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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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