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.

33 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    5. 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-...

    6. 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
    7. 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'
  2. 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.

  3. 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 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.
           

  4. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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).

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
  5. 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?

  6. 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 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...
    2. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  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 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. More info from gov.uk on what actually happened by mihaic.ro · · Score: 2
  15. 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.
  16. 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.