SABS tackles Microsoft

[SlappY]

A standard that takes account of legacy MS code, has no place at a body like ISO.

It is this thinking why big business will never take you lot seriously. Legacy HAS to be catered for.

Tell my users they have to recreate their forecast models because of interoperability.... I tell you it will take hours for the laughter to subside.

 

[SlappY]

Well lets look at it again in 6 months (Probably sooner using OpenOffice 3). We will take some files, save them as ODF files, close the application. Start it up again, load the files and then save them as .DOC files. Lets take a look and see how much is lost (if anything). I doubt you will be able to tell the difference. The limitations with ODF are not as big as MS would have you believe. The problems sit in embedding proprietary objects in the file which is not the intention of a open standard anyway.

A fine idea, except do it with an excel spreadsheet with VB macros and embedded datasources. A common place in business today.

 

[SlappY]

This non interoperable binary embedding thing is not as cataclysmic as you lot make it out to be anyway, your app can simply request a plugin to decode it, or render as not supported. It wont prevent the entire doc from loading. I.E. Visit a flash website... same concept. And trust me MS office prolly works off the same concept.

So now I have a format that is interoperable and supports legacy.
Sounds like a winner to me.

Well it has been great chatting.
But it is home time for me.

 

[Wiehan]

It is this thinking why big business will never take you lot seriously. Legacy HAS to be catered for.

Are you trying to tell me old documents will miraculously stop working in future versions of MS Office? Legacy certainly needs to be catered for, but not in this haphazard lets-put-the-legacy-inside-our-new-shiny-supposedly-open-standard way. Let the software handle the opening of legacy documents. That way the new standard has at least a slight chance of being interoperable and open.

 

[SlappY]

Are you trying to tell me old documents will miraculously stop working in future versions of MS Office? Legacy certainly needs to be catered for, but not in this haphazard lets-put-the-legacy-inside-our-new-shiny-supposedly-open-standard way. Let the software handle the opening of legacy documents. That way the new standard has at least a slight chance of being interoperable and open.

No, but it lends itself to a migration strategy.

 

[Wiehan]

This non interoperable binary embedding thing is not as cataclysmic as you lot make it out to be anyway, your app can simply request a plugin to decode it, or render as not supported. It wont prevent the entire doc from loading. I.E. Visit a flash website... same concept.

So now I have a format that is interoperable and supports legacy.
Sounds like a winner to me.

Flash is not part of any (x)html standard. The fact that it requires proprietary software is precisely the point. It isn't interoperable, now it is? (In any case, isn't the mere mention of Flash blasphemy to MS lovers? Isn't Silverlight sooo much better?)

 

[Wiehan]

No, but it lends itself to a migration strategy.

Migration strategy? We are talking about Office documents here. You have old documents, and new ones (ooxml). Your (MS) software opens both. Other software might also open ooxml, given a better spec to implement. What migration strategy is needed?

 

[Abe]

Of course they had access to them, they are the same company. Doesnt mean they were complete, imagine releasing an incomplete OS API to the public. The Open Source lads would have a field day with that one. That is a benefit of playing on many fields at once. Kudos to them. Called competitive advantage. And why would they want to allow people to reverse engineer their IP that they spent millions on R&D for. I wanna come live in your world. Are the streets paved with candy too?

It's called leveraging your monopoly. It's the same thing that Telkom does every day with ADSL lines. In the US this is illegal and there are presently some ongoing court cases regarding this (and a couple of large settlements from MS for other ones).

Let me give you an example. Lets say that you develop a piece of software. MS see that you have a gap and build something similar, the problem is that they release it with Xp, Vista and Windows 7 support and don't give you the new Windows 7 API's. You are effectively strangled out of your market illegally.

 

[SlappY]

Migration strategy? We are talking about Office documents here. You have old documents, and new ones (ooxml). Your (MS) software opens both. Other software might also open ooxml, given a better spec to implement. What migration strategy is needed?

See previous post about financial analysts.

 

[unspokenchaos]

one could argue that the new format is a step forward but to bully it into a standard is unacceptable. has anyone tried to open a .docx with office 2003...? it doesn't work... with 2007 you have the option of saving your documents as a .doc or docx, hence it can read earlier word docs however it saves a new word doc as a .docx by default which can get irritating.

yet we will all continue to purchase microsoft products as they have the monopoly. sad but true.

 

[smokey]

I personally think that anybody who mentions "more options" in this type of discussion is complete and utter... *insert numerous derogatory names here*.

I for one am immensely pissed off that we have so many "so called" standards. One is fine. No competition is fine - if the standard is available for anyone to use (such as ODF) and is reasonably up to scratch (thereby eliminating crapware). Whats the f*cking point of having 30 million standards when one is good enough. It was stupid of ISO to even consider taking on OOXML. ODF is there. It's a standard. Adding another "standard" makes them both less... um... standard.

But oh no! I like options. I would love to have an option of having a petrol car that could only fill up at 50% of petrol stations, be abel to drive on 75% of roads and every time theres a problem - I'd have to stop it, get out, get in and restart the car.

As far as legacy is concerned... Most legacy stuff in the world is there due to one reason only - because the people who sold it to you don't want to move to something better (ie open source). NO! Better that they have complete control as opposed to OS which the client could learn if they wanted to - or God forbid - move to a competitor who wouldnt jerk them around so much.

 

[smokey]

Oh, and as an aside - I'm by nature a greedy capitalist pig. So though I prefer open source because it's (currently) free, it goes without saying that I applaud M$ for their sheer capitalistic insistence e to get their way and keep making money. Because it is what the world revolves around!

 

[Rinkhals]

I wish Mark Shuttleworth would just dissapear of the face of the earth because this guy irretates the hell out of me.

He just cannot accept that Microsoft won and he and his buddies lost. The more options available the better...

I'm not convinced that you understand what is happening here.

Microsoft is trying to lock all PC users into their software so that they can charge more for it.

If you look at the cost of a licence for XP it's around R3,000.00 in South Africa (I'm not talking about OEM editions which are technically illegal without the hardware). Dunno what it is for vista, I haven't looked recently.

In the States that comes down to around 59 USD.

That means we are subsidising US users. And European users who are similarly discounted.

Seems to me that Shuttleworth is trying to protect us from getting ripped off and for that you guys piss all over him?

Only in South Africa....

 

[Rinkhals]

Oh, and as an aside - I'm by nature a greedy capitalist pig. So though I prefer open source because it's (currently) free, it goes without saying that I applaud M$ for their sheer capitalistic insistence e to get their way and keep making money. Because it is what the world revolves around!

Ah! So you also approve of the tactics used by Telkom and Eskom and other monopolies, yes?

 

[smokey]

Is it good for me persoanlly? No. But I do live by the motto "Use it or lose it" (you could put "until you" instead of "or" there in the case of telkom)...

How they decided to use it was up to them. I personally think that once they became their own people (after Telkom became proudly S.A again *smirk*) they should have had the brains to look to the future and upgrade all their networks et al. They didn't and I have no sympathy for them losing out in the way they are (to Telkom, to Neotel etc) in the big business category. Wait a while (longer...) and they will sink. Just a matter of time (unless something drastic is done).

Edit: Eskom is not worth mentioning (but here I am, mentioning them...). That is government ineptness - plain and simple. In a country like South Africa, where the majority of people do not have money to survive day-to-day, power is not profitable. Someone has to look after the poor.