I recieved an interesting comment by "open_sauce" on my first post here. It debates many of the points i raised. I feel most of the issues raised can be succesfully debated, so i have promoted this to a full post rather than leaving it buried in the comments section. All my responses are in red for easy identification of who is who. I am happy to reply to these points on a point by point basis. I consider all feedback worthwhile.
> What is your goal? Is it to get your employer to adopt ODF and OpenOffice.org, or is it to do an objective comparison? Are you asking people in forums who favour both formats, or have you chosen only the communities favouring one option?
I want to get my employer to fairly consider ODF and OpenOffice.org. To counter erroneous preconceptions one needs to debate these preconceptions. This is not a level playing field.
> If it's intended to be an objective comparison then it needs a lot of work.
It is intended to counter-balance an existing bias.
> Here is some feedback in case it helps, organised according to your slide headings.
> “What form of storing information"
> 1) Most governments agree .... do you have a source for this claim? (Otherwise it sounds like FUD.)
Yes, The Yale Law School White Paper quoted on Slide 8 stated “...each government entity that has established an open standards policy cited expressly political rationales as well as economic and technical reasons in its justification for preferring technologies based on open standards.”
> 2) Unreadable if the program no longer exists .... incorrect, the DOC XLS PPT specification is publicly available at http://tinyurl.com/day72w and is already implemented in a range of programs including OpenOffice.org.
Office 2007 now uses the UTF-8 encoding for it's XML formats. In the future as DOC etc. usage falls away is any program going to support defunct formats and old encodings?
Microsoft Office no longer supports some older file types (I think they are seen as security issues), This includes Word 1.x and Word 2.x DOC file formats and any PPT file earlier than Office 97's format.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938810/en-us
> Pre-existing alternatives"
> 3) RFT is a Microsoft standard based on the DOC Format .... not really, it is a separate markup-based text format similar to XML, see http://tinyurl.com/29rds7
Not at all, RTF is not really human readable and Microsoft release a new version every time they put out a new Word Processor, It is not an independent Open Format as requested by the EU.
http://diaryproducts.net/for/geek/microsoft_rtf_specification_nightmare
> Open Document Format"
> 4) Just an observation, it's interesting that ODF followed a fast tracked ISO process.
I have searched through ISO documentation and cannot find anything to support your statement. ODF was put through ISO by Oasis under PAS rules which is not, in my understanding, fast tracking at all. In this Schematic PAS rules are specifically mentioned two steps before a fast track process starts. So without further proof of your statement I would have to disagree.
Whereas OOXML was put through by Ecma under the fast track rules. Ecma even tout that the fast track process was virtually their invention on their homepage. “Ecma has been involved in the development of the concept of "fast tracking" and has been one of the main practitioners of it in ISO/IEC JTC 1. Since 1986, when fast tracking was introduced to ISO, over 75% of fast-tracked standards have been fast-tracked through Ecma.”
I have actually avoided saying that fast tracking is a nasty process (I think I avoided mentioning fast tracking at all) though I do feel that it was not appropriate for the OOXML formats because the standard was too cumbersome and controversial.
> ODF adoption by software"
> 5) If you want to be objective you should do a similar summary for OOXML, see http://tinyurl.com/yvv8ta for example, although this list looks out of date so there would be more adoption now.
Is any of this software capable of producing OOXML documents to the ISO standard? You have to remember there are currently three versions of the DOCX etc. formats. Only the last two of them called OOXML.
The original that Microsoft submitted to Ecma, that Office 2007 uses.
The Ecma standard first edition as submitted to the ISO process.
The Ecma second edition that is the ISO standard.
That is why I specifically talk about Microsoft Office XML as seperate from OOXML I have actually tried to uncomplicate this by only referring to two versions in my slides when possible. The earlier two versions will become defunct over time as the ISO standard version is taken up. One side issue that ISO are trying to address now is that there is no version information contained within the OOXML specification, and they are working on altering the specification further to address this. Meanwhile how does one know if they are producing OOXML to the ISO standard or not? Document sniffing?
> ODF format adoption.
> 6) What does this mean? Have all these governments adopted ODF exclusively, and do you have sources for that? Or are these just governments who are supporting use of ODF, alongside other formats? Either way, to be objective, you should have the same list for OOXML.
Source is quoted on the slide. I do have an equivalent list of programs able to output ISO standard documents – NONE.
> 7) What is the comment about political lobbying intended for? Shouldn't you also note the extensive political lobbying by IBM and Sun, for equally obvious commercial self interests? See http://tinyurl.com/67txou
Actually I am trying to keep the political argy-bargy out of this presentation though I followed it closely at the time and very well understand what it refers to. For every link you could provide discussing Sun and IBM involvement I could provide two citing Microsoft involvement, and include half the links you quote mentioning Microsoft involvement as well. As this is a long discussion lets agree to not go into this.
> Programs supporting OOXML"
> 8) You do realise the version of ODF that is supported (1.1) is not the one that is ISO standardised (1.0)? So you want to be fair, you should have a similar statement that there are no implementations of ODF (ISO standard) at present. Also there is the small problem that it is technically impossible to conform to the ODF ISO format: http://tinyurl.com/dlckq5
Without looking it up I think that versions of OO.o from 2.0 to 2.3.x produced ODFV1.0 conforming documents. You do realise that if one wants he can both load and save in ODF v1.0 from later versions of OO.o. That is because v1.1 is an updated version of the standard that is fully backwards compatible. V1.2, currently under development, is the next version to be taken through the ISO/PAS route with Microsofts full involvement on the OASIS committee.
Your link is a news article, not the original source. I have read both Alex Browns blog (the original source) on this and Rob Weirs response. Again the conformance is not something I feel you are an authority on, any more than I.
http://www.griffinbrown.co.uk/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=f0384bed-808b-49a8-8887-ea7cde5caace
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/05/odf-validation-for-dummies.html
> What will be the preferred format?"
> 9) The first two quotes seem out of context, and over-played. They got twisted by the media coverage so it's not surprising you ended up confused here, but look up the originals and you'll see what I mean.
I have looked them up and intentionally included them. As far as I am aware Stuart has not retracted his statement. If you can find a direct transcript of the red-hat summit quote and the context it was in, I would be very happy to see it. The second quote was direct from Alex Browns blog as per the source quote on the bottom of the slide.
NOTE: In version 1.01 of the presentation most of these sources are moved to the notes.
> 10) Microsoft introducing ODF support .... yes but not for the ISO version, so if you are talking ISO versions, no. Just like Openoffice.org which supports 1.1, not the ISO version.
OO.o does support the ISO version 1.0 as stated above both for load and save. There is a built in option to set backwards compatibility for saves. Reads are easier as the version number is within the document XML and V1.0 is a straight subset of V1.1.
> 11) Early adopters seem to be going to ODF .... really? I think you'll find there are far more people now using OOXML than ODF (and remember, neither one strictly in its ISO format).
Most of these are people that have not fully investigated and understood the options. Remember Microsoft Office 2007 XML is a pre-pre-release version while ODF V1.1 has built upon the existing ISO standard. You cannot expect any comparison between an alpha version with an update to see them as equivalents?
> To summarise - document formats"
> 12) Early adopter that have fully investigated .... seem to allow both options and not force a choice in their organisation. I think if you really study it, this is the overwhelming conclusion. Be careful you don't limit yourself to consulting pro ODF communities if you want to be credible.
You are repeatedly disregarding the fact that no standard OOXML is being produced.
> FOSS software"
> 13) Acquisition cost is a tiny part of software cost, is a tiny part of overall IT cost. It's much more important to look at the total cost of ownership and the benefits you get over the whole lifecycle of software. Sun is currently in financial difficulty so it's also a risk that ODF will not be supported in the future.
And argy-bargy results again from quoting TCO figures. Do you see any gain from rehashing the arguments of our betters? Remember that employees can take home OO.o for free. What is their TCO? Sun do not own ODF nor OO.o so what are you trying to say with your last sentence?
> 14) Freedom .... will you let end users modify software, can you get support for the modified version of software (patches, updates), do you have the expertise to do this without breaking anything, and do you really need to do it (is it really an advantage or just a nice fantasy).
The point is that they can modify the software if they choose. If they wish they can ask Microsoft to modify OO.o as long as Microsoft understand the source they are starting with is LGPL. The rest of your questions are rhetorical, right? I believe they are, because the answers to them all are in the LGPL itself.
> Why do corporates contribute?"
> 15) You seem to have left off the real answer, that they want to make money selling support. That must influence the type of development they do.
Not all of them, many simply don't want to have to pay volume licences, for something they can't modify to their own needs themselves.
> Major government Linux uptake"
> 16) Probably good to have some sources, and a comparison with Unix, Windows, OSX uptake as well if you want to be fair.
The source was quoted on the bottom of the slide. Did you just review the flash?
> FOSS is frequently seen as second rate software"
> 17) Is your employer running a supercomputer? Do you realise there hasn't been any real competition for Linux on supercomputers until about 2 years ago?
Linux beat down the competition. Remember supercomputers existed before Linux.
> 18) Firefox is the most used .... I'd be really interested to see the study showing this, I would have thought web developers need to use a variety of browsers for a start. Firefox seems to be having some major security headaches the last couple of years compared to other browsers.
I am a part time web developer. I often hear quoted reports where Firefox outranks all versions of IE on sites like PIE and W3schools
http://www.positioniseverything.net/
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
I truly admire that Microsoft has started serious support of standards in IE8. To be honest it is about time. But we don't really want to descend into a discussion about the vagaries of the IE6 box model or CSS standards support – do we? Suffice it to say I use the standards compliant CSS @import hack to supply an additional stylesheet to IE for taming my web pages on that horridly non standards compliant beast.
Security headaches? Definately off topic... Lets not go there. Neither the presentation nor blog is about the merits of various security claims of Jeff Jones or Mozilla staff.
> Comparison with Office 2007"
> 19) Retraining staff .... really? Have you looked for studies on this, I've heard the opposite.
If you migrate large numbers of staff unprepared then there will be questions raised as to the differences. The differences are greater in the move from 2003 to 2007 than from 2003 to OO.o.
> Cost of migration - comparison"
> 20) Service support costs .... This isn't necessary for either product, I would have thought.
But in your point 15 didn't you say something about selling support contracts. If someone has a problem that cannot be answered in house then external support is required. The general Microsoft route is to call in a MCSE. My OO.o first port of call would be a Mailing list or two.
> 21) Replacement costs .... not sure why these are noted, licences are usually perpetual and free patch support is for longer than OpenOffice.org.
Are you saying that nobody needs to pay to upgrade from Office 2003 to Office 2007? That is a replacement cost is it not? Can I say OpenOffice 3.0.1 is a patch for OpenOffice.org 1.0? By the way OO.o 1.1.5 is still available for download and still works on Windows 95. Though both are no longer supported which has the more recent patches?
http://download.openoffice.org/1.1.5/
> 22) Home use cost can be free depending on how the product is purchased, I think. Anyway most people already have it at home so it's a bit of an non-issue.
Have what - Office 2007? A free purchase – sorry – that just screws with my head. Are you talking about the free trial version that stops working if you don't give out you free purchase dollars?
> 23) You don't mention the support cost and performance impact of Java and OpenOffice.org which are slower than Office 2007.
The most famous speed comparison is a series that was done by George Ou. The latest result:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=480
I run OO.o on a server to many thin clients without complaint as to speed. If you are running windows 95 on an 80286 I already have supplied the link to OO.o 1.1.5
> Feature comparison"
> 24) Isn't ease of use more important? I've used both and I find I use much more in Office 2007 because it's easy to find and use advanced functions.
That is a subjective opinion. Have you used Emacs or Lyx. I would rate them for ease of use – once you learn to use the program.
> Implementation"
> 25) At some time all businesses should mandate .... Why? DOC XLS PPT will be compatible for the forseeable future, there's no reason why these wouldn't be supported indefinitely in multiple software packages. ODF and OOXML will both be widely supported too in multiple software packages. Isn't it really a bit of a non-issue?
At this point in time, yes, but I remember when Word Perfect was the business tool of choice. Things paradoxically move achingly slow and blindingly fast in this field.
> Summary Uses and benefits"
> 26) If your business already has the licences, you should be comparing to the cost of what you already have (zero to purchase, zero to train, etc) as one of your options.
But limited ability to open new format documents received. Change will be foisted upon the unprepared. Procrastinate, don't make yourself aware of what's happening, and eventually you get pushed in a direction that may not be the right one; like using a new format that is already obsolete like Microsoft Office 2007 XML.
> 27) It's probably also worth mentioning here that there are already free translators and viewers between the document formats, that all the formats you've discussed can be viewed in multiple software packages including OpenOffice.org, and that Microsoft is launching web versions of Office, see http://tinyurl.com/dlnx53
And what percentage of Office users feel they need to download these translators and viewers you mention? Have you?
> Just a few quick thoughts, it got longer than I intended because you had more slides than I realised, so thanks for your patience!
And I apologise because I am getting tired and have felt that yours is an example of the one-eyed point of view I am trying to counterbalance, so of necessity I take a side on this issue. If one sits on the fence in a debate, one loses.
