Slashdot Mirror


UK Forces Microsoft To Adopt Open Document Standards

First time accepted submitter Barsteward writes Microsoft has confirmed it will start supporting the Open Documents Format (ODF) in the next update to Office 365, following a lengthy battle against the UK government. In 2014, Microsoft went against the government's request to support ODF, claiming its own XML format was more heavily adopted. The UK government refutes the claim, stating that ODF allows users to not be boxed into one ecosystem.

178 comments

  1. April Fool's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    That still going on?

    1. Re:April Fool's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The linked article cites no sources, so the article is no better than a joke.

    2. Re:April Fool's? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      If that's a joke, that's unfortunate (and not funny).

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:April Fool's? by SillyBrit · · Score: 1

      The linked story is dated 30th March

      --
      --- To save space, would readers please insert their own witty comment -here-
    4. Re:April Fool's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That still going on?

      It certainly looks like it.

      Although the date on the article is 2015-03-30. Then again it says "but other productivity suites like Apple’s iWork and LibreOffice cannot utilise Office documents".

    5. Re:April Fool's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Da fuck happened yesterday?
      Do the editors not know when to stop?

  2. My God! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who are you and what have you done with the UK government?

    They were (a) right, (b) stuck to their guns and (c) have a technical solution which didn't simply involve shovelling heaps of money at microsoft in exchange for a brutal lock in. Very out of character, not that I'm complaining!

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:My God! by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      I also seem to recall that Microsoft caving in to a government was one of the signs of the apocalypse.

    2. Re:My God! by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Microsoft has caved many times. Remember the browser wars and unbundling IE?

    3. Re:My God! by dominux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      it is a result of quite a few years of lobbying by organisations such as Open Forum Europe and internal pressure from certain folk within the civil service. The government is reasonably receptive to well made arguments. They have a big love-hate thing going on with Microsoft. They know they are being screwed over by an American company that doesn't pay it's full share of UK taxes, so they like to kick back a bit now and then.

    4. Re:My God! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Last time I looked, IE was still "an integral part of Windows".

    5. Re:My God! by jones_supa · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, last time when you looked in 1998.

      Now you only have to do Control Panel -> Uninstall a program -> Turn Windows features on or off -> [ ] Internet Explorer.

      It asks to reboot, and at the same time IE is nuked from the orbit.

      There is no proof that IE would be needed for any kind of operating system functionality anymore.

    6. Re:My God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is still there.

      Only the top level "application" got removed. The actual application is in the DLLs that are still on disk.

      Windows won't run if you actually did delete it.

    7. Re:My God! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, would they do this if MS were a British company? To my knowledge the U.S. hasn't done anything like that to a British company, with maybe the exception of BP after they blackened the Gulf of Mexico.

      And just for the record, MS can die in a fire for all I care.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:My God! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I hear that every time when the issue comes up, but no one still has undisputably proven what those DLLs are and what applications actually need them.

    9. Re:My God! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Precisely. My definition of "unbundling" doesn't extend to "turn off". If it's TRULY unbundled, the application isn't installed AT ALL.

    10. Re:My God! by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Informative

      one of the dlls is mshtml.dll and I know several applications that use it - anything that has an embedded browser for example, MS Money is one that uses a browser control as its entire display surface.

      The other is ShDocVw,dll which is a browser control - Explorer uses this.

      https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...

    11. Re:My God! by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IMO File formats are not the real problem. Microsoft's binary word processor and spreadsheet formats were reverse engineered years ago and have been pretty stable since 2000. OOXML is XML based and even has some documentation available on how to read it.

      The real problem is that office documents blur the line between input and output and this makes them fundamentally fragile. An office document is input to a layout (in the case of a word processor) or calculation (in the case of a spreadsheet) engine but the user always looks at the output of that engine. Especially with word processors since the user is always looking at the output they aren't thinking about the structure of the input, they just bash things arround (holding down the space bar or enter key for example or dragging boxes around with no idea if their position is text-relative or page-relative)

      So I don't think this will solve anything, even if MS implements ODF and even if the UK government gets it's employees to start using it as their main format for storing files (good luck) I would expect loading a document from office into libreoffice to still have similar results to today. The input (text typed, pictures included, user-specified values in spreadsheet cells) will probablly carry across fine but in some cases it will result in noticably different output (different and possiblly unreadable layout for word processed documents, different rounding of results for spreadsheets). Especially for large badly structure docuements.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    12. Re:My God! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      You are correct about Microsoft Money, but Explorer does not use MSHTML.DLL or SHDOCVW.DLL anymore.

    13. Re:My God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same nonsense that was claimed to be true and demonstrated wrong back at the Microsoft trial, and it remains wrong to this day.

      You can remove the IE launcher but it doesn't remove the guts of IE because they are integrated into the OS (and many third-party applications).

    14. Re:My God! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That's a semantic argument. There are applications that depend on the libraries used by IE in order to render HTML. But nothing about Windows requires IE be your web browser. Most OSes have a built-in HTML rendering library these days.

      To put it another way, a built-in library to render HTML from within applications would not have killed Netscape.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:My God! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What shouldn't be installed? The actual application (which isn't very big) or the HTML rendering engine? Having the latter is (a) very useful, and (b) a huge part of the former.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:My God! by microbox · · Score: 1

      Should you uninstall all dlls that explorer uses? What about the C runtime?

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    17. Re:My God! by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      The other possibility is of course that Microsoft was very much in bed with the Blair government, so in the good old UK tradition of "do the exact opposite of the other guys" the Cameron government is deciding to put the thumbscrews to 'em.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    18. Re:My God! by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      There are also special editions of Windows for the EU that do not include Windows Media Player. There are a dozen versions for the Windows installation media for the different target countries.

      People often forget how complicated being big can get when dealing globally.

    19. Re:My God! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      Yes, they probably would. And as for BP, they're a publically-traded multinational company, and were in a commercial relationship with various US companies for the operations in the Gulf of Mexico. The guys most responsible for the leak were US companies, but your media loved the narrative of punishing bad foreigners....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    20. Re: My God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it still does for the left pane.

    21. Re:My God! by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      That might be true, but MS-specific interpretations of ODF's XML should be a lot easier to reverse-engineer than the weird, undocumentable junk that's supported by DOCX. ODF was designed to be open and implemented by multiple products, DOCX was designed to be implementable correctly only by MSWord.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    22. Re:My God! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The point of unbundling Internet Explorer was to allow fair competition. That is, Microsoft's position as a monopoly with the OS should not give an adantage to IE or a disadvantage to other browsers. Thre are other applications that use Microsoft's HTML and rendering DLLs that can't use alternative Chrome or Mozilla DLLs for example. So there's still a built in prejudice, as Microsoft completely controls the rendering and parsing of any HTML used by those other applications; there's still no incentive to have a more portable HTML that works across browsers and ActiveX is still alive and well.

      Removing just the IE wrapper around those DLLs was just a cynical attempt to comply with legal rulings while keeping an advantage over the competition.

    23. Re:My God! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But the built in library discourages the creation of more portable HTML web pages which ultimately harms alternative browsers. You're still stuck in a world where things appear to work better with IE because sites are written that only work with Microsoft's quirks, or sites that use ActiveX, etc.

    24. Re: My God! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Nah, that's just a normal tree view widget.

    25. Re:My God! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I don't follow. How would a built-in HTML library have taken away from Netscape as a standalone web browser? I could see it taking away from some theoretical Netscape libraries meant for application development, but if such a product existed it was not very prevalent.

      Or are you saying that competing web browsers were using the IE libraries? That may have been the case, but my recollection of the time was that everyone was using home-grown code.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    26. Re:My God! by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      .CHM help files are HTML based and won't render without MSHTML.DLL.

    27. Re:My God! by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Yes and the kernel & NTFS driver.
      And then install Linux. Permanent solution to the IE problem. :-)

      Except for those people still stuck on IE6-dependent apps.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    28. Re:My God! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      That seems to be actually true.

    29. Re:My God! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I see. Isn't MS a publicly traded multinational company?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    30. Re:My God! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Indeed, which does nothing to diminish my point!

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    31. Re:My God! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge the U.S. hasn't done anything like that to a British company, with maybe the exception of BP after they blackened the Gulf of Mexico.

      BP were operating in concert with an American company (Anadarko, 25% owner). While being a minor partner means that Anadarko wouldn't have had full control of the operations of drilling (and completing) the well, they would certainly have had substantial input in the planning phases, and at non-urgent operational decisions during the drilling of the well. While they won't have shared full culpability for the blowout, they at the very least did not object ot the bad choices made which lead to the blowout.

      Yes, they brought out of the disaster afterwards, but their hands were by no means clean. Nor would Halliburton's, not Transocean's, even if BP take the majority of the blame.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. UK govt doint something good ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be a late April's fools.

  4. Cue ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    10% effort into actually implementing this, and
    90% effort into examination how to creatively misunderstand OPF, extend ODF with "open" binary extensions, denigrate users of ODF, or just plain break ODF

    Or maybe it's 1% vs 99%, I don't know.

    1. Re:Cue ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And limit the implementation to specific UK release versions that cost more than ordinary versions.

    2. Re:Cue ... by gsslay · · Score: 1

      The cynic in me suspects this might just be Microsoft's next step. Implement OPF capability, but make it so awkward to use, with such poor results, that users avoid it.

    3. Re:Cue ... by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

      Expect it to screw all on screen formatting for the rest of its existence. Loading it vs making it look correct are 2 different things.

    4. Re:Cue ... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      10% effort into actually implementing this, and
      90% effort into examination how to creatively misunderstand OPF, extend ODF with "open" binary extensions, denigrate users of ODF, or just plain break ODF

      Or maybe it's 1% vs 99%, I don't know.

      Knowing Microsoft, it will be 0% and 100%.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:Cue ... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Aren't they trying to get users to use Office365 now, though? Subscriptoin based service and all that? So maybe interoperability with file formats is now to their benefit, just as making things like OneDrive or Outlook.com work better on multiple mobile device OSes.

    6. Re:Cue ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft already did exactly as you say with ODF in their desktop office product. They had an official ODF plugin for one version of office, and when the next came out they integrated ODF support right into office.

      But... the plugin supposedly worked fairly well while the newer built-in support ate your spreadsheets. MS would calculate all formulas on the spread sheet on first open, and replace all the formulas with the values they evaluated to at that instant, destroying any ODF spreadsheet opened in MS office.

      Yup, same crappy/criminal company run by similarly evil people as MS ever was.

  5. That makes sense by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    Seriously, the only reason I'm obliged to use MS Office is when a company sends a Word (xl...) doc that uses some features that Libre/Open Office don't support (well, or at all). That's basically any of the "comfort" feature. I'm lucky there is a version of MS Office for the Mac, but unfortunately it is badly supported and there are compatibility issues (the MS folks did a fork of MSOffice to develop the Mac version independently of the Windows version. That's severely retarded, but we've got no choice).
    If only ODF could be adopted everywhere...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:That makes sense by ledow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you seen OOXML?

      The reason they had to fork is because the format is SO binary and tied into the old legacy codebase that - even masquerading behind an XML front - there's no illusion of portability whatsoever.

      They were forced to document it, by the EU, and all they did was describe every hack, binary fudge and kludge that went into it so that it was almost impossible to make a compatible format.

      When you're talking Office on Mac, it's not a question of just adding Mac UI code and incorporating another platform into the build process. It's replicating all those stupid bit-wise assumptions made throughout the format. It's like WMF used to be - literally just a description of the Windows GDI commands required to replicate the object on the screen (which is why WMFs were capable of containing executable code!). That's pretty much the best analogue to something like MS's "open" XML formats.

      I'm not surprised that the Mac versions are staggered by several years and not entirely compatible. That's how long it takes to emulate the Windows-specific fudges in the format.

      What MS are scared of is a format that works across all platforms because, then, what's to say you'll bother to buy Office?

    2. Re:That makes sense by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      What MS are scared of is a format that works across all platforms because, then, what's to say you'll bother to buy Office?

      Definitely. I bless the day it's gotta happen.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:That makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only ODF could be adopted everywhere...

      PDF got adapted everywhere... you just need a decent editor for it. EMACS, WHERE ARE YOU???

    4. Re:That makes sense by blackest_k · · Score: 2

      PDF is an output format all the structure that went into the document has been removed pretty much.

      While you can get to the elements of a pdf document its very difficult to reformat them. for example say there is text in 2 columns selecting them you get a single column with the left side from column 1 and the right side from column 2 scrambling the sentences to make nonsense. The structure has been left in the word processing document. which is where you must return in order to use a smaller page size for example.

      There are a number of formats where you can classify the file as output for example jpeg loses the raw data even an mp3 or audio file which may have had 24 tracks you can't just remove the drums...

      The physical world is full of non editable things.
      So no you don't need a pdf editor you need the word processor document which the pdf was generated from.
           

    5. Re:That makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just gonna leave this here in the hopes that you'll get a clue...

      Office Online

    6. Re:That makes sense by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Not as bad a pack of bullshit as what you wrote. If a different team is delayed by a year in implementing an "open" standard, that tells you just how ridiculous the standard is. End of story.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:That makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not as bad a pack of bullshit as what you wrote.

      Well that showed him, didn't it? So well, in fact, that you didn't need to bother trying to actually make any real argument to refute all the points that he made.

      If a different team is delayed by a year in implementing an "open" standard, that tells you just how ridiculous the standard is. End of story.

      The different OS versions of Office have had staggered releases since long before they made a standardised file format. There is no evidence at all to suggest that it is difficulties in the file formats that is the reason for different release dates.

    8. Re:That makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that, in some ways, MS is as much a prisoner of their document formats as everyone else is.

      The office codebase is OLD. Really, really, really old. Office has only received facelifts in its last 3 or 4 iterations - the core functionality of most office applications remains essentially the same.

      Office came out when, in most workplaces outside a few specific professions, computerized office tasks were a novelty. The typewriter, even for years after the introduction of a standard business desktop computer, was still the primary document handling/processing machine for a decade.

      The problem with this legacy is that people expect their documents to behave the same even if they're 10 years old. Office does a good job of this, but as other people in the thread have pointed out the format is a damn mess. The codebase and the document formats are intertwined and inseparable. Microsoft suggested their new XML based format would fix this problem, but we've come to find that even that is mostly wrappers for the same old kludges.

      I'm pretty sure Microsoft would make a competitive product if they had an office suite that adopted "pure" open standards. They're pretty damn good at that, and have a lot of momentum in the industry.. But there will still be that mass of legacy documents, legacy software. Decades of work that are stuck to that ancient codebase.

      Microsoft is also addicted to the revenue that office brings in. A standards based product would have to be cheaper to be competitive. Culturally, that's probably not going to happen at MS.

    9. Re:That makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually a different development team is delayed because they're waiting for a final RC on the "primary" platform before they do a feature freeze and enter beta testing on their platform. Microsoft, the lethargic giant it is, takes its sweet time getting this done and out the door once that happens.

      It has exactly nothing to do with the file format implementation, which likely carries over from decades past. Possibly all the way back to Excel 1.0, which was Mac-first, and, by the GGP's logic, would therefore contain some sort of Mac-specific idiocy in addition to the many layers of Windows-specific idiocy that he claims it carries.

      The GGP's whole argument is crap, and yet those who are still butthurt about their never-to-be "Year of Linux on the Desktop" will mod him up.

      The open source community doesn't innovate. It purifies existing things down to their functional essence, then abstracts them into a common underlying process that can be generalized for multiple different uses. It's an incubator and a training ground. You have to come to terms with that, or you're forever going to be butthurt about people (omg!) using different tools than you do or (omg!) doing things in a less-than-optimal way.

      In this particular case, ODF is the "optimal" binary document format for programs like Microsoft Office. But Office and its commercial clones have moved on to other, greener pastures. And most people don't consider Office to be nearly as indispensable as they used to. Mostly, it's just "used for work", and at home they have no need for it. Google Docs has taken over that market with the correct price ($0) and distribution mechanism (no local installation required and no fiddling with keys). And they barely support ODF either, because ODF is a relic of a bygone era, when documents came formatted as human-opaque binary arrays of parameter values to store the state of the program that made them. (IIRC, Google Docs finally got ODF export-only support within the last month or two, and you still can't open an existing ODF with it.)

    10. Re:That makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would therefore contain some sort of Mac-specific

      MSOOXML actually does. There is a flag somewhere in it that specifies if a particular year is a leap year or not, the MacOS calendar thought it was, but it actually wasn't or something. It still has the option to store date times as some offset from arbitrary point in time, as well as the option to store as YYYY-MM-DD. This behaviour stems from MSOOXMLs primary reason for being, is to carry all of the legacy baggage into an XML format, without attempting to fix any of it during conversion.

  6. Why we use office by warewolfsmith · · Score: 1

    Put simply, its still the best thing going, FOSS Office is great for basic tasks, the best solution I have found is to use both, task dependent, being able to span ODF documents across platforms would be great. The availability of FOSS Office on a ram stick is its greatest feature, one that Microsoft has never attempted to emulate.

    1. Re:Why we use office by wertigon · · Score: 1, Troll

      I keep hearing this "LibreOffice is great for basic tasks" thing, but whenever I ask for concrete examples people tend to avoid the subject. It covers all my basic needs, but maybe there is something I'm missing? Maybe Office got a better templating system or something I dunno...

      For word processing though, I vastly prefer the OO/LO paradigm of creating an actual document structure instead of the Office way of having to mark the text and apply styling to it.

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
    2. Re:Why we use office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe it's because I've been used to Word since the 90s, but when I switched to OO in mid 00's I kept using it as I was using Word. I know that the paradigm is different but never really tried to learn it. Using OO (and LO now) as if it was Word is enough. After all I'm using it only to write invoices and short technical contracts with pasted screenshots.

      Most of my customers use Google Docs to write their documents, which is much more basic than OO/LO. Word is overkill for most of what we do. HTML would be enough.

    3. Re:Why we use office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fake un-reason to tell people to continue to use Microsoft Office and keep sales up.

      For some, it's just that they don;t know how to do it in OOo. That they need training to use MS Office, but they insist that doesn't mean that you can't do it in MS Office, but they will use it to say you can't in OOo.

      It's exactly the same thing with AD/Samba. They insist it MUST be used and CAN'T be replaced, but it can. It doesn't do the same thing, but what AD does isn't needed. It's only needed because they used the MS meme of how to set up client systems, which is "This is MY computer, MINE, and I don't have a network to have to SHARE it, it's MINE!".

      AD allows you to install the OS under that 1990's idea and then hack around the problems getting it used by others.

      Or you can use the OS differently.

    4. Re:Why we use office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you used the same method for using Word all the way from Word 95 to Office 2003 and the ribbon interface? HOW????

      Oh, you changed how you used it, but because it was called the same product you learned how to use the changes, whereas for "some reason" (iow it;s not a Microsoft product and it's FOSS, written by hippies and anti-capitalists to destroy jobs) changing how to use OOo isn't feasible and is reason not to change.

      WHY THE HELL DID YOU CHANGE FROM Word95???? If you managed that, you'll manage OOo.

      IF YOU TRIED.

      But you decided that it would be better just to refuse and call it unsuitable. And ignore the same problem with Office.

    5. Re:Why we use office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience OO/LibreOffice is very good at long documents (e.g. 50,000 words) and MS Word is not.

    6. Re:Why we use office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversely to this, I find it hard to use LibreOffice or Word for anything. Both are a pain in the ass for even the simplest things.

    7. Re:Why we use office by sirlark · · Score: 2

      Okay, God forbid, I'm actually going to try and treat this fairly. Firstly, recent incarnations of MS Word work using semantic styling, but don't force you to use it. This is much the same as in OO/LO. In general MS tools load files a LOT faster, and are more visually appealing (granted, eye of the beholder and all that), however they don't handle large files. Try opening a 400Mb .csv file in Excel vs in Gnumeric. As far as user friendly interfaces are concerned, I'd say they are both about equally klunky. The ribbon is a menu, really, just looks a little different. Some people prefer it, some people don't.

      Now, the "basic tasks" concept. Basic tasks for word processing to me include: writing a letter, writing business document (contract, memo, invoice, quote, waybill, meeting minutes), creating/using templates for those standard documents, designing home flyers (lost dogs, bake sales etc) . These generally require the following 'features' from the software: text manipulation, text formatting, image insertion and basic manipulation (resizing, placement, possibly cropping), tables, tab stops, template editing, headers, footers, page numbering, and text->image conversions (e.g. for banner headings). Both OO/LO and MS Word do all these about equally well imho.

      Advanced features: Mail Merge, Mathematical equation editing, Track changes/revision control, cross referencing (index, citations, bibliography, table of contents, list of images etc)

      As far as the spreadsheets go, excel and gnumeric are very similar in features as far as I've used them. Never used OO/LO Calc, so I can't say. I suppose charts might be a distinguishing factor, but again, I rarely use charts generated from spreadsheets.

      Presentation software (Powerpoint, Impress) seems to be where things really start to differentiate. More transitions, and more bling, in general, is available to PowerPoint users, and compatibility is HORRIBLE even between between powerpoint versions, let alone PP and OO/LO.

      In summary: as far basic word processing goes, I don't see a marked difference apart from aesthetics. For Maths, they're both pretty horrible. Track changes they're both about the same (revision control in word processing sucks generally), and I'm not sure about mail merge

    8. Re:Why we use office by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Ah the lovely error where the file on disk gets corrupted when you save a large file. I learned backing up from that one.
      Haven't seen it in years though.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    9. Re:Why we use office by tshawkins · · Score: 2

      I think its more a case of FOSS office is great at being everything but being Microsoft Office, it does not have the "looks like MS Office, works exactly like MS Office" comfort.

    10. Re:Why we use office by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Being a programmer who's moved further into the management zone, I'm having to cope with Office a lot more as my colleagues have a seriously restricted comfort zone when parted from the Microsoft teat for more than a few minutes.

      The behaviour of both MS Office and LibreOffice infuriate me. As a relative novice (the last word processor I used seriously was Wordperfect 5.1 when I was at university), even the most basic, simple tasks seem so kludgy and clumsy.

      It has got to the point where I'm considering writing a Markdown parser in VBA so I can continue to write my documents in wikitext and read them into the corporate template by running a macro. At this point, people will suggest using something like Pandoc, but it sucks horribly no matter what you do - I've tried direct conversion to DOCX, I've tried converting to ODT and then saving that as DOC(X) from LibreOffice - compatibility with Office is still horrible, and not surprisingly, as another poster points out, the internal formats are horrific and the 3,600 page MOO-XML documentation really reveals that.

      The only thing that writes Office documents properly is Office - so automate Office to load documents from other formats, don't try and duplicate all that horror in other programs to convert to it.

    11. Re:Why we use office by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Most people use software like it was voodoo. This specific ritual gets you these results.

      Any change to their rituals and they end up like a rabbit in the headlights. These rituals have been built up over a lifetime of use, without any real understanding of the primitives they are composed of.

    12. Re:Why we use office by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that LibreOffice would cover all my needs at work, but in my experience the conversion to and from .doc files has always had glitches. So here's what I hope should happen:

      1. Make LibreOffice the default
      2. Make MS Office one of those applications you have to order with an associated license cost.
      3. Go through Group Policy options and set defaults to OpenDocument format

      So if you prefer/need MS Office, you can have it but by default it'll save in the office-wide format. If you really need some MS magic you can do a "Save as..." to get Microsoft's own format. Pretty sure it's not going to happen but...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re: Why we use office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This! On cars, many many things vary between models and vendors, and people do accept the changes, and learn how to do it the new way quite fast. But with computers, their readiness for change is near zero.

    14. Re:Why we use office by gweihir · · Score: 2

      I did the slides for a lecture with LibreOffice, after finding PowerPoint mostly unusable. The difference is that LibreOffice Presenter does not stand in your way, but actually helps you expressing what you think. With PowerPoint you always have to do it "their way". As an added benefit, I could work on the slides both on Linux and on Windows, with no compatibility issues whatsoever.

      If you do not find people, then it is because you have not looked.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. Re:Why we use office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the same AC you answered to. I never used a ribbon Word because I switched to OO, first on Windows then on Ubuntu, before it was released. How I use OO? Simple: I type, select text, turn it to bold, italics, h1, etc using the toolbar. I insert pictures from files or by pasting them. I add bullets and tables with the toolbar. That's all, more or less. Now go back to my post and read it again with these extra information. How's your reply appropriate?

    16. Re:Why we use office by armanox · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should give WordPerfect another try then. It is still around you know.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    17. Re: Why we use office by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Agreeing with the parent and GP here. It was interesting a couple days ago, driving a rental car (Chrysler 200). The shifter was a knob/dial instead of the standard stick on the console. While it provided the same functionality, it seemed lacking...you couldn't tell w/o looking which position it was in, as you can with most sticks.

      To the GP...I've heard and seen "deer in the headlights", but never a rabbit...they've always run away. I actually "tailed" (idling, so as not to hit him) one down a dirt road for nearly a mile once...poor thing wouldn't run off to the side. He finally jumped the ditch and sat there looking exhausted

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    18. Re:Why we use office by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One thing that MS does for some buyers (this is certainly true for universities, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't true for other large organisations)is give them deeply discounted subscription licenses where the pricing model for those deeply discounted licenses is not based on the number of installations but on some measure of the size of the organisation as a whole.

      From the point of view of the customer this initially looks like a great deal. As well as saving money on the licenses themselves they are freed from the need to track installations saving lots of money in license management and auditing. It's subscription based so they pay at a constant rate rather than bursts whenever a new version comes out making budgets easy to manage.

      However once the customer is in such an arrangement they lose most of the incentive to reduce the use of the software or use cheaper/free alternatives. They would have to massively reduce their use of the software in question before buying and auditing individual licenses would be cheaper than the subscription. During the transition period of said massive reduciont they would be paying for internal auditing and accounting that would not deliver any benefit or serve any external purpose until the process was complete.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    19. Re:Why we use office by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      Massage a document daily in MS word and the document will eventually get corrupted.

      Then I had to use OpenOffice (LibreOffice didn't exist back then) just to rescue my document from MS Word. The document is still going strong today, in ODF format.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    20. Re:Why we use office by wertigon · · Score: 1

      Not to nitpick, but OOo/LO spreadsheet is named Calc, not Gnumeric. Gnumeric is part of the Gnome project, but yeah.

      File loading speed is a fair point. Since LO use ODF which is a text-based format, it will always be slower than the binary formats of MSO. This is usually not a huge issue (a few seconds more) for all but the more obnoxious data formats. And if you have a 400MB+ spreadsheet, you really *should* consider moving that data to a *real* database, but yeah...

      Other than that it seems that for the three important programs (Wordprocessing, Spreadsheets, Presentation) we get:

      Wordprocessing: Just about neck to neck, you need anything better go LaTeX.
      Spreadsheets: MSO has a slight edge over LO.
      Presentation: MSO beats LO hands down in features, but LO covers the basic premises.

      Thank you, that was the kind of answer I'm looking for.

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
    21. Re:Why we use office by DogDude · · Score: 2

      What you call "rituals", many people call "productivity". Learning new software for the sake of learning new software is pointless and a waste of time.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    22. Re:Why we use office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't read the other replies so maybe this has been mentioned....

      The one thing I really noticed that was lacking in open office(which I use at home since it's free) is the bibliography in the Word program. Open Office *has* a bibliography, strictly speaking, but even as early as MS Office 2007 you could essentially create a database of sources and automatically generate the bibliography/works cited/reference page(s). It's by far one of the most useful features in MS Office that Libre Office almost completely ignores. Like I said, they have a bibliography feature, but compared to MS Office it's disgusting.

      I also applaud MS Office for using color and trying to add some styling to the actual presentation of the application. Libre Office is solidly stuck in the 90s or early 00s(at least its shortcut icons have colors...that's something...right?). I don't expect Libre Office to become an MS clone and implement the ribbon or anything like that, but breaking away from all of the grey would be a nice change.

    23. Re:Why we use office by sirlark · · Score: 2

      I'm aware of the difference between Calc and gnumeric, but I was trying to answer the question of "what is considered a basic task?" which isn't exactly dependent on a specific piece of software. I have more experience with gnumeric, as I pointed out. And yes, once you hit large spreadsheets, you should use a database, but often I have to deal with large datasets that are stored in databases and *exported* as .csv files for analysis, or with .csv files dumped directly from sensors or other devices. Whilst I'm writing the programs that either produce or consume these, it's often easier to view them in a spreadsheet, rather than a text file layout, because the visual distinction of column is preserved. I admit, that this is probably not a common use case though, and hence not a "basic task", but databases aren't great at data analysis, which is why this stuff often gets loaded into a spreadsheet, this is where statistics applications come in. Good luck getting Bossman McMBA to use something like that. So I'd say this is probably somewhere between "basic" and "advanced". I would like to throw one more thing into the hat though, and that is the MS Word is appalling at handling large documents (40 pages plus, depending on the machine). LO/OO writer is much better in this regard, and I do regard this as a "basic task"; There are many business documents (quarterly reports, impact assessments, white papers, blah) and even personal documents (academic dissertations, and student projects, home authorship of books) that can get this large.

    24. Re:Why we use office by wertigon · · Score: 1

      Seems like we're in 95% agreement then. Thanks for a good discussion. :)

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
  7. MS is still hostile to open formats by Burz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And that makes them hostile to open software in my book. They insist on treating Linux-formatted disks as essentially blank and have Windows tell the user the volume must be formatted to be used; fixing this would be simple in the extreme and would not even require an ability to read an Ext* volume. They stonewall AV formats like Vorbis when they could be added easily to existing apps. Really, the list goes on. The place where they have capitulated is formats that are intrinsic to the web (while parading their proprietary stuff as "open" hoping enough people will take the bait).

    MS still promotes lock-in. And from what I gather even their new .NET licensing terms are designed to leave you on the hook.

    1. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget their precious DIRECT-X.

    2. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And exFAT.

    3. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in their genes. They can't otherwise. We should know that, every time they use the word "open".

      What would be interesting is how often they *actively subvert* standards which are out there by sending people to take part in the commitees and making things extra complicated (I think I could find concrete examples in WebDAV and UTF-8).

      Decommoditizing protocols. A list would be very enlightening.

    4. Re: MS is still hostile to open formats by cmurf · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the partition type is set to Linux, Windows won't offer to format it. Problem is the common parted tool wrongly uses the Microsoft partition type GUID, thinking it was a generic "basic data" type rather than a Microsoft specific one. Windows assumes such partitions aren't properly formatted if it can't read them. Patches took forever to be merged upstream and another forever for downstream distros to use. It's still being done wrong today. OS X will only ignore unrecognized partition type codes on disks containing recognized ones. Otherwise it too actively encourages the user to format, of course resulting in data loss.

    5. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Microsoft simply wants to support industry standard formats and not hobbyist formats like Ext4 or OGG Vorbis. You are not going to find Ext4 or OGG Vorbis support from your camcorder either."

      So those massive datacentres powered by Linux are running a hobbyist filesystem? Get a handle on reality dude.

      "Try to flip the scenario around and try to find similar lock-ins in Linux distros. It's quite simple actually. For example, we still cannot reliably install third-party software under Linux by just doubleclicking a SETUP.EXE. Windows is much more open in this regard: every software maker can easily bring their application to the platform. Also the package repositories of a Linux distro are a form of walled garden just like the Windows Store. Clear lock-ins right there. Heck, there isn't even a clear picture of what "Linux" means as a platform: there's mishmash of implementations consisting of applications that are incompatible with each other."

      So wrong. Linux is a kernel on top of which many different operating systems are built. The most popular are derivatives of Red Hat or Debian which both have extremely functional and well documented package management systems for package formats for easy software distribution, installation and maintenance. Anyone can quickly build their own repository and create and sign packages for it, using freely available tools.

      Contrast to the binary blob setup.exe of which no standard exists, and it's generally impossible to tell what changes said blob will make to the OS until after you run it. Setup.exe files are also compiles applications, so they are much more difficult to create without the use of expensive, third-party tools. It also makes application maintenance an absolute nightmare as the total lack of transparency or standard behind it makes the installation process virtually impossible to automate.

      And you then wonder why Linux-based operating systems are so prevalent in the datacenter and HPC spaces?

    6. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrast to the binary blob setup.exe of which no standard exists, and it's generally impossible to tell what changes said blob will make to the OS until after you run it. Setup.exe files are also compiles applications, so they are much more difficult to create without the use of expensive, third-party tools. It also makes application maintenance an absolute nightmare as the total lack of transparency or standard behind it makes the installation process virtually impossible to automate.

      The preferred installer for Windows is an MSI (Windows Installer / Microsoft Installer). There are free tools to inspect MSI files. Windows installers (even setup.exe) haven't required expensive tools for years, well over a decade.

    7. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wrong. Linux is a kernel on top of which many different operating systems are built. The most popular are derivatives of Red Hat or Debian which both have extremely functional and well documented package management systems for package formats for easy software distribution, installation and maintenance. Anyone can quickly build their own repository and create and sign packages for it, using freely available tools.

      Quickly?! If you are not familiar with those tools, it can take days to set them up. Even then you are left with the problem that your packages will not be compatible across distros, and often even not compatible across different versions of the same distro.

    8. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by gweihir · · Score: 2

      The difference is that MS believes the purpose of "software" is to extract your money and give it to them. Any value they give back is pure coincidence or the minimum that cannot be avoided. On the other hand, FOSS projects believe that software is there to solve problems and to help people and making money is just an unavoidable and to be minimized side-task.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by ljw1004 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And from what I gather even their new .NET licensing terms are designed to leave you on the hook.

      Chinese whispers...

      (1) Microsoft adopts MIT license for .NET, a perfectly standard OSS license. Many people leave it at this, but MS additionally makes a "patent promise".

      (2) Blog site reads the patent promise, notes that for most use of the .NET OSS you're covered by the patent promise, but there's apparently one particular case (where you write your own alternative .NET runtime/fx that's incomplete) that doesn't appear to be covered by the patent promise.

      (3) Slashdot summary makes the leap to say that MS is "undecided about suing" users of its OSS.

      (4) Burz makes the leap to say that this is actually "designed to leave you on the hook".

      There are quite a few unjustified leaps in there. Burz, I wonder if you'd say the same about all OSS software that's licensed under MIT or BSD but which lacks a patent promise? Because such software would be in an even weaker state from your perspective than Microsoft's OSS .NET.

      (disclaimer: I do work for Microsoft, and I did generate some patents for them, and I'm an engineer not a lawyer).

    10. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      setup.exe is braindead. First you need to go out on the web, or go to an actual brick-and-mortar store. Then you need to download files to your computer, you need to browse to a particular directory. This is besides many setup.exe's now including adware hitchhikers along for the ride. The package manager/app-store model used by ...oh... everyone else makes a lot more sense to me. Tick the boxes for the stuff you want. Hit install. (screenshot) http://www.gpsntp.com/img/articles/ubuntu-add-remove-applications.jpg

      If you want a limited taste of this experience for windows, here's a site that gives you that: https://ninite.com/
      Wouldn't it be nice if you could do that for all your software? Well, you can! If you're using IoS, Android, or any desktop linux since forever.

    11. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still faster than trying to get something to work from Windows.

      They aren't even compatible across windows platforms.

    12. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tick the boxes for the stuff you want.

      That's only for the applications in the walled garden repositories.

    13. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MIT licence alone does not provide ANY patent promise.

      And the "promise" from MS has in the past been a "promise to sue if we want to".

      The BSD license also doesn't include a patent promise. So again, worthless.

      Both MIT and BSD licences allow proprietary companies to take the code - and later sue the developers.

      The GPL has been the only one that prevents that. The v3 prevents the patent lawsuits. the v2 only indirectly prevents the patent lawsuits, as if you DO sue over a patent, then you are barred from distribution as you didn't grant the right to distribute.

    14. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're a big tanker which is hard to maneuver.

      But I believe they've started the process. Out-of-the-box FLAC support in Win 10; the end of IE; .NET; Project Orleans; etc.

      Yes, there are still highly troubling things going on (e.g., UEFI and TPMs), but it seems they're starting to shift in the right direction.

    15. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by armanox · · Score: 2

      Industry standard File Systems? You mean like XFS, UFS, and ZFS? Oh, wait, they're not supported either. Call me when Microsoft is ready to play in the big kids playground.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    16. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      UTF-8 is a highly elegant and simple format. I'm certainly not aware of anything anyone has done to make it "extra complicated".

      Now unicode itself is massively complicated but afaict that is mostly a reflection of the fact that some human languages refuse to fit nicely into the model of "a sequence of characters placed next to each other from left to right".

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    17. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want ext support in Windows, write a goddamned driver for it. Microsoft didn't design ext and they don't support it. Asking them to add it to their OS is like asking Linus to add Nvidia's drivers to the kernel. You're only bitching to hear your own voice, and you know full well the response is only going to be "no" if they're being extra polite.

      The same goes for Vorbis. Microsoft has provided the framework and the documentation to extend that framework for years. They've even EOL'ed one of them (DirectShow) because of non-support and developer whining. They've replaced it with something (WMF) more flexible and better documented. So write a mux/demux and some codecs and stop bitching.

      Their frameworks leave places for you to plug this stuff in. But you need to write the plugins. Just like every other OS anywhere, ever.

    18. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last MSI builder included in Visual Studio (up through VS2010) would only generate MSI's that depended upon an associated Setup.exe. They won't run without it. Newer versions of Visual Studio (VS2012 and later) don't include an installer package builder that actually works. (They give you a shitty InstallShield LE builder instead, and it's just about as useful as tits on a bull.)

    19. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      April Fool's was yesterday.

    20. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by wertigon · · Score: 1

      You do realise you can add your own repositories on e.g. Ubuntu, right?

      https://help.ubuntu.com/commun...

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
    21. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by ckatko · · Score: 1

      They'll only play in the playground if they control it.

      Apple is an example of a succesful walled-garden. Microsoft is an example of a failed walled-garden.

    22. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by microbox · · Score: 1

      I doubt it is trivial to add EXT2/3/4 support to the windows stack. Consider that ZFS has barely moved in linux space, even though it is fully BSD compatible, opensource, and awesome. Apparently it makes more sense to develop BTRFS.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    23. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      That's is the one thing I have always despised about working with MS products. I hope the new leadership is as open as they appear to be. If not, the saga will continue and I don't think they will survive it much longer.

    24. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It's easy to add other repositories so that you can add software from them, and keep that software automatically updated. Anyone can set up their own repository.

    25. Re: MS is still hostile to open formats by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      This is interesting to me, I've never heard this. Are you saying that parted, as in the Linux partitioning tool, uses the Microsoft partition type GUID incorrectly... and that is what Windows is reading, and thus sees it as not being formatted correctly?

    26. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      makes the installation process virtually impossible to automate.

      Strange. We have been automating various installation package types on Windows for a while, now, usually with answer files... for test purposes.

    27. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing how unable to read you are. Parent did not say anything about MIT Licenses including patent promises by default.

    28. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Burz · · Score: 1

      And exFAT.

      No kidding. MS still pursues violators of that silly long-filename patent. And they STILL demand a cut from Android distributors for other patents they refuse to disclose to the community!

    29. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Burz · · Score: 1

      I doubt it is trivial to add EXT2/3/4 support to the windows stack. Consider that ZFS has barely moved in linux space, even though it is fully BSD compatible, opensource, and awesome. Apparently it makes more sense to develop BTRFS.

      Its trivial to get Windows to recognize a Linux partition and refrain from telling people to format those volumes.

    30. Re: MS is still hostile to open formats by cmurf · · Score: 2

      Correct. This is the commit that fixes the problem. The patch actually goes back farther than it was merged, and then after merge it was two years until another stable release that had it appeared. And still many distros use a version of parted that predates this patch including RHEL 7 and openSUSE 13.2. The only distro I know off hand that uses the correct GUID is Fedora.

      I don't know why it took so long. My soapbox version is I think there's a history of partition types being unreliable and pointless because in the MBR scheme there were so few of them that collisions were a given. So on Linux there's the expectation to check the actual contents of the partition to know what it is. libblkid can identify practically anything, and it doesn't care what the partition type is. Because of this, I think the Linux ecosystem has just gotten lazy. And so now on GPT scheme, they just grabbed the existing "basic data" GUID, rather than follow the UEFI spec which says "Each filesystem must publish its unique GUID." So technically the Linux ecosystem still has it wrong by using one Linux partition type GUID rather than one per filesystem; whether using GUIDs in such a granular fashion is helpful, I'm not sure.

      Anyway, given the essentially infinite number of GUIDs available, using an existing one was just an extension of this mind set. Plus, parted isn't well suited for being patched to enable arbitrary GUIDs. So anytime there's a new GUID it's like pulling teeth to get the parted folks to add it, and often they actively resist while claiming there's no use case for X GUID.

    31. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Burz · · Score: 1

      So only MS gets to embrace and extend; Who would have guessed? Break a single rule in Microsoft's .NET standards and they can come at us with both barrels.

      The irony here is MS are using licenses that are thought to be the most libre as a cover to keep the developer community fenced-in to their platform with patent threats. Re-purpose any of the patented code and.....

      Also, I'd like to remind you that MS still enforces at least two very silly patents against FOSS distributors: The FAT filename-length patent and the subpixel-rendering patent (which has prior art). And IIRC there is a raft of patents they are using to threaten Linux distributors which they still won't reveal, so they are still in the business of wielding shadowy threats which I'm told is actually illegal.

      MS needs to make good on their past and current patent trolling. If they don't then we have no reason to believe they are doing "open source" in good faith.

    32. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Burz · · Score: 1

      "Microsoft simply wants to support industry standard formats and not hobbyist formats like Ext4 or OGG Vorbis. You are not going to find Ext4 or OGG Vorbis support from your camcorder either."

      So those massive datacentres powered by Linux are running a hobbyist filesystem?

      And don't forget there are billions of Android devices that can understand Ext* disk formats.

    33. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Quickly?! If you are not familiar with those tools, it can take days to set them up. Even then you are left with the problem that your packages will not be compatible across distros, and often even not compatible across different versions of the same distro."

      No longer than it takes to generate a package for Windows if you aren't familiar with the process. In fact I'd argue that it's much faster. Don't let your prior knowledge of only one platform bias your view.

      Also, that's true about distro compatibility. Remember that a distro is an OS in itself, so if you want cross-OS compatibility then you package for each OS you want to support. Fortunately in most cases a Deb and an RPM will cover most bases pretty easily, unless you like doing really unusual things.

    34. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      UDF is supported, and is an ISO standard format.

    35. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      ZFS has a terrible license that was intentionally designed to be incompatible with GPL. So don't expect integration nor even good support, especially out of the box. People at zfsonlinux are trying hard, but without much success. And all of that could be avoided if the sole copyright holder (Oracle) decided to relicense.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    36. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See DirectX (well, Direct 3D). Microsoft had a seat on the OpenGL ARB (back in the 90's) and used that position to learn about 3D graphics while also holding up advancement of OpenGL. They worked with SGI on the successor of OpenGL -- Fahrenheit -- and then picked up their ball and went home. They installed a puppet to head up SGI who turned SGI from a graphics powerhouse into a Windows NT vendor (foreshadowing Elop and Nokia?). There is plenty out there and most of it is very well documented.

    37. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, for quite a while, Windows would only *read* UDF. When writing files to a DVD, Windows by default would use a proprietary format or other trickery that would render the disc unreadable on other platforms.

    38. Re:MS is still hostile to open formats by armanox · · Score: 1

      UFS, not UDF.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  8. Quit Being Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ditch the Mac, use Windows and buy Office like all the normal people.
     
    Why are you troubling the people at Microsoft with the self-imposed problems you have created for yourself just because you are trying to be "different"?
     
    You decided to be "different" and but you keep depending on others to fix your problems now that things have gone south. At what point are you going to be a positive member contributing back to society instead of siphoning resources away from the productive members of society?

    1. Re:Quit Being Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so when you're being blackmailed, you won't be cheap and just pony up the cash, eh? Or is it so easy to spend OTHER people's money, different when it's your own?

    2. Re:Quit Being Cheap by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      You decided to be "different"

      Different from what? A sheep?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:Quit Being Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You decided to be "different" and but you keep depending on others to fix your problems now that things have gone south. At what point are you going to be a positive member contributing back to society instead of siphoning resources away from the productive members of society?"

      That's exactly what Microsoft have done by enforcing a proprietary and incompatible monoculture. Nobody should be forced into using a particular product to process information, especially if it's proprietary.

      We need multiple platforms in existence to keep all players more honest. The more threatened MS becomes the better their output is. Without external pressure we end up with stagnation like the Windows XP/IE 6 years, while everybody else was busy innovating.

    4. Re:Quit Being Cheap by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Learn some subtlety troll, you're painfully obvious.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    5. Re:Quit Being Cheap by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Haha, people who are cheap don't buy macs...

    6. Re:Quit Being Cheap by slugstone · · Score: 0

      Without external pressure we end up with stagnation like the Windows XP/IE 6 years, while everybody else was busy innovating.

      But that was their best work.

    7. Re:Quit Being Cheap by ckatko · · Score: 1

      If we only had you working for us during the Reign of Bush, we could have invaded the whole Middle East while people applauded!

    8. Re:Quit Being Cheap by sconeu · · Score: 1

      The following notice is being posted for the sarcasm-impaired, in compliance with the ADA.

      The OP had implied <SARCASM> tags.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    9. Re:Quit Being Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OP had implied <SARCASM> tags.

      Without clear indication, I would not be too sure.

  9. ANARCHY IN THE UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Queen is very amused, said Sir Elton.

  10. Lotus by cmurf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft remembers how they took over Lotus' market share for spreadsheets. Lotus had no obscurity with their file format. Excel could read and write it perfectly. Open formats means the product must be as good or better for the price or users can jump ship. Closed formats are a buffer for mistakes or resting on laurels.

    1. Re:Lotus by niks42 · · Score: 1

      Excel succeeded because it worked better in Windows than Lotus 1-2-3.

      It worked better because Windows (286, 386, 3.1) Graphical Device Interface was designed for Excel, and other programs couldn't get the same performance out of Windows that Excel could.

    2. Re:Lotus by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      Closed formats are a buffer for mistakes or resting on laurels.

      Maybe, but "closed formats" is what ensured Microsoft a quasi-monopoly for the past 25 years.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:Lotus by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Informative

      Excel also succeeded because it had no format lock-in. Because it could WRITE Lotus 1-2-3 just as well as it read it, there was no risk to using Excel and finding that it didn't perform as well as Lotus.

      Lotus was the incumbent at the time. 1-2-3 was the killer app that drove adoption of the PC. Yes, Excel worked in pretty graphics mode. Yes, Excel was better than 1-2-3. But you've seen management clinging like limpets to older solutions to things just because of their elevated perception of risk. If Excel hadn't been able to read 1-2-3 files perfectly, it would never have happened.

      It's exactly the same reason why people won't migrate from MS Office to LibreOffice - because it's not entirely compatible, and everyone else uses it. It's all but impossible to make an entirely compatible program though - because even the MOO-XML formats are just a serialization of binary structs and even *puke* Windows API calls. Office isn't a standalone program - it only works on Windows.

    4. Re:Lotus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lotus was the incumbent at the time. 1-2-3 was the killer app that drove adoption of the PC.

      To be fair, 1-2-3 took that title over from VisiCalc.

      VC was release in ~1978 and was popular until the mid-80s. 123 was released in 1983 and was popular until the early 1990s. Excel really took off in the Windows 3.1 era, and then especially in Windows 95 and later timeframe.

    5. Re:Lotus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It worked better because Windows (286, 386, 3.1) Graphical Device Interface was designed for Excel, and other programs couldn't get the same performance out of Windows that Excel could.

      Interesting. Do you have a source where one could read more about this?

  11. MS will do a bad job like Outlook Web Access by samjam · · Score: 2

    I always wondered why Microsoft weren't terminally ashamed that they were the only company in the world that could

    1. produce a very good web based email/calendar client
    and
    2. yet have it not work properly on any browser other than MSIE

    surely that fact hurt them when bidding for contracts?

    But I don't doubt that their ODF implementation will be equally poor.

    1. Re:MS will do a bad job like Outlook Web Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet have it not work properly on any browser other than MSIE

      Considering the fragmentation, the state of standards and functionality differences between the browsers, which were much worse in the past, and the technical risk associated with a rapidly moving platform you don't control, the MS Deci$ion is understandable. We are so lucky Google wows to do no evil and develops their browser to create a better web instead of locking in gmail u$ers..

    2. Re:MS will do a bad job like Outlook Web Access by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      2. yet have it not work properly on any browser other than MSIE

      What? My wife uses Firefox and Chrome with outlook.com every day. What doesn't work properly, exactly?

    3. Re:MS will do a bad job like Outlook Web Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exchange webmail might have been what was meant, but that worked with Firefox even 8 years ago. I suppose it could be different now though, as I have not had to use Exchange webmail for a few years.

    4. Re:MS will do a bad job like Outlook Web Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I guess that is exactly what was meant; I just did not know the proper name for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlook_Web_App

      Outlook.com has nothing to do with webmail interface served up by an Exchange server.

    5. Re:MS will do a bad job like Outlook Web Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Considering the fragmentation, the state of standards and functionality differences between the browsers, which were much worse in the past, and the technical risk associated with a rapidly moving platform you don't control, the MS Deci$ion is understandable. "

      Yet at the time many FOSS web products I had used managed to make some really slick interfaces that worked in any browser quite happily, without all those billions of R&D dollars behind them. Compare WYSIWYG editing in say, WordPress compared to SharePoint back in 2008.

    6. Re:MS will do a bad job like Outlook Web Access by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Even so, it looks like it's compatible with Chrome, Safari, FF, and IE... at least that seem to be what that wikipedia page indicates.

    7. Re:MS will do a bad job like Outlook Web Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh it works, its just appalling rubbish compared to explorer which is as nearly good as outlook itself.

      and yet zimbra did cross browser very well

  12. UK Forces Microsoft To Adopt Open Document Standar by TypeMail · · Score: 1

    Sounds good!

  13. KIngsoft Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Free Kingsoft Office suite from your favorite country is IMO better than not only libreoffice and openoffice but Microsoft Office as well. If only they made it open source there would be no Microsoft Office in 10 years.

  14. Re:UK Forces Microsoft To Adopt Open Document Stan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until you realize it's inevitable they'll region lock this feature to only work in the UK.

  15. Meanwhile, the majority of the rest of the world.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...will carry on using Word 2007 or 2003 and we'll all have to deal with parents asking why they can't open that strange .ODT file.

    Of course, this hasn't happened at all with browsers already - open standards are going to fix everything wrong with IE, right? Nobody will have to have two or three browsers at all....

  16. Microsoft is EVIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My experience and opinion: Microsoft is the most EVIL software company.

    1. Re:Microsoft is EVIL! by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Funny

      My experience and opinion: Microsoft is the most EVIL software company.

      Wow, that's a pretty bold statement to make here on slashdot. If you're really brave, you could say you quite like Star Wars.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Microsoft is EVIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Given the competition. Oracle, Google and so on...

    3. Re:Microsoft is EVIL! by haruchai · · Score: 1

      10 years ago, maybe. But Slashdot has changed somewhat and, reputedly, so has M$

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re:Microsoft is EVIL! by Stuarticus · · Score: 2

      Yeah, now you have to request a start button.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  17. But they support it already by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    What is this rubbish? Didn't we have these talks a long time ago already?

    - Office 2007 and Office 2010 support ODF 1.1
    - Office 2013 also supports ODF 1.2

    Go open your Microsoft Office, and the option to save in OpenDocument is right there in the Save As dialog.

    Whether anyone actually uses it, is the real question.

    1. Re:But they support it already by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What is this rubbish?

      This rubbish is Office 365.

      Didn't we have these talks a long time ago already?

      No. This is about Office 365, not about Office for Windows.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:But they support it already by samjam · · Score: 1

      What is this rubbish? Didn't we have these talks a long time ago already?

      - Office 2007 and Office 2010 support ODF 1.1

      - Office 2013 also supports ODF 1.2

      Go open your Microsoft Office, and the option to save in OpenDocument is right there in the Save As dialog.

      Whether anyone actually uses it, is the real question.

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+o...

      "Office 365" refers to subscription plans that include access to Office applications plus other productivity services that are enabled over the Internet (cloud services), such as Lync web conferencing and Exchange Online hosted email for business, and additional online storage with OneDrive and Skype world ...

      It doesn't seem to be the same as Office 2007 or Office 2010 or Office 2013.

      There was a bit of a clue in the name, but we don't read articles and we don't even read the summary these days

    3. Re:But they support it already by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      So what? People here are still talking like it's a new thing being introduced to Office, while the support has been there for well over half a decade. Here is even a Slashdot announcement from 2009.

    4. Re:But they support it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Fucking Christ. How dense are you? Office 365 is a different product than Office for Windows and as of yet it does not have odf support. It will now.

    5. Re:But they support it already by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Right, so 365 will get ODF support, just like the previous three desktop versions of Office got. Did anyone wind up using the ODF support before? Not that I have heard. What will be different this time? It will not push people any further to open standards if it's just an optional feature to save the document in.

    6. Re:But they support it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Office 365 is Office 2013 (At least right now). It'll probably be upgraded to Office 2015 or whatever the next non subscription name is.

    7. Re:But they support it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the same AC, but...

      Right, so 365 will get ODF support, just like the previous three desktop versions of Office got.

      It seems silly that they would drop support for it in the first place. ODF is still used today, but then so are previous Word formats that Office does not fully support.

      Did anyone wind up using the ODF support before? Not that I have heard.

      Just because you have not heard of it before, does not mean it has not happened. I personally have used the ODF support on pervious versions of Office before; however, I usually ended up having to fix the document in Open Office or Libre Office. I have been looking to change jobs, and the last few jobs I applied to generally wanted ODF, PDF, or HTML versions of my resume. I think only one asked specifically for DOC only--that one still has some DOS systems though, so they probably are way behind the technology curve.

      What will be different this time? It will not push people any further to open standards if it's just an optional feature to save the document in.

      It is not meant to push people to open standards; it is so people can use those open standards if they wish.

  18. Changing times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy crap. Microsoft has caved in and stared to play ball with others...

    1. Re:Changing times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure they don't get behind you as you could find either a club to the head or a knife in the back.

  19. Re:Meanwhile, the majority of the rest of the worl by armanox · · Score: 1

    Word 2007 supports ODF my anonymous friend.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  20. Why I don't trust Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft's OOXML was only "widely adopted" due to allegedly underhanded tactics to pressure its adoption as a supposedly "open" standard. I recall reading that when open source developers tried to support Microsoft's OOXML documents in competing office software that the specs for OOXML were something like 800 pages long, made little sense in places, and in other places contradicted themselves.

    I haven't trusted Microsoft since the 1990s and I still don't. Microsoft only abides by open standards when their hand is forced. And about Microsoft open sourcing some of its software, that is only because Microsoft's cash cow monopoly on desktop software has been challenged by tablets and smartphones.

    1. Re:Why I don't trust Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The specification document for MSOOXML was closer to 6,000 pages and incomplete. It did not include any documentation for things like their vector drawing format (that competed with SVG). Another few thousand pages of errata were added once the standards bodies of the world had looked it over and made comment. I *know*, I did one such analysis for my countries standards body.

  21. WTF? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    first of all, I get annoyed every time that Word bugs me with the question of whether I'd rather use ODF or OOXML... I always choose Microsoft's format as it doesn't really give me anything I didn't have before to use ODF.

    Second, ODF is a dog with flees. Unless two or more word processors actually support the same feature sets, it doesn't actually support a standard format beyond very very basic functionality. Different word processors (or other office products) regularly differentiate themselves from each other by adding multiple awesome features. So, if Microsoft were to standardize on ODF, it would need to add all the features required to support all their extensions. Just as other office products do the same. I've used many features in ODF word processors that just don't work in other ODF word processors.

    I simply don't see how half-assed support of OOXML in other office packages is any worse than their half assed support for ODF.

  22. Technically Correct, Actually Wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the source - "Typically, Microsoft Office documents can only be opened with a few applications. Google Docs has a conversion tool for changing the format, but other productivity suites like Appleâ(TM)s iWork and LibreOffice cannot utilise Office documents."

    I use LibreOffice and I can certainly utilize Office documents. I can both read and export them. Of course, bugs occasionally show up, but for the most part, LibreOffice works well enough with .doc, .docx, etc.

    Captcha: supports

  23. Pages? Keynote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of locked-in ecosystems, when is someone going to force Apple to make Pages and Keynote files viewable on PCs?

  24. Bullsh#t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quote: Different word processors (or other office products) regularly differentiate themselves from each other by adding multiple awesome features.

    Provide a specific example..... otherwise you are making up a bullsh#t statement and clearly are spreading FUD.

  25. Re:Meanwhile, the majority of the rest of the worl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop trying to take away their strawmen!

  26. Microsoft "personal promise" deemed dangerous. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    EndSoftPatents.org makes multiple relevant points very clear in their warning against relying on Microsoft's "promise" for .NET core listing the limits and foreseeable risks in Microsoft's offer. It seems to me there's enough there to make anyone wary of relying on .NET and instead heed what the Free Software Foundation said in 2009 warning against developing in C#.

    You asked:

    Burz, I wonder if you'd say the same about all OSS software that's licensed under MIT or BSD but which lacks a patent promise? Because such software would be in an even weaker state from your perspective than Microsoft's OSS .NET.

    I don't speak for Burz and I don't argue for anything "OSS", in fact this issue is one reason why looking at this from the perspective of the open source movement is so dangerous. But it seems to me that the FSF has explained this well as they point out in their aforementioned article, Microsoft is "the only major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux and stated its intention to attack our community with patents" which makes Microsoft more of a threat. Also, there's more than one BSD license and it's better to be clear about what you're referring to.

    EndSoftPatents.org and the FSF both manage to make their points referring to specifics, linking to their sources, and without using the word "Chinese" to denote confusion or incomprehensibility. So it seems to me that EndSoftPatents.org's conclusion, "This patent licence looks fine for users of the code published by Microsoft, but its protections disappear very quickly for those who wish to modify or re-use the code." is entirely sensible and hardly worthy of your offensive dismissal.

  27. More info from gov.uk on what actually happened by mihaic.ro · · Score: 2