Massachusetts will begin using OpenDocument as the default document format later this year as planned, but it will be sticking with Microsoft Office in the near term, the state’s top tech executive said.
Mass. to Use Microsoft Office in ODF Plan
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Either go ODF or don’t, guys.
Why not go ODF? Maybe all they wanted was an open standard format, and not an open office. Maybe all these months the community wrongly thought that Mass. truly wanted to go full open source, and they only needed to just make sure their document format remains free and accessible in the future. Makes sense actually.
I don’t have faith that MS will willingly support ODF without sabotaging it somehow. Show me precedent to the contrary.
I here you! One needs only to think of the the Java-affair to be reminded of Microsofts tactics:
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
I agree. IF MS are serious about ODF support, and it’s a big if, then there’s no problem with using MS Office if you have money to burn. However, if either of those conditions don’t hold, until KOffice improves, OpenOffice is the only game in town.
Unfortunately, 18 months of *supposed* friendliness to open source and open standards on MS’ part compare to nearly *30 years* (or is it over 30 years?) of annihilating all competition. That’s not encouraging.
Now I guess I know why Americans are always going on about how their governments waste their tax dollars.
“I don’t have faith that MS will willingly support ODF without sabotaging it somehow. Show me precedent to the contrary.”
Well, MS is assisting with the ODF translators for Office. They are contributing to the projects to make sure MS Word can work with ODF properly, though they are not going to support it natively. Note the 1st 2 projects on this sourceforge page…
http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&words=ODF
The plugin is not from MS, so what’s you point?
“The plugin is not from MS, so what’s you point?”
Actually MS Started the plugin project, and is providing the developers with what they need as far as specs go to convert from word to ODF. So yes..it is from MS actually, as it would not exist without them.
Are you sure?
I was talking about the plugin developed by the Open Document Foundation, which afaik was developed without help from MS.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5139606687.html
“Are you sure?
I was talking about the plugin developed by the Open Document Foundation, which afaik was developed without help from MS.
” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5139606687.html”
Hey, thanks for that. I only knew about the plugin that MS is supporting, and knew nothing about this one. The one on sourceforge is the one that MS is supporting, and I notice that it is supposed to only work to go between OpenXML and ODF in Office 2007. Thanks again, I don’t mind getting educated
Actually, nobody who followed the story thought that Mass. wanted to go open source.
On the contrary, if you search osnews you’ll find many comments that point out that this is not a closed source vs. open source issue but that this is about open standards.
So I don’t really see how you got the impression that “the community”, whatever that is supposed to be, thought this was about open source.
I think that most of us (who have every reason to be of skeptic of Microsoft) know what this translates to, a bastardized version of ODF.
When all is said and done, I’ll promise you that you will not be able to freely exchange files between Microsoft and other ODF supported products.
I can see it now. You’re in Word. You choose “Save As”. You select “ODF Format”. A warning pops up and says, “Are you sure you want to save this file in this format? You may lose formatting, formulas and Macros. The book that you have been writing and are almost finished with may become unreadable. Are you sure that you would like to continue? You are really better off to answer ‘No’ here.”
I don’t think we cared if MA paid for Microsoft Office or used a free version of Open Office. We just know where this road leads.
Edited 2006-08-24 19:01
Again, there is a plugin from the Open Document Foundation.
MS doesn’t have anything to do with it.
So what’s your point?
My point is that we were hoping that ODF would be the benchmark standard. Instead, we will be left with something akin to saving an xls document in tab delimited format. Sure, you can save it that way, but don’t count on the formatting or the formulas getting saved along with it. And, heaven forbid you want to resave it in xls.
With Open Office being selected, we knew we would be getting genuine ODF documents. Then, Microsoft would be more likely to be 100% compatible with ODF.
It’s just not going to be anything close to what many of us were hoping for.
This is the edited section:
The way it is going to work is the same as Word works with text. It will read and write it. But, it will not be interchangeable with the *.doc format. We wanted to see *.doc either be 100% translateable to ODF or ODF become the primary format. Don’t kid yourself, neither of those will happen now.
Edited 2006-08-24 23:26
//The way it is going to work is the same as Word works with text. It will read and write it. But, it will not be interchangeable with the *.doc format. We wanted to see *.doc either be 100% translateable to ODF or ODF become the primary format. Don’t kid yourself, neither of those will happen now. //
I don’t think this is correct. There is a different ODF plugin (not the one sponsored by Microsoft) and from what I have heard that one works pretty well.
I believe that MA intend to go with the actual, useable ODF plugin and not the crippled near-useless one sponsored by Microsoft, which I believe has design objectives as you state above.
Well, I hope I’m wrong. However, if it is up to Microsoft, I won’t be wrong. I’m just not naive enough to think otherwise. Furthermore, I’m saying the fact that MA chose Microsoft Office, almost ensures that they will have control. Now, they can just pacify ODF and it will go away, just like every time they are found guilty of some violation. It is a hiccup for them. It’s something they deal with and it passes. They are now in the position to let time take a toll on ODF.
//Well, I hope I’m wrong. However, if it is up to Microsoft, I won’t be wrong.//
Agreed, if it is up to Microsoft, you won’t be wrong.
However, if you carefully read the original article, you will find links to not one, but two plugins.
This article (linked from within the original article) is about the plugin from a microsoft-sponsored effort and which requires Office 2007:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6090912.html?ta g=nl [zdnet.com]
… whereas this article (also linked from within both articles) is about the plugin that I believe Massachusetts have actually chosen to use:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6069188.html?ta g=nl [zdnet.com]
These two are not the same plugin. They are both ODF plugins for MS Office, and very easy to confuse, but they have very, very different implications for Massachusetts or any other end users.
Anyway, the ODF plugin that Massachusetts AFAIK will actually use does quite a good job from what I have heard, and it does not require Office 2007.
//Furthermore, I’m saying the fact that MA chose Microsoft Office, almost ensures that they will have control. Now, they can just pacify ODF and it will go away, just like every time they are found guilty of some violation. It is a hiccup for them. It’s something they deal with and it passes. They are now in the position to let time take a toll on ODF.//
It could be so if Microsoft were in control of all plugins. However, JAWS itself is a plugin. JAWS is the program that gives disability access to MS Office. There are some very pertinent points here:
(1) JAWS works with Office 2003 and earlier versions, and so does the non-MS ODF plugin.
(2) You can’t retro-actively break the support for plugins in earlier versions of Office. If MS are going to break the non-MS ODF plugin, they will have to do it in Offcie 2007.
(3) If they somehow break support for the non-MS ODF plugin (perhaps with a ‘security update’ to current versions of Windows or Office), then they will very likely break JAWS too, and kill their own “disability access” argument in the process.
(4) Office 2007 will have a different GUI – something about “ribbons”. Office 2007 will therefore also break disability access … so government Offices will not be able to upgrade to Offcie 2007 anyway, and will very likely see OpenOffice or StarOffice as a very much better way to go. Especially if there is a good ODF plugin for MS Offcie available to ease the transition.
(5) JAWS will not be able to support Office 2007 (with its different GUI) for quite some time.
In all of this, I can see a showstopper for government departments to transition to Office 2007 (because of lack of continuity of disability access) … and a viable transition path to ODF format that will avoid any need to use Office Open XML format.
I believe also that Massachusetts will still show the way that this path leads, and will demonstrate the viability and the benefits for all others to clearly see.
Edited 2006-08-25 05:16
(4) Office 2007 will have a different GUI – something about “ribbons”. Office 2007 will therefore also break disability access …
Um… Please explain the logic here… How does a GUI change affect disability access?
//Um… Please explain the logic here… How does a GUI change affect disability access?//
Disability access is a huge issue. OpenOffice.org does have some level of disability access (provided mainly from the disability access provisions built right in to the OS), … about the same level as that provided by out-of-the-box MS Office, but it is not as good as that available from a combination of MS Office combined with products from this company:
http://www.nanopac.com/Default.htm
and in particular this plugin for MS Office:
http://www.nanopac.com/JAWS.htm
The reason why the diabled complained about OpenOffice is not that it had no disability access at all, but rather that it wasn’t what they were used to which was MS Office and JAWS. For example, the keystrokes to useful shortcuts in OpenOffice weren’t exactly the same as those in MS Office.
Now it turns out that there is no JAWS for Office 2007, and Office 2007 is hugely, radically different in terms of its GUI to current MS Office than OpenOffice is.
So the disabled access in OpenOffice (even without a JAWS plugin) is way better than the new Office 2007 GUI also without JAWS plugin.
Further to that, there is a lot of work being done right now on OpenOffice to improve disabled access.
By the time Office 2007 is introduced it will be a no brainer. Disabled access will be immesurably better either by staying with current Office products plus JAWS, or by switching to OpenOffice with improved disability access, than it would be if you “upgraded” to Office 2007.
Now it turns out that there is no JAWS for Office 2007
And there is no JAWS for Office 2007 in the works?
//And there is no JAWS for Office 2007 in the works?//
That is a very interesting question.
In the past, each and every time MS has put out a new version of Office, it has “broken” JAWS.
People with disabilities have always been several years “behind” the current version of Office, waiting for JAWS to catch up.
The people who make JAWS have heroically struggled each time, with very little aid from Microsoft.
However, with Office 2007, now that disability access has become a “political football” … the story might be very different.
Since this issue has now been raised on a public forum, one might expect a buy-out of NanoPac Inc. any day now. If you have a few spare dollars to invest, you might have a dabble in a few NanoPac shares … could be a nice windfall there for you!
//My point is that we were hoping that ODF would be the benchmark standard. Instead, we will be left with something akin to saving an xls document in tab delimited format. Sure, you can save it that way, but don’t count on the formatting or the formulas getting saved along with it. And, heaven forbid you want to resave it in xls. //
I don’t believe so. From what I have heard, the plugin that MA intend to use (which is not the one sponsored by Microsoft) works a great deal better and more seamlessly than that.
We wanted to see *.doc either be 100% translateable to ODF or ODF become the primary format. Don’t kid yourself, neither of those will happen now.
*.doc will never be 100% translatable to ODF until ODF actually supports everything that the doc format supports.
When all is said and done, I’ll promise you that you will not be able to freely exchange files between Microsoft and other ODF supported products.
Some existing non-MS products can’t even exchange ODF to ODF.
I can see it now. You’re in Word. You choose “Save As”. You select “ODF Format”. A warning pops up and says, “Are you sure you want to save this file in this format? You may lose formatting, formulas and Macros. The book that you have been writing and are almost finished with may become unreadable. Are you sure that you would like to continue? You are really better off to answer ‘No’ here.”
And the dialog, minus your exaggerations, wouldn’t be lying in some cases. ODF cannot represent everything OXML (or MS Office in general) can.
Some existing non-MS products can’t even exchange ODF to ODF.
Those wouldn’t happen to be text editors, image viewers, or products from companies who’ve either not committed to ODF, or have yet to implement it in their products, would they?
//I think that most of us (who have every reason to be of skeptic of Microsoft) know what this translates to, a bastardized version of ODF.
When all is said and done, I’ll promise you that you will not be able to freely exchange files between Microsoft and other ODF supported products.
I can see it now. You’re in Word. You choose “Save As”. You select “ODF Format”. A warning pops up and says, “Are you sure you want to save this file in this format? You may lose formatting, formulas and Macros. //
It is a shame this comment got modded up so highly. It would be a perfectly correct observation IMO if the plugin that MA were going to use is the one sponsored by Microsoft. No doubt if this were the case, the above is what we would be likely to see.
However, if you read the linked article, it appears that MA are going with an ODF plugin written entirely independently of Microsoft, and which works pretty well and seamlessly.
So now, at least, there’s no format lock-in, so any product compatible with ODF can be used. For them, MS appearently has the best product, so that’s what will be used – fair enugh.
What depends, though, as I guess they’re using the plugin for ODF in MS Office, is the quality and support of the plugin. Another thing, as MS might not like this, they may put bugs and other annoyances in the code to stick things in the wheel like they have done with fx IE. I don’t knwo what side effects sticking something alien into MS Office will have…
I might be wrong, though, but the last thing I heard about ODF in Office was only by using a plugin. Don’t know if I’d trust MS 100% in making their own ODF suppoer anyhow… It might quickly become “MS ODF”…
The fact that MS is giving away Microsoft Office for free to all schools in Massachussets probably helps decision makers pick Office Suites as well
.
The fact that MS is giving away Microsoft Office for free to all schools in Massachusets probably helps decision makers pick Office Suites as well
.
I found the above information in some IT news sites but I wonder if they got it wrong.
I don’t see anything about office suites here:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mailings/2006/cm062606.html
Seems that MS is donating other weird stuff though.
Great This was a good choice now all documents will be saved in an open and accesable format forever. I dont think our govt facilities here in mass should stop using ms office they paid for it and as long as it continues to do what they need it to do and with this plugin it does they should continue to use it. Now in the future if it doesnt suit their needs they should switch to somthing like openoffice where the tco will be lower and no licensing fees etc therby saving me tax money.
The day I pick Open Office over MS Office will be by quality params and not ideal ones.
The day I pick MS Office over OO.org will be when I need the extra features and have the money.
FYI, my laptop came with MS Works and my desktop had Windows (but not Office) on it for five minutes.
Well I guess you get what you pay then.
I’d have to agree that MS Office is still more usable than OpenOffice. Most recently, I’ve been making a slide the last couple days and switching between Powerpoint (2002) and Impress (2.0.3). There’s a couple behavioral things in Impress that get pretty annoying:
1. Sometimes drag-and-drop shows the outline of the object, which is good. Other times it just shows a mouse icon indicating drag, without the object outline. That is considerably less accurate/useful for repositioning stuff, and it takes an unselect-reselect or two to switch it back to the other behavior. No idea what triggers the different behaviors.
2. There’s a large colored rectangle forming the background of my slide template. If you miss clicking a textbox in the foreground, the background rectangle gets selected, and you can’t reselect foreground elements until you click on a blank part of the slide, or click (twice?) outside the slide.
3. Text in textboxes shifts slightly when you select the box, then reverts when you deselect. It’s not a big deal, but I do wonder why it happens.
4. No zoom percentage dropdown box, IIRC. There’s some quick-fit buttons and zoom in/out magnifying-glasses, but the zoom increments are pretty big.
5. Can’t right-click a textbox to get a context menu with Copy. On the plus side, ctrl-c still works (and probably Edit -> Copy, too).
Edited 2006-08-24 19:28
I still fail in understand the mod down points, don’t like to hear a user opinion?
Edited 2006-08-24 19:28
As I modded you down, let me explain why I did it.
1. Your comment was off topic.
2. Your comment was a flamebait. You didn’t give any reason but simply acted as if MS Office was of higher quality.
3. Your comment was a flamebait as you implied that people only use OpenOffice because of ideas, despite it lacking quality
Conclusion:
Your comment was off topic, did nothing to further the discussion and was clear flamebait bound to start am off topic, boring flamewar.
Hope this helps.
Your comment was off topic.
This topic mention the state of Mass. chosing MS office over OO.o, so it is on topic.
Your comment was a flamebait. You didn’t give any reason but simply acted as if MS Office was of higher quality.
Bacause OO.o is slow and a resources eater, everybody knows that no need to repeat it.
Your comment was a flamebait as you implied that people only use OpenOffice because of ideas, despite it lacking quality
I didn’t implied that, I said “the day I pick”, it was specified “I”, you read what you want to read.
Conclusion:
You simple didn’t like someone picked MS Office over OO.o for quality reasons, cause you obviosly are using it only for an ideal,there is nothing wrong with it but you must learn to respect the people who do like MS Office.
Edited 2006-08-24 19:56
You simple didn’t like someone picked MS Office over OO.o for quality reasons, cause you obviosly are using it only for an ideal,there is nothing wrong with it but you must learn to respect the people who do like MS Office.
If I have to type “physician, heal thyself” on this site just one more time this quarter, I f–kin’ swear I’ll go potty. *You* must learn to respect people who pick OO.org because it has *all the functions of MS Office THEY need*.
To quote an Australian IT exec, “If Novell is using OO.org amongst 5,000 employees to exchange Microsoft format documents, it’s enterprise-ready”. No doubt they are doing it for “political” or “ideal[istic]” reasons, according to you. Yet if Novell were using MS Office on Windows to exchange docs whilst releasing SuSE Linux *Enterprise* Desktop, you’d accuse them of not eating their own dog food (whilst continuing to ignore the fact that for a LONG time MS developed Windows on XENIX, which isn’t even a particularly good version of UNIX. Probably ‘cos they got their hands on it.)
What do I care about Novell? Im talking about you and me here, but I won’t waste my time anymore.
OO.o obviously did NOT have *all the functions of MS Office THEY need* as far as Mass is concerned. Particularly accessibility.
BTW, there’s more to software than functionality, there’s also usability (something that OSS people still don’t understand). Even if OO.o had all the functions of MS Office that THEY need (which, as I said, is not the case for Mass government), MS Office is still more usable than OO.o, and usability is worth paying for. Why should government workers be forced to use a less usable product, even if it did have all the required functionality (which, I repeat, OO.o does not)?
The bottom line is this:
MS bashers have been claiming that the only reason MS Office is used is because of document format lock-in, and that if that lock-in were ever taken away, MS Office would have to compete on merit and would lose. Well MS Office did compete on merit and won (MS Office supports accessibility far better than any other suite).
Bust that! (breaking out my 80’s rap lingo).
Edited 2006-08-24 22:39
Good GOD! Don’t you ever QUIT?
I have a European Computer Driving Licence qualification in MS Office. I’d say that makes me as qualified as many (and more qualified than a marketing department) to decide whether OpenOffice is as usable as MS Office. It bloody is.
Neither OO.org nor MS Office has “accessibility” features. They’re in the OS.
Why should government workers be forced to use a less usable product, even if it did have all the required functionality (which, I repeat, OO.o does not)?
Right, like you’re more qualified than Bristol City Council and whatever government department in Belgium is switching to OO.org to decide what they should use, than they are.
BTW, there’s more to software than functionality, there’s also usability (something that OSS people still don’t understand).
No, we get it, which is why people who maintain that Linux is ready for the desktop (like myself) run KDE and/or GNOME. It’s also why we’ll use software that doesn’t have as many features as other stuff, but which ACTUALLY DOES what the writers *claim* it does. Yes, I also use fvwm, WindowMaker, et al and (horrors!) the commandline sometimes. Doesn’t mean I’m going to come to your house and put a gun to your head if you don’t.
We also get three other things:
1. Not everything can be done by pointing and clicking; (which is why people still speak and write to each other)
2. *Once you’ve learnt it*, the commandline can often (not always) be quicker to use than fumbling around for the right icon/menu.
3. Schtick from Windows users who complain that Linux isn’t easy to use, and THEN complain that we’ve started to rip off the Windows GUI. Jesus f–king Christ, and you *actually* have the NERVE to wonder why we want you to just piss off?
You know what? I really couldn’t care less about your “Euro Driving License”. Give me a break.
Taking the Lord’s name in vain doesn’t pursuade either. You sound like just another angry OSS fanboy, regardless of whatever your bit of paper says.
BTW, Office 2007 beta blows away all other suites in funcionality and usability. I really don’t see why governments would or should enact policies that ban the use of the best office suite ever made. The ODF plugins bring Office 2007 into compliance with MA’s ODF policy, so MA can use Office 2007. (And earlier versions of Office too, but I stress Office 2007 because it’s in a different league than all previous suites.) MA’s not part of your jihad. Live with it.
Edited 2006-08-25 05:59
Whatever.
It’s obvious you can’t change what passes for your mind, so I’ll give up trying.
By the way, someone who can’t change his mind (and won’t change the subject) is apparently one definition of a fanatic. Or “fanboy”.
I have a European Computer Driving Licence qualification in MS Office.
The ECDL is a big JOKE. I’m surprised you’re not ashamed of admitting you have that “license”.
Neither OO.org nor MS Office has “accessibility” features. They’re in the OS.
If they are in the OS, why can’t you get the same accessibility features in OOo as you can in MSO?
3. Schtick from Windows users who complain that Linux isn’t easy to use, and THEN complain that we’ve started to rip off the Windows GUI.
Maybe it’s because of the “community”‘s habit of doing exactly the same if MS or other commercial vendors implement something that happens to have existed in OSS form before. Complain that it isn’t there first, then when they add it, complain that they stole it.
If they are in the OS, why can’t you get the same accessibility features in OOo as you can in MSO?
Like what? Why not try finding out for yourself if these “features” acually exist (in MS Office and OOo), rather than being told they do by some Microsoft marketing bullshitter?
Maybe it’s because of the “community”‘s habit of doing exactly the same if MS or other commercial vendors implement something that happens to have existed in OSS form before. Complain that it isn’t there first, then when they add it, complain that they stole it.
No, we do that because Microsoft calls that “innovation”. And pretending that ALL the community do it is like pretending that ALL the Windows community or ALL the Mac community are thick as a brick. Thank God, some aren’t.
So, what qualification in office do you recommend?
IT officials were so focused on technology that they forgot to think about customers. That’s why they’re in this mess right now. Hopefully, this will serve as a lesson to other organizations who are thinking about deploying one technology or another. Here’s a hint: Get comments from your customers before you arbitrarily decide to deploy something. Public commentary is a good thing.
The truth hurts, huh?
Why is it that it’s ok to use MS Office with a plugin for ODF, but ask any Windows user to use an open source app that requires a plugin to get full functionality and they’ll go straight batshit with something like “I refuse to resort to kludgy hacks to get the same functionality. If it doesn’t support everything I need out of the box, it’s shit.”
References you want? See any thread about GIMP + CMYK
Unlike the so-called “good” ODF plugin, the MS sponsored plugin is open source. It’s on SourceForge. So anyone can look at the code to see if the developers (who aren’t MS devs, BTW) are intentionally or accidentally producing “bad” ODF documents.
Oh, and the so-called “good” ODF plugin converts between ODF and OO.o’s *guess* of what the old MS Office binary formats are. In other words, it’s only as good as OO.o’s MS document functionality (which isn’t all that great).
The MS sponsored project, on the other hand, will convert between ODF and OpenXML, both of which are open standards.
I’d bet that when the MS sponsored plugin is complete, it’ll blow away the “good” plugin you guys are blindly praising.
The MS sponsored plugin is written to require Office 2007.
That is Microsoft’s whole objective … to get people to move to Office 2007.
The so-called “good” ODF plugin is good because it does not require Office 2007 … so people can stick with what they already have, and fail to upgrade to Office 2007 … and most importantly, avoid any use of Office open XML format.
Now the really interesting bit is this comparison:
(1) Microsoft: expensive upgrade to Office 2007, difficult and/or dubious support of ODF, requires re-training for new GUI.
(2) OpenOffice: free upgrades, it gets better and better all the time, supports ODF (international standard for digital storage of dcouments),
and now, a third option
(3) keep your existing version of MS Office and use the “good” plugin: very low cost option for getting to support ODF (international standard for digital storage of dcouments), does not require any re-training.
Option (1) is terrible, options (2) and (3) are both fine.
BTW, OpenOffice support of legacy MS Office formats is better than MS Office’s is!!
//I’d bet that when the MS sponsored plugin is complete, it’ll blow away the “good” plugin you guys are blindly praising.//
No it won’t. It will require an expensive upgrade to Office 2007, for a start. That puts its cost miles high compared to the other two viable options. The other two viable options also are a big win because there is no danger that you will accidentally save a document in Office Open XML format and therefore lock it in to a Windows platform.
Oh, and BTW, this program:
http://www.nanopac.com/JAWS.htm
won’t work with Office 2007!!!!!!!
No disability access for Office 2007 users until they update JAWS!!
Edited 2006-08-25 06:17
“The MS sponsored plugin is written to require Office 2007.”
This is incorrect. Older Office versions will get the ODF-support, after the Open XML compatibility pack for them is released.
This makes sense since the plugin relies on Open XML and after older Offices get the Open XML-support, the ODF-plugin is easy to make work with pre-Office 2007.
Some links:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jul06/07-06OpenSource…
“In addition to being made available as free, downloadable add-ins for several older versions of the Microsoft Office system”
http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2006/7/6/4538:
“Microsoft has finally conceded support for the OpenDocument Format in its Office products. This Thursday, the company will release a sponsored piece of software on SourceForge.net called the Open XML Translator, which will convert documents between Microsoft’s own Open XML format and the OpenDocument Foundation’s OpenDocument Format (ODF).
The plug-in will allow users to open and save documents in the ODF format, and as an added bonus it will work with older versions of Microsoft Office, not just the new 2007 version.”
So, older versions of Office will support both Open XML and ODF for reading and writing. No upgrades are required for either format.
//This is incorrect. Older Office versions will get the ODF-support, after the Open XML compatibility pack for them is released.
This makes sense since the plugin relies on Open XML and after older Offices get the Open XML-support, the ODF-plugin is easy to make work with pre-Office 2007.//
Sigh!
You are talking vapourware. Right now, the MS-supported plugin for ODF has the follwoing problems:
(1) it barely works. It is not much better than saving as plain text.
(2) it loses all formating on one leg. This means a “round trip” (from .doc to .odt and back to .doc) is not possible with the MS-supported plugin.
(3) right now, it requires Office 12 beta to run, because it relies on Office Open XML.
(4) It relies on Office Open XML, and Office Open XML is a lock-in-to-Windows format that is therefore to be avoided if at all possible. It is worth going to huge lengths to avoid Office Open XML.
Just corrected the false statement that the plugin will be for Office 2007 only.
The stated problems (1 and 2) are true as the Sourceforge-plugin is currently in very early stage (v. 0.2 or so). Eventually it will get better.
Actually the latest version (August CTP (0.2-M1)) has already improved on these points (1-3):
“o Support for Word 2003 & Word XP & tight integration with Office Compatibility pack for Office 2003 & Office XP.
o There will be separate install kits for Office 2007, Office 2003 & Office XP.
o This release is comprehensive with respect to Text, Formatting, Paragraphs, Images, Styles & document metadata scenarios.”
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=600299
Right now, there is no much point comparing the quality of the ODF-plugins as they are not both ready.
//Right now, there is no much point comparing the quality of the ODF-plugins as they are not both ready.//
This is not true.
Right now, we already know the basic structure and design aims of the two plugins.
The MS-sponsored one is a “converter” betwwen Office Open XML and ODF.
The non-MS one is a “save as” file format plugin. It takes the internal data representation of the document, and translates the data directly into ODF format.
The first has a dependency on Office Open XML. Office Open XML is the bit that we (as end users not wishing to be beholden to Windows) DO NOT WANT!
The second is a direct replacement for Office Open XML. Just as Office Open XML takes the document data in memory and represents it on disk, so does the “good” ODF plugin.
If Microsoft were truly interested in supporting ODF, they would do it the second way, and not the first. The second way is demonstrably the better way. It has got to a workable plugin quicker, it does not relay on another format, it can be used on the “save as” list of filters, and it is capable of being set as the default format.
The second way is what MA asked for, before they would consider MS Office. MA asked that any application be capable of setting ODF as the default save format, and they would consider it.
There is no way that the MS-supported “converter” plugin meets sensible requirements for ODF support. There is no way that MS needed to do it that kludgy way going via Office Open XML format first, but they did.
Right now we can tell that the MS ODF solution will not be used, and a better alternative will be.
“The MS sponsored plugin is written to require Office 2007. “
Edit:
I responded to this before I saw Jemm’s post. I said the same as Jemm, but not nearly as well and didn’t provide links to back me up. So I remove my post and just cite Jemm’s posts above.
Edited 2006-08-25 07:41
//”The MS sponsored plugin is written to require Office 2007. ”
Edit:
I responded to this before I saw Jemm’s post. I said the same as Jemm, but not nearly as well and didn’t provide links to back me up. So I remove my post and just cite Jemm’s posts above. //
It turns out that all three of us are wrong.
I however would have been correct had I said:
“The MS sponsored plugin is written to require Office Open XML”.
There is no need for that dependency. It is possible (and it has already been done) to write a plugin that does not depend on Office Open XML.
The fact that MS are architecting their plugin to require Office Open XML, and also architecting Office Open XML to require Windows, speaks volumes to Microsofts approach to life, the universe, and everything.
Just once, I would like Microsoft to QUIT WITH THE LOCK-INS, ALREADY!
If and when Microsoft do that, paradoxically I could consider using their product.
As long as Microsoft persist in trying to lock me in to their product, the more I am compelled to stay away from Microsoft.
OpenXML is an open standard. As such, one can guarantee the fidelity of documents converted between OpenXML and ODF (as much as can be, anyway, since ODF doesnt’ support all of MS’s features). In the case of using the MS sponsored plugins, OpenXML is merely a temporary intermediate format. Someone starts Word, opens an ODF file, it’s converted on the fly to a temporary OpenXML file, Word opens that file, and converts the data to its own internal structures. The reverse happens when saving to ODF.
How does the “good” ODF plugin work when reading an ODF file from Word? Does it convert the file to .doc then feed that .doc file to Word? What’s the difference (besides the fact that the ODF to DOC conversion is based on OO.o’s DOC support, which is faulty for complex files)?
Oh, and your main complaint when you mistakenly said that Office 2007 was required was that users would have to *pay* for Office 2007, so using MS’s ODF plugin wasn’t free as in beer. Now you’re chaning your story to say that you’re concerned about lockin (which, as I’ve show above, makes no sense).
And you keep spreading the myth that OpenXML is a Windows-only format. It’s not. MacBU is working on adding OpenXML to Mac Office as we speak, so it works on Macs. Apple is one of the sponsors of OpenXML, so that practically guarantees that it works on Macs. Novell’s Gnumeric spreadsheet already supports OpenXML, so OpenXML works on Linux.
And before you start talking about ActiveX controls and whatnot, please try to explain away the fact that the Windows version of OO.o supports OLE, a windows only technology, and therefore OO.o can produce ODF files containing windows-only stuff (that being, OLE objects). What happens when such a file is opened on another platform? The app must deal with the stuff it doesn’t understand or support (i.e. the OLE objects) by ignoring it, keeping it around as a blob, or whatever. It’s the same with OpenXML. If an OpenXML file contains ActiveX controls, OLE objects (which are pretty much the same thing in that they’re both embedded COM objects), or other Windows-only stuff (if there are any other Windows only stuff that can be saved; I don’t know of any), and an app on another platform must open the document, then the app must deal with those things in the same way and ODF app would have to deal with OLE objects stored by the Windows version of OO.o.
Edited 2006-08-25 15:57
//OpenXML is an open standard.//
No, it is not a standard at all. Right now it is vapourware, and a wannabe standard.
ODF on the other hand is a standard. An international standard no less, which trumps a “de facto standard”.
OpenDocument specification was “approved for release as an ISO and IEC International Standard” under the name ISO/IEC 26300.
//In the case of using the MS sponsored plugins, OpenXML is merely a temporary intermediate format. Someone starts Word, opens an ODF file, it’s converted on the fly to a temporary OpenXML file, Word opens that file, and converts the data to its own internal structures. The reverse happens when saving to ODF.//
I know how the MS sponsored plugin works. It is as you say a kludge that requires OpenXML as an intermediate step.
//How does the “good” ODF plugin work when reading an ODF file from Word? Does it convert the file to .doc then feed that .doc file to Word? What’s the difference (besides the fact that the ODF to DOC conversion is based on OO.o’s DOC support, which is faulty for complex files)? //
For the non-MS plugin, ODF has nothing to do with .doc. It works just like OpenXML itself does. It converts between the data of the file stored in Word’s memory directly to the ODF file format. It works in the exact same way as you say OpenXML itself works … only it isn’t OpenXML format it is ODF format.
In your own words this would be: “Someone starts Word, opens an ODF file, and the plugin converts the data to Word’s own internal structures.”
No intermediate “OpenXML” weirdness required, or “.doc” either for that matter.
//Oh, and your main complaint when you mistakenly said that Office 2007 was required was that users would have to *pay* for Office 2007, so using MS’s ODF plugin wasn’t free as in beer. Now you’re chaning your story to say that you’re concerned about lockin (which, as I’ve show above, makes no sense).//
Sigh! You misunderstand. I’m willing to pay for something worthwhile. I’m trying to point out that the MS-sponsored plugin is not worthwhile. Nor is openXML itself. Also, the point about cost is only relevant in this discussion because we are comparing the cost to upgrade to Office 2007 and use OpenXML versus the cost to move to an ODF compliant solution.
//And you keep spreading the myth that OpenXML is a Windows-only format. It’s not. MacBU is working on adding OpenXML to Mac Office as we speak, so it works on Macs. Apple is one of the sponsors of OpenXML, so that practically guarantees that it works on Macs. Novell’s Gnumeric spreadsheet already supports OpenXML, so OpenXML works on Linux. //
Sigh! Are you naturally this slow, or do you have to work at it?
All non-Windows applications which support OpenXML will necessarily be unable to handle the parts of OpenXML that are Windows specific. Therefore, if you have an OpenXML document created by Office 2007 on Windows, when you open that document on a non-Windows platform there is a very good chance that bits of it will be missing. Therefore, the only way to be 100% confident that you can fully open all OpenXML documents is to use a Windows platform. That makes OpenXML platform dependent.
//And before you start talking about ActiveX controls and whatnot, please try to explain away the fact that the Windows version of OO.o supports OLE, a windows only technology, and therefore OO.o can produce ODF files containing windows-only stuff (that being, OLE objects). What happens when such a file is opened on another platform?//
OpenOffice.org (the office suite application) is not platform-neutral, since it can save a .doc file that it can re-open fully on Windows, but cannot re-open fully on other platforms.
ODF (the document format) is platform neutral.
OpenOffice.org can produce .doc files that are tied to a Windows platform, but it cannot produce ODF files (.odt) that are tied to the Windows platform, since that more or less defeats the whole purpose of ODF.
OpenXML (the document format) is not platform neutral, just as .doc (the document format) is not platform neutral.
Once AGAIN you confuse OpenOffice with ODF. They are not the same thing. Sheesh already!!!
//therefore OO.o can produce ODF files containing windows-only stuff (that being, OLE objects)//
No, it cannot “produce ODF files containing windows-only stuff”. ODF by design contains no “windows-only stuff”.
OO.o can however “produce .doc files containing windows-only stuff”. This is the whole problem with .doc files in the first place, and it is exactly the same problem for OpenXML files.
Edited 2006-08-26 01:44
Here’s the irony:
For years, MS bashers have said that MS Office can’t compete on merit; MS Office relies on format lock-in.
In reality, it’s OO.o that can’t compete on features, so they came up with ODF, and essentially said to the world, “We don’t have MS’s functionality, but you should use us because we have an open file format and they don’t!” It was OO.o that was relying on the file format card, not MS.
But now the ODF plugins come along, remove the “We have an open format and MS doesn’t!!” argument, and put the onus is on OO.o to compete on features. And that’s were MS has them right where they want them.
In summary:
With ODF (and OpenXML, for that matter), MS can’t rely on format lock-in.
But by the same token, OO.o can’t rely on the “We have an open format and they don’t” argument.
Both must compete on features. And OO.o can’t compete with Office 2003, and looks downright primitive compared with Office 2007. OO.o’s grand strategy backfired.
//In summary:
With ODF (and OpenXML, for that matter), MS can’t rely on format lock-in.
But by the same token, OO.o can’t rely on the “We have an open format and they don’t” argument.
Both must compete on features. And OO.o can’t compete with Office 2003, and looks downright primitive compared with Office 2007. OO.o’s grand strategy backfired.//
Here is the alternative summary:
With OpenXML MS is rely on format lock-in to Windows platforms (just not relying on lock-in to MS Office).
But by the same token, ODF can rely on the “you don’t need to upgrade to Vista or Office 2007 to use ODF” argument. (ODF is NOT the same thing as OO.org. Always remember that.)
OO.org has a near-identical GUI to current versions of Office, whereas Office 2007 will require expensive and extensive retraining.
Office 2007 will not support disabled users, because of the radical change to its GUI.
Microsoft’s grand “disabled access” strategy backfired.
Edited 2006-08-25 06:24
Office 2007 will not support disabled users, because of the radical change to its GUI.
If you’re gonna make claims like that, you’d better be able to support your claims. Go ahead and post the proof that Office 2007 won’t support disabled users.
Or are you simply claiming that disabled users NEED a specific GUI?
//Or are you simply claiming that disabled users NEED a specific GUI?//
No. Rather it is an observation that they need a consistent GUI to that which they are used to.
It takes a huge effort to re-learn a new GUI as a disabled user.
The complaints from the disabled about OpenOffice were not so much that OpenOffice had zero support for disabled access, but rather things like “the shortcuts are not exactly the same as MS Office”.
Well, with an entirely new GUI, the same can be said about Office 2007. “It is not exactly the same as current MS Office”.
//If you’re gonna make claims like that, you’d better be able to support your claims. Go ahead and post the proof that Office 2007 won’t support disabled users. //
It is not at all hard to support the claim that: (1) office 2007 has a different GUI to current MS Office, and (2) JAWS supports current versions of MS Office, and (3) right now there is no such thing as “JAWS for Office 2007”.
None of those points are in any contention.
Oh, and BTW, even if there WAS such a thing as “JAWS for Office 2007”, it would still mean a lot more re-training for a disabled user than a simpler switch to OpenOffice.
Edited 2006-08-25 07:02