Slashdot Mirror


Does ODF Have a Future?

qedramania writes "Linuxworld seems to think ODF is a dead duck. Is the Windows monopoly too big and too entrenched? Other than diehard Linux fans, does anyone really care if they have to keep paying Microsoft to do basic word processing? It seems as though the momentum is towards a complete Microsoft monoculture in software for business and government. You can bet that big business and governments will want more than just reliability from Microsoft in return for their acquiescence. Does ODF have a future?"

16 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. OOXML means Windows-only by martin-k · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you accept OOXML as your organization's file format, you are limiting yourself to Windows. The specs contain many Windows-specific things (for example, EMF and VML) that it's very hard to implement on a non-Windows platform. Why would you as a purchaser want to do that, while you still have a choice in desktop operating systems?

    I prefer OpenDocument, and I am putting my money into it: OpenDocument export is finally finished for our TextMaker word processor and will be released in a few days.

    1. Re:OOXML means Windows-only by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1, Informative

      EMF isn't hard to support on a non-Windows platform. Mac apps have been supporting EMF for years. There are many available libraries that allow conversion between Windows EMF/WMF and Mac PICT/Quartz2D available. Stop FUDing.

      And VML isn't tied to Windows. It's implementable on any platform. It's hardly used by anyone anyway (not that SVG (the result of merging VML and PGML) is used much either, for that matter).

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    2. Re:OOXML means Windows-only by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative
      To properly support WMF you need a complete implementation of the Windows GDI, since a WMF file is just a stream of GDI function calls. While it is possible to implement on other platforms (WINE have a fairly complete implementation of GDI now), it is trivial on Windows and much, much harder elsewhere. Most WMF converters only support the most commonly used GDI functions, to simplify matters, and often don't support all of the flow control the format allows.

      Imagine how loudly Microsoft would be complaining if someone proposed a 'standard' format that was a serialised stream of X11 commands.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. Tail wagging the dog by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1, Informative

    File format isn't what people are worried about when purchasing software, it's the software itself!

    Office is expensive, but OpenOffice doesn't look as good, doesn't work as well and feels cobbled together.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  3. The Massachuesettes issue is a speed bump by MonGuSE · · Score: 3, Informative

    The rest of the industrialized world seems on track to adopt ODF as the defacto standard for government documents (Brazil, India, France, India, Denmark, Belgium, Malaysia, Croatia, Norway, Spain, Argentina). All of them have either adopted ODF as a standard or appear to be in the process. California is considering it and while Massachuesettes may be saying the OOXML is an open standard and can be used internally I still am under the understanding that all government documents will still have to be made available in ODF format as well as whatever other formats they choose as well.

    You have to remember while MS Office has a large install base but most of the time when documents are made available on the web or exchanged via email, it is done in the form of PDF's. That means that since Open Office can output to a PDF without purchasing other tools that it actually has an advantage over all versions of office pre 2007.

    It will take some time because of the install base of Office XP and 2003 out there but when companies look to upgrade in a cost effective manner and potentially need to utilize both ODF and Doc formats they will choose Open Office. Microsoft looks like it is going to put its head in the sand and not implement ODF into Office 2007 and therefore it will force those who need to work with government agencies to either constantly convert things or use Open Office. Also remember that it looks like MS Office 2007 does not have built in export to pdf functionality its an external plugin that has to be included or installed and that it looks like for anti trust reasons MS may have to disable that functionality at least in the EU if not the states as well. If I'm a company I don't want to have to buy Office and then Acrobat crap just to be able to write to PDF's.

    All that OO has to do to cement their viability is to refine the UI a little more. I find some functions cumbersome for those used to Office's interface but those that have to switch to 2007 from Office 2003 seem to become even more baffled.

  4. Re:Largely an attitude thing by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Informative

    My second-to-last recruitment company wanted my resume in .Doc, and I later learned that was because they stripped my contact information and replaced it with their own. I guess that's so their client wouldn't be able to contact me directly, but they ended up screwing up the format and making my resume look like amateurish crap. Thankfully their client knew it was the recruiter's fault and didn't think I was simply unable to make a simple document.

    Now, my last recruitment company got my resume in PDF only.

    --
    http://www.mhall119.com
  5. Re:Largely an attitude thing by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 3, Informative

    That, and they like to doctor your resume. Well, I don't know for recruiters, but being a consultant for a consulting company, I know that happens. I tried to submit my "company internal CV" as PDF but they wouldn't take it. Reason, they change stuff in it. For example, I speak German, read it but can barely write it. So, I'd say "German Spoken: Fair", "German Read: Fair" and "German Written: Poor". I later found out that they changed it "German Spoken: Good", "German Read: Good" and "German Written: Fair". That pissed me off to no end....

    I bet recruiting companies do that too... After all they only care about their commission.

  6. Re:Just a Question Never Answered Well by Nibbler999 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because RTF is a proprietary format owned by Microsoft.

  7. Re:You don't need MS Office to create .doc files by PinkPanther · · Score: 5, Informative
    Because the .doc file may contain inadvertent materials. They often contain information that has been "deleted"; simply turn on tracking mode and you can see previous edits. Getting rid of these artifacts is non-obvious and often involves downloading a tool that is not a core part of MS-Office.

    This becomes a MAJOR problem in an environment where templates have not been created and/or maintained properly and efficiently. Often employees will take an existing document, ctrl-A, DEL, File-> Save As..., then start typing to create a "new" document simply to get the "corporate headers". If that initial document contained sensitive information, would you want this "new" .doc being emailed about?

    This has been a problem in the past.

    The fact that a /. reader doesn't see the problem with employees sending .doc files via email is all the more reason to worry....or to simply submit...

    --
    It's a simple matter of complex programming.
  8. why ODF failed in Mass. .. by rs232 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Is it game over for OpenDocument? Probably. We've been expecting Massachusetts ITD to publicly revise its open formats mandate to include Office Open XML (OOXML) ever since Louis Gutierrez resigned as CIO in early October 2006. That was as clear a signal that ODF had failed in Massachusetts as needed by anyone in the know"

    How can you equate political machinations with the the technical merits of a document format. If OOXML was so technically superior then why did MS need to get the decision to go with ODF reversed and Peter Quinn effectivly FIRED.

    Yea I know, they just cut his funding and ignored his recommendations .. same thing ...

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  9. Re:You don't need MS Office to create .doc files by pthor1231 · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to the first article you linked, the researcher found hidden data in PDFs, to so simply forcing emailed of PDFs versus docs doesn't necessarily fool proof you.

  10. Re:Largely an attitude thing by jZnat · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can easily embed fonts in a PDF file. You can even embed only the parts of a font that you used in the document so you don't bloat it with a huge almost-complete Unicode font.

    --
    'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  11. Re:You don't need MS Office to create .doc files by timjdot · · Score: 3, Informative

    I use it almost every day. Other people with OO have no problems reading it either. So, very popular with me as it works as designed and expected. No problems so far.

    TimJowers

    --
    Expect Freedom.
  12. Re:Largely an attitude thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You can't embded fonts unless they are flagged to allow embedding. (Yes, even fonts have DRM. People just don't notice.)

  13. Re:You don't need MS Office to create .doc files by Ben174 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually, Office 2007 has a surprisingly well-implemented feature, "Inspect document" which will scan your document for hidden data and allow you to strip it from your document.

    --
    Here is my home page.
  14. Re:Think "world" instead of "USofA". by Nazlfrag · · Score: 4, Informative

    1 cubic centimetre of seawater at sealevel weighs 1 gram. It takes 1 joule of energy to raise 1 cubic centimeter of dry air 1 degree C. To see the improvements, convert this statement to inches, pounds, and Fahrenheit.