Microsoft Office and ooxml (.docx)
peterwn
the eqivalents for other Office 2007 components). If so who has:
1. Ignored them as being unable to read them.
2. Asked the sender to re-send in .odf, .pdf or .rtf etc
3. Downloaded the new 'filters' to read them with older Office software
(especially those who have installed 'security' updates which slip in
mechanisms to facilitate this).
4. Gone out and bought Office 2007
Will Spencer
I use Office 2007 but I usually distribute the docs as PDF or RTF unless
otherwise asked, but normally I can please everybody as it has a lot of
'save as' format options which I find handy. I wouldn't send a doc as .docx
format unless specifically asked.
-ws
Matty F
5, Get the sender to save them as Word 97 - 2000 format in the first
place. Then almost anybody can read them. For distributed documents it
is unlikely that any features are being used that Word 2000 does not
have.
peterwn
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:42:55 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
>
>> I use Office 2007 but I usually distribute the docs as PDF or RTF unless
>> otherwise asked, but normally I can please everybody as it has a lot of
>> 'save as' format options which I find handy. I wouldn't send a doc as
>> .docx format unless specifically asked.
>
> format?
>
>
Yes, sort of. You apparently cannot start a new document and save it
straight into .odf however. The 'trial' version of Office 2007 that is
pre-loaded onto new computers apparently can save in .docx only.
See:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070525100251798
for a description of the implications.
peterwn
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:17:42 +1200, peterwn wrote:
>
>>> Can you save your MS Office documents in the ISO standard OpenDocument
>>> file format?
>> Yes, sort of. You apparently cannot start a new document and save it
>> straight into .odf however.
>
>
> If you can open an existing document and then save it as an ODT why,
> therefore, can't M$ Word 2007 save a new document as an ODT file?
>
>
I do not know, that is a question you would have to ask Microsoft.
Possibly for the same reason that Telecom do not offer a service to lift
toll barring on a call by call basis on residential phones (you have to
toggle toll barring off, make the call then reinstate the toll barring).
This IMO is done for marketing reasons.
Fred Dagg
exclaimed:
>On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:42:55 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
>
>> I use Office 2007 but I usually distribute the docs as PDF or RTF unless
>> otherwise asked, but normally I can please everybody as it has a lot of
>> 'save as' format options which I find handy. I wouldn't send a doc as
>> .docx format unless specifically asked.
>
>Can you save your MS Office documents in the ISO standard OpenDocument file
>format?
Microsoft's OOXML is an open standard as well.
Can OpenOffice.org save in the Ecma standard (and soon to be ISO
standard) OOXML format?
peterwn
> On 26 May 2007 14:13:40 +1200, Jonathan Walker <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> exclaimed:
>
>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:42:55 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
>>
>>> I use Office 2007 but I usually distribute the docs as PDF or RTF unless
>>> otherwise asked, but normally I can please everybody as it has a lot of
>>> 'save as' format options which I find handy. I wouldn't send a doc as
>>> .docx format unless specifically asked.
>> Can you save your MS Office documents in the ISO standard OpenDocument file
>> format?
>
> Microsoft's OOXML is an open standard as well.
Partially open, but not yet a standard
>
> Can OpenOffice.org save in the Ecma standard (and soon to be ISO
> standard) OOXML format?
There is 6000 pages of 'standard' (compared with 600 pages for ODF which
is now an ISO standard) for some poor sod to try and come to grips with,
then it makes reference to various Microsoft things that are not
included in the 'standard'.
AFAIK it does not meet the usual requirements and form one would expect
of a well conditioned standard. If a standard in similar form for
widgets was submitted to ISO it would need substantial modification at
least to gain acceptance, and the typical widget maker does not try
pulling political levers all round the world to try and force a
deficient standard through ISO - which is exactly what Microsoft is
doing at the moment with OOXML.
Fred Dagg
exclaimed:
>Fred Dagg wrote:
>> On 26 May 2007 14:13:40 +1200, Jonathan Walker <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>> exclaimed:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:42:55 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>>> I use Office 2007 but I usually distribute the docs as PDF or RTF unless
>>>> otherwise asked, but normally I can please everybody as it has a lot of
>>>> 'save as' format options which I find handy. I wouldn't send a doc as
>>>> .docx format unless specifically asked.
>>> Can you save your MS Office documents in the ISO standard OpenDocument file
>>> format?
>>
>> Microsoft's OOXML is an open standard as well.
>
>Partially open, but not yet a standard
It is an Ecma Standard, therefore it is a standard.
>>
>> Can OpenOffice.org save in the Ecma standard (and soon to be ISO
>> standard) OOXML format?
>
>There is 6000 pages of 'standard' (compared with 600 pages for ODF which
>is now an ISO standard) for some poor sod to try and come to grips with,
>then it makes reference to various Microsoft things that are not
>included in the 'standard'.
So it's a complex standard. There are plenty of other standards that
are long and/or complex.
>AFAIK it does not meet the usual requirements and form one would expect
>of a well conditioned standard. If a standard in similar form for
>widgets was submitted to ISO it would need substantial modification at
>least to gain acceptance, and the typical widget maker does not try
>pulling political levers all round the world to try and force a
>deficient standard through ISO - which is exactly what Microsoft is
>doing at the moment with OOXML.
It has been submitted to ISO, and some countries have temporarily
blocked it for political reasons. However from what I can see it meets
all the criteria, and it's only a matter of time.
Mark Robinson
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:13:14 +1200, peterwn <pet...@paradise.net.nz>
> exclaimed:
>> Fred Dagg wrote:
>>> On 26 May 2007 14:13:40 +1200, Jonathan Walker <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>>> exclaimed:
>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:42:55 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
>>>>> I use Office 2007 but I usually distribute the docs as PDF or RTF unless
>>>>> otherwise asked, but normally I can please everybody as it has a lot of
>>>>> 'save as' format options which I find handy. I wouldn't send a doc as
>>>>> .docx format unless specifically asked.
>>>> Can you save your MS Office documents in the ISO standard OpenDocument file
>>>> format?
>>> Microsoft's OOXML is an open standard as well.
>> Partially open, but not yet a standard
>
> It is an Ecma Standard, therefore it is a standard.
Perhaps the Acme Sausage Factory should sue them.
Will Spencer
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:42:55 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
>
>> I use Office 2007 but I usually distribute the docs as PDF or RTF unless
>> otherwise asked, but normally I can please everybody as it has a lot of
>> 'save as' format options which I find handy. I wouldn't send a doc as
>> .docx format unless specifically asked.
>
> Can you save your MS Office documents in the ISO standard OpenDocument file
> format?
Don't know don't care, nobody has ever asked for it. Don't think they ever
will either.
-ws
Fred Dagg
<use...@blackhole.zl2tod.net> exclaimed:
>Fred Dagg wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:13:14 +1200, peterwn <pet...@paradise.net.nz>
>> exclaimed:
>>> Fred Dagg wrote:
>>>> On 26 May 2007 14:13:40 +1200, Jonathan Walker <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>>>> exclaimed:
>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:42:55 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
>>>>>> I use Office 2007 but I usually distribute the docs as PDF or RTF unless
>>>>>> otherwise asked, but normally I can please everybody as it has a lot of
>>>>>> 'save as' format options which I find handy. I wouldn't send a doc as
>>>>>> .docx format unless specifically asked.
>>>>> Can you save your MS Office documents in the ISO standard OpenDocument file
>>>>> format?
>>>> Microsoft's OOXML is an open standard as well.
>>> Partially open, but not yet a standard
>>
>> It is an Ecma Standard, therefore it is a standard.
>
>Perhaps the Acme Sausage Factory should sue them.
Ecma is the European standards organisation. Considering they're the
ones that produced the standard for C++ and C#, they are not exactly a
2-bit outfit.
peterwn
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:48:04 +1200, Mark Robinson
>
> ones that produced the standard for C++ and C#, they are not exactly a
> 2-bit outfit.
ECMA IMO is more a manufacturers lobby group than an impartial standards
outfit. Microsoft invests heavily in it and of course expects a return
on its investment.
AFAIK, C# is a Microsoft-centric language, not one accepted for general
use, apart from applications that interface with Windows.
Although one could argue that FORTRAN was created by IBM it took on a
life well beyond the confines of IBM.
peterwn
time being,
but some major users especially government agencies are starting to head
in that
direction. Microsoft is conducting a major international firefighting
operation
to try and stop this happening, and must be paying out millions in campaign
contributions and bri.. (urp) entertainment allowances to try and
contain this hazard.
Will Spencer
I think you're talking a load of crap, but good luck spreading your lies
anyway.
-ws
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> Microsoft is conducting a major international firefighting
>> operation to try and stop [ODF adoption] happening...
>
> I think you're talking a load of crap ...
Not according to various reports. Check this
<http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070312213800675>
for an example of the kinds of maneouvrings Microsoft is resorting to.
peterwn
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 08:57:21 +1200, peterwn wrote:
>
> Isn't "ECMA" merely an acronym for "European Computer Manufacturers
> Association"?
Yes, and such 'associations' are frequently lobby groups for their
members and / or do the 'dirty work' that their members do not want to
do. Similar associations are RIAA and BSA.
>
> The standards setting organisation for Europe is the IEC, more fully known
> as the International Electrotechnical Commission.
I thought that it was international (although North America has separate
standards for its power industry), not just European. Some years I was
on a local standards committee that recommended adoption of IEC 65
(covering TV sets etc) without change for NZ (and this occurred). Prior
to that there was a NZ standard which was a butchered version of an
Australian standard that generally followed IEC 65.
>
> http://www.iec.ch/about/partners/
>
> "An initial agreement was signed with ISO in 1976 and ten years later the
> two bodies established the ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 (ISO/IEC
> JTC 1) to cover the vast and expanding field of information technology."
>
> And, of course this is the same Joint Technical Committee that approved
> the use of ODF as an international standard. IEC approval for ODF is also
> why ODF is rapidly gaining momentum and use over in Europe.
>
That is right, and the Committee is soon to be subjected to enormous
political pressure (orchestrated from Redmond) to take on board OOXML
despite its serious deficiencies as a standard.
>
>> AFAIK, C# is a Microsoft-centric language, not one accepted for general
>> use, apart from applications that interface with Windows.
>>
>> Although one could argue that FORTRAN was created by IBM it took on a life
>> well beyond the confines of IBM.
>
> Wasn't Formula Translator the first third-generation programming language
> developed?
>
AFAIK yes. At that time there was generally no 'property' in software -
the IBM oriented community shared software and AFAIK IBM did not assert
proprietary rights over its software (eg the first Fortran compiler),
since its business objective was selling hardware. If you purchased an
IBM computer you had access to all IBM's software (including source code
I think), plus that in the user pool. It was only in the early 1970's
that 'unbundling' started to occur.
It is worth noting that early UNIX development was 'open' until AT&T
started imposing proprietary rights over it and in the process
'stealing' UNIX contributions from the University of California (who
successfully sued AT&T over this) and the University of New South Wales
among others.
Dave Doe
3.
BTW, they can write the new format too.
--
Duncan
impossible
message news:f3ah1g$lun$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
What "maneuverings" are you talking about? Gaining ISO approval of the
Open XML standard?
impossible
news:4658...@clear.net.nz...
> Jonathan Walker wrote:
>>
>> And, of course this is the same Joint Technical Committee that
>> approved
>> the use of ODF as an international standard. IEC approval for ODF
>> is also
>> why ODF is rapidly gaining momentum and use over in Europe.
>>
>
> That is right, and the Committee is soon to be subjected to enormous
> political pressure (orchestrated from Redmond) to take on board
> OOXML despite its serious deficiencies as a standard.
>
>
Shen when the ISO approves a standard you like, it's because the ISO
is an independent authority that knows what it's talking about. But
when it approves a standard you don't like, it's cow-towing to
political pressure. Is that right?
peterwn
>
> Shen when the ISO approves a standard you like, it's because the ISO
> is an independent authority that knows what it's talking about. But
> when it approves a standard you don't like, it's cow-towing to
> political pressure. Is that right?
>
>
No. There is no existing ISO standard that I am aware of but I do not
like. I am unaware of any case where ISO or IEC has been bullied into
adopting a standard that is deficient in form. Note the past tense, I
do not have a crystal ball that would predict the outcome with
Microsoft's OXML.
Suffice to say that there seems to be some unease among some national
standards organisations (eg NZSA).
Funny how posters such as 'Micky Mouse' and 'Impossible' are coming out
of the woodwork when computer document standards are discussed.
Miguel
> it's cow-towing to political pressure. Is that right?
Cow-towing? Ouch.
Regards
Miguel
peterwn
maneuverings and lobbying that is going on, which does not occur for
standards relating to widgets, etc.
Maneuverings such as occurred in Massachusetts last year including a
planted untrue Boston Globe article accusing the State's IT director of
expenses fiddling. An inquiry totally and utterly exonerated him, but
things had been made so hot for him that he moved on.
impossible
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> Shen when the ISO approves a standard you like, it's because the
>> ISO is an independent authority that knows what it's talking about.
>> But when it approves a standard you don't like, it's cow-towing to
>> political pressure. Is that right?
> No. There is no existing ISO standard that I am aware of but I do
> not like.
My, aren't we the independent thinker.
> I am unaware of any case where ISO or IEC has been bullied into
> adopting a standard that is deficient in form. Note the past tense,
> I do not have a crystal ball that would predict the outcome with
> Microsoft's OXML.
>
Shen when the ISO approves a standard you like, it's because the ISO
an independent authority that knows what it's talking about. But
when it approves a standard you don't like, it's cow-towing to
political pressure. Is that right?
> Suffice to say that there seems to be some unease among some
> national standards organisations (eg NZSA).
Isn't there always. Whatever that means.
>
> Funny how posters such as 'Micky Mouse' and 'Impossible' are coming
> out of the woodwork when computer document standards are discussed.
>
>
Funny how posters like Peterwn feel so threatened by discussion. Check
your IBM talking points -- I think you're mispresenting their case.
impossible
news:4658...@clear.net.nz...
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:17:46 -0400, impossible wrote:
>
>>> enormous
>>> political pressure (orchestrated from Redmond) to take on board
>>> OOXML
>>> despite its serious deficiencies as a standard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Shen when the ISO approves a standard you like, it's because the
>> ISO is an
>> independent authority that knows what it's talking about. But when
>> it
>> approves a standard you don't like, it's cow-towing to political
>> pressure.
>> Is that right?
>
> be
> "cow-towing". Rather, Micro$oft has instigated a campaign to put
> this
> organisation under enormous political pressure.
>
> Unlike what IBM has done, you mean?
impossible
And your gossip source for this is who?
peterwn
> "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>
>
> And your gossip source for this is who?
>
>
Plenty of sources if you keep your eyes and ears open. Try
www.groklaw.net, slashdot.org and www.lamlaw.com for starters. This
will lead to other sources. The comp.os.linux.advocacy ng is another
good source of information. Patience is needed here, it tends to be
infested with Wintrolls.
Avoid sources that contain Microsoft advertising, they are too scared
stiff of losing their advertising revenue to stick their necks out.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
I wasn't, I was talking about maneouvrings.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Where do you attach the tow-rope?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> There is no existing ISO standard that I am aware of but I do not
> like.
OSI networking stack, anybody?
peterwn
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 00:43:31 -0400, impossible wrote:
>
>
> MS Office Open XML is not implemented by any office suite other than M$
> Office. The proposed standard is 4000 pages long,
I thought it was 6000 pages long (compared with the ISO ODF standard of
600 pages).
> and even then is
> incomplete - has parts with missing information that can only be accessed
> by getting access to proprietary information from Micro$oft.
mmmmm. This must be the other 2000 pages marked "REDACTED".
However, it seems some of this information may not be documented, it can
only be discerned from analysis of the source code (especially the
'buggy' parts which no one probably knows completely how they function).
> Not only
> that, but it conflicts with already existing published standards.
>
> If it is to be approved by the ISO/IEC then those aspects will need to be
> resolved.
>
>
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> ... and the Committee is soon to be subjected to enormous
> political pressure (orchestrated from Redmond) to take on board OOXML
> despite its serious deficiencies as a standard.
This item
<http://weblog.infoworld.com/realitycheck/archives/2007/05/odf_vs_openxml.html>
confirms that Microsoft has indeed been heavily lobbying behind the scenes
to get various organizations to endorse OOXML.
The commentary is also interesting. One reader says they use OpenOffice to
repair corrupted MS-Office documents. Another points out that the
journal "Science", for one, is banning the submission of MS-Office 2007
documents. The new version buggers up compatibility with MathML and
generally stuffs up the editorial workflow.
Also it appears Microsoft is trying to get people to call their
spec "OpenXML" instead of "OOXML". Which is odd, because the latter is the
official name of the ECMA standard that Microsoft sponsored.
Matty F
> "peterwn" <pete...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:46590bf8$1...@clear.net.nz...
>
>
>
> > impossible wrote:
> >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
> >> messagenews:f3ah1g$lun$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >>> Spencer wrote:
>
> >>>>> Microsoft is conducting a major international firefighting
> >>>>> operation to try and stop [ODF adoption] happening...
> >>>> I think you're talking a load of crap ...
> >>> Not according to various reports. Check this
> >>> for an example of the kinds of maneouvrings Microsoft is resorting
> >>> to.
>
> >> What "maneuverings" are you talking about? Gaining ISO approval of
> >> the Open XML standard?
> > Not gaining approval of ISO per se, but the various political
> > maneuverings and lobbying that is going on, which does not occur for
> > standards relating to widgets, etc.
>
> > Maneuverings such as occurred in Massachusetts last year including a
> > planted untrue Boston Globe article accusing the State's IT director
> > of expenses fiddling. An inquiry totally and utterly exonerated
> > him, but things had been made so hot for him that he moved on.
>
> And your gossip source for this is who?
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=2006031313140137&mode=print
in which the Boston Globe ombudsman Richard Chacon promised to
investigate how the article by Steve Kurkjian that helped to drive
Peter Quinn from office came to be written, but Chacon has not
responded.
And that Microsoft purchased an "Advertorial" on the editorial pages
of the Globe at about the time Steve Kurkjian 's false story appeared
on the front page of the Globe.
impossible
> In message <4658...@clear.net.nz>, peterwn wrote:
>
>> ... and the Committee is soon to be subjected to enormous
>> political pressure (orchestrated from Redmond) to take on board
>> OOXML
>> despite its serious deficiencies as a standard.
>
> This item
> <http://weblog.infoworld.com/realitycheck/archives/2007/05/odf_vs_openxml.html>
> confirms that Microsoft has indeed been heavily lobbying behind the
> scenes
> to get various organizations to endorse OOXML.
>
>
Interesting choice of blogs, because this one makes it clear that the
IBM lobby (ODF) and the Microsoft lobby (Open XML) are much of a
muchness.
"First let's make one thing clear. At the highest level, ODF (Open
Document Format) vs. OpenXML is a battle between two business
competitors, IBM and Microsoft, each of which views itself as
threatened by the other....
"Supported by Big Blue and many other high-tech companies, ODF is a
standard both of the ISO and OASIS, which has about 300 members.
OpenXML is supported by a smaller European standards group, ECMA
International, which has 21 members, 20 of which voted to make it a
standard, with only IBM voting no. OpenXML has also been proposed to
the ISO and will be voted on in September.
"If OpenXML adoption is preferred, it closes the door on the
opportunity for IBM to create a path to a myriad of IBM/Lotus
on-premises and Web 2.0 products for such things as collaboration,
unified communications, productivity software ,and even its WebSphere
middleware platform.
"If on the other hand, ODF adoption, especially with government
entities, grows over time it could have a viral effect and threaten
Microsoft's largest revenue producing product, Office, and help IBM
regain market share it lost to Outlook and Exchange Server as well."
impossible
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 00:47:32 -0400, impossible wrote:
>
>>> Maneuverings such as occurred in Massachusetts last year including
>>> a
>>> planted untrue Boston Globe article accusing the State's IT
>>> director of
>>> expenses fiddling. An inquiry totally and utterly exonerated him,
>>> but
>>> things had been made so hot for him that he moved on.
>>
>> And your gossip source for this is who?
>
> has
> been reported at the following URL, inter alia.
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39244400,00.htm
>
>
Oh, ok. So the guy who's treated to world conferences by the ODF
lobby, and doesn't declare who paid for the trips, writes a blog
exonerating himself from charges of corruption, and you cite this as
fact. You did read the original Boston Globe article, didn't you? This
is no different from any of of the dozens of influence-peddling
scandals that have hit the US in the past few years -- it's rarely
considered a good thing to allow goverenment officials responsible for
awarding contracts to be lavished with entertainment by the very
companies who stand to benefit from those contracts.
impossible
news:1180266780.4...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
ConsortiumInfo.org is an ODF lobby group. I would expect them to spin
this influence-peddling scandal much the way they have.
impossible
> impossible wrote:
>> "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>
>> And your gossip source for this is who?
>
> Plenty of sources if you keep your eyes and ears open. Try
> www.groklaw.net, slashdot.org and www.lamlaw.com for starters. This
> will lead to other sources. The comp.os.linux.advocacy ng is
> another good source of information. Patience is needed here, it
> tends to be infested with Wintrolls.
>
These are all ODF lobbyists. Ever considered reading a newspaper?
> Avoid sources that contain Microsoft advertising, they are too
> scared stiff of losing their advertising revenue to stick their
> necks out.
Ah, so that's your excuse for not reading newspapers. Still, you might
find the original Boston Globe story that broke this
influence-peddling scandal interesting.
Seems the ODF lobby got caught out lavishing entertainment on the
government official responsible for awarding IT contracts. Of course,
the ODF lobby has been trying ever since to make a hero out of this
guy. But corruption, once uncovered, is difficult to spin.
impossible
news:4659...@clear.net.nz...
>
> The ISO does not need to "cow-tow" - it is only concerned about
> producing
> good standards that are for all persons and all organisations to
> freely
> use.
>
> That is the whole point of having standards - to be used by all
> persons and
> all organisations to enable interoperability, or ease of use, or to
> ensure
> safety, or precision.
>
Nonsense. Standards are just another way to structure markets -- and
each has a history written by business organizations that have thrown
their weight behind one way of doing things and not another. Hence
today we have the ODF lobby, on one side, and the Open XML lobby on
the other. Take your pick, but don't try to claim that there is some
objective way of adjudicating between them. Each creates advantages
for some businesses, and disadvantages for others. Around the globe,
ISO product standards are being enforced by the WTO to redistribute
costs of production down the supply chain -- which is great if you're
a Eurpoean or North American buyer, but lousy otherwise, because you
have to eat the costs of doing things **their** way. You, of all
people, should know this, because you rail against ISO-WTO approved
DRM standards all the time. Wake up!
peterwn
> "Jonathan Walker" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> each has a history written by business organizations that have thrown
> their weight behind one way of doing things and not another.
Ah yes - this is the sort of thing that Microsoft tells its worldwide
shills to propagate.
No. The vast majority of standards - those for the mythical 'widget'
are reached through processes of consensus, so that manufacturers and
customers are on common ground to facilitate everyday trade and to set
standards for safety, interference and other factors. For example the
whole electricity 'food chain' relies on standards for orderly
procurement and setting of safety standards - right from generation to
ordinary home appliances.
Standards as a way to structure markets is the sort of things that large
monopoly businesses dream about as ways of maintaining monopolies, they
would like to 'buy off' the whole standards system to suit their ends.
One aspect of the battle at present is to preserve the integrity of the
standards system and organisations such as ISO.
If Microsoft wants OOXML adopted as an ISO standard, it must abide by
the rules and present it in proper form as a standard and allow it to be
considered on its merits. Instead Microsoft is using bullying and undue
political interference to try and force ISO to wheel Microsoft's Trojan
Horse into the ISO city.
impossible
> One aspect of the battle at present is to preserve the integrity of
> the standards system and organisations such as ISO.
>
The integrety of the ISO is not in question. What's in question is
whether government officials can be bribed to push one standard over
another, as in the case of the US state of Massachusetts, where the
ODF lobby was caught out trying to buy influence. If IBM wants ODF,
rather than OXML, adopted by governments, it must abide by the rules
and present its case in proper form and allow ODF to be considered on
its merits. Don't you think? Same goes for Microsoft.
peterwn
> "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:4659debb$1...@clear.net.nz...
>
>> One aspect of the battle at present is to preserve the integrity of
>> the standards system and organisations such as ISO.
>>
>
> The integrety of the ISO is not in question. What's in question is
> whether government officials can be bribed to push one standard over
> another, as in the case of the US state of Massachusetts, where the
> ODF lobby was caught out trying to buy influence.
Straight out lie. I have never heard this version anywhere before. The
IT chief was promoting an open standard file format for valid reasons
and was effectively rolled by Microsoft, whose methods included a
defamatory and patently false article planted in the Boston Globe
accusing the IT chief of criminal behaviour with respect to expenses.
Even if IBM allegedly had 'dirty hands' there, Microsoft's hands were
infinitely dirtier. Microsoft even dragged the matter of disabled
employees into the mire until Microsoft got blown apart on that one
(while MS Office has disabled support, it is provided by third parties
with little cooperation from Microsoft and the support is 'broken' when
MS upgrades and the support has to be patched and re-built).
If IBM wants ODF,
> rather than OXML, adopted by governments, it must abide by the rules
> and present its case in proper form and allow ODF to be considered on
> its merits. Don't you think? Same goes for Microsoft.
>
AFAIK IBM is abiding by the rules. There are many good and valid
reasons for IT managers to choose to adopt a truly open format that IBM
need not resort to skulduggery. The key thing here is that IBM is not
necessarily going to get all the ODF oriented business. You can set up
shop using ODF formats by selecting hardware and software from a variety
of sources.
impossible
> impossible wrote:
>> "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:4659debb$1...@clear.net.nz...
>>
>>> One aspect of the battle at present is to preserve the integrity
>>> of the standards system and organisations such as ISO.
>>>
>>
>> The integrety of the ISO is not in question. What's in question is
>> whether government officials can be bribed to push one standard
>> over another, as in the case of the US state of Massachusetts,
>> where the ODF lobby was caught out trying to buy influence.
>
> Straight out lie.
An inconvenient truth, I'm afraid.
> I have never heard this version anywhere before.
Because you read only blogs dominated by ODF lobbyists.
> The IT chief was promoting an open standard file format for valid
> reasons
> and was effectively rolled by Microsoft, whose methods included a
> defamatory and patently false article planted in the Boston Globe
> accusing the IT chief of criminal behaviour with respect to
> expenses.
The IT chief was getting toured around the world and lavished with
entertainment by the ODF lobby, and because revealing this fact would
have been embarassing to his pro-ODF campaign, he chose to hide those
details from his expense account. It was someone in the state
governor's office who blew the whistle on this arrangement, which is
forbidden by law for obvious reasons of transparency.
Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ
> Out of interest how many people so far have received .docx files (and the
> eqivalents for other Office 2007 components). If so who has:
> 1. Ignored them as being unable to read them.
> 2. Asked the sender to re-send in .odf, .pdf or .rtf etc
> 3. Downloaded the new 'filters' to read them with older Office software
> (especially those who have installed 'security' updates which slip in
> mechanisms to facilitate this).
> 4. Gone out and bought Office 2007
This is an interesting question and without wading too deeply into some of
the ill-informed commentary posted to-date here's what I would see as the
options available to you:
Option 1 (ignore):
This option doesn't strike me as being particularly service-centric so let's
move onto....
Option 2 (re-send):
You could get them to install the OpenXML/ODF Translator available from:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter/
I'm not exactly sure what you're using to open the doc's however YMMV if
you're using OpenOffice or KOffice
http://testsuite.opendocumentfellowship.org/summary.html
Another option is to get them to install the 'Save as PDF/XPS' add-on
available from:
But you won't be able to make changes to the document
Option 3 (open OpenXML doc's in older versions of Office):
This seems to me to be the easiest option in that you don't have to ask the
sender to change what they're doing and you don't need to buy any additional
software. The thing you need is the Office Compatability Pack and it works
with both OfficeXP and Office 2003:
Option 4 (buy Office 2007)
There are a bunch of good reasons to move to Office 2007 but, as you can see
from the above, file compatability isn't one the the main ones
HTH
Brett Roberts
Microsoft NZ
peterwn
subsequent inquiry (typical deceptive behaviour by a M$ shill), in fact
he had under-claimed on expenses. His travel was normal and legitimate
travel for someone in his position. In other words the innuendo in that
article was a load of utter bullshit - the journo involved was too lazy
to get off his fat arse and investigate. It was rather peculiar that
the heat got turned on him from all directions as he was quite
legitimately working on policies to ensure that State documents could be
properly archived, thus better securing the sovereignty of Government
business, and facilitating future competitive procurement. There was
also enormous pressure (and worse) placed on politicians to take
political control of IT procurement, something which is an
administrative matter, not a political matter.
It was apparent at the time that if 'action' was not taken by vested
interests, then this was going to spread like wildfire and software
procurement was going to become commoditised. This of course would have
been Bill Gates' and Steve Ballmer's worst nightmare. You admitted
yourself that Microsoft acted in response to a threat. Even if the
Globe article was planted from the Governor's office (and the Governor
was rather ambivalent about the whole thing at the time - he would not
want executive authority diminished), it was obviously orchestrated as
part of the whole process.
As for your claim that Microsoft's response was in response to IBM's
'improper' actions, that does not make sense at all. Microsoft and IBM
operate in quite different business areas. Microsoft is a software shop
- offering software that operates on PC's only plus a few Apple
applications. It does not even operate on IBM machines (apart from IBM
branded PC's which are now made and marketed by others). IBM is a
hardware shop specialising in 'big iron', which does not run Microsoft
software. Hence IBM was no threat to Microsoft's desktop market in
Massachusetts or anywhere else, meaning that IBM would have been
indifferent about office file formats. The only area of 'competition'
would seem to be whether government agencies used PC type servers
running Microsoft software or IBM 'big iron' (or Sun or other machines)
running some UNIX derivative for server and database duties. Hence
arguing that Microsoft was responding to a IBM threat over file formats
seems to be a red herring at best.
Actually your comments break some quite interesting ground. SCO has for
quite some time accused people in the open source community of being in
IBM's pocket and in particular that Pamela Jones (
http://www.groklaw.net ) was a paid IBM lackey. They even hired a
gumshoe to try and get the dirt on her with zero success. Now it seems
that Microsoft is accusing IBM of being responsible for the open source
community's attacks on Microsoft's FUD, protection racketeering, etc.
Mmmmm, very interesting.
.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> Option 4 (buy Office 2007)
> There are a bunch of good reasons to move to Office 2007 ...
Apart from the training costs to get your staff to adapt to a completely
different interface. Which would be less costly--migrating to MS-Office
2007, or migrating to OpenOffice.org? Somehow I think the latter would be
more familiar to your staff...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> ConsortiumInfo.org is an ODF lobby group.
And your gossip source for this is who?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> These are all ODF lobbyists.
And you are not an OOXML lobbyist?
Matty F
> "Matty F" <mattyf9...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:1180266780.4...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 27, 4:47 pm, "impossible" <anywh...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> And your gossip source for this is who?
>
>
> > in which the Boston Globe ombudsman Richard Chacon promised to
> > investigate how the article by Steve Kurkjian that helped to drive
> > Peter Quinn from office came to be written, but Chacon has not
> > responded.
> > And that Microsoft purchased an "Advertorial" on the editorial pages
> > of the Globe at about the time Steve Kurkjian 's false story
> > appeared
> > on the front page of the Globe.
>
> ConsortiumInfo.org is an ODF lobby group. I would expect them to spin
> this influence-peddling scandal much the way they have.
And how come you now know so much about ConsortiumInfo when a day ago
you knew nothing about the untrue slur about Peter Quinn by Steve
Kurkjian in the Boston Globe, in which Microsoft purchase
advertorials?
Fred Dagg
<l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> exclaimed:
LOL!
OOo is a pile of poo, and I've used all 3 (Office 2003, OOo and Office
2007) extensively.
Enkidu
>
> There are a bunch of good reasons to move to Office 2007 but, as you can
> see from the above, file compatability isn't one the the main ones
>
replaces the 'File' menu, I don't like the way that you click and that
enormous bar pops down with all the options and I don't like the way
that everything seems to take several clicks to find, unless you put it
in your 'Quick Launch' bar, where it is then an unorganised list. Some
things I haven't been able to locate yet!
I think it is a retrograde step to get rid of the menu bar.
And I *hate* it when the whole screen moves down one line because it has
just decided to tell you that you haven't yet sent your email!
Cheers,
Cliff
--
Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?
Warwick
> Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ wrote:
>>
>> Option 4 (buy Office 2007)
>> There are a bunch of good reasons to move to Office 2007 but, as you can
>> see from the above, file compatability isn't one the the main ones
>>
> I'm not impressed by Office 2007. I don't the big round button that
> replaces the 'File' menu, I don't like the way that you click and that
> enormous bar pops down with all the options and I don't like the way
> that everything seems to take several clicks to find, unless you put it
> in your 'Quick Launch' bar, where it is then an unorganised list. Some
> things I haven't been able to locate yet!
>
> I think it is a retrograde step to get rid of the menu bar.
>
> And I *hate* it when the whole screen moves down one line because it has
> just decided to tell you that you haven't yet sent your email!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
Agreed. I am using a brand new Toshiba laptop with Vista
business edition and office 2007 and I fucking hate it.
(it's not mine).
What is particularly annoying is the total lack of rationale
for the changes. Maybe somebody thinks it looks prettier or
tidier. Till I get used to it, I am calling it clumsy. And
vista on a brand new core duo is bloody slow. And it keeps
nagging me to give it permission to do things. I keep
yelling at it, "If I didn't want you to do it I wouldn't
have invoked the command in the first place you fucking
moron"., but coreduo and fingerprint scanner and they forgot
ears. It won't bloody listen.
--
cheers
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> for example: Line spacing in document headers like in MS Word
> 2.1.2.66 . IOW, it does not describe the behaviour - you'll need to find a
> copy of that ancient version, install it onto a PC that can actually run
> that version, and then *find out* what that behaviour is by trial & error.
For everyone's info, there's a detailed list of problems with OOXML here
<http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections>.
Read it and weep...
impossible
He certainly did not come out "squeaky clean". The ODF lobby paid for
most of his trips, and while you may not find that to be a conflict of
interest, Quinn himself seemed to think it was a detail worth keeping
under wraps. Yes, he under-claimed on expenses, but he also failed to
report the fact that the very companies who stood to gain from
adoption of ODF in Massachusetts were the ones who had picked up most
of the tab. If you think that this is "normal and legitimate" behavior
for a public official, then you've set the bar too low. Clearly, the
Massachusetts governor's office took a different view and pushed him
to resign.
> In other words the innuendo in that article was a load of utter
> bullshit - the journo involved was too lazy to get off his fat arse
> and investigate. It was rather peculiar that the heat got turned on
> him from all directions as he was quite legitimately working on
> policies to ensure that State documents could be properly archived,
> thus better securing the sovereignty of Government business, and
> facilitating future competitive procurement. There was also
> enormous pressure (and worse) placed on politicians to take
> political control of IT procurement, something which is an
> administrative matter, not a political matter.
>
These things are always political matters. How else do you explain the
ODF lobby and it's courting of the state's chief IT officer?
> It was apparent at the time that if 'action' was not taken by vested
> interests, then this was going to spread like wildfire and software
> procurement was going to become commoditised. This of course would
> have been Bill Gates' and Steve Ballmer's worst nightmare. You
> admitted yourself that Microsoft acted in response to a threat.
> Even if the Globe article was planted from the Governor's office
> (and the Governor was rather ambivalent about the whole thing at the
> time - he would not want executive authority diminished), it was
> obviously orchestrated as part of the whole process.
>
Again, you're just making this stuff up. If you've got a reputable
source, spill it.
> As for your claim that Microsoft's response was in response to IBM's
> 'improper' actions, that does not make sense at all. Microsoft and
> IBM operate in quite different business areas. Microsoft is a
> software shop - offering software that operates on PC's only plus a
> few Apple applications. It does not even operate on IBM machines
> (apart from IBM branded PC's which are now made and marketed by
> others). IBM is a hardware shop specialising in 'big iron', which
> does not run Microsoft software. Hence IBM was no threat to
> Microsoft's desktop market in Massachusetts or anywhere else,
> meaning that IBM would have been indifferent about office file
> formats. The only area of 'competition' would seem to be whether
> government agencies used PC type servers running Microsoft software
> or IBM 'big iron' (or Sun or other machines) running some UNIX
> derivative for server and database duties. Hence arguing that
> Microsoft was responding to a IBM threat over file formats seems to
> be a red herring at best.
>
You understand nothing. The stakes in the ODF-OXML battle are huge for
both IBM and Microsoft. Here's a nice summary from a blog referenced
by Lawrence in a previous post:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/realitycheck/archives/2007/05/odf_vs_openxml.html
"First let's make one thing clear. At the highest level, ODF (Open
Document Format) vs. OpenXML is a battle between two business
competitors, IBM and Microsoft, each of which views itself as
threatened by the other....
"Supported by Big Blue and many other high-tech companies, ODF is a
standard both of the ISO and OASIS, which has about 300 members.
OpenXML is supported by a smaller European standards group, ECMA
International, which has 21 members, 20 of which voted to make it a
standard, with only IBM voting no. OpenXML has also been proposed to
the ISO and will be voted on in September.
"If OpenXML adoption is preferred, it closes the door on the
opportunity for IBM to create a path to a myriad of IBM/Lotus
on-premises and Web 2.0 products for such things as collaboration,
unified communications, productivity software ,and even its WebSphere
middleware platform.
"If on the other hand, ODF adoption, especially with government
entities, grows over time it could have a viral effect and threaten
Microsoft's largest revenue producing product, Office, and help IBM
regain market share it lost to Outlook and Exchange Server as well."
Thinking that this debate then revolves around the technicalities of a
"standard" is simply naiive.
impossible
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
message news:f3doh9$h9f$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
ConsortiumInfo.org
"Mission: The goal of ConsortiumInfo.org is to be the most
comprehensive source of information on the Internet regarding
standards, standard setting, and open source software, and on the role
that these essential tools play in business and society."
"Audience: This site is intended for:
"Those forming or managing organizations that create, promote, or
advocate for standards or open source projects
"Those participating in such organizations
"Those studying standards, standard setting and/or open source
projects
"Policy makers wanting to know more about standards and/or open source
"Journalists wanting to know more about standards and/or open source,
or to follow news in the making in those areas "
impossible
news:1180332024....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 28, 2:36 am, "impossible" <anywh...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> ConsortiumInfo.org is an ODF lobby group. I would expect them to
>> spin
>> this influence-peddling scandal much the way they have.
>
> And how come you now know so much about ConsortiumInfo ...
Simply really. Type ConsortiumInfo.org. Go to the "About" page.
impossible
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:36:24 -0400, impossible wrote:
>
>> ConsortiumInfo.org is an ODF lobby group. I would expect them to
>> spin this
>> influence-peddling scandal much the way they have.
>
>
> He is a lawyer who is concerned about promoting standards of all
> sorts.
That's nice. But "he" is part of legal consortium that represents
clients with very specific interests. Among them, OASIS, which just
happens to be heavily invested in ODF.
>
impossible
news:465a...@clear.net.nz...
>
>>> That is the whole point of having standards - to be used by all
>>> persons
>>> and
>>> all organisations to enable interoperability, or ease of use, or
>>> to
>>> ensure
>>> safety, or precision.
>>>
>>>
>> Nonsense. Standards are just another way to structure markets
>
> I see.
>
> What market was "structured" by the ASCII standard?
>
> Prior to ASCII even each model of computer used it's own character
> set.
>
>
Since it's all just 0's and 1's, keycodes can theoretically be
arranged any which way. So why one way and not another? ASCII was
first adopted for commercial use by American Telephone and Telegraph,
which at the time (1963) was one of the biggest telecommunications
monopolies in the world. IBM and DEC, giants in their own right,
later adapted ASCII to the manufacture of pcs and terminals, and
everyone else simply followed their lead. Point is, ASCII didn't
prevail because it was "the best" in some abstract sense, but simply
because it had powerful early-adopters. ASCII wsn't particularly
controversial, of course -- no one was heavily invested in alternative
coding schemes -- so its structuring effect on the market for computer
hardware and software was negligible. In the case of document
formatting standards, however, the stakes are much higher, because IBM
would like to use ODF to supplant Microsoft's dominance of the desktop
software market and Microsoft, in turn, is trying to use OXML to
retain that advantage. In the end, the ISO will probably approve some
version of OXML as an alternative to ODF, and then it will be up to
users to choose between them -- that would be a victory for Microsoft
and a defeat for IBM, because most users concerned about
standardization would then probably stick with the tried-and-true
Microsoft desktop applications.
peterwn
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:27:48 +1200, peterwn wrote:
>
>>> The integrety of the ISO is not in question. What's in question is
>>> whether government officials can be bribed to push one standard over
>>> another, as in the case of the US state of Massachusetts, where the ODF
>>> lobby was caught out trying to buy influence.
>> Straight out lie. I have never heard this version anywhere before.
>
> ignorance on this point, and now it claims to believe the pro-micro$oft
> side is the One True Version of the story, despite many persons, including
> the governor of that state, publicly stating that Peter Quinn had done no
> wrong, and in fact had UNDER CLAIMED his expenses.
>
>
I agree. I have decided to give up on him. He is not the brightest of
Wintrolls. He seems quite happy to see teachers dispatched to the Gulag
and IT managers destroyed for daring to step on Microsoft's toes.
It seems that someone created 'Micky Mouse' and 'Impossible', made one
or two innocuous postings earlier on to give the names a thin veneer of
credibility and then reserve then for use to 'open fire' on those whose
postings are a threat to Microsoft. I hope that they are paying Disney
some royalties for the use of the name.
Interesting that in response to my previous e-mail he snipped out and
made no comments on Microsoft's FUD spreading and protection racketeering.
peterwn
> Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ wrote:
>
> I think it is a retrograde step to get rid of the menu bar.
>
> And I *hate* it when the whole screen moves down one line because it has
> just decided to tell you that you haven't yet sent your email!
>
Office and move on. There is about to be an interesting twist, since it
seems that about 25,000 copies of Open Office are about to be installed
on school computers in the very near future. See:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10442388&ref=rss
Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ
"Enkidu" <enkid...@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:465a8d1c$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
I would disagree with you about moving to the ribbon being a 'retrograde
step' but can empathise with some of the frustration. I'm a fairly heavy
user of Word, Excel and Powerpoint and have been using them since the first
versions were released. Personally, it took me a couple of hours of playing
around with the new menu layout to get comfortable enough with it to be able
to find the things I wanted so there's definitely a time investment required
when it comes to familiarisation. Now that I've been using Office 2007 for
(I guess) a year or so I find it very hard to go back to previous versions
when using friends' PC's. I watched my kids with interest when I installed
Office 2007 on my home PC's - I got a few questions from each of them the
first time they used either Word or Powerpoint and that was it. If 7, 11 and
13 year-old kids can get the hang of the new UI without re-training and
hours of downtime I think there's hope for the rest of us :-)
Brett Roberts
Microsoft NZ
Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ
You seem to have missed the last sentence of the article
Brett Roberts
Microsoft NZ
Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ
news:465a...@clear.net.nz...
>
>> Option 4 (buy Office 2007)
>> There are a bunch of good reasons to move to Office 2007
>
> 1/ Give lots more money to Micro$oft merely to have yet another version
> of MS Office.
> 2/ Waste even more money
> 3/ Force people to figure out how to use the non-standards compliant OOXML
> 4/ Waste losts of time uninstalling the old software only to install
> another version of the same application.
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Walker
>
> "You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
> bath and a short dress to get into."
Spoken like somebody who hasn't bothered to try Office 2007. FWIW, the
"couldn't do without" features of Office 2007 for me are:
- "hover to preview formatting" (I'm sure this has a cool name but it
escapes me for the minute)
- search in Outlook (a godsend for somebody who currently has 1955 emails in
his inbox)
- Smart Art (especially in Powerpoint)
- improvements in formatting tables etc in Excel
- the "to do" bar in Outlook
And yes, I've tried OpenOffice
Brett Roberts
Microsoft NZ
Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ
> In message <4658...@clear.net.nz>, peterwn wrote:
>
>> ... and the Committee is soon to be subjected to enormous
>> political pressure (orchestrated from Redmond) to take on board OOXML
>> despite its serious deficiencies as a standard.
>
> This item
> <http://weblog.infoworld.com/realitycheck/archives/2007/05/odf_vs_openxml.html>
> confirms that Microsoft has indeed been heavily lobbying behind the scenes
> to get various organizations to endorse OOXML.
>
> The commentary is also interesting. One reader says they use OpenOffice to
> repair corrupted MS-Office documents. Another points out that the
> journal "Science", for one, is banning the submission of MS-Office 2007
> documents. The new version buggers up compatibility with MathML and
> generally stuffs up the editorial workflow.
>
> Also it appears Microsoft is trying to get people to call their
> spec "OpenXML" instead of "OOXML". Which is odd, because the latter is the
> official name of the ECMA standard that Microsoft sponsored.
It's not Microsoft's spec - it's now ECMA's and it looks to me like they
call it "Office Open XML"
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm
http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20Paper.pdf
Brett Roberts
Microsoft NZ
Warwick
My Dad has just retired. He has always had lackeys to do
stuff for him and now he works for himself he has had to
learn about windows and office and I am one of the people
who has been teaching it to him.
He's about 65 and hates the whole thing. He says it treats
him like a dummy when he isn't one (and he isn't). I suspect
the ability to learn a new interface is inversely related to
age. So the hope gleaned from 7, 11, 13 year olds might
easily be a vain one.
As an aside, he bought the laptop specifically to access
email while he is in Europe. Reps have been here setting up
wireless, setting up a vodem (doesn't work with vista yet?)
etc etc. Somehow he was given the impression this would all
work seamlessly anywhere in the world. I didn't realise this
till just before he left. I started to explain about
webmail, internet cafe's and wireless hotspots. He says
'wait a minute. If I have to go to an internet cafe, what
exactly do I need a computer for?'. excellent question Dad.
He's left it behind.
--
cheers
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
really needs to learn how to edit his followups:
> "Jonathan Walker" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:465a...@clear.net.nz...
>
>> Hmmm...
>> 1/ Give lots more money to Micro$oft merely to have yet another version
>> of MS Office.
>> 2/ Waste even more money
>> 3/ Force people to figure out how to use the non-standards compliant
>> OOXML 4/ Waste losts of time uninstalling the old software only to
>> install another version of the same application.
>
> Spoken like somebody who hasn't bothered to try Office 2007.
And these are spoken like somebody who _has_ bothered to try it, but was
less than impressed: <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6183476.html>,
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1933229,00.asp>,
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2064247,00.asp>.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10442388&ref=rss
>
> You seem to have missed the last sentence of the article
Which, considering it's in direct contradiction to the main point (Microsoft
insisting on payment for unused copies), suggests it's just a quote from
Microsoft, not a statement of fact.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
OASIS is an industry body, sort of like ECMA, isn't it?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
> message news:f3doh9$h9f$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <84udnRvxeMcfCsTb...@comcast.com>,
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> ConsortiumInfo.org is an ODF lobby group.
>>
>> And your gossip source for this is who?
>
> ConsortiumInfo.org
>
> "Mission: The goal of ConsortiumInfo.org is to be the most
> comprehensive source of information on the Internet regarding
> standards, standard setting, and open source software, and on the role
> that these essential tools play in business and society."
And where do you get the conclusion that they are an ODF lobby group?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> It's not Microsoft's spec - it's now ECMA's ...
Can we quote you on that? Microsoft no longer makes any claims any rights
over OOXML? Such as patent rights?
a_l_p
When he comes back see if he'd rather have Ubuntu on it. It's easy to use and -
yes, I know JUST what he means by MS treating him like a dummy. That's why I
decided, as soon as I had read about this thing "Linux", that I wanted it. Not
that I can do much, mainly because not sufficiently motivated to learn new
applications, and that would have been the same whatever OS I had. But it's got
a low rate of over-nannying and dumb questions and deciding it knows what's best
for you. And yes, I haven't forgotten the topic and ambled into discussing NZ
politics.
A L P
Warwick
We have thought about it. My brother in law is the main guru
in charge of tutoring Dad. And he is a linux adherent.
Linux is the industrial strength OS and savvy users will get
a lot more from it. I suspect PC neophytes are better off
with windows, despite it's shortcomings.
I used ping and ipconfig while the rep was here trying to
set up the wireless network. I started to explain to Dad
what the command line was (I was bitching about not being
able to find it in Vista - no 'run' command on start menu)
and his eyes just glazed over. I don't think he is a
suitable candidate for Ubuntu.
--
cheers
Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
No need to quote me, check out:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA102057901033.aspx?pid=CL100796341033
under the "the covenant not to sue (CNS) approach for the license"
and:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/11/22/495876.aspx
"Microsoft irrevocably covenants that it will not seek to enforce any of its
patent claims necessary to conform to the technical specifications for the
Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas posted at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/understanding/xmloffice/default.aspx (the
"Specifications") against those conforming parts of software products. This
covenant shall not apply with respect to any person or entity that asserts,
threatens or seeks at any time to enforce a patent right or rights against
Microsoft or any of its affiliates relating to any conforming implementation
of the Specifications."
The latter was posted in November 2005 so it's hardly breaking news
Brett Roberts
Microsoft NZ
Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ
Fascinating. Two luke-warm perspectives and one not (you should read the
whole Peter Coffee article rather than just the headline). One of the
lukewarm articles appears to be written by a Google employee. What's next ?
The Groklaw review ? :-)
Brett Roberts
Microsoft NZ
Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ
"Warwick" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1pkaw95d6y7mm.j...@40tude.net...
try typing "run" or "cmd" in the Vista search bar
Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:f3frv1$c75$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Let's make that "Google employee and lead Samba developer". I promise not to
post Open Office reviews by BillG if you promise to vet yours a little more
carefully in the future. Handy link for future reference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective (see item 5)
Brett Roberts
Microsoft NZ
impossible
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
> In message <cbydnSm3MpcOdMfb...@comcast.com>,
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
>> message news:f3doh9$h9f$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> In message <84udnRvxeMcfCsTb...@comcast.com>,
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> ConsortiumInfo.org is an ODF lobby group.
>>>
>>> And your gossip source for this is who?
>>
>>comprehensive source of information on the Internet regarding
>>standards, standard setting, and open source software, and on the
>>role
>>that these essential tools play in business and society."
>>
>>
>>"Those forming or managing organizations that create, promote, or
>>advocate for standards or open source projects
>>
>>"Those participating in such organizations
>>
>>"Those studying standards, standard setting and/or open source
>>projects
>>
>>"Policy makers wanting to know more about standards and/or open
>>source
>>
>>"Journalists wanting to know more about standards and/or open
>>source,
>>or to follow news in the making in those areas " >
> And where do you get the conclusion that they are an ODF lobby
> group?
How pathetic, Lawrence! Ever thought of investigating anything for
yourself? These are lawyers, and one of their main clients is OASIS.
Do I have to spoell it out for you? L-O-B-B-Y-I-S-T-S.
Miguel
> I know JUST what he means by MS treating him like a dummy.
> ...this thing "Linux" [has] got a low rate of over-nannying and dumb
> questions and deciding it knows what's best for you.
> And yes, I haven't forgotten the topic
Off-topic as well but this thread pretty much became "he said she said" a
while ago, so...
What you've just posted was exactly what I've been thinking over the last
few weeks as I've been playing around with the Xubuntu Terminal a.k.a
command line interface.
I got a book (remember those?) from the library (remember that?) which
gave some basic examples of command line instructions.
It's absolutely staggering what the command line can do. I'm pretty sure
it would take ages to master. But, if you did, you'd have your computer
jumping through hoops whilst the rest of us are googling for a freeware
"jumping through hoops" programme which may (or may not) do the job.
I never used the command line at all in my MS days as everything is
dished up to you. The operating system and programmes do their job as
they've been programmed. No complaints there, unless you want something
which the programme doesn't provide...
If you want to actually feel like *you're* in control of your computer
(not just reacting to the programmes) then the command line is the way to
go.
I'm guessing veteran command line users will wonder why I'm so impressed
as to them it's old hat. I believe it's been around in one form or
another since the late sixties.
But for the first time in my sad life I actually feel a bit geek-ish.
It's not for everyone I admit but it doesn't feel like something to be
ashamed of.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing.
Regards
Miguel
impossible
Yes. And ConsortiumInfo.org is one of their mouthpieces. Get it?
Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ
news:f3g5o1$oto$1...@aioe.org...
You might be interested in PowerShell (formerly codenamed "Monad"):
http://blogs.msdn.com/powershell/default.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell
Brett Roberts
Microsoft NZ