Michael Meeks On ODF and OOXML

biscuitfever11 writes "ZDNet has up a great interview with Michael Meeks, the distinguished Novell engineer, who's currently deeply involved in open document format and OpenOffice.org. In the interview, Meeks takes Microsoft to task on its alternative format OOXML and argues that Microsoft should adopt ODF — but says that realistically they never will. He also mentions his favorite example to explain the benefits of open source software to a nontechnical person: the flexibility of open source would have allowed us to free ourselves from Clippy, the world's most despised paperclip, by changing a single line of code."

Comments

Clippy is not a very compelling argument

[Gothmolly]

I'll put on my Executive Hat here: "So Open Source is good for removing features, gotcha." Arguing about turning off Clippy not necessarily a shining example of why OSS is good. Things like zero-day exploits, internationalization, and no per server (or VM!!!) costs are what will make people adopt OSS.

Clippy

[SamP2]

Last time I checked you can disable Clippy in 10 seconds from the Office Options menu, without the need to find the right line, remove it, and recompile. Anyone who is not capable of clicking Tools->Options and checking off a checkmark would not be capable of editing the code either.

Not being anti-OOS in any way, and there are many instances when editing a few lines WOULD make a difference in the usefulness of software (Windows Firewall sure comes to mind), but this is not one of them. Sorry.

summing up OSS

[abigsmurf]

"the flexibility of open source would have allowed us to free ourselves from Clippy, the world's most despised paperclip, by changing a single line of code."

This is also a prime example of where OSS fails too. How many basic users would be able to even compile a version with the altered code, let alone alter the codes themselves? Heck even finding a specific "no clippy" version among a variety of differently configured distributions could prove too taxing. Microsoft's approach to clippy is that if you hide it 3 times in general usage it'll present a user with an option to turn it off and it'll never appear again (provided you've a well configured server). An "if you don't like it, change it" approach simply isn't as effective as good interface usability testing when you're dealing with a userbase comprised of vastly different skill levels.

Re:Okay...

[Salsaman]

Nice try at misdirection, troll, but the squabbling is over. ODF has already been accepted as an ISO standard, and is already supported by all of the following groups:

http://www.odfalliance.org/members.php#viewall

Now perhaps you would care to answer the original question: why are two standards better than one ?

Retraining compared to the ribbon?

[tepples]

but I buy MS Office at work every couple of years because I won't have to request a new training budget when I do so. Citation needed that the retraining from Microsoft Office 2003 to OpenOffice.org 2.x is bigger than the retraining from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007's tabbed toolbar.

Huh? x2

[khasim]

That's a rolling budget that I have access to without having to submit pre-approved expenditures for. It's primarily used for replacing user PCs, phones, etc, which is why I mentioned it here.

You cannot forecast when to replace PC's? And you have 160+ users?

Huh?
Huh?

Even at 100+ users, we lease our workstations and replace them every 3 years. It's a known cycle and they're under warranty. Not to mention that there aren't any surprises for Accounting for the next 3 years.

Ah, yes, the hubris of the OSS community... forgot to mention that.

Yeah, maybe you could just answer the question, okay?

Apache can "fail" for many reasons.

Yeah, maybe you could just answer the question, okay?

Your excessively technical question suggests to me that you're not very involved in the business.

Yeah, the question, care to answer it?

Regardless of why apache "fails" - be it because of some flaw in the program or because of a simple hardware failure - if apache is new apache is blamed.

How would they KNOW it was Apache? You haven't answered that question, either.

This is just how it is, unfair as it may be.

I didn't ask if it was "unfair".
I asked how Apache would "fail" and how they'd even know that it was Apache.

You have not answered either of those questions.

I inherited IIS from my predecesor (who was, admittedly, clueless) and I won't risk my job switching to apache.

Seeing as how you cannot answer either of those questions and you think $60,000 is a lot of money for a business and you cannot even forecast workstation purchases .....

I've been deploying Linux throughout the company I work at. And no one can tell the difference. As long as the service is available, they're happy.

Here's a free clue. Hardware fails. Real professions know this and have already taken steps to mitigate such failures. If a drive dies on your Apache server, the end users should not ever know about it.

If you're claiming that they'll be complaining about running Apache when that happens ... you've already failed at your job.

Re:Huh? x2

[Acrimonymous]

You cannot forecast when to replace PC's? And you have 160+ users?

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

We have a LINE OF CREDIT with certain companies that we use to REPLACE or UPGRADE phones and PCs. Beyond that, I have to submit a budget and it has to be approved. I've done this in three different companies, so I'm thinking this is perfectly normal.

Yeah, maybe you could just answer the question, okay?

You're just being a dickhead for the sake of it. It doesn't matter why apache "fails". If the network card goes down, then "apache fails" as far as 125 people are concerned and if I'm the guy who suggested we use apache, it's my fault. I'm not dissing apache, I'm just pointing out the fact that I'm the guy who will get blamed if it's not accesible, whether it's apache's fault or not, while I'm the guy who will get kudos for "fixing" IIS even when it's IIS's faulty design that causes the inaccesibility to begin with.

Whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, OOS has to be 100% perfect to succeed on each individual basis, becuase if it's not, the guy who suggested moving to it gets blamed by the incompetents who, never-the-less, make the hiring decisions.

The remainder of your comment is just idiotic. I'm fully aware that Apache is stable and more reliable than IIS. The fact is, however, that because Microsoft's name is behind IIS, I don't have to worry about becoming the fall-guy when the web server goes down. If IIS fails, and I bring it up quickly, I get "kudos" for "fixing" the problem. If I suggest apache, however, and the ISP flakes out on me, I get fired.

If you have an actual solution to this absurd state of affairs, by all means, give it. If, however, all you have is the juvenile pro-OSS nonsense that dominates the "debate" spare me. I'm not risking MY job for YOUR principle.

I'm going to agree with you.

[khasim]

My email server (Linux + Exim4 + SpamAssassin + ClamAV + chroot'ed BIND9) has over 600 days of contiguous uptime. And it's being hit every day by crackers from all over the world.

Any competent admin can keep IIS running. Any competent admin can keep Apache running.

And NONE of the users would even KNOW what webserver was running. My users don't know that I'm running Exim4. They don't know that ClamAV blocks the viruses. They only care about the SERVICE. And they're very happy with the service.

If you have to reboot IIS to get "kudos", then you're incompetent. That is all.

Competent admins get "kudos" for helping the end users perform their jobs faster and/or easier and for fixing the "I accidentally deleted an important document" problems.

Re:It doesn't matter ... we are screwed either way

[LingNoi]

Why don't you just grow a backbone and ask them to install the ODF plugin for office and send you an ODF.