* outlines in one document. Most people can't even figure out how to change the styles that control what level of outline number is incremented by which bit of text. Word beats OO.o on this one, but is worlds *BEHIND* WordPerfect, which did outlining "right".
2) It is *IMPOSSIBLE* in OO.o, to separate the page format from the page break. That is, there are no manipulatable anchor object things that can be moved or copied or edited around. (The "non-printing characters" button should reveal formating anchors that can be manipulated.) The number of times I have removed a page break or carriage return only to have the paragraph that followed it lose it formatting is legion, and quite vexing.
3) I _defy_ you to describe how "Chapter number" (as in Insert->Fields->Other: Chapter: Chapter number) is controlled (or at least is _supposed_ to be controled); let alone "Chapter name". It took me hella-long to figure that out and "intuative" didn't enter in to _that_ at all. 8-)
4) Once you *do* understand how chapter number is controlled, I further defy you to put a prologue into the front of a document and end up with "Chapter 1" where the 1 is generated by the field in question.
5) Create a legal-style-numbered document in actual legal style, where the numbering is automatically controlled instead of just literal text, I dare you.
6) Just _try_ to make the lightbulb go away... That thing is OO.o's very-own clippy.
My list actually goes on for a bit, but the short version is that the product is "adequate" for casual business purposes, but for long documents with strict stylistic requirements it can be a pain in the ass. I have a 270,000 word novel in sxw format right here, and I _assure_ you, this is not a product that is "intuitive" for doing something as simple as "writing a book". God forbid this was a technical book with side-bars, insets, and grouped processes. This is just a straight-prose piece and it was hard enough in this beastie.)
Some of the OO.o assumptions just don't scale.
No really, it _is_ important to defend your Open Source projects with a suitably _critical_ eye. I use the thing, I just want to go back in time and club a person or two over the head. And I remember the old take-over the desktop StarOffice too, I have been using the thing that long.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
If WalMart chooses to NOT file the correct forms/formats, they will be fined.
So, Massachusets CAN fine you for "not using an Open Format".
You are wrong, again.
How the hell is that a "fine"?
My point is that the Massachusets state government is only doing what anny sufficently large market entity can do. Law Firms do exactly what you just mentioned. Now, explain to me why the hell it's different?
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
Since you seem to be operating under the belief that they do, this conversation is at an end. You'll figure it out when you apply for your learner's PERMIT so you can practice to get your driver's LICENSE.
Go ahead and tell the state that you don't have to fill out their forms and that you can drive anyway.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Did you even have a clue what you're talking about?
The State of Massachusets decided they want to switch to a more open format. They did not pass a law, they are not enacting fines, they are not sending police to bash the skull of Microsoft Office users.
THEY ARE NOT FINING PEOPLE. THEY ARE NOT ARRESTING PEOPLE. THERE'S NOT A LAW. THEY DECIDED TO CHANGE THEIR OWN PRACTICES.
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
Given that XML is a 'text' based format; I have 2 ideas:
1. Won't it be simpler to put a wrapper around the XML transmitter, and reciever that would allow options of compressed data, compressed data
method, and password?
2. Couldn't Secured FTP be used in conjuntion with XML/pkZip ?
Ignorant smartass.
The local MS rep gave me some of these to play with more than a year ago. OASIS rules, and this crap sucks rocks.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing