decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF
Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 10:43 AM EDT

I guess Microsoft is upset that I showed you screenshots that proved that there is no Save As function for ODF in the usual menu in Microsoft Word 2007. If you read Dutch, here's an article attacking Groklaw, with a lot of blah blah blah about it being alpha code and it's not fair and someday it will happen and all that jazz.

But there still isn't a Save As option for ODF in that menu. Period. And according to the article, as I read it, there never will be, unless the company changes its policy.

The article directs you to Stephen McGibbon's blog for proof that someday there will be the ability to Save As, but it isn't going to be in the usual place. Don't take my word for it. Look for yourself. He has screenshots of what they plan. According to Mr. McGibbon of Microsoft, you will someday be able to save as ODF, but it won't be in the usual menu, but rather off to the side in the ODF ghetto. Take a look with your own eyes. ODF stays a second class citizen. That is not good enough, and I can't think of one good reason to design that way. Can you?

There is, by the way, a deadline for ODF documents to have Save As functionality, if Microsoft considers Massachusetts' requirements worth meeting. The deadline is January. So, is the Microsoft ODF translator going to have Save As functionality by January? And will a separate menu for ODF documents, apart from the easy menu Save As which all the world is used to using, be sufficient to meet their requirements? Why do I think maybe not?

Sorry, Microsoft, but I continue to get the feeling that you would like users to think that it's a big hassle to use ODF. Is there any good reason on God's green Earth why it can't be just another file type on the "Open" and "Save As" menus? For that matter, is there any good reason to make people download it themselves?

Actually, Stephen was asked that question about it not being just another file type on his blog, and here's his answer:

re: ODF Add-In - Screenshots Hi Simon, in the current prototype, PDF, XPS and ODF are all treated similarly, with downloads available from the office download center. (We are putting the download pointers for PDF, XPS and ODF on the file save as menu. By going there you can download these things. Once they are downloaded, ODF appears as is shown with its own menu bar so ODF can be opened there too as shown in the screenshots). This design is not final, and may change in the future. Interested to hear your feedback.

In short, it's not going to be in the usual place, and it will be a hassle. End of story.

If Microsoft does decide to fix its policy, could it also please fix the other issues? For example, could it make it so you can set ODF as your default? And fix the performance penalty? And make sure you can round trip? And use the usual keyboard shortcuts? You know, the usual things that folks expect to be able to do.

Marbux has sent me something to add to the discussion, particularly with regard to userfriendliness and Massachusetts. I will let him tell you in his own words:


To that list I add a question: Will it even be possible to display ODF file names in the Office file open and save dialogs without manually selecting display of all file types ("*.*")? Software designers realize that complexity in user interfaces should be minimized. Forcing end users to depart from standard methods often translates into features not being used because human memory favors familiar actions. The key is consistency in interfaces, Microsoft itself points out in Official Guidelines for User Interface Developers and Designers, User-Centered Design Principles:

Consistency is important through all aspects of the interface, including … operational behavior[.] To design consistency into software, you must consider the following:
Consistency within an application. Present common functions using a consistent set of commands and interfaces.

So with the departure from Microsoft's own design principles established, one might rationally conclude that there has been a failure to implement them in the ODF Translator.

Microsoft emphasized when it announced the open source ODF Translator project that this "work is in response to government requests for interoperability with ODF because they work with constituent groups that use that format." Thus, it is fair to question whether a decision to provide only non-native ODF support in Office is enough to satisfy government.

Here is what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has to say on the subject, from the Executive Branch Information Technology Division's standards for software procurement, ETRM v. 3.5:

Agencies will need to develop phased migration plans allowing them to configure existing applications to save office documents by default in the OpenDocument format with an implementation date of January 1, 2007. Any acquisition of new office applications must support the OpenDocument format natively.

* * * * *

Department will be required to:

1. Use office applications that provide conformance with the OpenDocument format, and

2. Configure the applications to save office documents in OpenDocument format by default.

From here, it looks like the Microsoft Office ODF Translator's design may need a tweak or two to make Office eligible for government procurement.

On the question of saving with ODF as your default, please see ODF Add-in for Microsoft Word (bug tracker) ("We currently have no way of doing this. But ideas are welcome!").


Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF | 286 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 11:21 AM EDT
If any.

Unfortunately for us, common sense is not very common.
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF
Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 11:23 AM EDT

Well, I can read Dutch.

The article is, in fact, very funny. Apparently, Mr.
Gibbons' real gripe is that "The article doesn't
state that Rob Weir is employed by IBM." And later,
Gibbons states that IBM and Sun are devoted promoters
of ODF. Such evil!

Peter H. Salus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 11:24 AM EDT
For interesting tidbits and stuff.

Unfortunately for us, common sense is not very common.
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 11:26 AM EDT
"ODF stays a second class citizen. That is not good enough, and I can't
think of one good reason to design that way. Can you?"

I can think of one very good reason, for Microsoft that is. By making ODF a
hassle to use, they hope to discourage use of ODF.

Of course this would backfire on them big-time if they make ODF a hassle, but
governments around the world insist on having all incoming documents forwarded
in the medium: people will migrate to software where using ODF is NOT a hassle.
"Oh, we can't use Microsoft Word because it's too difficult!" Oh, the

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just playing devil's advocate ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 11:32 AM EDT
... really!

Looking at the screenshots, you open the file menu and the fact that you can use
ODF (hassle or no) is right there in front of you.

The other formats are (from this point of view) "hidden away" in the
Save As menu.

Could it be that M$'s Marketing Dept (the actual designers of any M$ software
product) have insisted on it being right up front so they can show these kind of
screenshots to Massachusetts et al and go - "look, here it is, right there
in the file menu"?

Not promoting either this view or PJ's - just pointing out that there appears to
be two interpretations that could fit the observed facts. So please go easy with
the flames!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 11:43 AM EDT
I am so sick of microsoft when will they realize that the world would survive if
they went away today.

I wish they would go away - because I am sick of hearing them just as much as I
am sick of hearing sco flap their jaws.

the world is changing they need to accept it and move on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Isn't Word already hassle enough?
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 11:50 AM EDT
When I get a document looking the way I want it to using Word, it's more by luck
than judgement. After much fiddling about and exasperation, I finally get it
right. Trouble is, I have to try so many things, I never do find out exactly
what made it "look right". I hate that.

I'd far rather use WordPad or Notepad or anything, but Word.

So what's another hurdle?

IHMO, those that haven't yet discovered something better will simply be spurred
on to look harder. I feel sorry for those that have no choice for the time
being, but for them, Microsoft's actions may hasten the arrival of a better
choice, wholesale.

I'm not sure I care much about what M$ fail to do in supporting ODF. They have
failed to knock it down; they have failed to embrace and extend; by failing to
jump on the bandwagon and adopt, it will be their loss, or simply hasten their

Unfortunately for us, common sense is not very common.
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 11:54 AM EDT
aaaaaaaaah, the convicted monopolist doesn't like to have anyone point out that
they're still using monopolistic tactics. i wonder how upset they were with
that 280M euro fine?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please take care
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 11:56 AM EDT
If you back them into a corner, they might attack. If you think the
SCO-prompted digging into your personal life was bad, imagine what Microsoft
could do. I doubt there's anyone left even remotely connected with IT that
doesn't know that they are recidivist mobsters in very expensive suits; there's
no point martyring yourself to illustrate that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF -- Standard Save As Option
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 12:00 PM EDT

I am going to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt here. I am not
disputing that based on the evidence you currently have, ODF will be treated
differently. However I will grant that it is Alpha software, and it might be
fixed. So, when January rolls around, we will know for sure whether or not they
will treat ODF the same as all other document formats. (They did it for Word
Perfect documents, so I'm at a loss to explain what the difficulty is for ODF.)
I will also grant Microsoft the possibilty that they plan on doing it, it just
won't be ready by January. (They are really awful busy right now trying to get
Long Horn out.)

I would like to make another point, and ask you to bear with me for a

A while back, for the Macintosh computer there came with the computer the
Claris Works package of office software. This package provided word processing,
spreadsheet, paint, an engineering drawing program (Draw), and terminal
emulation. (You remember the old VT220 emulation don't you.)

The Macintosh being a "foreign" system, basically had more work to
go through to make sure it could read and write Microsoft documents. With the
original Claris Works, the translation program from and to MS formats were
included. With later versions, this was a separate add on package.

What I'm saying is that from a Macintosh user's perspective, having an
additional translation package documents were fed through is nothing new. I
understand your desire to make ODF as easy to access as RTF. But if MS doesn't
want to play nice, based on twenty years of past history, you shouldn't be

I don't want your blood pressure going through the roof and causing you a
stroke. There is a lot more in the world than a convicted monopolists attempt
to promote document format lock in. I would be more concerned with things like
undue influence with legislators. Microsoft is not a voter. It should be the
voters whose voice is heard in this issue!!!

Take Care!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question raised by the Dutch article.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 12:04 PM EDT
Does Rob Weir work for IBM? Anyone know wether this is true.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 12:08 PM EDT
I read Dutch too, and I'd like to clarify a few points :

- the guy who wrote the article apparently interviewed Microsoft's Stephen
McGibbon (PJ, you got his name wrong) and the comments in the article are all
atrributable to Mr. McGibbon
- McGibbon also points to a blog of Brian Jones (a Microsoft Office program
manager) that interestingly describes the same screenshot with the file menu as
being a "prototype"
- then there's a statement in the article stating that it would be possible to
set ODF as the default using the Office Object Model (the way the article is
written actually makes it unclear whether that statement is originally from
Brian Jones or from McGibbon himself) ; anyway, I can't find any evidence for
this statement in either blog

I hope this helps

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's Alpha code...
Authored by: Jamis on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 12:10 PM EDT
Gee, that's the same reasoning that they give to Symantec on the security holes
in Vista alpha code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Brian Jones of MS attempts to answer a few questions
Authored by: housetier on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 12:26 PM EDT

From the Dutch article I arrive at Brian Jone's blog and more precisely at a post about More information on the Open XML translator and some questions answered.

In that article a few questions and concerns are voiced. But I do not really see answers there; Mr Jones s eems to answer them later but to me it still sounds "wishy-washy" if you'll excuse my Germanglish. Now, I must admit I am somewhat prejudiced agains all things microsoft (except their "powershell"). However, when someone boldly announces "We will answer these questions" and then you have to ask again and fish for you answer, I am not really impressed.

Start your irony generator here.

It looks like this:

There are several concerns when using Foobar: (list of "concerns" and other FUD). In this article I will adress these and provide meaningful and factual evidence why our religious belief/business model/way of doing things is so super-superior.
Then, each paragraph starts with
In this paragraph I will show you beyond doubt why I am right and they are wrong. I will not dwell on "factual evidence", but solely rely on pure repition of the "fact" that I right and they are wrong.
Then some disconnected "facts" are quoted and the paragraph closes:
In this paragraph I showed beyond reasonable doubt that because of the aforementioned facts I am right and they are wrong.

It sounds mightily important, and one can use many a words this way. But even so many words and sentences and paragraphs and articles and books cannot compensate for lack of fact.

Turn off irony generator.

Having said this, I must urge everyone to check the "facts" yourself. In school I had a stern German teacher who made us analyze all kinds of articles, texts, books, and whatnot from different angles. One way was to check "promises given" versus "promises kept" and work that to support our perceived intention of said text. I still cannot read anything without analyzing. Looking back, it seems it was good practise as I think I am quite aware of the quality of an article.

This was written by a German. Any mistakes are intentional and copyrighted by me. Read between the lines. Don't believe a word a say, but check for yourselves.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ODF Add-in for Microsoft Word
Authored by: rsi on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 12:34 PM EDT
This project almost seems redundant when the OpenDocument Foundation is
developing, from what I hear, a MUCH MORE complete project, currently under an
NDA by Massachusetts.

When released, it would seem that it would blow the M$ project out of the water.
Unless of course, M$ will somehow try to prevent it's use in any of their
"Office" versions, through various evil schemes. IMHO, and IANAL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's Poor Showing in ODF Compatibility ...
Authored by: Dave23 on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 01:14 PM EDT
PJ —

Your irritation is very much justified. It hits the point precisely.

As a former developer using the Visual Basic (over a decade of using version 3 through version 6) and Visual Basic for Applications (VBA), including VBA in Word, I'm a bit of an expert on software development on Windows applications.

My opinion is that a Microsoft engineer — or any experienced software developer with access to Word's source — and probably even without it — could be expected to add all the standardized user interface items that one could possibly desire to read and write ODF files — and do so in reasonably short order. That includes marbux's request for a restriction of a file selection box to ODF file-types, which, in an object-oriented SDI, is incredibly trivial to implement (just by addding text to a string-parameter).

Yes, immediately one concludes that either Microsoft is being mulish in its implementation of its "ODF compatibility code"; or Word's internals are so poorly designed and written that no customer should ever use it; or Microsoft's application developers are overly fat, dumb and happy — which, in turn, only can be their management's fault.

I will not be so invidious as to suggest the third possibility; so —

Since the macro/scripting language (VBA) in Word is rather powerful, I would likely settle on the first alternative as my conclusion. Aside from the issue of speed — which would require research into source code — I impute, from my special knowledge and the knowledge Microsoft's obvious motivations, that they really don't want ODF to succeed.

IANAL; but I am a former software developer with 31+ years experience with user interfaces.

Nonlawyer Gawker

[ Reply to This | # ]

Keeping It Simple
Authored by: Prototrm on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 01:17 PM EDT
With the exception of the true geeks out there, I don't think anyone relishes
the idea of learning to use a new interface for one of their workhorse

Yes, the menus in Word might get a bit squirley at times, but once you know
where everything is, along with the keyboard shortcuts for the things you use
regularly, it's no problem.

I really think that Microsoft's "Ribbons and Bows" interface is going
to be a disaster. I can't believe they would toss a spanner in the works for the
thousands who already use Office just to save n00b's a few minutes looking for
something in the menus (or, God forbid, using Clippie).

And now, they plan to make folks hop on one foot while rubbing their head with
one hand and stomach with the other in order to use ODF? Sad to say, I don't
know if they truely have evil intentions, or are just plain stupid. Kind of a
toss-up, there.
Hey, Microsoft: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and "Keep It
Simple, Stupid". Of course, sometimes, to do the later, you may have to
hold back from fixing something even if it *is* broken.

Frankly, I have trouble with the small differences between the interfaces of
Word and Open Office, so you *know* how thrilled I am with all of these new
changes. If I'm going to need an awkward plugin to support ODF, I hope someone
makes one for Office 97, because I'll be darned if I'm going to upgrade to
Office 2007!

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the
exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Other ODF word processors simpler
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 01:58 PM EDT
Don't wory about how hard Microsoft makes it to use ODF. The harder it is to
use, the more people will use something else. Since this is a standard we are
talking about, and lots of people are going to have to use it (China, EU, Mass).
MS is digging their own grave.

My prediction is they will not feel the pain for a few years, then spend 10
years trying to catch up. After that you will start seeing MSLinux - from a
company you can trust.


[ Reply to This | # ]

NOT just "Save As" - quality of result matters too
Authored by: dwheeler on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 02:19 PM EDT
Yes, to be practical, the "Save As..." location for ODF needs to be the same as any other saving function, it needs to be installed WITH the rest of the program, and it needs to be settable as the default (so when you save, it's automatically saved in ODF format).

But there's more - the implementation has to actually be good. If the formatting gets screwed up when reading/writing ODF, then that is not acceptable. And by all accounts, Microsoft's ODF implementation is really bad, and it's already mid-year... they are WAY behind their competitors. I would be delighted to know that Microsoft's implementation is high quality, but the evidence sure doesn't show it. It's nobody's fault but Microsoft's that they "aren't ready"; the spec was blessed in May 2005, and in the Fall 2005 they were already told it's a requirement. They've had plenty of time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hidden in plain sight
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:23 PM EDT
Will it even be possible to display ODF file names in the Office file open and
save dialogs without manually selecting display of all file types

I guess that ODF files will be unavailable to normal users who have "show
file extensions" turned off in their MS OS (default).

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think this may be the right direction.
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:35 PM EDT
New File Menu Image

Actually, after looking at this, I'm not convinced that this wasn't the right decision. Sure it needs tweaking, but it seems to me a better option then the "save as."

I have to use "save as" a lot to put MS stuff in open formats like RTF or txt or (for Excel) csv or tab separated text. It sucks. It's slow and awkward. It says stuff like "blah blah you picked a really lousy format and if you continue kittens will die are you sure you want to continue?"

I think, after seeing this, I'd actually rather have a separate ODF open and ODF save on the menu. I expect it would be very easy to remap the ctrl+s and ctrl+o keys to point to these instead of the default MS save and open routines if customization is still like prior versions of MS Office programs.

It needs work for usability... no little submenu... actual ODF Save and ODF Open in the same place as the other options. And I'm still concerned about the crappy output.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 04:02 PM EDT
OpenOffice does this with PDF files and I don't know why. The option is right
in the tool bar so it's really no big deal. The good thing about it is that it
prevents non-computer types from saving only in PDF -- which can't be edited
with OpenOffice or M$-Word. I think PDF's are just compressed PostScript files
-- not sure though.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this an "attack" on Groklaw? Is a mosquito bite an attack then?
Authored by: Hydra on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 05:08 PM EDT

Yes, Dutch is my native tongue, so assume for a minute that I can read it properly. (said in a tongue-in-cheek way!)

Now to the matter at hand: Saying that a source forgets to mention a fact about its source is, in my eyes anyway, not an attack. The rest is skirting around the issue like good PR spin usually does. Come on! It's not even refuting facts, it's adding a fact about the source, of which the PR spinners think will/may sway opinion. But, like was already mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if someone states verifyable facts, it doesn't really matter who they work for.

So is this an attack on Groklaw? Nahh, it isn't. Not to me anyway. Even McGibbon says, in the translated words of Webwereld: "De optie om documenten op te slaan in ODF komt gewoon in het Bestand-menu, evenals pdf en xps." This translates to "the option to save documents in ODF just comes in the File menu, just like pdf and xps.". IANAOTT, I Am Not An Officially Trained Translator.

"Comes", or more freely translated as "will appear". It doesn't say "it is there already".

[ Reply to This | # ]

So where does this leave the disabled community?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 05:31 PM EDT
So much has been made about how Microsoft is the preferred platform for the
disabled because of available assistive technologies. Are these technologies
going to be able to handle the Save As (if you can find it) ODF feature?

Are Microsoft making a huge political mistake by putting this community -- which
has supported them -- on the margin, or will this be another way in which they
can manipulate the disabled to say "This is unworkable for us. We don't
want this ODF thing."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh for godsakes
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 07:33 PM EDT
They put the option on a top-level menu, in a beta tested add-on, and all that
appears here is complaint and sycophantic head-nodding and amens. Microsoft has
no incentive to listen to or read the analysis of people who can never be

If I were MS, I'd just yank the whole damn project and send it out only to
agencies that specifically demanded it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Get real!....... They are not self-destructive!
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 08:17 PM EDT
The Monopoly can't support ODF, certainly no more than lip support.

If they enable Office to run ODF natively and many government and other shops
use it, people will start calling it MA/Monopoly ODF.

Then some folks will discover you can make MA/Monopoly PDF with cheaper and old
Office Software. They will switch out of the current expensive Monopoly suite
and still produce the same MA/Monopoly PDF product. This will erode the
Monopoly consumer base.

People will also realize that they can still produce this Monopoly ODF without
forced upgrades in software and hardware. This will further erode the base.
What will happen to the Monopoly profit margins without the recurring upgrade
cash surges?

And furthermore when they realize that MA/Monopoly ODF is perfect for archiving,
then even more will convert and lose their sole reliance on Monopoly Suiteware.

A suitably-innovative implementation of ODF in Office 2007 will have the masses
blaming ODF. They will criticize it as technically challenging. ODF will be
delayed and ultimately shelved. The Monopoly appreciates that everyone enjoys
spending a thousand or two every few years on shiny new hardware and software.
ODF would discourage this pleasure. We need a little mass realism around here.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 12:31 AM EDT
I have one word for Microsoft.... "microchannel".
Remember what happened to IBM when they tried to lock customers in to their
products by making life difficult and expensive? Market share lost forever.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible solution (humour)
Authored by: ethelthefrog3 on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 07:28 AM EDT
Here's an idea: why doesn't Massacheusetts deploy OpenOffice but give Microsoft
a big wedge of cash, about the size of the wedge that they'd be giving if they
deployed Office. That way, Mass gets to spend a load of unncecessary money and
Microsoft gets to shut up.

Maybe there are a couple of logical flaws here. Don't Microsoft own mountains
of code that found its way into OOo? No, that's SCO.

Shutting up now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dodgy ODF support is a big gamble for Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 07:35 AM EDT
People having trouble with ODF in Word (let me assure everyone that trouble
is/will be engineered in from the start to make this format difficult to use and
buggy - just like their track record on WordPerfect) - might decide to use the
DOC format.

However, there is another user response - a switching to OpenOffice or
StarOffice, version 2 of which is exceptionally good. Once someone has
experienced the tight ODF support in OpenOffice there will be a consensus that
Word is buggy and unreliable. People will also discover that Openoffice can be
run on the Mac (NeoOffice) and Linux, as well as Windows and Solaris.

My view is that Microsoft's tactics in this matter are very wrong, they are also
the cause of microsoft management reshuffles and resignations, and could hasten
the demise of the company.

In the meantime Microsoft are not making customers their friends, so customers
are starting to look at alternatives to Microsoft - and finding them. The
computer industry is escaping from their suffocating grip - and this is one of
the first big signs of their losing control because they are gripping too hard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 26 2006 @ 08:29 AM EDT
The next to last quote in the Dutch article is: "De optie om documenten op
te slaan in ODF komt gewoon in het Bestand-menu, evenals pdf en xps. Sterker
nog, als je het echt hardcore wilt, kan je met behulp van het Office Object
Model ODF als default instellen."

The last sentence of this quote literally translates to: "Better yet, if
you want it really hard-core, you can use the Office Object Model to set ODF as
the default."

I have no idea what this 'Office Object Model' is supposed to be and how hard
this 'setting as default' would be, as a result.

I do know that the pre-pending of 'if you want it really hard-core' doesn't
inspire confidence that this will be something 99% of the users will be able to
do, with or without training, documentation or anything other than the Word
user-interface itself, for that matter.

If anyone is interested in a literal translation, I can put one up. You know
what? I'll do it anyway if no-one else has done it yet or is doing it right now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Upset Over Groklaw's Article on ODF
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 05:18 AM EDT
If the World wide web consortium, Sun Micro system, and Novell couldn't get
Microsoft to adhere to standards what makes you think Massachusetts can on ODF
file formats?

Think they want to allow fair competition?
Think again!
They will just poison the software like they tried to do with Sun Micro systems
JAVA software until they got sued by sun and lost.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )