Slashdot Mirror
We're Open enough, Says Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Australia has come under fire from rival vendors and open-source advocates for keeping its Office document standards proprietary.
Greg Stone, Microsoft's national technology officer for Australia and New Zealand, faced criticism during his presentation at the Australian Unix User Group conference in Canberra yesterday. However, he stood firm on the company's policy of making the XML schemas for its Office 2003 document standard publicly available provided interested parties sign an agreement with the software heavyweight. "Why should I have to sign an agreement?" one audience member demanded to know."
And opposing every one of them? This is like the US saying that it "protects everybodys interests by sitting on the UN" - and then using its veto for say - The International Criminal Court.
Just too scary.
You are able to do so, despite MS best efforts. People had to reverse engineer the doc format to get this accomplished.
So I don't really see your point. Just because people make great efforts to accomplish something that would be trivial if MS released the specs or adhered to an open standard, doesn't mean that MS is in the right, does it?
With Open Office, I can read and export every major Microsoft file in and out of OO.
How much more open do you want?
I want to be confident when I read and export Microsoft files from Open Office, when they reach their intended destination they'll actually still look the way they looked when I exported them.
I want to be confident about this without having to keep a copy of Word around to check to make sure I didn't somehow accidentally trigger some minor incompatibility with the spec that OO committed because they don't have the spec itself.
Because you want something that they have. They developed the file formats, so they own the intellectual property. If you want them to spell out how they work for you, you'll have to play by their rules. If you don't like that, that's fine too. You don't have to know now their file formats work to use their product, and when it comes down to it you don't even have to use their product.
This seems to me a lot like the BitKeeper debacle. It's all about contracts: the people who have something of value get to dictate the terms of the contract. No matter how much you complain about it and say "but file formats should be free!", that's not going to change.
However, he stood firm on the company's policy of making the XML schemas for its Office 2003 document standard publicly available provided interested parties sign an agreement with the software heavyweight. "Why should I have to sign an agreement?" one audience member demanded to know.
Isn't this basically the same as me agreeing to the terms of the GPL when I download GPLed source for a library or app that manipulates some open source document format? The only real difference is the terms of the agreement.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
"I can read and export every major Microsoft file in and out of OO"
For now... wait until the next version of Office comes out... it isn't like formats can be reverse engineered overnight
While Microsoft is not going to fool a group of ol' beardy UNIX gurus, it can still fool the general public who aren't in key with how MS operates.
"Open Source" has become a bit of a buzzword these days. I figure that Microsoft reckons that it can ride on the open source wave by twisting the meaning to it's own benefit. Not too unlike their so-called "Open Licensing" or whatever-it-was initiative.
No MS. You can say it as many times as you like, but until you release Windows under an open source licence you will never be truly open. Charging money to see source code is not "open source".... so no, you can't play in our sandpit.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Notice how Microsoft successfully ended all use of the word "innovation" anywhere in the late 90s by their repeated abuse of it.
"Open" is next.
They've found that if you don't want to do something, it's totally sufficient to not do it and then repeat to the press over and over that you did it.
My wife is in College and has a lot of term papers to write and share with other student groups for her projects. She is able to do all of this with Open Office by converting to .doc formats without incidents.
The only problem she ran into was PDF. She was using it for her last semester and loved it's simplicity of use with OpenOffice. But then she ran into someone in her class who "couldn't open it in notepad". Avoiding my Nike Burns, Computer Guy, impressions I thought it best to just export to .doc format and leave it at that.
This is the third year that We've been using only OpenOffice on Linux. I've also shown a few others the use of OpenOffice on Windows and they have adopted it as well. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, Microsoft really doesn't have anything useful to add to a word processor. Wait, they might be able to add something, but it's not cost effective.
Dang. While Mr Microsoft was next door, I was sitting at the OpenOffice miniconf at LCA just 60 metres away. I wonder if he knew that the Forces For Good were gathered so close by.
I'm glad someone mentioned the NAA and the use of OOo. For the purposes of Digital Preservation, openly documented formats are essential. XML is good, but XML that you have to sign up for? C'mon Mr MS, who are you kidding?
At the NAA, we're about keeping records for long after we're all dead. Digital records *must* be stored in publicly documented formats. Your grandkids won't be keen to sign an agreement to use those records.
Last time I checked, Microsoft are under no obligation to provide anyone with any details about their XML schema.
Despite the fact that you have to sign an agreement, this is certainly more "open" than a blanket rejection to everyone who requests access.
I can think of plenty of companies who won't let you get details about a file format they use under any circumstances.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
They probably won't look the same, except in the most trivial cases. However you don't have that level of confidence if you use one version of Microsoft Office and send the document to a user with a different version of Microsoft Office, so you don't have much to lose by using OO.o instead.
Last time I checked, Microsoft are under no obligation to provide anyone with any details about their XML schema.
They're not, but then why not just stick with their binary format? Offering an XML-based file format (cabability) without supplying the schemas is not all that useful? You get the data, sure, but you could always export as plaintext for that.
Furthermore, it's certainly contrary to the basic idea and openess of the XML format, if you're gonna trap people with a patent license, trying to control how they parse the XML?
This is deceptive if you ask me.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
without MS you have no web/html like we have today
And without ignorant guys like you MS wouldn't have so much revenue.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
If anything the extremists should be encouraging Microsoft to be as closed, proprietary and cumbersome as they can possibly get. They seem to be shooting themselves in the foot here by trying to cajole/convince Microsoft into playing along.
Seriously, if you're one of those folks who sees all proprietary software as a tool of Satan (says me, writing this in Opera), you don't want Satans reps on Earth to soften their image. You want them to instead impress people over and over again with their Black-Hatness so even the most clueless will eventually wake up and say "what the fuck?"
You *want* MS to lock people in - and then bend them over and ream them good and hard once the lock-in is established. That creates enormous ill-will, especially to the PHBs who don't like anyone messing with their kingdoms. When the next opportunity comes to jump ship, they'll be that much more inclined to do so (e.g., when the next full-scale upgrade and conversion takes place).
The harder they squeeze, the more star systems, er, customers, that'll slip through their grasp.
So fanatics, crusaders, and all you "information wants to be free" loons (who STILL won't send me your credit card numbers, you hypocrits), reevaluate your game plan here. You're doing your cause a disservice. Every time MS screws over a customer pat them on the back and say "good job!"
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
A printed document is a different thing than a Hypertext document. The grandparent post is right: there should be no need to embedd a video in a document that is to be printed, i.e. used as a book, as written documentation.
On the other hand, you are also correct, but what you are referring to are not paper documents, but hypertext documents. Hypertext documents should be able to have anything in them, because their sole purpose is to pass information around through computers.
The difference between paper and on-screen documents is what caused your disagreement. Software vendors like Microsoft have either failed to realise this difference, or they deliberately ignored it in order to lock-in their customers.
Why on earth should MS have to make it easy for someone else to rip off their work?
Why should Microsoft have the right to lock up my documents and not tell me how to get my document complete with formatting from their program?
What gives them the right to treat my work in that way after I have already paid them?
I believe that companies should be allowed to take whatever measures they deem neccessary to prevent piracy and reverse-engineering of their software as long as it doesn't hurt customers.
I'm happy to pay for, and use proprietary software, but that does not mean that I want some company to tell me with what software I can open my own data.
It's not about embedding music and videos, it's about embedding _anything_ whatsoever. Some of which _are_ valid things to have in a document.
E.g., surprise, I might want to embed a CAD drawing as an illustration in a document. E.g., I might have a map generated out of sattellite data, by a specialized program. E.g., I might have a scientiffic/simulation program which can present its data or results in its own format, and I might want to embed that in a document. Etc.
"Text document" no longer means 80 column, 7 bit ASCII, you know. If an illustration or diagram actually belongs in that text, I'd very much like it to be actually included there, and not just referenced as "oh, and you also need to look at asdfgh666.jpg in the attached pics.zip file." Stopping to do that not only is a waste of my time, it also pointlessly disrupts the reading process.
Yes, one could do the stone-age thing and do a piss-poor export to some graphics format first, and then embed that. And pray to the dark gods that you don't end with some piss-poor conversion and/or scaling artefacts when printing. Just like in the bad old days.
Or you could have a modern design which can spare you that waste of money, brains and time. Microsoft obviously took this route. Kudos to them.
So, no offense, the "why would you need to embed a video in a text document?" is just a straw man, and not even a good one.
Again: The point is to have an architecture which can embed anything whatsoever, from any program. Incidentally something that generic is also usable to embed videos. But it's also able to embed stuff that _is_ perfectly normal and logical to have in a text document. Which is the real point.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
As a user why should I care about the difference? I'm making a document to send to someone, I should use a document editor. I don't care about what sort of document it is, I shouldn't need to know. I just create the document and distribute it in the most appropriate way. If its got video in then I know that it won't print very well but I understand that. Why should I have to create two types of document based on the distribution medium?
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
It's a fallacy to assume that Word can open .DOC files perfectly. It doesn't. Do you have any idea how many .DOC formats have been created over the years? There are rules governing what versions will open which version .DOC and when you're given a random floppy to open with a random version of Word - cross your fingers. Then there's the international incompatibilities... And don't get me started on Works!
.DOC isn't 'all that'. OASIS is a MUCH more open and stable format, and will be for years to come.
I wish a mainstream reporter would investigate this so that businesses can understand that
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
"I still don't see how were they illegaly forced out of the markets."
;). This was also illegal.
The marketplace success of MS Office had little to do with the performance of the product. It had everything to do with:
1. Withholding the Win32 programming interface from competitors as long as possible prior to the launch of Windows 95 (i.e until Office95 was nearly completed) so that they could advertise that only Office had 32-bit apps. This is a classic example of using a monopoly in one field (Windows) to obtain a monopoly in another field (office productivity software). This is unequivocally illegal under U.S. antitrust law.
2. Bundling agreements to get as many PCs as possible pre-loaded with Office, particularly for business use. These agreements contained strong financial incentives (in the form of discounts on Windows licensing) for offering consumers only Microsoft products and not any competing software (believe me, I know, sayeth the AC
3. Obfuscated and changing file formats that ensured that competing products would not be able to read the latest versions of Office files. Once MS killed off all of the competition, this tactic lost momentum, because MS was largely competing against older versions of their own software, and people became worried that upgrading to newer versions would make their older PCs (running Office 97, for example) unable to interchange files with newer computers. This tactic is not inherently illegal, as far as I know, but it could have been legitimately prohibited as part of a remedy after Microsoft's antitrust conviction, and (to get back on topic) is clearly something that could legitimately be prohibited in government specifications for acceptable software.
So, yes, my idea of "free and fair competition" allows one company to attempt to "outperform/outmarket" another, but only if they obey the law. Microsoft did not obey the law.
"Why should I have to sign an agreement?" one audience member demanded to know.
If I were the guy on stage, I would be very tempted to reply with "Why should we open this up to you anyway?"
Some people expect a lot- for nothing.
It is amazing who you meet when you do something 'for the public.' I run a totally-free, totally-unsponsored web app. It is a combination calendaring/weight and exercise tracking/reminder/organizer/bulletin board. Think Weight Watchers on-line for free - with a calendar.
It is surprising how often people send me things like - "I won't use your system until you do xxx" or more commonly "I DEMAND that you make the following changes or we will stop using your system."
That is why I went from being an involved host, to being the guy who is seen as a dis-interested developer. The moment you show interest, there will be a bunch of people (about 5% as far as I can tell) who feel that it is their god-given right to demand that everything works exactly the way they want it to. And instead of just going away, they do things like organize a boycott, and post hundreds of messages in the bulletin board complaining about the perceived problems.
What the complainers don't realize, is that they only make up a small percentage of the users, and the other 95% use the system and are fairly happy. Of course there were other people who were un-happy, and they moved on- possibly to Weight Watchers, where they are paying $200/year- of COURSE it is better, I am sure they have more than one developer.
So- I am not saying that Microsoft should, or should not open up their system more. I am just saying that there is always at least ONE jackass out there who feels that the world owes them everything, just for the honor of having the jackass use their software.
No reason to lie.
OpenDocument is being supported and encouraged within the EU. It will also be supported in OpenOffice 2.0, which is due out soon. The beta for OOo 2 is out already for testing.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
He didn't say it was the way to go. In fact, quite teh opposite, he advocated alternative open source software. What he said was that he didn't advocate reverse engineering closed source software. He went on to say that a company has a reason for closing the software down and it's no right to crack it just because we can. But he certainly never said he was in support of closed source software.
So- I am not saying that Microsoft should, or should not open up their system more. I am just saying that there is always at least ONE jackass out there who feels that the world owes them everything, just for the honor of having the jackass use their software.
You're extrapolating your experiences and applying them to Microsoft. Unfortunately you are failing to account for the fact that Microsoft does not behave the same way you do. First they are a monopoly convicted of abusing that monopoly position to illegally crush competitors and force both behaviors and financial penalties upon their customers. The fact that the government has not mandated open formats from MS is a clear indication of just how corrupt they are.
Users deserve an alternative to being locked in by a monopoly and if someone feels like yelling that at a representative of these criminals, I'm all for it.
Invariably 90% of them have never paid for their copy of it believing themselves to be under the Microsoft "I use it at work so I can install it on 12 PCs at home" Licence or the Microsoft "My mate gets the MSDN CDs and he's allowed to let anyone else use them" License.
I wonder how many of the same people would be so vocal if they had to shell out £200 for a copy?
Me? I use OpenOffice and can save my pennies for 100 pints of fine English real ale while sleeping soundly and night knowing I'm not contributing to Bill and Melinda's sorrow at being unable to afford a new extension this year due to all those "naughty little Office pirates".
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Just how would anyone think they could make this claim is beyond me. That would be like, say, Grumbacher claiming that someone's painting is a derived work because they used their paints and/or brushes.
Stop the insanity!
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M