Slashdot Mirror
Study Touting OOXML Over ODF Is Debunked
The Burton Group, an IT research company, published a study urging that enterprise organizations adapt OOXML rather than ODF. Their reasons include things like "ODF is controlled indirectly by Sun," "MS Office is cheaper than OpenOffice.org," and "OOXML improved many problems of DOC." The Burton Group also claims that although ODF is well-designed, OOXML is better suited for the specific needs of enterprise organizations. The study claims to be impartial in that Microsoft didn't pay for it. Ars Technica now has up a pretty thorough debunking of the Burton study. Ars wonders how the Burton authors can so blithely overlook Microsoft's vote-buying in Sweden, while wielding unfounded accusations of chicanery in Sun's direction.
> "OpenOffice is more expensive" (free? wtf?),
License fees dont begin to cover the real cost of software. You need to have an IT department to support it, you have to train users on it, etc. A $100 dollar license fee seems negligable pretty fast when contrasted with the IT budget for a company and any productivity gains/losses that result from using different software.
This is often referred to as TCO (Total Cost of Operating) and salesmen love it cause they can always put up graphs that indicate that their product is clearly the best from that perspective. A lot of people roll their eyes when they hear this term because they dont think much of the aforementioned salesmen's BS. But it really is foolish to factor licensing fees into your decision about what software to use from a cost perspective unless those fees are truly exorbitant.
After you start the Print Spooler service, but before you start Adobe, go check your printers list. Just look at the icons representing your printers. That's it. You can now start Adobe.
I make it sound apocryphal, but it's not, and this post is not a joke :)
Cheers from friendly /. user 834456.
Sun has an ODF plug-in for MS Office 2000-2007. It's not like using ODF means you are forced to use OpenOffice.org. Isn't that the point of an open format, no vendor lock-in?
I've been in IT nearly the same amount of time, and yes generally new hires are supposed to pick up using the office word processor/spreadsheet on their own time. Preference is given to prior experience.
However, switching existing software requires retraining even for relatively minor changes. That's always been done on the company's dime(e.g. IT payroll, outside classes, OJT), IME.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Not necessarily. There's a lot of companies out there, including Burton, who are MS "partners", and earn all their income by pushing and supporting MS products. They don't need to be explicitly paid off to spout pro-MS FUD; they stand to profit through increased use of MS software, so they're happy to spout FUD for free.
For instance, if McAfee published a report that said that Linux and MacOSX are highly susceptible to viruses, and that virus infestations of such machines are common, it'd be pretty obvious that they didn't need to be paid off by MS to say these lies. Their entire reason for existence is the poor security and virus susceptibility of the Windows platform, so it's in their best interest to make people believe Windows is the best platform, and that every computer should have anti-virus software installed.
Also considering the level of proficiency, at my company anyway, with MS Office productivity isn't that high on average anyway. Switch them over and add training and you're already more productive.
It's free and they don't spam you, and Ars Technica oversimplifies a lot of points or just plain misrepresents them. I won't get into how much the Slashdot summary distorts the Ars Technica coverage ...
The report states that ODF files can't due all the things OOXML does, which means it won't meet the needs of most large, established enterprises. If you've ever worked on professional-looking reports, or worse imported reports, you'll realize this is pretty quickly obvious.
HOWEVER, the reports two takeaway points are: Both XML-based standards are a huge step in the right direction that allow capabilities for the enterprise impossible with proprietary formats that aren't easily readable.
The SECOND takeaway point is actually that Google docs and other SaaS might make this format war moot, which is anti-Microsoft if anything.
Go, read it yourself
>Industry debate about the relative merits of OpenDocument Format (ODF) and Ecma 376 Office Open XML (OOXML)
So why do they in their own summary mention OOXML as an Ecma standard, but fail to mention that ODF is an ISO standard?
I'm surprised that the authors don't expect to get laughed out of the hall when they present this report -- even if it is on Microsoft soil.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
OOXML, on the other hand, is just a (rather grotty) documentaion of the format that MS back-ended onto Office 2007 (it's not even the default format) ssssssssssssss -- and even though Microsoft claims control of the format, they're not even willing to bind themselves to use it in the future.
This is a really clear case of the coal calling the steel black. (not even the pot calling the kettle).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Frankly, though, I'm skeptical that he is who he says he is.
Burton are Microsoft boosters from way back.
They did a hatchet jobon Google for MS not so long ago, and when they're not slandering Microsoft competitors, they're out flogging Sharepoint Services.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Maybe they're just saying that anybody who insists on using ODF because Microsoft has a disproportionate influence over OOXML is fooling themselves, because the same can be said (to an extent) of ODF.
If that is what they are saying, they are just plain wrong. Sun has influence over ODF because they participate in the ODF working group. They *participate.* They don't control, though they do have a lot of input, being a highly-skilled bunch of folks.
Microsoft doesn't have a disproportionate amount of control over OOXML-- they have *absolute* control over OOXML. They have reserved to themselves the right to modify and change the standard themselves. No-one else may even participate. So, that's not "disproportionate." That's absolute.
The difference is painfully clear, and impossible to miss. I would say, "Impossible to ignore," but I have heard this bit of misinformation often enough.
What is the purpose of ODF? Is it to empower users? Or is a means for Sun to erode the profitability of core Microsoft products?
So far, ODF is the only open standard editable office document format available. Period. There are no others. Several competitive office suites support ODF, not just OOo/StarOffice. Microsoft could also support ODF, if they so desired, and if they truly had an office suite that would win in the free market, it would. Sun is not barring them from participating in the ODF OASIS working group, nor from adopting ODF as their standard office format. It is Microsoft who refuses to play.
There is *no* product that supports OOXML. Even MS-Office 2007 doesn't save to OOXML specifications; Microsoft isn't even compliant with their own proposed standard. So then the question is not, "Is this Sun trying to erode Microsoft's profitability?" but, "Is this Microsoft trying to maintain their own profitability at the expense of the user?" And also, "Does ODF in its current or proposed form meet the needs of the users?"
In the end, the *only* thing that empowers the user is a freely-available, open standard to which vendors adhere. Otherwise, they have no power whatsoever. They are subject to the whims of someone else. And in this case, the "someone else" has demonstrated a substantial lack of respect for the users, choice, and the free market.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
ODF is controlled by OASIS. A version of it has been approved as an ISO standard.