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situation to end up with files that cannot be read because the sole vendor with the documentation for the files has withdrawn permission.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."
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Yes, we'd like to have a standard, and one which is readable for a long period of time - which is the point of the whole ODF standard in the first place. The problem with the proprietary formats is that they have every reason to change and a considerable number of reasons to drop support for "deprecated" formats.
I used to work for a medical transcription unit, and we generated over 250K documents annually. It is a non-trivial exercise to convert those documents from one format to another. That doesn't include the loss of formatting which occurs, and there are instances where the formatting is important. This loss occurs even when moving between versions of the same software - just take a Word 97 document and translate it to 2K and then to 2003, and you'll see it.
Your idea is feasible if it's a one-time function. That is, there is a standard format which will be used for a considerable length of time, and you need to translate your older documents into that standard. If you're going to have to do it ever two or three years, it's going to be a non-starter.
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.
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.