Slashdot Mirror
IBM To Support OpenDocument Next Year
An anonymous reader writes "IBM announced this weekend that early next year it will begin supporting the OpenDocument standard in its WorkPlace line of products. They're planning on pushing this widely accessible format and their products in developing nations." From the article: "Rather than create an analog to Microsoft Office, IBM is offering editors for creating documents, spreadsheets or presentations within a Web browser. Documents are delivered via a Web portal and stored in shared directories. Access control and document management tools allow people to share and edit documents with others. Until now, Workplace supported the formats from open-source product OpenOffice, from which the OpenDocument was derived. Workplace Managed Client software also can read, write and edit documents created with Microsoft Office."
It's time somwe heavy weights actuallt DID something in that regards.
Scott McNealy to Michael: "Suck my Sun!" Michael Dell to Scott : "Lick my Dell!"
Sun support, Novell support, Google and many many less-known software vendors supports. Now you can add IBM support and see that Open Document can become a huge success.
You can read OpenOffice.org developpers' blog to see many simillar stories of companies or organizations adopting opendocument standard.
Let's hope a spell-checker is included
"The governments of India, China and other emerging markets are very interested in this," Fontaine said. "They don't have the legacy of having everything saved in Microsoft Office to transition from...This is an opportunity to start out right."
What does this statement mean? Did China and India use pen and paper when doing their spreadsheets up until this year?
Article on MS in China: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5197528/site/newsweek
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
What about the rest of the world? Just because the American government will continue to support the convicted monopoly doesn't mean the rest of the world will. IBM is marketting this mostly to developing nations (I'm assuming developing nations who have computers with internet access). To them, saving the money from paying for Microsoft licenses is more then reason enough to swap over. Throwing in support from a large corporation is merely gravy.
But what I'm a bit confused about, is the usefulness of having it work as a web portal. "Good" nations do have trouble with internet connections, I can only assume it's as bad if not worse in developing nations. So why create an online solution, instead of a scaled down simple offline solution? Wouldn't that fit their needs better?
Ah, nothing like a good cup of buzz in the morning.
Favorite quote: "
Here's a hint: throwing around buzzwords doesn't indicate you actually said anything.
Governments around the world have built on the M$ Word platform without an serious look at this defacto standard impacts the competitive environment and the choices of consumers. While there are formats available, the percieved lack of technical support and business model behind Open Office has slowed the adoption of alternatives. Support by IBM is crucial for the wide spread success of the Open Document movement and will go a long way to increasing market share.
Any help with backups, with data conservation, with access reliability, with machine portability.
Any help requiring private individuals and businesses to use fewer resources is good.
The individual network nodes may be less reliable but the network itself is not.
Where you don't have reliable wiring, wireless can take over. This is especially true in places in the develloping world where the last mile might take years to be built over.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
ODF is being adopted in many public institutions in Poland. I don't know what's the fuss about Massachussets, there are hundreds of places that already switched and you don't read about them on Slashdot everyday.
OSS fans are always bitching about Microsoft, but they don't seem to have a good strategy for competing them. Microsoft did a lot of fairly simple but very strategic things to get their dominance, OSS developers need to do the same. Here are my ideas for increasing the use of open formats:
1) Make Firefox display OpenDocument formats by default. I know that everyone complains about keeping bloat down, but if the OpenDocument format is going to get widespread use them people are going to have to be able to read it. Besides which, Firefox must already have 95% of the code required to do this.
2) Make a standalone MS Office to OpenDocument translator from the OpenOffice code. I want a tool so that I can drag a Word Document onto an icon on my desktop and it automatically translates it to OpenDocument format. And it should be able to do batch converting too, and to output a log of what it's done and any problems.
3) Take out the MS Office compatibility from OpenOffice. Concentrate on making OpenOffice a great tool for creating OpenDocument format files.
I think many people approach this the wrong way, they say things like - "OpenOffice must be able to write MS Office files so that I can send them to people that only have MS Office." However, what we really should be aiming for is to get in a position so that anyone can happily say "Please send us the document in OpenOffice format" and so that if someone says "Can you send it in Word" you can say "Download Firefox - it reads all OpenOffice files."
People are going to criticise this as unrealistic, but these are exactly the type of strategies that Microsoft used to get their desktop dominance.
Another IBM product you never heard of is going to use open document. Anyone who uses these obscure IBM products has been drinking so deep from IBM's koolaid well, that they will never use a non-IBM product anyway. Thus the adoption of open standards will have zero impact on those customers.
Zero install time, zero effort. Ideal product I would say.
Downside: It is a service which they can charge for, so my OpenOffice will be cheaper in the long run. Lets say two hours to download, install and configure per year, at $30 per hour= $60 per year for this online product.
It is an ideal office product though, just plug in a server or two for this application and you are done. Upgrade: Overnight for everybody, and everybody will have the same response, same bugs, so better to solve issues.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
My friend - I really do work in marketing ;) Political marketing, btw ;)
To the point:
I mean that Web transforms. Slowly, but transforms. Web content is moving away from 'content' and more into 'application'. Just compare, for example, early Yahoo and Google. Early Yahoo is man-made list of links; Google is program for labelling sites with PageRanks and showing them to consumer. Compare early advertising programs and AdSense - AdSense works without any human input.
ODF allows for web document editing - first stage of web applications; after mailers and task engineers; but before imaging programs and full-fledged Internet OSes.
Is it contentful enough?
bifacial [bifeishel] - n., Lat. 1) Having two faces...
Granted, this is good news for the linux community, as much as it is good news for people who use lots of other operating systems which do not run certain proprietary programs. Most of all, it is good news for anybody interested in using an open format instead of a proprietary format, regardless of the platform which may or may not be proprietary.
Lemon curry???
Come now, you know it doesn't count to slashdot unless it's in the US.
I am trolling
What would you rather use - Wikipedia or Britannica? Slashdot or city's main square? That's the same.
bifacial [bifeishel] - n., Lat. 1) Having two faces...
This misconception is not helped by the presence of Tux at the top of this report. /. should know better.
ODF is a format for saving documents. It is platform independent and there is no reason why it should not be used by any application that creates documents, whether open or closed source.
The rest of the world isn't hurting for a lack of free word processors. When 3rd world countries are able to keep the power running 24x7, they'll be able to support business that need to produce lots of spreadsheets & documents -- and then they would be able to afford Excel.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Exactly! I've just googled for "Open Document Format" with results in Polish only and one of the first hits is a document from the Polish goverment describing "minimal requirements for IT systems in public institutions" in Poland (text in Polish). If you scroll down to the section called "File formats" and a paragraph about text documents you will find 5 different formats: txt, rtf, pdf, doc and odf. Further details are even more interesting: requirement is that IT systems in institutions must be able to read doc documents - default format for read and write exchange of documents is either txt, rtf or odf.
Wow. I am mighty impressed: there is so much fuss about different countries/cities/states which are about to introduce some kind of such regulations while in my native Poland it is already done and it is not even news.
Cheers
Raf
P.S. And PNG and SVG are listed among graphics formats!
Anyways, with MS going to an XML document base, it is moot to believe their is a need for an open document format. XML IS OPEN, I mean, its a text document in a highly structured standardized format.
.doc-xml reader/writer without risking legal action from MS. Have a go, and do let us know how you get on!
Then you will have no problem implementing a
(I'm assuming developing nations who have computers with internet access)
Uhm, care to name any of the nations that do not have computers with Internet access? Although 90% of the population of a country live in horrendous poverty, there are still those who have net access.
This is just another crack in the MSOffice dike.
Several national governments are now mandating Open formats for thier documents, spreadsheets, etc. The more they are adopted, the more Bill and Company will have to compete on quality, features and price, not "Only we are 100% compatible with our proprietary format".
Now, if we can only convince the the Feds, or at least several more states, to make OD format the standard, we can make real progress. After all, most of Bill's bucks come from the US, and if we don't get the changes made here, we have so much less impact.
My 2 cents.
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
You have brought up a major issue with the adoption of ODF which has been discussed on /. for quite sometime, I think the obvious strings being pulled behind this resistance which is a typical wool pulling excerise that MS engauges in quite regularaly.
/. and we all love to argue in these parts) but if you argue this point my only comment will be you need to stop using a GUI's to run a server stop playing the cowboy and learn how to be a proper sever admin! (now back on topic)
Sadly they usually get their way just like the TCO issue with linux, come'on! for crist sakes! are people idiots? yes they are! MS knows this, MS knows that we (nerds) know this but still how many times do we hear their nonesense _independant_ studies where people use them as a basis of argument and really i dont want to hear any counter remarks about this particular issue (I know this is
Okay maybe am a little bit rash but heck, if people are buying the MS methods of persuasion to keep their product in use for their Govt, so be it. However, when will it be time for the counter attack to approach, where's Google amoungst all of this? I would like too see what will eventuate with all these companies detesting MS actions and as a result and build up in joint arms to attempt to slay the giant beast? The best way of doing this? Kill their office revenue, their biggest form of revenue but its definatly not going to be easy.
Now okay, MS currently on top, true by far but these other companies have all these wonderful strategies in play to work agaisnt MS and all i've heard so far is "oh ms has already won" BS! theres Google, IBM and Sun and whoever else who would love try to trip MS when ever the chance is available? and okay MS is smart and strategically minded, but you cant say the opposition isnt either?
I guess really only time will tell though, but there really has to be a counter attack somewhere otherwise why is Google offering a lending hand to OO?
Anyways, with MS going to an XML document base, it is moot to believe their is a need for an open document format. XML IS OPEN, I mean, its a text document in a highly structured standardized format. The tags might mean something different from document to document, but XML is inherently an even easier document format to reverse engineer. By MS going with XML, they are almost implicating that they don't care about proprietary documents anymore.
First, MS has been calling their new format "Open-XML." Now I don't seem to have as big a problem as you do about sticking "open" on the beginning of everything, but it would be nice if the format actually was open so people like you aren't confused into thinking it is an open format.
Second, as I mentioned, their format is not open. It is an XML based format, but it relies upon embedded binaries in closed patented formats and the format itself is only licensed to developers, not truly open. Allow me to detail the practical ways in which MS's format differs. Future versions of the format will not need to be open. No one can add or propose innovative changes to the format without MS agreeing. There is no guarantee that it will be legal to offer a program that opens old version of the format. Technically (according to the license) if MS comes out with a new version of the format every word-processor that still offers the old version is in violation of their license. The license specifically prohibits redistribution, which means no GPL licensed application (like their biggest competitor) can offer that format. The spec as it now exists implements all images embedded in a proprietary format, owned by MS, that only has libraries for viewing available on Windows; instead of with one of the many well documented and supported image formats.
Now if you are being paid by MS you probably already know all this and are just astroturfing for them. If not, please actually read some information on the subject you are espousing opinions about. Preferable read information that is not just an MS press release.
One error in the report is that it's a Web-based implementation. It's actually an Eclipse-based implementation. The container for the ODF-compliant editors is IBM Workplace Managed Client. The container itself is a very interesting thing because it lets you build applications of just about any type, which are then deployed with the client over the network (or added to existing deployed clients as the case may be.) It also runs unmodified across Windows and Linux, because the Eclipse/Workplace layer does all the interaction with the OS windows, file system etc.
The point about the ODF support is that, like all standards, it takes interoperability out of the equation and lets vendors compete on the implementations. OpenOffice is essentially a MS Office competitor, using the same desktop-centric deployment and support model, except with open source and cross-OS capabilities. This is good for folks who like the MS Office "way" but want choice. IBM is approaching the problem of desktop productivity tools a little differently, as a locally installed but network managed app. Again, innovating in the implementation because the standard lets you do that.
I'm looking over the wall, and they're looking at me!
"Open" is hardly a new buzzword - they've been using it all over the past few decades. Usually, of course, "open" meaning "you can actually buy the specification and implement it yourself if you want to". It's only in the last decade when the grassroots sense has been rising, as in "you can get the whole specification free of charge and no strings attached, too".
Plus, I think it's a silly thing to stick "open" to the project title, especially in open source projects. But that's just me.
And yes, I agree with the conversions - in the future, we'll see awfully converted Word docs and vice versa. People need to stop thinking these as typesetting languages and think of them as a format to exchange textual contents and semantic structure. Word isn't a typesetting program, neither is OO.o, and people who scream that .docx to .odt conversion isn't "perfect" are using the wrong frigging tool - they should export the document to PDF, or go download Scribus or pay some serious money for InDesign or something if they're so concerned about maintaining perfect document layout.
Taking the Internet to the People
Since a web browser is a rather basic piece of software, making browser interfaces to ODF documents doesn't even technically require internet access. You could work on locally stored files through the browser. Some of those 3rd world countries didn't have persistent internet anyway, but did file up/downloads at the end of the day. ODF would work just fine for them, and a free browser interface? no problem there. FTFA, hard to say whether they would be making the "Web Portal" in the traditional sense (i.e., here's the ibm.com hosted web portal for downloading your documents), or more of a local interface (my network LAN fileserver has a portal interface for getting local files).
What ever happened to SmartSuite, anyway? I used to have a roommate that swore up and down that it was the best office suite in the industry. Do they still make that?
--saint
Oh, wow! I almost get the feeling that OpenDocument just appeared in final form and IBM is an early adopter -- NOT!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
1) Make Firefox display OpenDocument formats by default.
...these are exactly the type of strategies that Microsoft used to get their desktop dominance.
2) Make a standalone MS Office to OpenDocument translator from the OpenOffice code.
3) Take out the MS Office compatibility from OpenOffice.
No it's not. Internet Explorer doesn't display Office formats by default and never has. There is no standlone other-to-Office translator and there never has been. And Microsoft initially had strong support for just about all of the competing formats so that people had upgrade options.
People are going to criticise this as unrealistic
No, I'm going to criticise you as desperately uninformed and woefully undeserving of the +4 Interesting you currently have.
Hard to decide whether to moderate you as a troll or to reply, but I figure it is best to reply.
Your main argument here is just patently false. Most word processors does not interoperate just fine. No wp program can read MS office documents right. Openoffice 1.x does not convert documents too good, and even though it is better with 2.0, it is still not perfect. This is exactly why people buy MS office. MS office has no way of reading Openoffice documents. So both ways the conversion is just not there. It is definitely not easy to reverse engineer binary formats. This is why there are no SW that does this perfectly with MS office formats.
And no, there will not always be incompatibilities between software. There will be when not using standards, but the whole point of the open standards is to eliminate this. Look at how the web works (even though there are some incompatibilities with IE on purpose). The whole web is built on open standards.
Aside from your false claims, there are no reason to have closed formats except to limit competition and cooperation. The possibilities that become available when you work in open formats are endless, from making information sorting software that access documents, to extracting numbers from spreadsheet formats. Just because we have not had open document formats does not mean they have no use.
I think that IBM is smart to try this in developing countries first. For one thing, when you do not have a well established standard, it is much easier to try something else - and maybe even make that "something else" a standard in those countries. There have been well documented cases concerning the resistance to change in the U.S., even though there are now quite a few viable alternative desktop environments.
I have been using alternative desktop environments for the past twenty years. For many years, I used a development environment containing the proprietary VAX/VMS and OpenVMS environments, Then I used several different UNIX environments. These days, I use Windows XP, connected to UNIX and Linux environments in the workplace using Tarantella's terminal server software, which provides a desktop graphical user environment into remote systems (of various UNIX and Linux varieties). At home, I use predominantly Linux desktop software, but I also test BSD and Windows software. To me, there is no functional difference in which of them I use because my tools are predominantly Web and Internet based.
Brian Masinick, masinick at yahoo dot com Linux
All the development team at the company I work for recently migrated to ODF.
(btw, I am the dev team. Before, I used to use whatever Koffice's default format was)
"Web transforms" first, everything changes, including the web, so this is hardly groundbreaking. X transforms is pretty much true for any X, so even though you seem to think otherwise you actually say nothing specifically about the web. It's not a new insigth that the world is in constant change.
"contentful" must be a word you invented on the spot, as marketing loves to do. Can't possibly mean anything else than "full of content". But then it's a circular logic: Content is defined as "that which is contained", in other words, the contents of the web is that which is contained in the web.
So, in essence, you're saying: "The web is full of that which is contained in the web" which doesn't say anything. A garbage truck is also full of that which is contained in a garbage truck.
Get me rigth. I can see trough your cloudscreen. I see what you're *trying* to say. It's only, you seem so impressed with your own jargon that you fail to see that it *obscures* what you're trying to say rather than illuminate it.
This is frequently the case in marketing, so often that I've come to the conclusion it must be intentional, particularily when, as in this case, the real "message" is boring, obvious or old, in other cases the real message is just a lie, so hiding it is seen as an advantage.
Near as I can say you're saying: "The web is changing. There are more and more services offered over the web. Modern web-applications do more better than the old ones. This trend may continue in the future."
None of that is insigthful or interesting. It was all equally true 5 years ago, and it was all obvious to anyone even back then.
I'm not sure which things you are referring to:
Ethernet - Not invented by IBM (NIBIBM)
Mouse - NIBIBM
GUI - NIBIBM
C/C++,Java and just about every computer language in use today - NIBIBM
Unix - NIBIBM
Laser Printers - NIBIBM
.
.
IBM was a symbol of the computing age. Just not in the last 20 years.