Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MS vs. Open Source Office Suite Compatibility

Posted by timothy on Wed Sep 03, 2003 04:51 AM
from the file-formats-are-what-matter dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "Though Microsoft may soon be blocking Office suite compatability with open source productivity tools, in the mean time Hal Varian (of Berkeley) has conducted the Microsoft Office-Linux Interoperability Experiment which shows a surprising amount of interoperability. Hey, another reason NOT to upgrade to the new version!"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • important to note (Score:5, Informative)

    by maharg (182366) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @04:56AM (#6857261) Homepage Journal
    It is important to note that even Microsoft Office has trouble opening some versions of Microsoft Office programs

    Sad but true ;o)
    • Re:important to note (Score:5, Interesting)

      by madmarcel (610409) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:54AM (#6857445) Homepage
      From the article:
      "forward compatibility has often been a problem."

      Correct, but I'd venture that most software would suffer from that, not just M$ Office.

      However, please note that backward compatibility is also problematic with (some/all) M$ software.

      IMHO there is no guarantee that a newer release of a given M$ program will be able to open files from an older release of that same program. Again, this is not unusual for (a lot of/some) software. But of course, with open source this doesn't pose as much of a problem.

      FWIW I seem to remember running into trouble when I used M$ Publisher. I have a newer version installed on one of these machines <<gestures>> that cannot open publisher files from an older version of Publisher. These 2 different version are sequential releases...I think that is unacceptable >:\
      • Re:important to note (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Laur (673497) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @08:00AM (#6857993)
        Forget forward or backward compatibility, how about current compatibility? As in opening a file created in that version of Word and having it look the same! Just a few days ago I was working on several complex documents. They're about 100 pages each, and are an electronic revision of older hardcopy documents, so there is lots of formatting (manual page breaks, weird line spacings, custom margins and such) in order to closely match the hardcopy. I closed it down in the evening on one day, and when I opened it the next morning the formatting had changed! Text that used to fit over a single page was now spread over two pages, things like that. I had my coworker open the file and it looked correct on his computer, but was screwed up on mine. And according to Word we have THE EXACT SAME VERSION, down to the minor version numbers, and as far as I know nothing changed in my configuration overnight. Very irritating, I can tell you, but there was no other choice but to waste several hours going through page by page correcting margins, line spacing, etc. until it was once again correct. A program which can't even open its own files reliably is a total piece of crap, IMO.
        • Re:important to note (Score:5, Informative)

          by IM6100 (692796) <elben@mentar.org> on Wednesday September 03 2003, @08:10AM (#6858063)
          Believe it or not, and it is unbelieveable in this day of networked computers with many printing and output resources available to them, Microsoft Word's formatting functionality is in part, and it's a significant part, dependent on what default printer you have it set up to use.

          It's an unbelievable anachronism, but it's the truth.
      • by belloc (37430) <belloc@@@latinmail...com> on Wednesday September 03 2003, @11:02AM (#6859532) Homepage
        Correct, but I'd venture that most software would suffer from that, not just M$ Office.

        Strange, I can open any document that I've created between 1989 & 2003 with any version of my word processor suite.

        God love ya, vi & tex.

        Belloc
  • Plenty of reasons (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pompatus (642396) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @04:58AM (#6857270) Journal
    Hey, another reason NOT to upgrade to the new version!

    I use word processors to write school papers. When it comes down to it, writing a school paper requires one important feature, spell check. That was available on the C64. I'll bet most people are like me in that they NEVER need to upgrade (no, I don't have the trusty C64 anymore, but I haven't upgraded office since 97).

    You really have to hand it to the Microsoft marketing dept for making everyone believe they need to upgrade every year.
    • by rf0 (159958) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:04AM (#6857290) Homepage
      Of course we need to upgrade....We need to see how annoying the new animated logos are

      Rus
      • by thebreathalyzer (601189) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @08:18AM (#6858122)
        Regrettably, I think I found a use for clippy that's about on par. I started letting my preschooler play with Word with one of them visible. Later, I invested a whopping 12 or so hours to make a "game" that teaches the alphabet using the Agent control. That was my undoing.
        Now, whenever I open Word and I forgot to hide the assistant, my son (from the other side of the house, mind you) will run screaming from the other side of the house to play his game or type on Word. On the way, he usually racks up 1 or 2 cats, the dog, and at least one piece of furniture. When he gets to the computer, he finds me trying to get started on a report for school.

        Him: "I want to play my game, daddy"
        Me: "Not right now. I've gotta do something for school"
        Him: "That's not fair."
        Me: "Sorry, bud, but I have to get this done."
        Him (Alternate 1): "You want a piece of me?" (Assumes Jet Lee pose)
        Him (Alternate 2): "I'm gonna pop a cap in your ass, daddy." (Thank his mother for that one...)

        I for one have happily made the transition to OpenOffice because, well, it's just safer...
    • Re:Plenty of reasons (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsilvergun (571051) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:27AM (#6857363)
      I think you'll find that features in modern office software that make creating 'Lovely Documents' (I think Dilbert coined the phrase) easier, very helpful in both academia and buisness. That's why MS-Office is such a killer app. People recieve attractive documents better irrespective of their content. Make your papers look nice and you'll get better grades.
    • by laughing_badger (628416) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:39AM (#6857400) Homepage
      Tell that to a friend of mine that submitted a design for a web book search database, which would be maintained by the school Liberian.
      • Re:Plenty of reasons (Score:5, Informative)

        by zakezuke (229119) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:22AM (#6857342)
        School papers need one other important features: the ability to quickly repaginate after changing fonts, margins, and spacing!

        Actually, circa 1985-1990, was sorta pre-WYSIWYG. While the classic 8bit systems had "fonts" you couldn't really see them on screen. For the most part fonts were not proportional, as in print was typicaly in the form of a fixed number of characters per inch.

        Some printers did have an option for proptional fonts, but this was not commonly used because you had to change your habits like using a tab rather then spaces.

        There was NO real need to re-paginate if you just recycled your paper and just printed the number at the approperate point on each page. In fact, you can still do this in the 21st century if you had to.

  • features (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KingJoshi (615691) <slashdot@joshi.tk> on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:00AM (#6857273) Homepage
    Most of the Microsoft Word files that we downloaded, for example, did not use mathematics, outlines, tracking changes, or other such features.

    Right there is where most problems will occur. Also, after reading enough of /., lack of support of VBScript would be another obstacle.

    Also, I wonder how KOffice will do after they switch their file formats and stuff. It could only help, right?

  • by Noryungi (70322) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:01AM (#6857278) Homepage Journal

    As they say themselves, this was based on files downloaded from the Internet, which were probably designed in order to be viewed by the greatest number of people.

    Hmmm... Then again, putting MS Office files on the Internet, instead of PDF of plain HTML probably means the user do not have enough computer knowledge to optimize said files. So, it's a good point.

    On the other hand, I am surprised that the numbers for StarOffice are greater than the numbers for OpenOffice... How come?

    Anyway, this is good news, and should be a valuable lesson for most people with PHBs... =)
      • Re:Pretty light.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by bdeclerc (129522) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:58AM (#6857456) Homepage
        They used StarOffice 6.0. OpenOffice is based on StarOffice 5.2

        StarOffice 6.0 is based on OpenOffice.Org, which in turn is based on StarOffice 5.2

        The reasons for the difference might be small differences between the OO.o version they tested, and SO6.0. If they use OO.o 1.1RC3, I suspect the results would be very different, as the MSOffice import filters are hugely improved in the new release.
  • Anti-trust ruling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stephenry (648792) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:01AM (#6857280)
    What I don't understand by this is that under the US anti-trust settlement, Microsoft were made to release the specifications of their communication protocols to competitors.

    Clearly, the intention of this settlement wasn't so that everyone could simply see what's in, for example, a word document (which is a communication protocol in itself), but how to build program which interoperate with them. Shouldn't the developers of Open Office then be able to simply download the DOC specs off of Microsoft.com and build it into their system? Or, am I assuming that the "settlement" was an actual binding agreement?
    • Re:Anti-trust ruling (Score:5, Informative)

      by carrier lost (222597) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:52AM (#6857440) Homepage

      What I don't understand by this is that under the US anti-trust settlement, Microsoft were made to release the specifications of their communication protocols to competitors.

      That's true, in spirit. In actuality, if I remember correctly, the conditions under which MS is required to open the protocols for the office products contain at least two rather difficult obstacles:

      1 - Licensing fees [slashdot.org]
      2 - J. No provision of this Final Judgment [usdoj.gov] shall:

      1. 1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties:
        1. (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or

      MjM

      Oops, they did it again...

      • by mijok (603178) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @06:23AM (#6857523)
        Quote from the public comments on the revised proposal to final judgement [usdoj.gov]:
        373. However, the major comments concerning file formats request disclosure of the file formats of Microsoft products such as Office. Office does not meet the definition of Microsoft Middleware, and so it does not fall under Section III.D. Nor is Office implemented natively in a Windows Operating System Product, so it does not fall under Section III.E. Thus, the file formats for Office will not be disclosed or licensed pursuant to the RPFJ.
        Paragraphs 371-375 on the page contain more information about it but that's the main point.
  • by Boss, Pointy Haired (537010) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:01AM (#6857282)
    Word 97 is a perfectly adequate word processor. So was Word 95 for that matter.

    Word 2004 can't be many lines of code from self-awareness.

    MS went absolutely over the top with Office; you get "features" now that well over 99% of their user base will never even SKIM the surface of.

    Clever marketing and PHB one-upmanship are what convinced the masses to go with this ridiculous and unnecessary upgrade path.

    Operating Systems progressing through research and improved hardware I can understand; but you DO NOT need a new version of a bleedin' word processor every year.
    • Don't forget ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zonix (592337) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:14AM (#6857318) Homepage Journal
      Clever marketing and PHB one-upmanship are what convinced the masses to go with this ridiculous and unnecessary upgrade path.

      Don't forget incompatibility between formats used in some of their different MS Office versions.

      z
    • Outlook 97 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cloudless.net (629916) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:18AM (#6857331) Homepage
      Word and Excel are fine in Office 97, but Outlook is not. Outlook 97 sucks, and Microsoft had to release Outlook 98 upgrade free for Outlook 97 users. There is still room for improvement even for Outlook XP, you will see some cool stuff in Outlook 2003.
        • Re:Outlook 97 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MKalus (72765) <mkalus@NOSPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday September 03 2003, @06:33AM (#6857553) Homepage
          Great,

          so I buy an entire Office Suit for an email client?

          Something must be amiss here.

          It is starting to get funny sort off, as I unwrangled myself at home from Windows now for a couple of years and see just how far OpenOffice has come. Even at work most of the stuff I work on I create in OpenOffice and then save it into Windows format so that others can use it.

          I was starting to think last night and realized the only reason I do HAVE to use windows at work is so that I can use Exchange (calendar) and get virus scanned 3 times a day from the Helldesk.

    • by pubjames (468013) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:21AM (#6857338)
      MS went absolutely over the top with Office; you get "features" now that well over 99% of their user base will never even SKIM the surface of.

      And yet features that lots of people would find useful aren't incorporated because they don't fit in with MS strategy.

      When I tell small business clients that OpenOffice will write PDF documents just by going "save as", their eyes light up.
    • by azaris (699901) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @06:14AM (#6857496) Journal

      MS went absolutely over the top with Office; you get "features" now that well over 99% of their user base will never even SKIM the surface of.

      Clever marketing and PHB one-upmanship are what convinced the masses to go with this ridiculous and unnecessary upgrade path.

      The problem is, there are a lot of heavy-duty Office users who do use those features that somebody who just writes one research paper a month never uses. For example, some companies run their whole production and financial planning in custom-built Excel spreadsheets, and if Excel 2000/XP/2003 offers some feature OpenOffice doesn't they'll never switch in a million years if it requires them to rewrite the whole shebang.

      Just because you don't use a feature of your Office suite, don't assume no one does. One percentage of ten million Office users equals a hundred thousand people who absolutely depend on that feature.

  • by scsirob (246572) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:05AM (#6857292)
    ... Not upgrading isn't an option for a lot of people. They simply get a computer either preconfigured through their IS department, or preconfigured by Dell or Gateway.

    As soon as 'the boss' is unable to open your budget report written in OpenOffice, guess what he'll demand from you..
      • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @06:35AM (#6857561)
        When I'm in a position like that I'm thankful everyone can read RTF. Its not feature rich, but it works for just about anyone. Also its becoming a de facto rule to make any 'fancy' document a PDF anyway. Personally, I prefer PDFs for something that isn't supposed to be edited by anyone else. I can pull this trick off because I can make PDFs free with PDF995, Open Office, or in Linux. Way too many people assume it will cost them $250 for the power of making a pdf and Adobe isn't quick to correct them.

        Not to mention the office copier at my only client site is Red Hat based and will take a scanned copy and email you a PDF. Very handy.

        What I'm very curious about is will MS make Word be able to open sxw files by default? Perhaps when OO hits critical mass? Something tells me sxw support, if it comes, will be in some hard to find converter pack that asks you for your original office CD.
  • by tcdk (173945) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:06AM (#6857298) Homepage Journal
    We have a mixed office, with most users running MS-Office and (mainly) the developers running OpenOffice.org.

    Most of the problems are with word document are with imbedded graphics. Sometimes they show up in funny places. Sometimes not at all.

    Large spreadsheets can be a problem (export from something). OOo has a limit at 32000 rows, it does give a nice warning about it, thought.

    Haven't had any problems with powerpoint presentations.

    If I could get the rest of the house to spend the time to learn to use OOo, MS-Office would be dumped in a second.
    One thing is sure - we will not be buying new Ms-Office licences (but as we have already payed for those we have, I'll not be forcing something new on exsisting users, when it isn't nessesary).
  • by minus9 (106327) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:07AM (#6857302) Homepage
    "Though Microsoft may soon be blocking Office suite compatability with open source productivity tools"

    Microsoft may soon be blocking office compatibility with ANY productivity tools. They don't care whether the source is open or closed, just that it is not a Microsoft product.
  • by dcordeiro (703625) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:09AM (#6857308)
    You really should care if you can log in via LDAP in a Windows AD; or if you can share a file betweens different OSs, or be able to map a network drive.. but file formats ?

    If you want to send anything to outside your organization, send if in PDF format. Its portable and "write-protected".
    And inside your organization, for sure someone already has ditacted a office package as "the standart". If it is Windows Office, KOffice or StarOffice, it doesn't matter, because everybody will use the same product.
    If you get some of this files from outside, just use one of the many converters available around.

    The problem with the Linux Office packages is simply one:
    Everybody that already worked 2 days with a computer knows how to work with MS word, MS powerpoint and MS excel. Switching to another office package is seen as a dificult task, because the interface is always diferent.

    My 2euros (cents dont buy you anything these days)
  • by MadX (99132) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:10AM (#6857309)
    Micro$oft is not going to simply say "Hey .. here is a free / opensource version of a comparable product to our office if you cannot afford it"

    No, I think that they will keep there advertising campaign going and offering the likes of MS Works as the alternative to their more expensive package. And how many basic system users do you know of that have been following the development of OpenOffice ??
    The average user walks into a computer store and says "I need a computer to type letters / send mail / basic calculations", and I can almost guarantee that the salesman will make an MS Office /Windows Sale. Maybe that is where projects like OpenOffice need to have "boxed" releases that the public can SEE the choice on the shelves.
  • Nice to see... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alkarismi (48631) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:11AM (#6857311) Homepage
    an academic report backing real-world experience!

    Although it must be said that this study is *quite basic*. The authors, to be fair, do point out however that "This particular experiment should be considered a pilot study that could be extended to a larger one.

    Our experience in the 'real' world is exactly the same - compatiblity, for the most part, is *good enough*.

    We have been rolling out small pilots with a number of clients using exactly this line of reasoning. For many IT departments who have lived through the *gratuitous incompatibilities* between succesive generations of Microsoft Office, this is all that is required to evaluate alternatives.

    Yes, we should strive for 'perfect' interoperability. No, it is not necessary to begin migrating real businesses to an Open Source desktop.

    Just my 0.02!
  • Format change (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jabbadabbadoo (599681) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:13AM (#6857317)
    Microsoft will change the format, but they are required to keep it in the open.

    What Microsoft is about to do, is to introduce an enourmously complex, ill-documented format. Just wait'n'see.

  • missing data? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sparr0 (451780) <sparr0NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:14AM (#6857319) Homepage Journal
    What is really missing from the chart is statistics on MS Office :) I want to see Office 2003, Office 2002, Office ... 97 on that chart, and see how well each of them handles this 'random' sample of office files. Forwards compatibility is almost non-existent, and backwards compatibility is much more broken than you would think. I think Star Office and Open Office might actually beat MS Office * in that scoring methodology.
  • by Deton8 (522248) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:15AM (#6857322)
    One of my engineers switched to StarOffice a few months ago and nobody noticed until he told us. His documents, spreadsheets, PowerPoints, and emails all open fine on our PC's with Office, and he reports no problems reading the stuff we send him. He gets lots of PowerPoints from vendors and reports no problems there, either. So it's good enough for routine office-type use. Serious tech writers don't use Office anyway, so minor glitches with table formats are not likely to work their way into formal product documentation.
  • by panurge (573432) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:23AM (#6857347)
    It's worth noting that the Star Office 6.1 beta has PDF output available, which works nicely. It has also managed to cope rather well with the Office stuff I have thrown at it, including Powerpoint. The main problem is the lack of support for certain Excel structures (PivotTables, anyone), though privately I think that these have no place in a properly designed IT system- if you need this stuff you should be using a proper database engine and front end to give control.

    In fact, 6.1 seems a nice product generally and is the first version of SO that I think I can actually recommend to clients when it is released. It may even be possible to train users to export PDFs for email, which would be a big win.

  • Features (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ajs318 (655362) <{sd_resp2} {at} {earthshod.co.uk}> on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:27AM (#6857360)
    I was made to do some text editing in MS Word in my last job. I had to modify a document somebody else had started.

    Beside attempting to do table formatting with strings of spaces {I know this is acceptable, even encouraged, in programming, when monospaced fonts are used; but it totally breaks proportional spacing}, the author also had manually numbered the pages.

    I was heavily tempted to refuse to do the editing on the grounds that (a) the original material was unfit to use as a starting point and (b) I was having difficulty finding a copy of MS Word.

    And now, the point, part one. What I'm really looking for is a word processor that can take such childish attempts and format them properly. Work out where the author was trying to line up the tabs, and change the space-spaced stuff to proper tabbed columns.

    Or, maybe someone could make a USB shotgun accessory that will blow a luser's head off if they try certain effects. Such as
    • Attempting to format using spaces
    • Attempting to generate page numbers, tables of contents, or anything else that the computer can do for you, by hand *
    • Using more than three fonts in a document
    • Using the font 'comic sans MS' for anything at all
    The point, part two, is that WordPad is not a word processor. It does not incorporate a spelling checker. Whose priorities are so warped that they would omit such a basic necessity while incorporating changeable fonts and colours? It matters not what meretricious decorations are applied to the text if the spelling is all cocked up! It does not even qualify as a text editor; it is a viewing tool. And a poor one at that, because its output often does not resemble the output of Word.

    * I have actually heard of someone creating a spreadsheet, then adding up the figures with an idiot-calculator and entering this in the total box
  • by Jjaks (104293) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:29AM (#6857368)
    We used Office 2000, which succeeded in opening all Office files, but we venture to guess that Office 98, say, would have had difficulties with some of them.

    The only version of Office that is called Office 98 is for MacOS, as far as I know. For Windows the more recent versions are 95, 97, 2000 and XP.

    It is also very interesting to see the difficulties for Microsoft's Office suite when it comes to the interoperabilities between Office 97 on Windows and Office 98 on MacOS. At a company I worked at in 1998, we had both Macs and Windows machines, and amazingly enough, it was not trivial to make some documents written in Office 97 on a Windows machine work in Office 98 on a Mac (and vice versa).
  • by davids-world.com (551216) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:35AM (#6857388) Homepage
    What was tested here was how well different office suites could READ documents that were (most likely) produced with MS Office (since MS Office has a 9x% market share, and it's unlikely that you generate .doc for web dissemination if you're using Open Office).

    Unfortunately, this tells us very little about interoperability, as needed in an office/colaboration environment, where people need to read my files and my revisions to their files.

    Just to read other people's files, I prefer a format like PDF anyways.
  • by JessLeah (625838) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:49AM (#6857433)
    This story [slashdot.org], published on SlashDot less than 24 hours ago, notes that interoperating with the next version of the Word format may soon be a DMCA violation due to design decisions being made by MS (i.e. using DRM "features" in the format itself).

    What good is OpenOffice if it's illegal? It'd get railroaded right off of the "legitimate" Internet just like DeCSS, and if someone finds out that you used it, you could very well go to jail. Not my cuppa.

    I wish that we in the SlashDot community would have a longer memory, and that we would organize some sort of community against the DMCA (for it is the law which permits this sort of egregious BS). We should be rallying in the streets, but we're not. Pretty soon we may all be FORCED to buy a PeeCee with Windows and MS Office, or we will be completely unable to interoperate with the DRM-"protected" .DOC format everyone else will be using. (And if you think everyone won't upgrade eventually, you're wrong. When Win95 came out, people said that adoption would be slow... and then when Win98 came out... and so on. How many people are running Win95 today?)
  • by DrSkwid (118965) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @06:09AM (#6857483) Homepage Journal
    Random documents on the net do not necessarily correspond to documents used internally.

    It would be interesting to see how the non-MS products coped with semi-embedded documents which are references to network shares.

    Office isn't 4 disparate applications it is an application framework that happens to have some pre-configured applications.

    There might be an application you know as Word but it is quite happy to live as an ActiveX control instatiated in your IIS Application.

    I used to use it as a report generator, fill in some web forms and out spits the documentation.

    The ability to open every word document on the planet is only part of the journey.

    Sad but troo.

  • by Max von H. (19283) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @06:36AM (#6857565) Homepage
    I have successfuly deployed OpenOffice at several of my clients' and they seldom complain about having problems with MS Office files. A little training did the trick and they're very happy with it now. Furthermore, it seems their contacts (who use MS) have less trouble (if at all) opening .doc or .xls files produced by OpenOffice than ones made with various versions of MS Office.

    Now, we just need to squash a few annoying bugs (like the print preview in the spreadsheet module, still not fixed in 1.1rc3), make a native OS X build and we got a free, open-source, efficient cross-platform office suite that works, no matter the OS it's running on, with a consistent UI. Hey, Netscape got popular back in the days also because it was available on all platforms...

    Furthermore, the openoffice file format is so easy and straightforward (just zipped XML) it could just become the ideal ubiquitous file format we're looking for. Btw, I wonder why no other open-source office application can read and/or write it. Shouldn't be hard writing an import/export filter...

    Just my 2 cents there...
  • by *weasel (174362) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @07:27AM (#6857810)
    why wouldn't you upgrade? office 2003 will let you save and load xml formatted documents. they're even publishing their schema.

    whitepaper [ftponline.com]

    i've used the betas, i've seen it work. it's not a proprietary binary stream wrapped in xml headers - it's a fully ascii, 100% fidelity xml represented word document. with schema.

    the binary formats always change every major version. it's doubtfully due simply to malice, it's more likely due to increased business pressure to cram more features in.

    but all that aside, compatibility is the primary reason to upgrade to 2003.
  • Okay, I posted this in the other story about this, but here it goes again....

    OFFICE 2003 DOES NOT BLOCK ACCESS FROM OPENOFFICE UNLESS THE USER TELLS IT TO!!!!

    FFS, RTFA next time, people! Not only does the user have to tell Office2k3 to implement DRM and jumble the format, but there has to be a Win2k3 server on the network running the DRM manager application.

    In order to use IRM (Information Rights Management), according to the article, the customer has to spend boatloads of money.

    This feature is not about closing off office applications. It's about protecting IP and controlling access. M$ isn't selling O2K3 on the basis of "Hey, it's not compatible with other applications and that's why you should buy it!" They're selling it on "Hey, you can control who gets to read, print, and modify your documents, and that's why you should buy it!"

    It has nothing to do with OSS, FOSS, Slashdot, or anything else. It's just a feature they want to sell to the intellectually paranoid at an extremely high price.

    For the second time, there is nothing to see here, MOVE ALONG...
    • by elvum (9344) * on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:05AM (#6857293) Journal
      The submitter meant that the generally good compatibility of other office suites with Microsoft Office was a good reason to switch away from Microsoft.
    • by Channard (693317) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:23AM (#6857346) Journal
      If OpenOffice, is there something wrong with it?

      Yes. OpenOffice is pure evil and will bring about the rise of communism, followed by the fall of civilization. The skies will burn and the rivers will turn red with blood. The Great Old Ones will return to bring unimagined terror to mankind and it truly will be hell on earth.

      Oh, wait, my mistake.. that's just the text of a Microsoft internal memo.

    • Re:Lock in (Score:5, Insightful)

      by archeopterix (594938) * on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:05AM (#6857294) Journal
      All this stuff about lock-in is BS. Just save the file from the supposedly `locked it` files as CSV or HTML or whatever. No problem. You could write a script to do it, one for each app (Access, Outlook, Excel etc).
      You miss the point.

      The problem is when someone important (a customer, a government) expects you to read a file in the locked-in format and you don't have MS Office. It's troublesome to convince your customers to save the files into HTML/CSV/TXT/whatever before sending them to you or publishing on the Web. So practically you have to pay for the MS Office licence to be compatible with everyone else. Hopefully this will change.

    • No, you numpty (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Moderation abuser (184013) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:08AM (#6857305)
      It's the PHB's which cause lock in, not the technically adept admins. Your PHB gets shiny new laptop with shiny new MS Office all pre-installed they write some inane bullshit about something irrelevant and mail it to everyone under the sun utterly oblivious to the fact that there is such a thing as a file format.

      Because PHB is their boss the rest of corporate minions now have to upgrade to the shiny new locked up tighter than a virgin's snatch version of Office in order to read the irrelevant inane bullshit.

    • Re:Lock in (Score:5, Insightful)

      by leomekenkamp (566309) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @05:25AM (#6857353)
      Apart from the arguments already made above, there is another argument: If you save a file to csv, html, or whatever, you *lose* information.
      My information is mine, Microsoft prevents me from exporting my data from its closed formats, that's vendor lock-in.
        • by kfg (145172) on Wednesday September 03 2003, @09:19AM (#6858569)
          "Standardized consistent spellings coincided with the rise of dictionaries"

          Correct.

          "which are the authority on spelling and usage of words."

          Incorrect. So incorrect, in fact, that it betokens a complete lack of understanding of the English language and how she is spoke; and spelled.

          C has an authority. Java has an authority. French and Icelandic have authorities.

          English does not. Nobody died and made Noah Webster king. Dictionaries are snapshots of the language as it exists in the majority opinion of a panel of experts ( who often disagree) and many ( if not most) dictionaries disagree with each other on certain particulars.

          English is open source and we make it up as we go along.

          KFG