Slashdot Mirror
Public Request For Microsoft To Release Deprecated File Formats
SgtChaireBourne writes "NLnet, a Dutch foundation for an open information society, has publicly called for Microsoft to release its deprecated formats into the public domain. The maker of Office has made large efforts during the last year to move against the OpenDocument Format (ISO/IEC 26300). These efforts have been producing a lot of commentary regarding the amount of data bound up in the Redmond-based company's proprietary specifications. It's a nasty situation to end up with files that cannot be read because the sole vendor with the documentation for the files has withdrawn permission. ODF is the way forward, or a step forward at the least, with new documents. But for the old documents in the legacy formats, they cannot be read without supporting software and that support requires full access to the specifications."
i see only 2 solutions:
1. release a convertor. (it's available)
2. support legacy via providing the convertor instead of actually reading the deprecated formatted document.
we want to move forward, to adopt a standard -give some time to deprecated formats by supporting them till some time (a deadline), and provide conversion tools for free.
nobody wants a html fiasco when it comes to other file formats.
The reason - they don't have any documents describing the formats.
Code are descriptions of formats.
When Microsoft was forced to disclose information about the SMB format to EU anti-trust department they tried to give them the source code - complaining that it cost them too much to describe the format.
So they are sadly asking for something that dont exists.
Just saying it like it are.
Technically, it would be sufficient for the sake of old documents to provide a free tool that is able to read those documents, or a tool that would convert them to an open document format. This tool wouldn't need to have its source published.
Isn't it quite obvious that there are no specs? The OOXML specs are probably the best they can do when they have to reverse engineer the code into documentation. Don't expect any better than that and furthermore, don't expect them to even try (which they at least have when it comes to the OOXML documentation).
I think that something people don't get is that there are not and never were comprehensive specifications for these formats. The specification is likely the code and nothing more. The document formats weren't conceived as a du jure standard, they are things that grew over time and evolved. Somewhere at the core you're going to find things like a C structs - from some old and forgotten compiler - being copied verbatim to disk.
Asking Microsoft for the spec will not mean simply taking an existing doc off the shelf and handing it over. It will mean either handing over the code for the old products that read and write those formats or spending person-years of effort combing through that code, constructing a specification, and then, somehow, testing the spec.
I wouldn't hold my breath for either.
Seems to me that with Microsoft trying to push everyone to OOXML, the old "doc" and "xls" formats are the obsolete and depreciated formats, even if MS won't officially say so.
Yes, people should definitely pay for their mistake of buying Office in '97 when they could have got OpenOffi-- oh wait, that's right: it wasn't even released in '97. People don't deserve to "pay for their mistakes" because they bought the best software at the time for office/productivity work. They deserve to scope out the alternatives now (iWork and OpenOffice, though OpenOffice still sucks, largely, except for Writer), but they didn't do anything wrong by buying good yet closed software.
-Matthew Riley "TofuMatt" MacPherson
I have a website
As noted in another post about this article, it may be that there is no "format" other than "the code". If so, then the only free tool that is cheap to make is a wrapper around a complete application that just calls only part of that application. If so, making the wrapped tool free means giving away the entire program, not just the file part. In effect, then, this amounts to requesting that old versions be made free. Any difference between your proposal and asking old versions of their editor to just be made "free" (for whatever free you might be meaning) is just words, I suspect--nothing semantic.
Of course, this comes back to the question of whether there should be software patents at all, and whether software copyrights should have the immensely long durations that they do. Indeed, at some point, probably much shorter than happens now, having old tools be free so they can be recycled for other purposes may not be bad. It might even give vendors a kick in the pants to move faster to make newer tools be different enough that the old tools didn't threaten them. But bypassing a proper change in software copyright and patent law and instead just beating up on certain people who have things one wants does not seem the best approach to me.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Those formats are deprecated, the currently selling ms products use the OOXML based formats.
On the other hand, why should it be explicitly limited to old formats? All data should be in open formats for a huge number of reasons, archiving is just one of them.
And formats should be opened up while they are new, once they become old the specs often get lost (try opening a really old word document in the current version), often there never were any formal specs beyond "whatever the program outputs".
Finally as to other formats, yes they should request the release of other proprietary formats, but they are going after the biggest target first as it affects more people... As noble as it would be to get the format specs for Wordworth on the Amiga (a long forgotten app, and its original vendor wont sell me a new copy, give it to me for free, or release the source or any specs, their official line is that my documents are lost), this would only benefit a very small number of people. Also, microsoft disclosing their old formats would set a powerful precedent for others in the industry to follow.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Oh come on!
Once the company has stopped earning money on a format, they should open it up under an appropriate license. (Patents might play a part, in an ideal world they would not but let's play in this world for now). Microsoft does not make any money on Excel97. Why on earth be so mean to their previously paying customers that they refuse to open that obsolete standard?
Stop the brainwash
Can you please direct me to Microsoft's Linux versions of those viewers, so I can try them out? Thanks!
MS is a for-profit company. It is not their job to serve you, answer to you, provide you with public service, or unzip their flies and hand you all their trade secrets so you can develop a competing product. If you don't like their stuff, don't use it. There are plenty of great alternatives like OpenOffice, Linux, Apple's OS, etc. available. Feel free to tell MS to go to Hell. Feel free to never buy one of their products again. Feel free to encourage your friends to do the same.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The oldest supported format is Word 6.0. Some businesses may require older versions. That's the crux of the argument, even their supported tools fail to open some of the much older formats. If Microsoft truly had all the old formats supported, as I stated earlier, they'd be able to really say there's no need.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
If someone really cared about proprietary formats so much, they always had the option of saving their documents (or at least backups) in neutral formats like rtf. AFAIK, virtually every version of Office has supported these kinds of open formats. People don't use them because the VAST majority of users don't give a rat's ass about the propriety vs. open source issue. Is that MS's fault? Is it their responsibility to promote the open-source/open-document movement? Is it their obligation to roll over and give you all their trade secrets so you can develop an open-source competing product and drive them out of business?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
At the company I work for, we usually do sit down and document the byte-layout of that file. When this was neglected, it has invariably come round and bit us in the ass
C - the footgun of programming languages
I would but MSFT is an illegal monopoly in the USA, South Korea, and Europe. Yet they still have total control over file formats.
MSFT is a for profit company which means they should sell products and services people are asking for. People are asking for converters for other OS's. MSFT doesn't even provide converters for OSX an OS which it does support. let alone for other OS's.
If your business is totally dependant on trade secret file formats then you had better be very careful. As the one day that some one builds something better your screwed.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I'm beginning to think that a lot of the worry over old file formats becoming inaccessible in the future is overblown. With the continuing advances of emulation and virtualization technology, it seems highly unlikely that we'll lose all access to documents in old file formats. Emulation of the proper platform and installation of the appropriate software are all that's needed. The real trouble rests with obsolete physical storage media. I still have 5.25" floppies that I haven't been able to read for many years now, but that's hardly Microsoft's fault! And if there's a market for it, someone will be happy to copy all of your old media onto something more modern.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
nope. the whole point of a monopoly and proprietary formats is that you're not screwed. before another company stands a chance, it doesn't just have to build something better, it has to build something better, install it on all computers worldwide and convert all existing documents to the new format. otherwise nobody can move to a different piece of software.
and seeing as the monopoly office suite is made by the same people who make the operating system, it would be trivial for them to not allow a competitor's products to run.
Why do you feel that Microsoft should start programming for different OSes? If you don't like the fact that your documents can't be opened in Linux, stop using Linux. Or stop creating documents in Word.
If the data in this file is so important, why was it not converted prior to the support being removed?
Once upon a time, someone told us that the point of a business was to take your money, and have you feel happy about it. In other words, you give the business money, but feel that you have received fair value of goods and/or services in exchange.
The point of a free market is that if the above conditions are not true, you should be able to do business with someone else, instead.
Relate this to Microsoft as you will. But keep in mind a few things...
- There are very few viable (The word "viable" can scope quite a few meanings, here.) competitors to Microsoft in many situations.
- Many times their real customer is not you, but someone else - a supplier of one sort or another. Your involvement may be many-times indirect.
- Microsoft has been found guilty of illegal monopoly practices in a court of law.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.