You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net> on 2016/10/02 09:32:18 UTC
Re: In regards to Open Office
Yes it can.
Beware that OOXML was not designed to be compatible with anything else than MS Office. So once you switch to Apache OpenOffice, save in native format (.odt for text). MS Office can read that (even if it does not always to a very good job at it).
AOO can't save in OOXML but AOO can save in .doc format quite well. Even if small glitches can occur due to the MS Office file format (again).
You're not subscribed to the list, you may miss other replies.
Hagar
Le 02/10/2016 10:25, Bill Pate a crit :
> I couldn't find any other email other than this for contact, but I did have and may still go back to office 365, but my question is, I have collections of my writings saved at this point after using their set up. Can Apache open their Open Office XLM, and do formatting, spell check, page numbering and have availability to create pdf files from my work, just for starters?
>
>
> I don't want to download the product if it can't.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.
Top posting.
I was of course talking about Office Open XML, also known as OpenXML or OOXML developed by Microsoft and adopted by ECMA International as ECMA-376 <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm> in 2006.
I've mostly seen ODF for the OpenOffice.org XML file format.
By reading again OP message, I see that he said "Can Apache open their Open Office XLM". In the context of his message I thought that it was meant for the file format used by MS Office since OP had a "writings saved at this point after using their set up".
Hagar
Le 02/10/2016 14:05, Jrg Schmidt a crit :
>> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.delest@laposte.net]
>> Beware that OOXML was not designed to be compatible with
>> anything else than MS Office.
> And what is ODF?
>
> ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw, sxc, etc.)
> written only for OOo.
>
> And the truth is this there are two ISO standards, and neither of the two is an
> ISO standard second class.
>
> ODF:
> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66
> 363
>
> OOXML:
> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51
> 463
>
>
> And let me say it absolutely clear:
> I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also noticed that MS
> reality of ODF recognized.
> Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.
>
> I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe in the power
> of ideological talk.
>
>
>
> Jrg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl>.
Hagar Delest schreef op 03-10-2016 22:57:
> Even if it came from a previous format, the goal was to make a
> documented format to allow compatibility with other applications. So
> not designed from scratch, agreed, but changes made for
> interoperability. That's how I understand the target of ODF.
I just feel that even though people may say they are doing so for "good
reasons" in the end you will have found that they just tried to feed
their own table. And were doing so for their own reasons. If you are a
smaller party and you want people to cooperate with you then it helps a
lot if you can show that non-interoperation has no good reasons for it;
it is to take those arguments away from critics: now you have no reason
to not cooperate.
It just stems from the political perspective of someone who finds
himself in that position.
It's what /anyone/ would do from that position. That doesn't make it
better or morally superior; it is just a good strategy to take when you
want to be the one they should take up for consideration.
So I am just saying it was done for their own reasons and not for
'altruistic' reasons of that kind; many people may say so, but in the
end it was just self-interest (and there is not really anything wrong
with it and I guess that is the whole point of that).
These advocates proclaim moral superiority by pretending to be
altruistic and then condemning those who are not the same.
But in the end we are all the same and we do things for our own reasons,
and the open source advocates do so also.
It was /not/ done for altruistic reasons and therefore we are the same
as some company who is also not doing it for altruistic reasons. This
fa�ade that people are doing things for different reasons than what they
are actually doing them for, is what creates the issues.
This creates the fa�ade of moral superiority when it is not so; we are
all just human, after all.
And the whole point of that is that it is okay to do things for your own
reasons. You don't first have to "prove" that you are doing something
for good reasons before you can go and do it.
> There is no enemy. Agreed. But Users should be aware of the rules.
I must say I found myself in a similar situation when the Opera M2 (mail
client) started corrupting my data after I had accidentally started the
program twice (at the same time). My email from that period was mostly
lost; for how could I ever recover this.
So I am not unsympathetic to wanting to be in a place where you can be
sure your data is safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.
Le 03/10/2016 12:14, Jrg Schmidt a crit :
>> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.delest@laposte.net]
>> I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to
>> give the users back the property of their own data.
> No, that's not correct.
>
> ODF was written this it was compatible with the capabilities of the program OOo.
> This is a purely technical issue, and does not mean the ODF would therefore not
> designed open.
Even if it came from a previous format, the goal was to make a documented format to allow compatibility with other applications. So not designed from scratch, agreed, but changes made for interoperability. That's how I understand the target of ODF.
>> But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open
>> format. There are parts that still refer to proprietary bits.
> fud, or show me exactly what parts you mean
>
> e.g. the old binary formats has MS disclosed, see:
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/office/cc313105(v=office.14).aspx
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/office/gg615407(v=office.14).aspx
I admit that most of my knowledge come from the time when the OOXML was being ISO approved. I found this as a more recent reference : http://courseweb.ischool.illinois.edu/~stanley8/LIS590DPL/standards/docformats.html
I remember also the groklaw site: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051216153153504
There was plenty of technical details. But maybe it has changed. I've not really followed what happened afterward.
> and please respect one:
> I'm working for free and open source software for over 10 years, however therefore
> I do not work primary against MS - for my thinking MS is a competitor, not an
> enemy for me.
There is no enemy. Agreed. But Users should be aware of the rules.
BTW, you say that MS is a Platinum sponsor, but you mean for Apache? Or for AOO? That's not the same IMHO.
Well, I'm just a user in the end. If you technical guys think that it's fine as it is, so be it.
Hagar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.
Le 08/10/2016 12:34, Peter Kovacs a crit :
> You seem to like the way ODFormat is defined.
To be precise, I like the the intent of ODF. Several parties decided to work together so that a fully documented file format could be used with advanced application features (I mean that could store data needed by complex applications like word processors, spreadsheets, ...). Perhaps there was other file formats at that time. Perhaps the momentum created by OOo helped ODF at the same time despite other file formats availability.
I've a scientific background. Thus I'm more in favor of standardization than closed blackboxes (or badly documented features).
> But what is with Bill Pate, who has done a lot of work, and is looking atm for a different tool.
> He has fear that all his work is lost or unsuable of sorts when he imports to Open Office. Or maybe his work is lost after a while he finds out he misses MSO so much he wants to return.
> We should also try to answer towards his fear.
Then I think my answer was clear: AOO can do what he wants but it will require a change in the file format he's using right now (assuming he saves in .docx).
> See I want to stay open. That means I work into the direction that supports your requirement and to Bill Pate requirement. Giving both of you the maximum of choice that is possible to provide with the available ressources.
> This is a huge maybe impossible challenge. But I have some Ideas.
Thanks!
> Still looking what Open Office already implements of them and what has to be improved. And I will not manage to deliver on time atm. But I hope I find support. In you and others that are interested in OO.
Of course. The main issue IMHO is that similar features may be handled differently. So any bridge for "conversion" may introduce some glitches. There may also be issues if some parts refer to undisclosed documentation. Let's hope there are very few of them.
> Openess incorporates for me /*Libert, galit, Fraternit*/. Not fully supporting OOXML means giving up on galit. Not accepting the Users requirements is against my whish for Fraternit.
I'm OK with that as long as everybody has the means to implement OOXML (.docx, ...). But it has been discussed at length in this discussion already.
Note that by galit, you mean that everyone should be allowed to use the format he wants. My opinion is that the galit is to use the same format (hence the importance of the interoperability). However, they are free in their choice of what format or application they want to use. The free choice falls in the Libert for me.
> For me there is a political dimension in joining Open Office. And also imortant one in this times.
> [...]
> I am sorry for drifting into idological point of view, but it explains my feelings pretty well.
Same for me.
Hagar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
On 04.10.2016 22:04, Hagar Delest wrote:
>
> Le 04/10/2016 06:50, Peter Kovacs a crit :
>> ODF has a better trancperency then OOXML. But beeing open we need to
>> embrace and value both formats.
>>
>
> My fear is: if AOO exports in OOXML (as LibO does), what will happen
> to ODF?
You seem to like the way ODFormat is defined. I think we should support
you and offer you the choice for various options on this file format.
Maybe something a compatible ODF definition towards MSO, so you are safe
that you MSO buddy can exchange documents with you.
Or offer you ODF 1.2 standard. So you feel more home and save.
But what is with Bill Pate, who has done a lot of work, and is looking
atm for a different tool.
He has fear that all his work is lost or unsuable of sorts when he
imports to Open Office. Or maybe his work is lost after a while he finds
out he misses MSO so much he wants to return.
We should also try to answer towards his fear. (please note I assume
here something, but the assumption is for makeing a position clear not
for anything else.)
See I want to stay open. That means I work into the direction that
supports your requirement and to Bill Pate requirement. Giving both of
you the maximum of choice that is possible to provide with the available
ressources.
This is a huge maybe impossible challenge. But I have some Ideas. Still
looking what Open Office already implements of them and what has to be
improved. And I will not manage to deliver on time atm. But I hope I
find support. In you and others that are interested in OO.
Openess incorporates for me /*Libert, galit, Fraternit*/. Not fully
supporting OOXML means giving up on galit. Not accepting the Users
requirements is against my whish for Fraternit.
For me there is a political dimension in joining Open Office. And also
imortant one in this times.
"The World could use more Heros." - Tracer, Overwatch, Blizzard
8)
I am sorry for drifting into idological point of view, but it explains
my feelings pretty well. IMHO this is more an emotional thing then
technical thing.
Re: Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl>.
Hagar Delest schreef op 04-10-2016 22:04:
> My fear is: if AOO exports in OOXML (as LibO does), what will happen
> to ODF? Most users would just use OOXML since it would be compatible
> with AOO and MS Office. It may lead to frustration because of the
> glitches from the conversions. OTOH, it may attract new users.
Personally: I hardly ever do things because of 'rational reasons' of
that kind. I dislike the very idea of OOXML to begin with and as a
developer I just lost interest in developing for MS Windows when I was
about 18. My favourite format is ODF because I do not use MS Office
anyway (haven't used it since about 2000) and "odt" also looks nice in a
file browser.
But I'm at pains because for me both OpenOffice and LibreOffice are
insufficient in terms of quality and robustness and I have started
writing stuff in Google Docs because (a) it doesn't crash and (b) it
doesn't throw away my text.
And for me a vital issue is the poor undo functionality in both
programs.
Every other program out there has 1000x superior undo functionality as
compared to LibreOffice and OpenOffice.
The smallest text box in some Browser has better undo functionality than
what we have here. And I cannot live without that, because I often have
to redo some parts of my text and I cannot constantly save everything
for fear I am making a mistake.
Hence, today I write in a browser. At least on Linux. On Windows I have
options (most notably just Wordpad).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.
Le 04/10/2016 06:50, Peter Kovacs a crit :
> ODF has a better trancperency then OOXML. But beeing open we need to embrace and value both formats.
>
This is the key point for AOO now IMHO.
I think there is a point having import filters to give users a way to open the files. Then the natural thing would be to save in ODF.
That's what was done with OOXML: AOO can import but the code to export in OOXML is not activated. it does exist somewhere but it has never been implemented by design.
My fear is: if AOO exports in OOXML (as LibO does), what will happen to ODF? Most users would just use OOXML since it would be compatible with AOO and MS Office. It may lead to frustration because of the glitches from the conversions. OTOH, it may attract new users.
Note: it may say that bugs like 1900 leap year bug in OOXML are accepted (except if it has been fixed since).
If there was at least the possibility to store the information linked to the AOO features in OOXML without triggering any "conversion" operation, it may be a 3rd way. Does OOXML allow that? I doubt it but perhaps there is room in parts of the format that allow some kind of customization. It would be sad however to lose the human readable structure of ODF (quite useful in case a file is corrupted or when you need to inspect a file in detail).
Hagar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
On 03.10.2016 12:14, Jrg Schmidt wrote:
> But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open
>> format. There are parts that still refer to proprietary bits.
> fud, or show me exactly what parts you mean
Well, I dont know if it is exactly a fud. There is a cornerstone truce
to this.
Do not forget Microsoft was pretty much surprised by the success of ODF
specification becoming a public ISO Standard.
Their first definition was hastely published, in Microsoft style. It was
a agressive reponse. The stake back then was high for both sides. Media
did support all sorts of sides in this time.
With ODF becoming ISO standard, the doors into US public service were
open. This was acclaimed as a break of the Microsoft Office monopol.
As much as I remeber the OOXML allows you to add binary files directly
into the document, which are not further defined. I mean it could be
anything, and only Microsoft Office did know what it saved in these spots.
So yea the standard could techicly be only a shell and still remain
intransparent. But IMHO it was only a specification flaw. For OpenSource
warriors this was of course the invitation battle MS.
I think on Open source front, the success of ODF changed the attitude of
embracing other Formats.
Before that there was a strong drive to make the Microsoft binary
formats work. And support to support other Formats. This will dropped
after the success of ODF.
But with OOXML tied to MS, and OO focusing on ODF the seperation on the
market was imident, which was bad for bizzness.
So I think it turned a little when Novell (looking back, who had already
bad experience with a similar situation n the UNIX market ;) ) made the
cooperation deal with Microsoft to jointly work on both formats.
It is the turning point for Microsoft from fighting open source to
embrace it.
However I think the bad Karma from the days still sticks for most
people. Ballmer style just broke to much Glass in his time and MS just
was to good Empire for the Rebellion.
I do belive that real openess is about choice, not about transparency.
Transperency is about trust.
ODF has a better trancperency then OOXML. But beeing open we need to
embrace and value both formats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl>.
J�rg Schmidt schreef op 03-10-2016 12:14:
>> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.delest@laposte.net]
>
>> I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to
>> give the users back the property of their own data.
>
> No, that's not correct.
>
> ODF was written this it was compatible with the capabilities of the
> program OOo.
> This is a purely technical issue, and does not mean the ODF would
> therefore not
> designed open.
>
>> But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open
>> format. There are parts that still refer to proprietary bits.
>
> fud, or show me exactly what parts you mean
>
> e.g. the old binary formats has MS disclosed, see:
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/office/cc313105(v=office.14).aspx
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/office/gg615407(v=office.14).aspx
The first version of that document was from 2008. So that's been 8 years
now and counting.
Coincides a bit with my feelings about it. Microsoft was only fiercely
competiting when it was young, mostly also /because/ it was young (and
arrogant, hostile).
Typically it is the mindset of a young adolescent and I know Bill Gates
also had an attitude like that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.delest@laposte.net]
> I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to
> give the users back the property of their own data.
No, that's not correct.
ODF was written this it was compatible with the capabilities of the program OOo.
This is a purely technical issue, and does not mean the ODF would therefore not
designed open.
> But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open
> format. There are parts that still refer to proprietary bits.
fud, or show me exactly what parts you mean
e.g. the old binary formats has MS disclosed, see:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/office/cc313105(v=office.14).aspx
https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/office/gg615407(v=office.14).aspx
and please respect one:
I'm working for free and open source software for over 10 years, however therefore
I do not work primary against MS - for my thinking MS is a competitor, not an
enemy for me.
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl>.
Hagar Delest schreef op 03-10-2016 0:27:
> In fact, I came to OOo in 2006 because I used to use MS Word to
> compile data and one day a file got corrupted for an unknown reason. I
> discovered that there was no way to recover the file because it was
> proprietary. I think that at that time the .doc format was not
> disclosed yet (but I may be wrong). What is sure is that I could not
> get my file back. So I searched the net and found OOo and ODF. And I
> adopted OOo because of the file format (I had already tried OOo 1 but
> did not like it).
>
> If OOo had not gained popularity, I'm not sure MS would have created
> something similar with their OOXML. And if the vendor lock-in policy
> is less an issue now, OOo and ODF may be for something. What it would
> be if they hadn't been there?
>
> Just to precise something: I'm not complaining, and I don't say Linux
> people are the best or whatever. I just say that file format is an
> issue. I admit that I think MS do not play fair (but that's logical,
> else, they would certainly lose users).
> Up to the user to decide what is more important for him.
>
> But if the focus is the application and not the file format, then
> what? Make a free clone of MS Office?
You mean to stick with their format? No, if you are creative you will
create your own format to suit your needs, but you don't create your new
format for external reasons that have nothing to do with creating an
application.
The format is useless without application, and since application is its
only reason to be the focus is always on the application and not on the
format, because the format merely serves that other thing.
So I'm only saying that ideological reasons are not a good reason to do
anything. It has to have a use also.
And I only wanted to indicate, as I discover, that no matter how big of
a mouth people have, in the end they are only doing stuff because it
works for /them/ also. I think that in the end you find that ideological
reasons are what people SAY but not what they DO.
The whole Linux ecosystem is so similar to the corporate world that I
have started seeing them as the same thing.
> In this case, there is a point supporting OOXML. But it would slightly
> become a de facto standard (what was .doc, ...). But would never be
> fully implemented in all the applications due to the references to the
> proprietary functions.
Well you know that is the fa�ade of open source: that there is any kind
of guarantee that the thing /would/ be implemented if the thing was
entirely non-proprietary. Without proprietariness there is usually not
much of a reason to do anything.
I am just saying that open source nature gives no guarantees at all even
though they are often projected (but never realized). To go back to
GIMP, it is a disorganized whole, there is no organisation almost to its
parts. This lack of organisation (both in the developers and the product
itself) creates a disorganized picture that is fragmented. Without
leadership you cannot do anything.
A visionary needs to charge forward himself (or herself, perhaps) and
not wait for what others do, but Linux developing is 80% waiting for
what others think and do. Before you can do anything. Some people call
this "design by committee". It is the death (and dearth) of creativity.
I thought back in the day that OpenOffice (certainly under Sun) was an
inspired project and it certainly was, I believe. We see today that
people like mr. Hamilton would probably not survive the bitterness and
alienation and ghastliness of the rock-steady but hostile approach the
LibreOffice developers have. There are, in those communities, no elder
people that have a bit of wisdom to go with: it is all youth and
normally youth that doesn't know much. I am very grateful people such as
himself are here.
The only older people in such communities are new weds (to the system)
that actually know a lot less than the young ones.
It is youth and arrogance of youth for the most part, what I see. In
communities like what LibreOffice is today...
But as mr. Hamilton just said; ODF is not fully implemented in anything.
Proprietariness doesn't necessarily mean closed source; it means it is
controlled by a single party (for example).
It means that single party does not have to suffer design by committee
issues.
That can also mean people are less likely to adopt it (what you do) but
this is a balance by how much you want to cooperate with people and how
much you want to plow ahead yourself. Waiting too much for the approval
of others creates a dead product.
And the only thing LibreOffice is doing is they are improving the
/technical/ nature of the code (they are all technical people) and they
only promise (better code checking tools and the like) stuff that
doesn't mean a better user experience for users, it only means a better
user experience for developers.
Maybe then after a while they start to focus on the good stuff but thus
far they have only done developer-oriented stuff as far as I can see.
They feel like the borg to me. Some ant colony.
And usually quite aggressive ants. It seems people are recreating the
ant mindset in their own lives. Maybe they should rebrand their product
"Black Ant Warfare" and then people would think they are really cool.
There are ants that sting and their are ants that only spray. I think
LibreOffice is more of the spraying kind (black ants). Lol, anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.
Top posting.
In fact, I came to OOo in 2006 because I used to use MS Word to compile data and one day a file got corrupted for an unknown reason. I discovered that there was no way to recover the file because it was proprietary. I think that at that time the .doc format was not disclosed yet (but I may be wrong). What is sure is that I could not get my file back. So I searched the net and found OOo and ODF. And I adopted OOo because of the file format (I had already tried OOo 1 but did not like it).
If OOo had not gained popularity, I'm not sure MS would have created something similar with their OOXML. And if the vendor lock-in policy is less an issue now, OOo and ODF may be for something. What it would be if they hadn't been there?
Just to precise something: I'm not complaining, and I don't say Linux people are the best or whatever. I just say that file format is an issue. I admit that I think MS do not play fair (but that's logical, else, they would certainly lose users).
Up to the user to decide what is more important for him.
But if the focus is the application and not the file format, then what? Make a free clone of MS Office? Just a lost cause then.
That's perhaps the problem today. Not that obvious when OOo was the leading software. But now that there is LibO, if there is no discussion about what should the ODF become, it will be a question of what poison to chose (to use Dennis' words).
In this case, there is a point supporting OOXML. But it would slightly become a de facto standard (what was .doc, ...). But would never be fully implemented in all the applications due to the references to the proprietary functions.
Hagar
Le 02/10/2016 23:06, Xen a crit :
> Hagar Delest schreef op 02-10-2016 21:56:
>> Le 02/10/2016 19:29, Xen a crit :
>>> Jrg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.
>>
>> I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the
>> users back the property of their own data. This was to give users an
>> alternative to the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
>> The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not
>> allow intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open
>> standard.
>
> Well Jrg stated this:
>
> ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw, sxc, etc.)
> written only for OOo.
>
> So maybe I should have been more specific. The reality is that ODF was not designed; it already existed and apparently, was only slightly adjusted and then turned into an "open standard".
>
> But please, I want you to also look at the reality and not just the shoulds and wants.
>
> No one outside of the open source community really uses ODF. Probably, some new application will see reasons to create its own format if only to provide extra features or whatever that the old standard doesn't. Also, even if you are not commercial and trying to limit what another can do with your files, you can have a reason to e.g. not use a zip file format, or whatever else you might say.
>
> So, since ODF was not really designed, and since you can turn any standard into an open standard, you could say e.g. Microsoft "should" implement and support that open standard, but that's not really related to it being open; being open merely guarantees that it would be easier.
>
> But the question was incompatibilities.
>
>> By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open
>> format : if the file format is fully documented, then each software
>> should respect that format and then the compatibility with other
>> applications will be achieved.
>
> Tell that to the person who tried to open a Calligra document in LibreOffice: all of the bulleting marks were replaced by something else and the document didn't look the same at all.
>
> But moreover I think many "open standards" must or apparently always do accept a reduced level of functionality, think of the specification for DLNA/UPNP in which some really useful functionality is barely possible. Causing smaller companies that do want to provide a good user experience to use their own format or protocol, or to extend the thing although hardly possible.
>
> So the reason Microsoft is so hard to make compatible (and many others perhaps) is that they do introduce stuff for their own that hardly anyone else can use.
>
> But that's also how you create a better user experience and be honest, most of the Linux software world... If I must not speak of AOO here then I will mention GIMP, which has the full top menu under the context popup (right mouse button) which is such a glaring deficiency (no actually context menu, then) that no serious party or company that would want to earn money would ever design such a product that way.
>
> GIMP is just near (or nigh) unusable. But I am straying from the subject.
>
> In the best case an open standard is going to force companies to reduce their level of functionality. In the worst case it is just not going to be adopted and remain a pecularity of a select few that can open their own documents but no one else does anyway.
>
> So without regard for principle or ideals, look at the actual outcomes today.
>
> - We have one side of the world using a closed standard and the other using an open standard, and the only reason the "open product" can (or has tried to) read the "closed product" is because of market share. OpenOffice *needed* to read MS-Word (for instance) but MS-Word did not need to read OpenOffice all that much. Both are really doing their own thing and do not communicate much.
>
> They are both "islands" in that sense.
>
> Meanwhile AOO and LibreOffice are infighting and Calligra is too under-developed to be worth anything. And seeing my personal experiences, support for the format is no guarantee that the document will look the same from supporting-application to supporting-application.
>
> Hence /format/ seems not to be the focus point but /application/. An application needs to have a guaranteed, dependable way of rendering the format without quirks.
>
> If it does not, having an open format is of no use really. Microsoft's format is probably quirky as hell (or its application is) and that is more of a problem than being closed.
>
> So closed or open does not seem to determine much of actual outcomes.
>
> Almost every program can open .doc documents so there never really was a threat (at least not today) of your data being "hijacked" or 'locked' due to vendor-lock-in. That's not a realistic situation. It is /more/ difficult to archive or migrate bookmarks. Of course Linux people (perhaps) wanted to have something they could change and alter and control themselves. Sure.
>
> But that's an aspect of creativity and not being a company, the thing would need to be document in order to cooperate.
>
> In a sense that is also a "company motive", so there are now two companies, one has one operational model, the other a different one. As a consequence, the one company does not feel much need to share information on its structure, while to the other it is its lifeblood.
>
> They are still both "enclaves" of their own, just using different strategies and mechanics. That might be virtually opposed, but still. You could even call them diametrically opposed but still they are still two islands of their own. So while you can claim superiority or prevalence or relevance due to your format being "open" it is more of a necessity for the operation of the machine (open source) than it is something that actually affects interoperation with the other island.
>
> It is an internal requirement, not an external requirement. The closed-source nature of the .doc format (etc.) is also an internal requirement, not an external requirement.
>
> So both 'companies' are actually using internal reasons for their choices, and it has nothing really to do with being better than the other. You are both doing it for your own reasons, that work for you.
>
> That is why the "it's not equal and we're better" is misplaced. What I see mostly is s... I can call it complaining and I can call it "self-pity". Some would brag about their format and at the same time yell "poor me" all the time because the big bad bully doesn't comply. And the only reason for this complaining and this self-pitying is /THAT/ you have called yourself "superior" because it might give a person a sense of entitlement, and when that entitlement is not met (we are better, but they are still not cooperating with us and making our lives easier) the 'suffering' starts.
>
> And it is self-created by even caring about what the other party does. Do stuff for your own good, and not because of something else.
>
> If Linux people didn't care and really did their own thing they wouldn't need to constantly blame Microsoft for all their misfortune.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl>.
Hagar Delest schreef op 02-10-2016 21:56:
> Le 02/10/2016 � 19:29, Xen a �crit :
>> J�rg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without
>> compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.
>
> I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the
> users back the property of their own data. This was to give users an
> alternative to the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
> The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not
> allow intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open
> standard.
Well J�rg stated this:
ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw,
sxc, etc.)
written only for OOo.
So maybe I should have been more specific. The reality is that ODF was
not designed; it already existed and apparently, was only slightly
adjusted and then turned into an "open standard".
But please, I want you to also look at the reality and not just the
shoulds and wants.
No one outside of the open source community really uses ODF. Probably,
some new application will see reasons to create its own format if only
to provide extra features or whatever that the old standard doesn't.
Also, even if you are not commercial and trying to limit what another
can do with your files, you can have a reason to e.g. not use a zip file
format, or whatever else you might say.
So, since ODF was not really designed, and since you can turn any
standard into an open standard, you could say e.g. Microsoft "should"
implement and support that open standard, but that's not really related
to it being open; being open merely guarantees that it would be easier.
But the question was incompatibilities.
> By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open
> format : if the file format is fully documented, then each software
> should respect that format and then the compatibility with other
> applications will be achieved.
Tell that to the person who tried to open a Calligra document in
LibreOffice: all of the bulleting marks were replaced by something else
and the document didn't look the same at all.
But moreover I think many "open standards" must or apparently always do
accept a reduced level of functionality, think of the specification for
DLNA/UPNP in which some really useful functionality is barely possible.
Causing smaller companies that do want to provide a good user experience
to use their own format or protocol, or to extend the thing although
hardly possible.
So the reason Microsoft is so hard to make compatible (and many others
perhaps) is that they do introduce stuff for their own that hardly
anyone else can use.
But that's also how you create a better user experience and be honest,
most of the Linux software world... If I must not speak of AOO here then
I will mention GIMP, which has the full top menu under the context popup
(right mouse button) which is such a glaring deficiency (no actually
context menu, then) that no serious party or company that would want to
earn money would ever design such a product that way.
GIMP is just near (or nigh) unusable. But I am straying from the
subject.
In the best case an open standard is going to force companies to reduce
their level of functionality. In the worst case it is just not going to
be adopted and remain a pecularity of a select few that can open their
own documents but no one else does anyway.
So without regard for principle or ideals, look at the actual outcomes
today.
- We have one side of the world using a closed standard and the other
using an open standard, and the only reason the "open product" can (or
has tried to) read the "closed product" is because of market share.
OpenOffice *needed* to read MS-Word (for instance) but MS-Word did not
need to read OpenOffice all that much. Both are really doing their own
thing and do not communicate much.
They are both "islands" in that sense.
Meanwhile AOO and LibreOffice are infighting and Calligra is too
under-developed to be worth anything. And seeing my personal
experiences, support for the format is no guarantee that the document
will look the same from supporting-application to
supporting-application.
Hence /format/ seems not to be the focus point but /application/. An
application needs to have a guaranteed, dependable way of rendering the
format without quirks.
If it does not, having an open format is of no use really. Microsoft's
format is probably quirky as hell (or its application is) and that is
more of a problem than being closed.
So closed or open does not seem to determine much of actual outcomes.
Almost every program can open .doc documents so there never really was a
threat (at least not today) of your data being "hijacked" or 'locked'
due to vendor-lock-in. That's not a realistic situation. It is /more/
difficult to archive or migrate bookmarks. Of course Linux people
(perhaps) wanted to have something they could change and alter and
control themselves. Sure.
But that's an aspect of creativity and not being a company, the thing
would need to be document in order to cooperate.
In a sense that is also a "company motive", so there are now two
companies, one has one operational model, the other a different one. As
a consequence, the one company does not feel much need to share
information on its structure, while to the other it is its lifeblood.
They are still both "enclaves" of their own, just using different
strategies and mechanics. That might be virtually opposed, but still.
You could even call them diametrically opposed but still they are still
two islands of their own. So while you can claim superiority or
prevalence or relevance due to your format being "open" it is more of a
necessity for the operation of the machine (open source) than it is
something that actually affects interoperation with the other island.
It is an internal requirement, not an external requirement. The
closed-source nature of the .doc format (etc.) is also an internal
requirement, not an external requirement.
So both 'companies' are actually using internal reasons for their
choices, and it has nothing really to do with being better than the
other. You are both doing it for your own reasons, that work for you.
That is why the "it's not equal and we're better" is misplaced. What I
see mostly is s... I can call it complaining and I can call it
"self-pity". Some would brag about their format and at the same time
yell "poor me" all the time because the big bad bully doesn't comply.
And the only reason for this complaining and this self-pitying is /THAT/
you have called yourself "superior" because it might give a person a
sense of entitlement, and when that entitlement is not met (we are
better, but they are still not cooperating with us and making our lives
easier) the 'suffering' starts.
And it is self-created by even caring about what the other party does.
Do stuff for your own good, and not because of something else.
If Linux people didn't care and really did their own thing they wouldn't
need to constantly blame Microsoft for all their misfortune.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
You guys now lost me.
A file should have a consistent state independent of the implementation of
the writing software. And we should take care that our implementation leads
to the same positioning on the paper.
The tool that is able to read what is on the market or the next big thing
wins the race. I would like to see that we try to work in that direction.
I mean the operation should be always similar.
In doubt we can offer the user import tools to decide which behaviour he
wants /needs.
Good night.
Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl> schrieb am So., 2. Okt. 2016, 23:25:
> Dennis E. Hamilton schreef op 02-10-2016 23:01:
>
> > It is a misunderstanding to assume that there is some "strict" ODF
> > conformance requirement. That is factually not the case, nor does
> > anything in the specification require some clear conformance for
> > interoperability.
>
> Exactly the same issue as with DLNA/UPNP as what I mentioned. People
> found that the standard was too loose to really guarantee
> interoperability and some things were optional that were actually needed
> for full functionality as well.
>
> > ODF may simply become whatever LibreOffice
> > does, just proving that any open-format standard can become a silo.
>
> Proving that the application is the focus point and not the format.
>
> > PS: The ODF specification is not tight enough for what many seem to
> > automatically presume. For a technical analysis of that, I have a
> > free-to-download technical paper that walks through how it goes, with
> > the failures of change-tracking as a case study:
> > <http://nfoworks.org/rct/>. Click on the title "Tracked Changes" for
> > the free PDF. Sections 1-2 should make the situation clear enough.
>
> I assume that change-tracking involves the being able to undelete stuff?
>
> There is now a (or was, last summer, a) GSoC project on LibreOffice as
> to that issue.
>
> I saw some of your diagrams. I guess the point was to indicate that the
> cross-line deletes can be done in multiple ways and if two applications
> differ they produce differing results.
>
> It seems so much to me like a ... you might even call it an exercise in
> futility. Getting people to cooperate that all want to do a different
> thing.
>
> The situation is now such that you will not be able to know which ODF
> document was created by what application, and since it is rather
> important to know which one it was, we have a problem here, sir.
>
> Using the same format is now a /hindrance/ rather than a blessing.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
> --
Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl>.
Dennis E. Hamilton schreef op 02-10-2016 23:01:
> It is a misunderstanding to assume that there is some "strict" ODF
> conformance requirement. That is factually not the case, nor does
> anything in the specification require some clear conformance for
> interoperability.
Exactly the same issue as with DLNA/UPNP as what I mentioned. People
found that the standard was too loose to really guarantee
interoperability and some things were optional that were actually needed
for full functionality as well.
> ODF may simply become whatever LibreOffice
> does, just proving that any open-format standard can become a silo.
Proving that the application is the focus point and not the format.
> PS: The ODF specification is not tight enough for what many seem to
> automatically presume. For a technical analysis of that, I have a
> free-to-download technical paper that walks through how it goes, with
> the failures of change-tracking as a case study:
> <http://nfoworks.org/rct/>. Click on the title "Tracked Changes" for
> the free PDF. Sections 1-2 should make the situation clear enough.
I assume that change-tracking involves the being able to undelete stuff?
There is now a (or was, last summer, a) GSoC project on LibreOffice as
to that issue.
I saw some of your diagrams. I guess the point was to indicate that the
cross-line deletes can be done in multiple ways and if two applications
differ they produce differing results.
It seems so much to me like a ... you might even call it an exercise in
futility. Getting people to cooperate that all want to do a different
thing.
The situation is now such that you will not be able to know which ODF
document was created by what application, and since it is rather
important to know which one it was, we have a problem here, sir.
Using the same format is now a /hindrance/ rather than a blessing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: In regards to Open Office
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I think the observation was that ODF was not designed with interoperability with Microsoft in mind. In fact, that case was officially excluded, although the work on OpenFormula in ODF 1.2 was designed to accommodate Excel and had participation of Microsoft experts.
The folklore about all of this does not account for improvements that have happened over time.
For example, it is no longer the case that Office does not support what is called strict OOXML, after using transitional originally and also still supporting it (but not as the default output as far as I can tell). That there were migration steps was certainly an important legacy consideration for that product. Although not involving such a large user base, the same applied with regard to the Star Office formats supported as legacy in OpenOffice and ensuring that legacy prospect in the design of ODF too. (The ODF project was originally named the OpenOffice project, with the change made at the last minute for ODF 1.0.)
It is a misunderstanding to assume that there is some "strict" ODF conformance requirement. That is factually not the case, nor does anything in the specification require some clear conformance for interoperability.
I daresay that *no* implementation supports the full features and details of ODF, and there is no requirement that *any* implementation do so. In addition, there is extensive under-specification of some features (e.g., nothing about macro languages [;<), with many implementation-defined and implementation-specific holes.
What worked for a time was using OpenOffice's support, whatever it is, as what others attempted to match in regard to supporting ODF in an interoperable (with OpenOffice) manner. That is no longer a workable guide as OpenOffice and LibreOffice extensions and feature differences increase in support of the ODF format. And OpenOffice does not participate in the work toward ODF 1.3 at OASIS, although that may not matter in the long run. ODF may simply become whatever LibreOffice does, just proving that any open-format standard can become a silo.
The legacy Microsoft Office formats are documented and those documents are freely available and are used. That extends to RTF as well. Meanwhile, there are many undocumented uses of ODF, including of binary formats inside ODF documents.
It really is a matter of "choose your poison."
- Dennis
PS: The ODF specification is not tight enough for what many seem to automatically presume. For a technical analysis of that, I have a free-to-download technical paper that walks through how it goes, with the failures of change-tracking as a case study: <http://nfoworks.org/rct/>. Click on the title "Tracked Changes" for the free PDF. Sections 1-2 should make the situation clear enough.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.delest@laposte.net]
> Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:57
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: <DKIM> In regards to Open Office
>
> Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit :
> > Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without
> compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.
>
> I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the
> users back the property of their own data. This was to give users an
> alternative to the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
> The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not
> allow intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open
> standard.
>
> By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open
> format : if the file format is fully documented, then each software
> should respect that format and then the compatibility with other
> applications will be achieved.
>
> But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open format.
> There are parts that still refer to proprietary bits. Therefore, the
> situation is not that equal. And for the strict OOXML flavor, MS Office
> doesn't use it as its default format, it was only a mean to get the
> OOXML approved by ISO I think (and we all remember the conditions in
> which it has been done).
>
> Hagar
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.
Le 02/10/2016 19:29, Xen a crit :
> Jrg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.
I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the users back the property of their own data. This was to give users an alternative to the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not allow intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open standard.
By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open format : if the file format is fully documented, then each software should respect that format and then the compatibility with other applications will be achieved.
But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open format. There are parts that still refer to proprietary bits. Therefore, the situation is not that equal. And for the strict OOXML flavor, MS Office doesn't use it as its default format, it was only a mean to get the OOXML approved by ISO I think (and we all remember the conditions in which it has been done).
Hagar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>
>
> and a very little bit is my opinion also:
> MS is one of our "Platinum sponsors" and it is not a good style blindly to
> grumble about MS
>
>
Maybe, but sponsoring the ASF also shouldn't undermine contributors' free
speech.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>
>
Damjan
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
+1
exactly, that's what I meant
> and a little bit is my opinion also:
> MS is not longer a _fundamental_ opponent of free software more
>
> and a very little bit is my opinion also:
> MS is one of our "Platinum sponsors" and it is not a good style blindly to grumble about MS
>
>
>
> Greetings,
> J�rg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xen [mailto:list@xenhideout.nl]
> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2016 7:29 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: <DKIM> In regards to Open Office
>
> Rory O'Farrell schreef op 02-10-2016 15:59:
> > Top posting:
> >
> > This thread is going off at half cock!
> >
> > Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is
> almost certain
> > to cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting.
> Why this
> > should be and whether the precise file format is
> responsible is hardly
> > relevant.
> >
> > Rory
>
> Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also
> designed without
> compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.
exactly, that's what I meant
and a little bit is my opinion also:
MS is not longer a _fundamental_ opponent of free software more
and a very little bit is my opinion also:
MS is one of our "Platinum sponsors" and it is not a good style blindly to grumble about MS
Greetings,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl>.
Rory O'Farrell schreef op 02-10-2016 15:59:
> Top posting:
>
> This thread is going off at half cock!
>
> Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain
> to cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting. Why this
> should be and whether the precise file format is responsible is hardly
> relevant.
>
> Rory
J�rg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without
compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation. I think that
should be allowed to be mentioned. It was only to correct the sentiment
that "it's Microsoft's fault once again". If you don't want skewed
sentiments to be corrected, then don't utter them, please. Then we all
won't talk and none of us will have a problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
Can this get to e.g. the Wiki? It is excellent advice for users deciding
whether to use AOO.
On 10/2/2016 9:17 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> +1
>
> Rory's point is all that matters. The user wants to know how things
> will work *now* in choosing between different products.
> Hypotheticals and speculations about format standards are not useful.
> (I've worked on both OOXML and ODF specifications and I know from
> direct knowledge how baseless that debate is. I also run Office 365,
> Apache OpenOffice, and LibreOffice. I will not offer a preference so
> don't ask.)
>
> Neither Microsoft Office nor Apache OpenOffice provide a works-alike
> of the other and its preferred/native format. Each uses the format
> of the other by (imperfect) conversions. That will be apparent when
> Bill or anyone has them side-by-side and tests interchange with the
> documents that are important to him.
>
> My recommendation to Bill Pate is that he go to the trouble of
> installing Apache OpenOffice and checking on what matters for his
> particular situation and the documents that are important to him. He
> should not save back on top of his Office 365 documents, but save as
> new versions from OpenOffice until he is satisfied that any
> deviations are tolerable.
>
> He also needs to know that if support for OOXML (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx)
> formats is important for reasons of interchange, that Apache
> OpenOffice does not save back in those formats and it won't in the
> foreseeable future. Earlier comments suggest alternatives (e.g.,
> going back to .doc, .xls, and .ppt formats or switching to .odt,
> .ods, and .odp) and Bill should satisfy himself whether any of that
> works in his situation. It may also matter whether he requires
> Mobile/Tablet support and an alternative to desktop Outlook (if used
> in his Office 365 work), frequent security and feature updates, etc.
>
> It doesn't matter what others think sucks. It matters what will
> actually work for Bill. The safest step for Bill is to try both
> while he can have them side-by-side and then satisfy himself.
>
> - Dennis
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Rory O'Farrell
>> [mailto:ofarrwrk@iol.ie] Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 07:00 To:
>> dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl> Subject: Re:
>> <DKIM> In regards to Open Office
>>
>>
>> Top posting:
>>
>> This thread is going off at half cock!
>>
>> Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost
>> certain to cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting.
>> Why this should be and whether the precise file format is
>> responsible is hardly relevant.
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:43:56 +0200 Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> J�rg Schmidt schreef op 02-10-2016 14:05:
>>>
>>>> And let me say it absolutely clear: I've heard how MS has
>>>> denigrated many years Linux, but I have also noticed that MS
>>>> reality of ODF recognized. Only with better software, we can
>>>> beat MS, not with stupid sayings.
>>>
>>> It is easier than ever today, I must say. Microsoft creates worse
>>> and worse software by the day, for the most part. But for the
>>> most part Linux is not improving either...
>>>
>>>> I believe in the competition for the better software, not I
>>>> believe
>> in
>>>> the power of ideological talk.
>>>
>>> Indeed just saying some software is better won't make it better.
>>>
>>> Thank you for these sentiments. In the Linux world many things
>>> are
>> make
>>> believe. If you can get enough people to agree that a pear is
>>> orange, other people will start believing it too.
>>>
>>> Some Linux advents and groups and products keep repeating "their
>>> great community" and "their awesome software" verbatim every day.
>>> But saying it is great doesn't necesarily make it great and I see
>>> the same on television if I have stayed away from it for a while
>>> (it will be
>> called
>>> nationalism).
>>>
>>> Only honesty can really improve things. Anyway, sorry for this.
>> Regards.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: In regards to Open Office
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1
Rory's point is all that matters. The user wants to know how things will work *now* in choosing between different products. Hypotheticals and speculations about format standards are not useful. (I've worked on both OOXML and ODF specifications and I know from direct knowledge how baseless that debate is. I also run Office 365, Apache OpenOffice, and LibreOffice. I will not offer a preference so don't ask.)
Neither Microsoft Office nor Apache OpenOffice provide a works-alike of the other and its preferred/native format. Each uses the format of the other by (imperfect) conversions. That will be apparent when Bill or anyone has them side-by-side and tests interchange with the documents that are important to him.
My recommendation to Bill Pate is that he go to the trouble of installing Apache OpenOffice and checking on what matters for his particular situation and the documents that are important to him. He should not save back on top of his Office 365 documents, but save as new versions from OpenOffice until he is satisfied that any deviations are tolerable.
He also needs to know that if support for OOXML (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx) formats is important for reasons of interchange, that Apache OpenOffice does not save back in those formats and it won't in the foreseeable future. Earlier comments suggest alternatives (e.g., going back to .doc, .xls, and .ppt formats or switching to .odt, .ods, and .odp) and Bill should satisfy himself whether any of that works in his situation. It may also matter whether he requires Mobile/Tablet support and an alternative to desktop Outlook (if used in his Office 365 work), frequent security and feature updates, etc.
It doesn't matter what others think sucks. It matters what will actually work for Bill. The safest step for Bill is to try both while he can have them side-by-side and then satisfy himself.
- Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarrwrk@iol.ie]
> Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 07:00
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl>
> Subject: Re: <DKIM> In regards to Open Office
>
>
> Top posting:
>
> This thread is going off at half cock!
>
> Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain to
> cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting. Why this
> should be and whether the precise file format is responsible is hardly
> relevant.
>
> Rory
>
>
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:43:56 +0200
> Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl> wrote:
>
> > Jörg Schmidt schreef op 02-10-2016 14:05:
> >
> > > And let me say it absolutely clear:
> > > I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also
> > > noticed that MS
> > > reality of ODF recognized.
> > > Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.
> >
> > It is easier than ever today, I must say. Microsoft creates worse and
> > worse software by the day, for the most part. But for the most part
> > Linux is not improving either...
> >
> > > I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe
> in
> > > the power
> > > of ideological talk.
> >
> > Indeed just saying some software is better won't make it better.
> >
> > Thank you for these sentiments. In the Linux world many things are
> make
> > believe. If you can get enough people to agree that a pear is orange,
> > other people will start believing it too.
> >
> > Some Linux advents and groups and products keep repeating "their great
> > community" and "their awesome software" verbatim every day. But saying
> > it is great doesn't necesarily make it great and I see the same on
> > television if I have stayed away from it for a while (it will be
> called
> > nationalism).
> >
> > Only honesty can really improve things. Anyway, sorry for this.
> Regards.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
Top posting:
This thread is going off at half cock!
Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain to cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting. Why this should be and whether the precise file format is responsible is hardly relevant.
Rory
On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:43:56 +0200
Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl> wrote:
> Jörg Schmidt schreef op 02-10-2016 14:05:
>
> > And let me say it absolutely clear:
> > I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also
> > noticed that MS
> > reality of ODF recognized.
> > Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.
>
> It is easier than ever today, I must say. Microsoft creates worse and
> worse software by the day, for the most part. But for the most part
> Linux is not improving either...
>
> > I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe in
> > the power
> > of ideological talk.
>
> Indeed just saying some software is better won't make it better.
>
> Thank you for these sentiments. In the Linux world many things are make
> believe. If you can get enough people to agree that a pear is orange,
> other people will start believing it too.
>
> Some Linux advents and groups and products keep repeating "their great
> community" and "their awesome software" verbatim every day. But saying
> it is great doesn't necesarily make it great and I see the same on
> television if I have stayed away from it for a while (it will be called
> nationalism).
>
> Only honesty can really improve things. Anyway, sorry for this. Regards.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Xen <li...@xenhideout.nl>.
J�rg Schmidt schreef op 02-10-2016 14:05:
> And let me say it absolutely clear:
> I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also
> noticed that MS
> reality of ODF recognized.
> Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.
It is easier than ever today, I must say. Microsoft creates worse and
worse software by the day, for the most part. But for the most part
Linux is not improving either...
> I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe in
> the power
> of ideological talk.
Indeed just saying some software is better won't make it better.
Thank you for these sentiments. In the Linux world many things are make
believe. If you can get enough people to agree that a pear is orange,
other people will start believing it too.
Some Linux advents and groups and products keep repeating "their great
community" and "their awesome software" verbatim every day. But saying
it is great doesn't necesarily make it great and I see the same on
television if I have stayed away from it for a while (it will be called
nationalism).
Only honesty can really improve things. Anyway, sorry for this. Regards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 02.10.2016 um 14:05 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
>
> And the truth is this there are two ISO standards, and neither of the two is an
> ISO standard second class.
>
I disagree with the second half sentence for a variety of reasons. But
that is no topic for this mailing list.
Kind regards
Michael
Re: In regards to Open Office
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.delest@laposte.net]
> Beware that OOXML was not designed to be compatible with
> anything else than MS Office.
And what is ODF?
ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw, sxc, etc.)
written only for OOo.
And the truth is this there are two ISO standards, and neither of the two is an
ISO standard second class.
ODF:
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66
363
OOXML:
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51
463
And let me say it absolutely clear:
I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also noticed that MS
reality of ODF recognized.
Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.
I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe in the power
of ideological talk.
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org