![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Twelve (TWELVE!!!) years ago I asked OpenOffice users “Are you
advocating OO correctly"..
Continues on my blog:
Feedback very welcome, of course!
Marco
Interesting article, and indeed it is true that the file format is the
most important aspect of the office suite debate, but I think you are a
little naive in your assumption that LO should stop doing any other
type of marketing.
Firstly, the question of a truly open and compatible format *is* used
when discussing the problems with MSO. Secondly, we are so few, that to
stop accepting MSO formats would doom us, not convince the vastly
larger uneducated crowd that they need to switch. Thirdly, most people
don't really care, because it doesn't affect them. All that affects
them is that they can communicate with others that equally don't care,
and so the entrenched establishment is perpetuated. Unless the dominant
system is changed out from under them, or the dominant system stops
working for them, they won't care. Our job is to slowly erode the
dominant system until there no longer is a dominant system. Having the
dominant system become as flaky as .docx is only helps us by making the
problems actually affect the majority of users, making them care about
choices, and making them more likely to make a conscious decision to
choose the best alternative.
Thirdly, while it is true that many people use word processors
incorrectly, due to not being educated about their use, this is not
relevant to the discussion of marketing LO. It is just a fact of life.
Many people need word processors, but not nearly as many have the time
to learn them properly, or even to understand computers properly. Many
people do view computers as more complex typewriters. To fix this would
require insisting that all those people stop doing these jobs for
themselves and instead hire professionals. In many ways bringing
computers to the masses was both Microsoft's greatest good and its
greatest evil, although if MS hadn't done it, I'm sure it would have
happened anyway. And the ability for people to do things for themselves
that computers have facilitated is a benefit for society as a whole,
one that projects like LO support. Instead of only being able to do
what some company (like Microsoft) thinks you should be able to do, and
only if you pay them very well, open source software believes that
everybody should be able to do whatever they want. That's the very
nature of Open Source: you have the source, change it if you need to.
The fact that most people can't is irrelevant; it is the ability to do
so that the open source movement believes *must* exist, so that
collaboration and innovation can happen when enough like-minded and
able people get together. The potential for self-betterment is what
open source is all about. The fact that the potential for good use
means that there is lots of use that is poorly implemented is one of
the prices that we gladly (though with plenty of grumbles) accept.
Though we (should) never stop trying to educate users.
Just my point of view.
Paul
"M. Fioretti":
...shall-we-waste-twelve-more-years-promoting-free-office-suites-instead-of-open-office-formats/
There's no such thing as 'open format'. Any format can only slavishly describe its reference implementation. There is no reference implementation for ODF, except a monstrous ***Office, which was mostly written in German in early 90's. So if you say 'format', you say 'implementation'.
Moreover, is the document is 'formatted with spaces', it is so trivial in any format, so interoperability is not the problem.
P.S. Why do people like to state that ODF with magically solve the problem with space/CR positioning or hard linebreaks?
There are two different "topics" here.
1 - Open File Formats - ODF
2 - Free and Open Source Software office suites - LO and OOo/AOO
Open File Formats
Not having to deal with proprietary file formats for you office
documents is a given. As long as you have such open formats, most
office suites will be able to handle documents create by other office
suites, and Window, MacOSX, or Linux. If you are a Linux user and you
friend, or even a client or boss, sends you a document in one of the ODF
formats - let us say .odt text document - then even though you have a
different OS and maybe different office package, you still can read and
edit the document and send it back to the sender. The key is you are
not required to use the same OS or the same office package as the sender
to be able to work with it. No need to hope your office package can
open properly some complex MSO 2013 .docx that is sent to your system
that has MSO 2010 or you are using MacOSX or Ubuntu. You hope for the
best. I still have State "agency" people send out MSO 2010 or 2013 Word
.docx files to other agency people who still have MSO 2007 and did not
have the budget to buy 2010 or 2013. They still cannot understand that
there is a limited backwards compatibility to the .docx formatted files
between the newer to the older MSO packages. If, they were using a
package that saved these documents in ODF [or even .doc for Word] then
they would not have these troubles.
FOSS - LO
The first advantage to using a FOSS office suite - LO as the example -
is to the budget when you add another computer to your home or business
environment. Sure there may be business costs to get the documents
saved in a common file format - i.e. ODF - but after than the costs are
much less than needing to buy, or even rent, a copy of MSO. For limited
budget households, buying the hardware is costly enough, so adding the
costs of all that "paid software" can really add up. If they substitute
all of the packages they need with FOSS, when available, then you cut
down on the total cost of that computer[s] in your home and maybe work.
For someone who uses both Linux and Windows, and some who add MacOSX,
having one FOSS office package on every desktop/laptop they own helps
the user, or family of users, be able to use the same package no matter
which desktop/laptop they are currently using. One day they will have
the same option on Android as well.
This is just one set of examples why promoting Open Document Formats
instead of promoting FOSS. They are two different "ideas" altogether.
It is the classic Apples and Oranges. Both are fruit but they are
totally different. They cannot really be compared like two different
types of apples could be or two types of oranges.
I think that is the problem with some people who look at the field of
Open Document/Office Formats and Open Source Software [FOSS or not].
They are two different parts to the puzzle and need to be dealt with
individually and not compared as if they were the same idea. You can
have Open Source Software that can read proprietary files formats, and
you can have paid software that can read ODF. We need both to make the
whole work for businesses and for home.
Don't worry, you can safely ignore Urmas, he's a known troll around
these parts; his bias is strongly (and probably paid for by) MS.
"Paul":
Don't worry, you can safely ignore Urmas, he's a known troll around
these parts;
You're welcome to name a full reference implementation of ODF format not using the OO.o/Staroffice code.
"Paul":
...to do
what some company (like Microsoft) thinks you should be able to do, and
only if you pay them very well, open source software believes that
everybody should be able to do whatever they want. That's the very
nature of Open Source: you have the source, change it if you need to.
Oh please, change the source to make it possible to have window panes or normal view in the word processor. Hell, people even promise to pay well for them, but nothing happens as those are architectural deficiencies cemented in in 1992.
Hi,
I think promoting ODF formats which are ISO standards for all office
documents "levels the playing field". It does not matter as pointed out
above what program is used by the user to create or edit a file. Then
all packages are truly competing on features/benefits/costs continuum
not on the ability to properly parse a specific proprietary format.
Also, using ODF formats avoids the tweaking MS apparently does with
their formats with each new release.
As far as overall features, my opinion is that office suite and related
software are mature products. Thus it is very difficult to find a
"feature" that most people will buy a new version to get it. Thus, the
primary issues for most users is the ease of use and accuracy of
handling proprietary formats. For most users the required functionality
is met by a number commercial and FOSS packages. Thus, the primary
reason to buy a commercial package is (theoretical) availability of user
support. My experience is that user support is either very limited or
effectively non-existent.
Interesting article, and indeed it is true that the file format is
the most important aspect of the office suite debate, but I think
you are a little naive in your assumption that LO should stop doing
any other type of marketing.
Hi Paul,
please note that I specifically say "centered on “Open Formats
First”". Centered, not "only"
Firstly, the question of a truly open and compatible format *is*
used when discussing the problems with MSO. Secondly, we are so few,
that...
these are the SAME answers that ruled the scene in 2001. My point is
to suggest that they have not been very effective. Or, at least, that
almost completely ignoring the file format issue in favour of these
approaches didn't work out so well.
Thirdly, while it is true that many people use word processors
incorrectly, due to not being educated about their use, this is not
relevant to the discussion of marketing LO.
I am not so sure, but never mind, the REAL issue is here:
open source software believes that everybody should be able to do
whatever they want. That's the very nature of Open Source: you have
the source, change it if you need to.
what I am trying to say is that sticking almost exclusively to THIS
party line for at least 12 years is EXACTLY what left that translator
with "keep using MS Office" as the only option. Whereas, if there had
been more insistence on the fact that a proprietary format is an idiot
thing no matter what, maybe today MS Office would handle ODF well
enough to not create problems to LO/AOO users.
Marco
>
> There are two different "topics" here.
> 1 - Open File Formats - ODF
> 2 - Free and Open Source Software office suites - LO and OOo/AOO
Kracked_P_P
that is true. But if you don't understand why and how they are deeply
interrelated, and how promoting the first is the most effective thing
you may do to promote the second, please re-read again what Jay wrote:
I think promoting ODF formats which are ISO standards for all office
documents "levels the playing field". It does not matter as pointed out
above what program is used by the user to create or edit a file. Then
all packages are truly competing on features/benefits/costs continuum
not on the ability to properly parse a specific proprietary format.
Also, using ODF formats avoids the tweaking MS apparently does with
their formats with each new release.
Thanks Jay, well said.
Marco
As far as I can gather, neither OASIS nor the ODF Technical Committee
require a reference implementation, so none has been named. I don't
know about the ISO standard, but I would assume this applies there too.
That said, OO.o/LO would be considered by most as the reference
implementation. As a "reference implementation", there generally isn't
going to be more than one (otherwise, which one would you refer to when
they differed?).
However, here is a list of software implementing the format:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_software
As a side note, the competing MS format also doesn't have a reference
implementation. The only implementation that I am aware of is MSO,
which, being proprietary, cannot be a reference, as nobody (other than
MSO themselves) can see the code. And it has much bigger problems than
just a lack of a reference implementation.
Paul
> Firstly, the question of a truly open and compatible format *is*
> used when discussing the problems with MSO. Secondly, we are so few,
> that...these are the SAME answers that ruled the scene in 2001. My point is
to suggest that they have not been very effective. Or, at least, that
almost completely ignoring the file format issue in favour of these
approaches didn't work out so well.
Maybe, maybe not. I see ODF and LO being more widely used now than ever
before, and think the arguments are slowly but surely working. If more
time had been spent telling people why the file format was a good thing
(even more time than actualy *was* spent, I don't think it's as little
as you think) and less time had been spent telling them that an
alternative to MSO existed that was just as good, I don't think it would
have worked as well.
what I am trying to say is that sticking almost exclusively to THIS
party line for at least 12 years is EXACTLY what left that translator
with "keep using MS Office" as the only option. Whereas, if there had
been more insistence on the fact that a proprietary format is an
idiot thing no matter what, maybe today MS Office would handle ODF
well enough to not create problems to LO/AOO users.
I think that there has been more use of the "ODF is a better format"
argument than you think.
Also, I don't think the current situation could have been any better,
no matter what argument we used. The fact that it is changing at all is
testimony to our dedication in spreading all the good arguments for Open
Source and ODF. This is, sad to say, the best we could hope for given
how entrenched MSO was.
And 12 years ago ODF wasn't around, as far as I know. It was only
standardised in 2005. So before that the usual "open source gives you
choice" argument was all there was. Once odf came out, almost from the
first I was hearing about how a truly open standard was a better thing.
All this is, of course, personal opinion.
So given how much the argument for the odf format *is* actually touted
today (it's possibly even the main argument people give for switching
to LO), why do you suggest we should do more of it, and how exactly do
you suggest we do that?
Two points:
1) LibreOffice only started embedding fonts in ODF files in version 4.1
(released in July 2013); MS Office files have had this ability for YEARS. In
my opinion ODF files are NOW starting to be useful as an editable file
exchange format.
2) Advocating ignoring MS files only makes sense on a personal basis. Por
companies that is absurd. Maybe academia could start that movement but it
will take time before it reaches the companies...
My 2 cents.
Jay Lozier wrote
Also, using ODF formats avoids the tweaking MS apparently does with
their formats with each new release.
I disagree. ODF has the same problem. That is why LO has an option to save
in ODF 1.0/1.1 or 1.2 and even 1.2 extended.
ODF has EXACTLY the same problem that accuses DOCX of: even if the file
extension is the same, the contents varies according to the office version
you used to save it.
The ONLY difference is that you can always get the latest fully compatible
version of LO for free, unlike MS Office which requires that you to buy the
latest office version to have access to the full features of the updated
file format.
I'm sorry to break this idealism about ODF's perfection...
Actually, it makes lots of sense for companies to avoid MS formats.
It's trying to get them to do that that will be hard. And even if they
don't use any themselves, they are almost certainly going to have to
accept MS formats from others.
This is something we should be advocating (as loudly as possible,
even), but we should be aware of the realities, and advocating it as
a sane option, not trying to force it down peoples throats.
I believe that companies should use open formats, but at this point in time I have never seen a company that has moved from the standard MSO formats. This is likely because the majority has not changed to open formats. Once more people adopt using open formats, then we will likely see a change, but for now this is not the reality.
Steven Gruspier
Electrical Engineering
Also, I don't think the current situation could have been any better,
no matter what argument we used. The fact that it is changing at all is
testimony to our dedication in spreading all the good arguments for Open
Source and ODF. This is, sad to say, the best we could hope for given
how entrenched MSO was.
After following this topic for (at least) 12 years, I would say this
is the best we could hope for, given how entrenched MSO was, and how
much the FOSS community in general underestimated the need to promote
formats and standard instead of, or before, software.
And 12 years ago ODF wasn't around, as far as I know. It was only
standardised in 2005. So before that the usual "open source gives you
choice" argument was all there was.
Of course ODF as such did not exist in 2001, but the basic argument
(push common, open formats before software, ) has been valid and
usable since well before 2001. For the reasons I wrote in the first 2
points here http://digifreedom.net/node/56.html
So given how much the argument for the odf format *is* actually
touted today (it's possibly even the main argument people give for
switching to LO), why do you suggest we should do more of it
because cases like that of that translator happen all too often. I
would also like to know for what subset of "people" you think the
format is the main argument for switching. In the world I live in, 90%
of people who use computers can't even explain correctly what a file
format is.
and how exactly do you suggest we do that?
Exactly as I wrote twelve years ago and repeated in today's post, of
course.
Marco
Two points:
1) LibreOffice only started embedding fonts in ODF files in version 4.1
(released in July 2013); MS Office files have had this ability for YEARS. In
my opinion ODF files are NOW starting to be useful as an editable file
exchange format.
Fair point. I would really put "ignoring which fonts are portable" in
the "over-engineered documents" category of my post, but you are right
that if embedded fonts are a must, ODF isn't ready.
2) Advocating ignoring MS files only makes sense on a personal
basis. Por companies that is absurd.
that's why in the 2001 thread and in many other things I wrote since
then I said that the way to practice that advice was to put pressure
on public administrations to make them only accept/release in those
formats.
Maybe academia could start that movement but it will take time
before it reaches the companies...
maybe people should start that movement. Start to complain, even if
you know that it won't accomplish anything immediately, whenever you
are asked or given a .docx file. Otherwise we'll still be here in 2025
to hear from people that receive such files, and the only solution is
to give up using LO.
Marco
When a public administration demands that you write to them in the
official language of your country and its corresponding alphabet
(because, even if it's not written anywhere, they obviously couldn't
care less of stuff in other ways), are they "forcing something down
your throat?"
Formats are like alphabets.
Demanding a **format** is not "forcing stuff down people throats".
Demanding that others use the same software as you do is.
Marco
The ONLY difference is...
can you generate MS Office documents automatically with just a few
lines of code as in http://freesoftware.zona-m.net/tag/odf-scripting ?
I'm sorry to break this idealism about ODF's perfection...
I explicitly say in my post:
We will still need, in other words, a decent, sophisticated office
format, and that format better be ODF, because it could not be
anything else at this point.
decent (and only feasible solution), not perfect.
Marco