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."

Comments

Feed me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok can someone explain this to me.

With Open Office, I can read and export every major Microsoft file in and out of OO.

How much more open do you want?

If you want to make applications which use MS file formats, Open Office code is freely available (open source no?) so whats stopping people from developing ?

-SJ53

Re:Feed me!

[miyako]

The problem is that importing .doc files into OO.org is a bit of a craps shoot, sometimes the document imports perfectly, other times it's usable but ugly, and sometimes it's so garbled as to be nearly useless. Not that I'm discounting the work done by the folks at OO.org or the other F/OSS projects that import .doc files (KWord usually does a pretty good job in my experience, and abiword tends to be all or nothing, though I haven't use abiword in a logn while, so it might be better now).
Of course, support is always improving, but that's because the .doc format has been pretty stationary for a while, the new format will still require time to reverse engineer (assume the authors won't or can't agree to whatever MS wants them to sign). I suspect that there will be a decent amount of time where the new format is the preferred windows document format, but importing/exporting for Linux applications isn't quite good enough.
Of course, the real problem, IMO, has little to do with the format itself, but with how often people send .docs for seemingly no reason. It aggravates me to no end how often clients and peopel from school send out emails with the text of the email in an attatched .doc file, when the content of the file is nothing more than plain text that could have simply been put in the email, or at least a plaintext file.
A bit off topic, but also, why the heck won't MS Office import OO.org .swx files? The merits of each file format aside, I generally save office documents as .swx, and it's a pita when I have to open up the file and export it to a .doc everytime I want to send it to someone. Since OO.org is GPL (IIRC), would allowing Office to import OO.org files mean that it would have to be GPL as well, or is it just microsoft trying to fruther their monopoly?

Re:Feed me!

[ajs318]

If MS Word could import and export .SXW files natively, there would be no need for MS Word in the first place. It's only the fact that Word -- and nothing else -- can read .DOC files properly, that keeps Microsoft selling it. If Word could import and export .SXW files, an organisation could keep just one PC with a copy of Windows and Office {plus OO.o export}, all the rest using OpenOffice.org, and use just this one machine for translating legacy documents.

Now, MS Word has a macro language -- a bastardised dialect of BASIC -- and a document object model {though not quite like the W3C ECMAscript one} that allows the canny programmer access to every feature of a document. And the code to synthesise and analyse SXW files is open source. It ought to be very possible for some third party to write a Microsoft Word plugin to do absolutely seamless import and export of OO.o .SXW files .....

If I had a copy of Windows and a copy of Office, I'd be having a go myself. As it is, I got clean three years ago and don't intend to relapse anytime soon. Someone else can have the glory.

Re:Feed me!

[j.bellone]

I haven't had any problems with the new beta 2.0 OO.org software; it works like a charm and looks even purdier than before. I was really impressed that I was able to transfer Word documents and Powerpoint presentations between OO 2.0, Office 2001, and Office 2003 without a problem.

A better response to this

[Umbral Blot]

In reality there is no way MS will open up the .doc format. Lock-in for office file formats and the office products are central to MS's revenue scheme. The way to beat them is not to beg for them to open up their standard, but to create a better open standard backed by the community, one that is not layered in junk like the .doc standard is (why would you need to embed a video in a text document?). Then this standard could be supported by as many open source, and maybe even commercial projects as possible. With enough momentum we might be able to pull an adobe and create a format that is able to coexist popularly with the .doc format. It would be wonderful if MS would play nice; they don't have too, but we don't have to play their game either.

Re:A better response to this

[jazman]

> why would you need to embed a video in a text document?

Why not? The other way is to distribute a bunch of files and have references in the document like "play video 1 now". If you want to distribute a document that describes a series of video clips, embedding those videos in the document itself is seamless.

Just because the OSS community doesn't consider it necessary doesn't mean it's a daft idea. Geeks are completely at home with receiving a bunch of files and playing them as prompted within a document, but the average PHB who can't tell one end of a mouse from the other isn't going to want to mess around like that or to spend more than a microsecond trying to figure out why one of the distributed videos won't play on his system. Geeks will spend hours messing with GSpot and downloading codecs, but PHBs aren't going to fanny around with all that geeky crap.

Plus any boss who fiddles with Linux for a bit isn't going to take long before concluding Linux is retarded because you can't embed video in docs like you can in Word. Sorry, but you have to address "what the users want" and not just "what the geeks want" if Linux is to take over from Microsoft. Windows may be the biggest pile of bugs since a very big pile of bugs but apart from keeling over once in a while it does do what most people want.

Re:A better response to this

[Pete]

Not right now, no, but when Trolltech release Qt4 (later this year I think) it will be available under the GPL for Windows too. So we should have KDE4 (including KOffice) for Windows soon afterwards.

Could be interesting. :)

Re:A better response to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my company's policy on Word docs. No, it's not a legal contract, but no one has sent us Word docs since.

• The document contains no viruses or other malicious code. We understand that if it does we will be legally liable for damages.
• The document is compatible with Word 98 (UK English edition) for Macintosh and has been tested as such.
• The copy of Word(TM) used to create this Word(TM) document is legally liscenced.
• None of the document data is confidential, including hidden information such as the author and revision history.
• In the event of Word(TM) being withdrawn from the market for whatever reason, you the sender will convert all Word documents sent to an alternative format at your own expense.

Re:A better response to this

[pandrijeczko]

It's only dogma that tells you that a "text" format doesn't need support for video.

Actually, it strike me as common sense.

Firstly, how much of what Microsoft produces do you honestly believe is created because the users have demanded it? I'll tell you the answer, none of it.

Since around Office 97, Microsoft has simply been adding features & formats to Office purely to create some justification to users to go spend more money on an upgrade - most users are too innocent & trusting to know what they want and probably around 90% of them use about 10% of Office's core features.

Added to this, why in heck do we need another document format purely to embed video in it? Web developers already do that every day of their lives using HTML and embedding some Marcomedia Flash in it... talk about Microsoft re-inventing the wheel...

Instead you see a chance to push the UNIX philosophy down people's throats. This is classic flawed OSS thinking.

Actually, you're thinking is totally flawed. OSS does not equal UNIX; otherwise, please explain how come OpenOffice also runs on Windows?

You can't replace the .doc format until you understand what people use it for.

They use it because it's there. They do and use what Microsoft tells them to because they do not have any inkling about the ramifications of using a closed information format means to the distribution of information.

"why would any sane developer want to prevent someone from doing that when a component-based architecture makes it so easy?"

Yeah, and an open component-based architecture makes it easy for everyone, not just those who can afford to throw some money in Microsoft's direction.

Re:A better response to this

[1u3hr]

>>I think someone who embeds video in a Word file is retarded. Make an HTML file. Or Flash. Or whatever presentation format.

>Word *is* a presentation format.

>As is anything else that isn't plain text.

OK, strictly you're right. By "presentation format" I was thinking of something for making presentations; eg PowerPoint. Word (notice the name "WORD") can be used for lots of things, as you can drive a nail with any heavy object, but I think prinarly for creating printable documents. Movies aren't.

But working in publishing as I do, I don't think of Word as a presentation format, but an authoring environment. Once the author is done with the text, I export it to marked up plain text and use a real DTP app to get ready for print. And often authors embed illustrations in Word; it's possible to extract them but often they're munged into uselessness and I have to get them separately. Embedding videos in Word strikes me as a stunt, perhaps a subterfuge to send porn, and a stupid way to lock up data in a weird format.

Re:eeehmm

[cuerty]

XML, RTF and TXT are not closed, basically they can be open with most text editor.
The problem is that many goverment institucions give info or documents in propietary formats, as microsoft word .doc files or excel tables. In that case if you wan't to read that you'll need to sing an agreetment with Microsoft, even if you are gona to export it to another format 5 secs after have opened it.
BTW: XML itself is not a format :D

Open enough...

[Mjlner]

...would mean (for me) that the XML schemas would be available publicly over the net. The benefits for all application developers, using MS file formats, would be huge. Say you have a web service and need to receive Office files from whatever clients you have. If the schemas would be directly available through a URL, you could use wichever parser suits you best and check the files for correctness (ie. do they contain the information you need). The possibilities would be enormous.

Re:Open enough...

[TapeCutter]

"The benefits for all application developers, using MS file formats, would be huge." - Agreed, but what would be the benifit to MS who after all, (Anti-trust/ethics to one side), developed and own the popular, but non-standard formats. I don't own MS shares but I would be the first to sell them if MS suddenly "saw the light", published all of thier formats and dropped any sort of restrictions on using them. The software services giants would assimilate all the free IP and simply move on.

In the current environment chasing compatibility with Word formats is not enough. To gain rapid and widespread acceptance you need something that, in the eye of the user, subsumes and significanly improves the capabilities of Word formats. Standard and free are obvious improvements, but you are still left with "subsume", ie: doomed to playing catch-up and fighting FUD.

I don't know the solution, but whatever scheme someone comes up with the "tricky part" is to get the IP laws changed and in such a way that it avoids massive uphevals in the job-market and also increases the rate of innovation (and thus opportunities) in the industry. In other words any practical solution must be a compromise that allows a company to profit from being "first" but also stimulates the industry as a whole. It would also be kinda nice if the industry stimulation was actually useful and interesting work but this is a secondary requirement since it does not put bread on the table.

Since humans first started grunting at each other, exclusive knowlage has equated to exclusive power, those who have it tend to want it kept secret lest it loose it's power. As an example, hands up all slashdotters who would freely publish details of something that they had discovered could, against all common-sense, predict lotto numbers with 80% accuracy. Now keep your hand up if you would publish it before collecting a few bucks in prizes.

Why shoud I have to sign...

[drgonzo59]

"Why should I have to sign an agreement?" one audience member demanded to know.

What would the agreement do? The standard is either open or not (specification is published or withheld). Does it mean that any program that reads the file in this "open" format is bound by this agreement? I can see someone writting "Here, I sent you a powerpoint presentation and I also had to attach the 3 page agreement that you have to sign and send to Microsoft along with your name, date of birth, social security # and all your bank information. Then you can open and use my file. If you don't Bill Gates will come in person and take your firsborn child. Have a nice day, -Your dearest friend Jojo"

Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be madness to sign any such agreement to look at their format. I would need to have some very competent lawyer go over it and figure out what it's saying and what the risks are. If I sign it, do I have the right to talk about what I have learned? Can I build tools based on this format? Are their restrictions on how I can redistribute or use such tools? If I build such tools and sell them, do I have to pay any royalties? Am I committing to patent licensing? Are there trade secrets in the formats, so that if I learn these "secrets" I can no long do any work on other open formats like OASIS? Am I committing myself to some specific dispute resolution protocol if there is a dispute under the agreement? Am I committing to some particular jurisdiction (which may not be advantageous to me)? Am I agreeing that they have injunctive relief if they think I have done something wrong under the agreement? Injunctive relief means that they could get a judge to shut me down while the dispute is being resolved, which could take years and enormous amounts of money. Until I could get some very clear answers to these questions I would stay far away, and I would guess it would a big legal bill to get answers I am comfortable with.

So before I would sign, I would need to find a lawyer and pay a lot of money to find out what the implications of signing it would be. I would go through enormous hassle and a lot of money, just so I would have the honor and delight to look at MS' file format specification. But wait, I might go through all that hassle and expense and come up with some answers that I don't like, like finding out that the spec does contain trade secrets, or that I am agreeing to give MS injunctive relief, and if I find those thing out, I will have spent all that money and still I won't be able to look at the spec.

Or I could skip all of this nonsense and ignore whatever they are offering and just use one format which I know is truly open: OASIS. I don't need to sign anything, it doesn't contain any trade secrets, I don't need a lawyer, I don't need to spend any money, I am free to write whatever kind of software I want to based on it, I can do whatever I want with it, I don't have to pay, I don't have to worry about someone getting an injunction to shut me down if he thinks I did something wrong. Wow, when you look at it this way, what's there to even think about in making this decision?

What we really need is an OASIS plug-in for MS Office so that MS Office users can use the OASIS format without any hassles. That would be cool.

Re:Madness

[MichaelSmith]

What we really need is an OASIS plug-in for MS Office so that MS Office users can use the OASIS format without any hassles. That would be cool.

I am not up on the proper windows terminology but I believe you can write software which hooks into MS Word and basically constructs a document.

So it should be possible to do this with a client for OASIS or Oo and thus import documents into Word. I am not so sure about going the other way, though.

Are you open enough?

[FinchWorld]

Seriously, if you ask M$ if there open enough they'll say yes, if you ask them if there software is the best, they'll say yes, if you ask them if Linux is some unrealistic thing done by weird people who live under bridges they'll say yes.

M$, for some people, will never be open enough, but has this affected integration with M$ and Open source programs, if anything I've noticed Open Office is better at back compatibility with old word documents than Word itself.

And As for "They'll never be truely be open until they open source windows". Why should they? Sure some people think all software should be free, but some people like to be rewarded in megabucks for there software, and if its worth it sure. This is, of course, ignoring that windows is not worth its current price even if it isn't worthless.

Re:That's their decision

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about contracts: the people who have something of value get to dictate the terms of the contract

The question is how far this freedom of contract goes. I know that at least here (in Germany) there are limits to what you can ask for. If some company asked me for example to sign me into servitude (gross exaggeration intended) for using their product, I could sign this contract use their product, and still don't worry about becoming unfree.

So the question remains: Should companies be allowd to lock away your Data?
I think they don't.
It's simply a matter of two conflicting Rights, my right to (freely) access my data, and the company's right to lock away their file format.
Thats when laws need to dicide which right is more important for "the society".
In this case most Countries seem to think that free data is more important than free contracts.

Re:eeehmm

[Anonymous Coward]

RTF is proprietary, but MS has the specs online and easily available.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;86999

The .exe they offer you as a download is a self-extracting .zip ... un-zip tools work fine, you don't need to actually execute it if you want.

Heck, the license info in the document isn't even terrible... it's almost... open.

Perhaps we should turn it around?

[Delgul]

Wasn't there talk recently about making the OOo format into a ISO standard? Perhaps this is the way to go:
1) Make a good XML based ISO standard for textprocessors.
2) Try to convince governments/companies to require their sofware to be compliant with this standard.
3) And this is very important: Demand a very high and continued compatibility with this format to receive the "ISO approved" label. Or else we have another "IGES" debacle on our hands.

Managers and administrators just _love_ ISO standards and will at least frown if we can say: "Well M$ is not even ISO compliant, you will be in trouble in the future if you use that! It's not even compatible with the only existing ISO standard!!". This way M$ will have to coorporate to satisfy the very people that decide about buying their software...

Just a thought. Wouldn't know where to start to make this happen. But perhaps someone else here does :-)

Re:Worked before

[pnatural]

"Open" is next.

Methinks "Free" will be impervious for obvious reasons. Not even Microsoft could induce such double think.

Oh, wait.

XML deficiency?

[gone_bush]

"Some of the things that we do are not represented easily in XML.

I'm not an XML expert and I don't know what Microsoft are trying to do that XML will not accommodate, but, does this not point to a deficiency in the current XML standard? If it does, then wouldn't it be to the benefit of everybody to update the XML standard?

Of course, that does not mean that Microsoft will, or should, use that or any other standard. It is their right to do just what the hell they want. Just like the Open Source people.

They're asking for it...

[shutdown -p now]

I didn't read the license, but I'm sure it includes some sort of 'no reverse engineering' clause. Now here's the question: there are some countries out there where reverse engineering is allowed regardless of what the license says about it. Could someone from such a country possibly get the schema (legally), and then reverse engineer it to make a clean, Open re-implementation of it? And would it be legal to use it in e.g. US?

why was he there ?

[l3v1]

Yup, just occured: 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. - was he invited ? wanted to go ? MS wanted someone to be there ? what's the story ?

Don't use it

[vhogemann]

Of course Microsoft thinks they're open enougth, they still profit!

When OpenOffice.org stand a real menace, then Microsoft will be pressed to open their format, or to support OO.o own.

OpenOffice.org 2.0 is comming, with database support and a REAL laguage to extend it, Java. Let's see how it stands against Microsoft Office.

Re:Too True

[EdmundSS]

Of course you're feeding a troll, with a further troll (as I am, I guess).

extradited for trial by a court run by the UN? Yes. If the US is so confident that its citizens' actions are justifiable, then let them be judged by international law. Refusal is just cowardice.

Oil for Food scandal? ... was the result of inadequately policed sanctions and corruption (allegedly involving US citizens among others). Sure the UN is responsible, in the same way a CEO is. But it is not an "organisation that brought us the ... scandal".

put Libya on the human rights board? This, alas, was the democratic vote of the countries involved. Democracy doesn't always deliver the result you/I want. Consider (depending on your POV) a) Bill Clinton; and b) George W Bush.

stuck with a judge from the other side? So you don't believe judges try to be impartial then?

Edmund.
(Mark me as troll/off-topic if you must.)

Re:How right they are

[pandrijeczko]

yes, its called LINUX

Perhaps I can then be of some assistance to you.

If you would like to share with me some specifics about the exploits you've suffered from in your usage of Linux, I will be more than happy to provide you with some advice on security techniques and server hardening if you so wish.

I look forward to you providing me with the name and version of Linux distribution you are currently using that is suffering these problems. Once I have that information, I can then give you some detailed assistance with your issues.