Slashdot Mirror
ODF Offers MS Word Plugin to MA
Goalie_Ca writes "Groklaw just posted that the OpenDocument Foundation is offering Massachusetts a plugin that could 'allow Microsoft Office to easily open, render, and save to ODF files, and also allow translation of documents between Microsoft's binary (.doc, .xls, .ppt) or XML formats and ODF ... The testing has been extensive and thorough. As far as we can tell there isn't a problem, even with Accessibility add ons, which as you know is a major concern for Massachusetts.'"
Microsoft will make sure this plugin won't work well for a long time ;)
No one posts a link?
wtf is the point of posting something like this without a link?
wtf good is a plugin if no one can get it...
eesh
I thought the point was to eliminate a barrier to entry. So workers could use either, not be forced to use Word.
The desired effect would be to allow a gradual trasition that would be easier to swallow than a all-at-once changeover.
At the same time though... this does conceivably give more power to Redmond as there is now less incentive for MA to leave the Windows/Office platform.
Not necessarily. I may also make the transition easier. First everyone just save to ODF, then the switch is easy to make because you don't need to get everyone to make the transition at the same time.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Can you feel it? It's the tide of inevitibility.
Why? The Catch 22 has been solved (we need MS vs. can't convert while using MS). And it's the bean counters that ultimately sway government decisions.
1) Plugin will be installed on gov pc's
2) Documents will be handled in ODF
3) Gov bean counters will be suggesting to managers everywhere they can save $XXXX if they use OpenOffice instead of MS Office
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Seriously. I don't use MSOffice all that much, but have to constantly exchange .doc, .xls, etc. formats all the time with other people. For the most part, OO.o saves in these formats and opens in Office fine, as intended. Sometimes it doesn't though. If I could save in ODF format and include a plugin with the document itself, I would think that would be far more helpful in getting people to at least look at open source, rather than just pointing them to OO.o and saying "Install this".
For me, it's not so much about getting everyone to use Open Source as to ensure that *I* have the freedom to use it, and still be a part of society (i.e be able to communicate with government etc).
It's definitely true that it's open STANDARDS that matter. There is, however, a large pitfall: Don't let vendors like Microsoft redefine what an open standard actually is. They tried a little while ago, with their previous office XML standard...
- Vegard
I read it differently: This completely blows Microsoft's lame argument out of the water that MA considering ODF is unfair to the millions of people who already use MSOffice, because it is impossible to rewrite office to use this "crazy new format."
If a simple plugin can allow MSOffice to use ODF, there is then no argument whatsoever for MA to use Microsoft's proprietary formats, which really do shut out all non-Microsoft users.
More music, fewer hits
I disagree. The idea behind an Open Format is that I can use the program that I choose to produce it. It would be ludicrous to pretend that most people aren't using Word today. We should be happy that this plugin exists as it makes it more likely that people will use ODF. Once ODF is well established, then people will see that they can choose whatever software they want to create such documents. In the long run it benefits the user and other office suites (not just OO.o)
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
Very smart move. It allows the office workers to continue as if nothing had changed, for the moment. But when M$ comes knocking and tries to sell them an upgrade to Office200x, the answer will be "if we have to upgrade anyways, as you have just elaborately shown, then we'll upgrade to OpenOffice, thank you".
Especially if the new Office they release with Vista changes the interface considerably, and requires re-training anyways.
Of course, the next Office update will break the plugin. It'll be a cold day in hell before M$ can let this stand unchallenged.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Given that the plugins do not work at the file format level (at least of the MS formats), but at the level of normal MS Office integration, I would imagine that the plugin will work across most current MS Office versions.
.doc &etc. files will be handled by the NATIVE application, and the ODF format is clearly defined. As long as ODF supports the feature set needed by the plugin (and, given the plugin can be made, it does), which must be reasonably feature complete, things will work.
.doc (officially) on many Unix platforms was to use the limited Microsoft viewer. So this is a very good development.
There are plenty of vendors that offer MS Office plugins that work across most versions, and the existence of these plugins is one of the reasons for the "MS Office lock-in". The plugins are NOT offered for other office suites (and this was one of MAs concerns; disability support plugins for MS Office that didn't translate well into other platforms).
The existence of these plugins makes MS Office a platform instead of simply a program. This plugin simply allows continued use of the platform where needed; yet allows competing product and platforms to coexist.
Note that conversion accuracy is no longer a concern:
Now, the plugin layer MUST be (reasonably) feature complete -- simply because if it is NOT, other plugins would suffer badly (eg. screen reader wouldn't be able to determine formatting, thus rendering difficulty to blind users of MS Office).
If you are paranoid about Microsoft, and think that the feature completeness of the plugin layer will or can be compromised -- that is very unlikely. Other plugins would also suffer, and government users would be forced to start looking at alternatives.
The existence of this plugin means that an ecosystem with both Microsoft and alternate vendors can be supported. Which is a good thing. Previously, the only way to use
I don't think it will hinder or improve MS Office sales at all, but it will make things possible that have been VERY difficult in the past.
I will start seeding the plugin as soon as I can!
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
to Microsoft: never mind. You don't need to lift a finger.
Yes, but not having a finger lifted was Microsoft's optimum strategy.
If there is something your enemy would be a complete idiot to do, make them a gift of it. (This is where the phrase White Elephant comes from)
Their hand has been prised from their cold, dead monopolistic format by interoperability. The issue is choice vs. monopoly, not my monopoly vs. their monopoly.
Microsoft has been very publicly denouncing the move to ODF as a my monopoly vs. their monopoly issue. Not only does this blow that argument out of the water, it makes MS look like complete assholes in the process.
KFG
I see less of this but rather Microsoft doing one of two things:
1) Embrace the plugin and create it as a standard feature of MS Office. Make sure this integration solution falls behind the standard and start including special Microsoft initiated ideas. When standards people complain about the new features, yell at them stating that the standard people are holding the product back from its true capabilities that customers keep demanding of Microsoft.
2) Include a warning message when loading or saving documents to special plugins that they may include viruses, have missing features, or that data may be lost. If people complain, Microsoft will state that feature X in Word is not in the standard.
We should expect the following from Microsoft. Microsft are going to prepare a patch that will eventually disrupt the working of the plugin in all Office versions."
Of course, if MA passed a statute stating that government agencies had to use open document formats, then if Microsoft to action to prohibit the plugin from functioning as you suggest, they would be eliminating Office from being suitable for use by state agencies. As such, it would not be in their best interest to take action to disable or hinder the plugin from working now that it is available.
A much more likely scenario is that they will need to do everything possible to keep it working and others will also start to adopt the the plugin and the proprietary Microsoft format, while maybe the default in the software, will no longer be the default used by the people.
Once that occurs, it will be much simpler for competing products to come to market (commercial or open source) and challenge Office. The competition might not be good for Microsoft, but will be for the consumer.
Binary files made a lot more sense when every CPU cycle and bit of space counted.
These days, you can just use XML and zip it, and have something with good enough space efficiency and much better interoperability.
My sweetheart works for a non-profit health agency in Massachusetts. Nearly all of his paperwork is in MS Word. Not that he has any particular feelings for or against MS Word, but because the Massachusetts Department of Public Health requires this.
Nearly every grant application, mandated report, etc. must be in MS Word "doc" format. Not plain text, not HTML, not SGML or XML or anything else, MS Word "doc" format. If it's not in MS Word "doc" format the state won't accept it and your grant application won't be received, your mandated reports not accepted, etc.
Sure other levels of state government are talking about adopting ODF, but that is just theory, until the state converts all of it's huge library of forms and applications, the paperwork that it all runs on, to something other then MS Word "doc", this is all theory. For that there will need to be a huge transition, and this sort of plugin is what can make it possible.
In the meantime all of the elaborate integration many of us take for granted, and that there are islands of in the state, and pockets of in state contractors, affiliated agencies, and the huge range of state-government dependent organizations, will be able to continue using MS Word in their established workflows.
Back to my sweetheart's agency, they do have a considerable investment in MS Word. Not just in licenses, they know MS Word. Their staff aren't computer geeks, indeed most of them only tolerate the crappy PCs they have now (running Windows 98) because they have to. But at least their fingers are trained to the keystrokes, they know the menu options, the more ambitious can even do a mail merge, lay out a flyer, etc.
Yes readers of /. think nothing of staring at an unfamiliar screen and working out how to do something with it; for a case manager trying to find a spot in a detox program for a 65 year old homeless woman who wants to get clean that is just not a hassle they want. Therefore anything that eases adopting open formats is a huge benefit, and critical to the process being painless and positive.
While many would like to hurt MS more of us really just want a level field and files that can be properly read a hundred years from now. Let applications and vendors come & go, lets at least have some durable file formats.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
OK Again, not to sound trollish but...
[RTF] has extremely little support for any useful formatting or metadata that you would want in an office format.
I was always of the impression that metadata is normally considered evil by the people of slashdot. I'm not going to claim to be an expert but I see little real world use of metadata in Word. This is one of the few things that I agree with the slashdot crowd on.
ODF, on the other hand, is flexible, with a complete and open spec... So while I haven't tried this plugin, I find it entirely possible that it supports all or very nearly all Word features
OK, here is where I'm going to come off as completely trollish but I'm having a problem getting my head around this: It's a standard that you praise, you say is flexible and complete but then turn around and say that the plugin (that is ODF comlient and which you haven't tried) should support all the features of Word? Maybe it sounds like I'm splitting hairs but this is along the lines of you asking me about the Rolls Royce Ghost and me telling you: "It's a fantastic car, it rides great. Granted, this is only from what I know of the specs but I've never driven one yet, but it'll work just fine."
I guess my problem is that the more I learn about the wonders of open source the more I'm left scratching my head saying "that already exists and exists for free". While I can understand the desire to see the source code and modify it I see this plugin as little more than a new document format that is more flexible. Maybe it will help to port over documents between MSO and OO but it doesn't seem to be "the missing link" that everyone seems to be shouting about. I'd still like to see the plugin for myself and I'm seriously considering putting OO on one of my machines so that I know a bit about it. I just still have a problem as to why so many hype this plugin. Maybe I just don't use Word enough...
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I know that MS has done similar things in the past (DR-DOS comes to mind), but usually that's only when a) they have a technically plausible reason for it and b) they think they can get away with it. This issue is too much in the public eye.
Your comments appear to be based merely on your observation of the demo, and a lot of (largely incorrect) assumptions.
Undo, for example, is not gone. There are toolbar buttons in the "quickbar" by default next to the big round button you seem to dislike so much. It also doesn't "do away" with the need for undo, but it does significantly reduce it since most actions have live-previews that go away as soon as you move off it.
The "shy" toolbar doesn't appear when you're typing, but rather when you make selections, so your hand is already on the mouse.
There's actually a lot MORE text on the toolbar than there is today. A hell of a lot more, except when the visual image is what's important (such as with templates).
I'm also pretty confused by your comment that the toolbar is "littered with icon popup buttons where your choice causes an action to happen". Isn't that precisely what "buttons" are supposed to do? Isn't that the purpose of a toolbar?
Changes don't happen automatically. You have to select them (not obvious from the video, i'll admit). PREVIEW happens automatically, but is removed when you move off the button if you don't select it.
Word is already contextual, so your arguments that the button won't be findable if it's not selected is pretty silly. Notice how the actions in the Table menu in word 2003 aren't usable if a table isn't selected.
Also, keyboard shortcuts aren't removed, but rather follow the new style guidelines that they only appear when you press the alt key.
You really should try and get ahold of a copy to try out before jumping to all these conclusions. You seem to be looking for reasons criticize it, and are inventing them wherever a demo doesn't explicty show you something.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Not only does this plugin allow MS Office users to use ODF, it does it with their existing MS Office licenses. Microsoft's OpenXML would have required an Office upgrade in order to achieve interoperability. And if they had implemented ODF in the upcoming Office release, this plugin probably wouldn't have been written, so again, you'd have needed to buy an Office upgrade to play.
Now there's interoperability with no revenue stream for Microsoft. Nice going, MS.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
It's an issue of freedom. We should all demand open standards be used for data exchanges so that we have the ability to do with our data as we choose. Microsoft should not be in a position to use market forces to force people to buy products that they don't want.
I didn't mean this. I'm dead sure that a significant amount of important customers have to switch to open formats before they themselves turn to open formats. Their history proves it.
There is also another inherent danger in choosing the Microsoft standard - who's to say that Microsoft, once getting it approved by a standard, will actually *follow* their own standard? What's to prevent them, once having an ISO-standard that's widely accepted, to implement small but important, non-open extensions in their next version?
I'm not saying they will, I say that I don't think it's beyond them, if they think that it'll benefit them against their competitors, and that they can get away with it. And what good will their once so open standard be then? It will be worth *nothing*, once again.
I might be paranoid. But in some cases, I think you just have to be.
There is of course also a danger that the same thing happens to ODT. The difference is that the reference application here is an already quite known and wide-spread Open Source-application, and it's already implemented in several products by several vendors. The opportunity for any of those vendors to get away with it without losing customers is just so much less. History has shown that Microsoft can get away with a lot, and nothing, not even lawsuits, can really prevent them.
Now can you see why they've bolted down all the furniture in the executive suite in Redmond? That's another three shackles coming off. Freedom of choice is within reach.
And for all you die-hard MS fans that live in Massachusetts: You might want to download the plug-in anyway. At least in the future you'll be able to read newly archived ODF-formatted documents. Save them as .doc, .xls, or .ppt files if you want. And if you want to pay for the privelege of upgrading to Vista and Vista Office some time in the future, go ahead. I'd rather get off that high-speed carousel and upgrade on my terms, not some vendor's...
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
Please post a quote where a Massachusetts official posed this as an either-or, Microsoft-vs-ODF situation. Random 'OOo advocates' may have posted some anti-MS rants, but that's irrelevant.
If you truly believe that Microsoft will actually release enough of a specification, and actually adhere to that specification, enough to eliminate "lock-in", then God bless you.
Many people still use Word97 and are perfectly happy with it and see absolutely no reason to upgrade. If Microsoft wants to introduce a new file format (Office XML) and a new interface at the same time, I see a huge opportunity for OpenOffice to pick up the ball.
Word97? Let's be honest here, folks - 99.99999% of all "documents" are still standard memos & letters that except for the typefaces, don't look any different than they did in the 1980s when the IBM Selectric was the big thing, and CP/M was something that geeks couldn't wait to get their hands on.
And those 99.99999% of all documents could STILL be generated just as efficiently on Wordstar under CP/M, on a Z80 with 64K of memory, as what it is today on a 3.2Ghz XP machine with 2 gig of memory the secretary plays solitaire on during her lunch hour.