Slashdot Mirror
Office 2007SP2 ODF Interoperability Very Bad
David Gerard writes "Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 claims support for ODF 1.1. With hard work and careful thinking, they have successfully achieved technical compliance but zero interoperability! MSO 2007sp2 won't read ODF 1.1 from any other existing application, and its ODF is only readable by the CleverAge plugin. The post goes into detail as to how it manages this so thoroughly."
Well, Microsoft did enough to keep the lawyers away.
Not likely that they'll embrace a competing standard antytime soon.
Oops! This also disables loading opendocument files with sun plugin by default. Now you have to use file picker from word 2007 and select odf text document. Another really awful move by Microsoft. Really, was this so hard?
Even if MS fails all interoperability (which I would bet they do), at least someone could use ODF with office 2007 and 10-20 years later be able to use the spec to develop an app to recover the documents.
If it achieves 100% technical compliance with the standard, but zero interoperability, this is certainly a problem with the standard itself.
And the problem in this case is the missing formula specification. It's not in ODF 1.1, and ODF 1.2 is still a draft. While this is Microsoft and we all "know" that this was intentional, ODF is what should be fixed first. We were all bashing OOXML specifications, but ODF 1.1's far from perfect, as we can see.
Did the author of the article test with anything else than a spreadsheet with formulas? Formula breakage was expected and mentioned in the comments to the previous article. The interesting part is are there other flaws with ODF 1.1, are they addressed by 1.2?
This is one of the best-written articles submitted to slashdot in a long time. Not only is it well-written (at least, it didn't make my brain hurt) but it gives you the technical background AND it tells you in advance how to debunk the stupid arguments which will certainly by coming from M$ trolls and astroturfers. Scrapbook this one, kids. You're going to be referring back to it for months, if not years.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
Of course, I am not that cynical. I was taught to never assume malice where incompetence would be the simpler explanation. But the degree of incompetence needed to explain SP2's poor ODF support boggles the mind and leads me to further uncharitable thoughts. So I must stop here.
from the referenced article....
http://www.robweir.com/blog/
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
No surprise that MS has done this. What it does show, however, is that the ODF standard is incomplete. If MS can write out an ODF compliant file that no-one lese can read, ODF has a problem. In an odd sort of a way, MS are doing us a favour here by shaking out the holes. Role on ODF 1.2.
Yes, it's worth noting that the article only addresses that one filetype. On the other hand, it removes the formulas from spreadsheets when loading them, and writes formulas back out in an Excel-only syntax that nothing else can read. If that's MS's idea of shippable, consumer-ready interoperability I don't hold out much hope for its compatability with other file types. Its behavior reads like a half-assed homework assignment from a student who didn't give a shit.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I was thinking exactly the same thing. If MS have made a compliant implementation but it isn't compatible with anyone else's, doesn't that mean that ODF is broken? Isn't this exactly the sort of complaint certain people around here have made against Microsoft's own formats in the past: just because there's a standard that officially states what the document format is, it's no use if other people can't realistically implement it and then trust that interoperability will work?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And from the article, the format version 1.1 doesn't even define how spreadsheet formulas should be stored! Which is why Microsoft's implementation, which doesn't bother to store the formulas at all, is compliant with the standard. This is a joke. Gee, I wonder why Microsoft fought a bunch of non-technical government offices from forcing them to use a file format that's woefully insufficient for their (both Microsoft's and the government offices') needs?
Comment of the year
Well, that depends on who you talk to. Here in the US, that's probably true. Pretty much it's up to Europe to send the lawyers back in.
But, there is a comment at the end of the article to check for an obvious abuse:
The only way for Microsoft to make their legacy ODF documents work and to exclude other vendors would be to specifically look in the document for the name of the application that created the documentThis should be simple to test with a text editor, change the name of the application to match one that works and test that.
Since I don't have access to Office 2007 until I get home tonight, I can't try this out. But if someone feels compelled in the meantime, I'd love to see the results. If the document "magically" works after changing the header, then Microsoft did *not* do enough to keep the lawyers at bay.
Oh course. This has always been true with Microsoft, where in the late 80s/early 90s they advertised they could read WordPerfect files from Amigas or Macs, but all it did was strip all the formatting to leave-behind plain text. Yuck. Even later when Word was released for early PowerMacs, I found that Windows Word could not read the Word documents from my Macintosh.
Microsoft does not want interchanging of information. They want everybody using MS Word on an MS operating system. The end.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
On the other hand, open source coders have been reverse-engineering Microsoft document formats for years. Couldn't Microsoft, just this once, return the favor in the name of interopability?
I thought one of the pieces that wasn't completed yet for the ODF standard was spreadsheet formulas. The article is all about how Excel doesn't read the formulas from ODF spreadsheets. WTF? I can't stand using MS Office for anything, but I think this article is ridiculous.
You really think so? The EU will probably slap them with a hefty fine yet again. This is just another example of Microsoft being deliberately anti-competitive.
Except if you look a little closer, the EU doesn't just fine them. The fine is trivial, and does nothing but make the news in the computer press. Just money. A fine is like a parking ticket. And if you are rich enough, you can theoretically see a parking ticket as a parking fee.
Forcing them to correct the problem to the satisfaction of a neutral third party acting as a technical "expert witness" however, is a worthwhile activity. And this can really sting. This is more like taking away their car, or revoking their license. Way more than a slap on the wrist and a stern look.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Self-replying, I know, but I just thought of something else.
According to TFS, Office fails to load ODF files created by any other application. If those files are compliant with ODF standards, the blame for this lies squarely on Microsoft. They fail to open standards-compliant ODF files.
Conversely, if the files produced by MS Office are valid standards-compliant ODF files (which they may be according to the letter of the standard) we should also blame the other apps if they fail to use them, isn't so? They will also fail to open standards-compliant ODF files.
Sun is just as bad or worse than Microsoft by implementing incomplete standards leading to the same incompatibility that ODF is supposed to resolve.
Actually it does give an advantage to the OSS, because it allows the OSS to do something that it was never able to do before--share documents flawlessly with Word. So, right now let's say I'm looking for a software suite for home. I need to exchange complex files back and forth between work (which uses Office) and home. As the situation stands now, I *have* to buy Word (the Office file support in most OSS stuff like OpenOffice is still wonky, particularly with complex documents). But if there were a open format, able to handle complex documents the same in both Office and OSS, then I could just save all my files in THAT format and choose OSS software (which already has the big advantage of being free) for my home. MS looses a sale, OSS gains a new supporter, etc.
The same logic could apply to my office. If they can create complex documents that anyone can read in odf, why use the Office proprietary formats at all? They could start saving ALL their stuff in odf, which would lead logically to the question "Why not use free OSS in the office and save some money?" MS loses again.
So, of course MS doesn't support odf. Why would they unzip their flies and give up defacto control of the "office standard" formats to those who they see as competitors? It's giving up their biggest advantage to a competition that already has the big advantage of being free.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This. Same issue with Html/CSS, actually. The XHTML/CSS specs leave a lot to the implementation, so that even for parts where IE8 is fully compliants, you have to test between other browsers. The only thing that makes it seem like Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc all use the "same standard", is because they push it a notch further, and on top of the standard, they synchronize their custom implementations on the parts that are not in the standard, while IE8 does not (that includes part where Firefox, etc are NOT standard, yet IE8 is, which makes it seem like its the other way around).
This is no different. The standard sucks, and instead of implementing the standard, people implement the "convention". "Oh, this is exactly what the standard dictates, but it doesnt work in suite XYZ..so lets fix it".
Of course, I'm not going to claim OOXML is any better, its really not, and the 2003 doc format is a million times worse... but these standard specifications are simply not fit to be used as the end all be all. If we lost overnight all of the current implementations, we'd have one hell of a hard time reimplementing them as is from only the specs. Which totally kill the points.
The problem is that if Microsoft can't drive the bus, it won't get on. And if they're forced to get on, they'll be like the schoolyard bully and just do whatever they want to anyway while maintaining a modicum of compliance. They want to control where it goes. They don't want to let others dictate to them what should and shouldn't be done. In some aspects, this would make sense... but in the world of open documents, this is not the case.
OCO is Loco
Actually the early 80s. You see, before MSFT started the clone market by selling Compaq MS DOS and thus creating the IBM PC compatible market, things were VERY different. It was 'welcome to proprietary land" where my VIC wouldn't talk to your TRS80 which wouldn't talk to that guy's Apple ][, etc. By creating the IBM PC compatible market it meant that I could be a PC from ANYBODY as long as it was "IBM PC Compatible" all my software would run and my compatible PC could talk to yours and we could share data. This was a big deal at the time because most computers couldn't share squat, creating major lock in and support problems.
So you really have to give credit where credit was due. While MSFT today is one big lumbering clusterfuck, which I blame on a certain marketing drone that needs a good firing, back then they really did help free us from the mess that was proprietary land. Funny now that embrace, extend, extinguish seems to be SOP at MSFT.
And say what you want about Darth Gates, at least the guy knew how to put out a decent business OS. The total bling bling mess that is Vista being dumped onto business users as Vista business is a really bad joke. Which is why there are so many sites showing how to turn 2K3 server into workstation just to get away from that bling bling mess without losing all their apps. MSFT today is just....eeewww. Which is ironic, as that is the noise that my customers make when I tell them Vista is an option on their new PC.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
This announcement came as such a big surprise to me I had to see it with my own eyes. So I specifically downloaded (ahem) Office 2007 and SP2 for this purpose to see how it actually performs. Now I only tested odt (text docs), so the spreadsheets and presentations may be different, but I opened some docs I made with OpenOffice, which were not very complex, but has some tables, images with subscripts, OOo fomulae and not completely run off the mill markup, and I was surprised to see Word showed it pixelperfect to me. I could even edit the formulae I inserted with OOo. Only at the back of the document we're some quirks with positioning of images. I havent done much further testing, but from a first glance it looks like MS did it right for once. I was impressed, and I hate Microsoft as much as the next /.'er... But it seems this blurb just isnt true. I hope I can get the Microsofties in my circles to use at least this service pack so that I can just email files I made with OOo.
If it achieves 100% technical compliance with the standard, but zero interoperability, this is certainly a problem with the standard itself.
You obviously didn't RTFA and don't have much experience in this area. I could list half a dozen standards from my experience but I'll just quote the one from article:
Remember, it is not particularly difficult or clever to to take an adverse reading of a standard to make an incompatible, non-interoperable product. Take HTML, for example. It does not define the attributes of unstyled (default) text. So I could create a perfectly conformant browser implementation that makes all default text be 4-point Zapf Dingbats, white text on a white background. It would conform with the standard, but it would be perfectly unusable by anyone. If you try hard enough you can create 100% conformant, but non-interoperable, implementations of almost most standards. Standards are voluntary, written to help coordinate multiple parties in their desires for interoperability. Standards are not written to compell interoperability by parties who do not wish to be interoperable.
Who is John Galt?
I like smplayer on Windows and Linux....but that's open source. And frankly, I can't think of a single closed source program that I'd rather use for sheer interoperability with different formats and efficiency of the code. Smplayer lets my 7 year old laptop play HD versions of xvid encoded videos, and I haven't seen any other software that would run those vids at full framerate on my laptop.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Is there a reason other than Microsoft's damage done to ISO that ODF 1.2 with OpenFormula is still not released?
How could MS hurt the EU? MS is just a software company dependent upon the protections of the legal infrastructure of the local economy in order to operate.
Worst case scenario, MS stops selling it's software in the EU. Then the EU can just waive copyright protection for MS in the EU so the population can just download it legally from torrent sites. Updates too, since MS would still have to provide updates to the rest of the world which would eventually be downloadable in the EU. The EU will hesitate to make such a precedent, but it's always there on the table since so many businesses rely on MS; they could make an exception for MS.
Or perhaps the businesses in the EU will just be driven to non-MS software, which may induce other businesses around the globe to consider alternative solutions as well.
MS really can't get into a pissing match with the EU. Their best option is to either obey regulation or bribe everyone in sight to prevent things from getting that far.
8 because - Win95, NT4.0, Win98, WinME, Win2K, WinXP, WinVista, Win7
Pedantry: you left out Windows 1.0, 2.0, 286, 386, 3.0, 3.1, and WfW 3.11. That would make the total 15. BTW, the shareware Aporia for Windows 386 gave the sort of object-oriented shell in the late 1980s that Windows 95/98 pretended to have almost a decade later.
I also used DOS 1.0 and Windows 1.0 and both sucked rocks. But then, I had used real operating systems for years beforehand (MS/8, OS/360, TOPS-20, RSX-11, etc.). The PC did not get a real operating system until OS/2 2.1 or Windows NT 3.5, IMHO.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I wish! Nope, whether it was UAC, or protected path, or the new driver model, I don't know, but it seemed like with Vista you were just as likely to get your apps to run in Linux on Wine as you were with an actual MSFT OS!
This is one of the reasons why myself and so many others think Ballmer should be fired. When Allchin was there app compatibility was job #1. There are many stories of Allchin himself furiously coding and debugging before a Windows release because they had found some popular app didn't run in the new OS. Sorry I can't find the link ATM but there was a pretty famous at the time trick he had to do for Win95 that basically detected the older versions of Sim City and would change the memory registers so that the game, which used an old DOS/Win3.1 bug, would run flawless on Win95. Now THAT is dedication.
Now let us think about WinXP. It is one of the most popular OSes in history, and according to Wikipedia over 400 MILLION copies were in use by 2006. Think about that for a second. 400 MILLION copies, all with users depending on its apps and peripherals. With that kind of userbase making sure the new OS is backwards compatible would be pretty damned important, don't you think? Not for Ballmer. He was too busy having the developers bolt on PMP so he could try to out epeen Steve Jobs in the media arena. As you can read here (pretty much anything involving Ballmer dealing with Allchin) pretty much Ballmer's entire plan for "dealing" with Apple and the iPod was to create the nastiest DRM to woo away big media. So what is the problem?
One word....drivers. Every driver written for every piece of hardware BEFORE Vista, including ALL those pieces of hardware sold for the past 8+ years for those 400 million XP users, is written to work with the bare metal, as that is kinda what drivers do. They talk to the bare metal and give the OS a way to deal with said metal. But of course if you are trying to cook up the nastiest DRM ever you CAN'T let drivers talk to bare metal, as those "evil pirates" could come up with a driver that bypasses all your pretty DRM(like they ain't gonna go around it anyway) so you institute all these new drivers rules and force driver signing. But ooopsie, pretty much no driver released for XP was ever signed. So you have just made all that hardware into paperweights, and for what? Are they seriously thinking folks will give up their iPods if the get the *.A.As on board the Vista train?
And that is just ONE of the marketing driven total bonehead stupid mistakes done under Ballmer. Look at rushing the 360 to market knowing of the RROD problem, look at Zune screwing all their "playsforsure"(don't now,huh?) partners, I could go on all day. And I apologize for the length. But as someone who has built and serviced Windows machine for nearly 15 years watching Ballmer fuck up what was once one of the great business desktop builders with his constant bumbling is as painful to me as I'm sure watching the Pepsi guy nearly run Apple into bankruptcy was for the Apple fans. Only I don't think we have much of a chance at luring Darth Gates out of retirement to save the company. Let the wife do the damned philanthropy and come home Bill! We need your evil ass to come kill the Ballmer monkey!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.