Slashdot Log In
Michael Meeks On ODF and OOXML
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Sep 29, 2007 07:05 PM
from the down-with-clippy dept.
from the down-with-clippy dept.
biscuitfever11 writes "ZDNet has up a great interview with Michael Meeks, the distinguished Novell engineer, who's currently deeply involved in open document format and OpenOffice.org. In the interview, Meeks takes Microsoft to task on its alternative format OOXML and argues that Microsoft should adopt ODF — but says that realistically they never will. He also mentions his favorite example to explain the benefits of open source software to a nontechnical person: the flexibility of open source would have allowed us to free ourselves from Clippy, the world's most despised paperclip, by changing a single line of code."
Related Stories
[+]
Sun Refuses LGPL for OpenOffice; Novell forks 258 comments
TRS-80 writes "Kohei Yoshida wrote a long post on the history of Calc Solver, an optimization solver module for the Calc component of OpenOffice.org. After three years of jumping through Sun's hoops on his own time, Sun says it will duplicate the work because Kohei doesn't want to sign over ownership of the code. Adding insult to injury, Sun then invites him join this duplication. Because of Sun's refusal to accept LPGL extensions in the upstream code, Michael Meeks (who recently talked about Sun's OO.o community failings, and ODF and OOXML) has announced ooo-build (previously just for build fixes) is now a formal fork of OpenOffice to be located at http://go-oo.org/. "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
No way, given half a chance (Score:3, Funny)
' remove MS cruft:
' AssistantLoad "clippy.acs"
AssistantLoad "Tux.acs"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet everytime somebody talks about thebenefits of OS everubody uses the woruls *COULD*. Yes, you *could* do that, but you knoe any normal persson/busnes with the right knowlege/time/money in their hands to make such a hugh and potentially dangerous customization? Hell, I'll better pay for a closed source solution in that case. The quest
Re:No way, given half a chance (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, years ago when I worked for Best Buy, the techs used a fairly standard trouble ticket and inventory app (I'll be damned if I can remember the name), but it was rebranded as "STAR" by best buy and integrated with the POS software to a certain extent. I later worked at Capital One where they used the exact same application by it's normal name, but highly modified the interface to their needs (which Best Buy also almost surely did). We had a scripted tool built around some user migration tools MS provides to move user data from one computer to another. At the place I work now we use a modified Bugzilla and we're far from a large company. And as already mentioned, pretty much every large company has their own custom images for computers with software packages and versions that have been tested and verified to work together.
Parent
Re:No way, given half a chance (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole kernel hacking grandma is a misnomer when it comes to company's, even small ones, mainly because they either have access to technical experience, or they aren't getting even close to the most out of their IT systems (FOSS or Proprietary).
You have small organisations that tend to use stuff "out of the box", which basically means they don't. nor have the expertise to, use the more useful features within the software they already own. Things like Windows Update Server, Remote Installation Services, Active Directory, Print Servers, IIS, it all gets ignored, at best you might have a file server and a load of desktops. So in that instance they would benefit from some IT expertise regardless of whether they are using FOSS or not *and* if they need to grab someone with IT experience anyway then they could replace windows with an open OS and see many benefits, without modifying a single piece of code.
These small organisations wouldn't even consider looking at bespoke proprietary software, and the normal COTS products wont be perfect for them, so its not like they lose anything moving to OSS, and they can gain rather a huge amount, not to mention the fact that many small (as in cheap enough for SME's) software packages from less well known vendors are not exactly very good to begin with, all those crappy PHP CMS's et al you see in the OSS world also exist in proprietary land, except there you need to pay for them, and you cant fix them yourself.
So how do you get the benefits of a working complete, comprehensive secure and stable system, whilst still having a large amount of choice *and* the ability to get modifications made if you wish (and at a more reasonable price than having something custom made/faster than having a vendor provide a patch)? Easy use OSS software. It gives choice, doesn't stop you using proprietary software where it is best, doesn't lock you in and best of all doesn't inhibit growth due to licensing costs, and scalability issues.
If you do switch, don't do it everywhere at once if you don't want to (don't do some bits at all if you prefer), a gradual transition is possible, and probably easier. That leaves you with a choice. Oh and get someone to do it for you or with you, (that goes for an OSS or a MS based system, IT systems can make such a huge difference to a company that it is worthwhile contacting your local IT people, or even better a local college and trying to get someone to help you out. Any small business that goes down the 100% MS route will find itself without any *viable* options at all a short way down the road.
Having said all the above I should point out that I would find it extremely difficult to put myself into a non IT literate company owners shoes and figure out what I would see as best, I would guess choice stability, reliability, scalability, security etc.. would be good, but sometimes you just want to be able to point out you spent X thousands on a new IT system over lunch, and make your friends jealous.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If, say, WordPerfect were open source I could very likely be using it today on OS X... instead, it's dead on the Mac, and so I have a painful time whenever I need to open one of my old WordPerfect files. Microsoft Office and Wind
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point.
I turned off the office assistant numerous times.
It always managed to pop back up eventually.
If someone could have changed a couple of lines of code and compiled it for me so the assistant would stay off, I would have appreciated it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clippy is not a very compelling argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The worlds most despised minimize animation... (Score:3, Insightful)
No patch needed (Score:2, Informative)
Retraining compared to the ribbon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Don't forget the file formats. (Score:2, Insightful)
#1. MSOffice 2007 for each person.
#2. MSOffice 2007 training for each person.
#3. MSOffice 2007 deployment to each person.
OpenOffice.org costs:
#1. OOo deployment to each person.
With MSOffice 2007, due to the default file format issue, EVERYONE has to get it AT THE SAME TIME. Or they won't be able to open the documents that other people are creating. And they all have to be trained to use it. And it has to be rolled out to all of them.
And all that within the same short time frame.
With Open
Clippy (Score:5, Insightful)
Not being anti-OOS in any way, and there are many instances when editing a few lines WOULD make a difference in the usefulness of software (Windows Firewall sure comes to mind), but this is not one of them. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Young padawan, this is an option that has been added after several *years* of impossible to disable clippy.
Re:Clippy (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Clippy! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
summing up OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
This is also a prime example of where OSS fails too. How many basic users would be able to even compile a version with the altered code, let alone alter the codes themselves? Heck even finding a specific "no clippy" version among a variety of differently configured distributions could prove too taxing. Microsoft's approach to clippy is that if you hide it 3 times in general usage it'll present a user with an option to turn it off and it'll never appear again (provided you've a well configured server). An "if you don't like it, change it" approach simply isn't as effective as good interface usability testing when you're dealing with a userbase comprised of vastly different skill levels.
Re: (Score:2)
A better question would be "how many linux distribution would ship a version with the altered code". It is the job of the distribution to fix minor annoyances like this depending on what its users want.
summing up people who don't understand OSS (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not Capt. MS Office (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It always managed to eventually pop back up.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft and killing their main revenue source (Score:3, Informative)
So, "Microsoft adopting ODF"? Or even "Microsoft not sabotaging ODF plugins"? No freaking way.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter ... we are screwed either way. (Score:4, Interesting)
By the way, what do you think the result will be in a year when we start seeing Samba 4 AD? MS will attack again with even harsher resolve/.
Re:It doesn't matter ... we are screwed either way (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter ... we are screwed either way (Score:3, Insightful)
When you get a .docx file you can't read, you say the same thing Office 2003 users say... "I can't open DOCX files, send it in DOC". The only difference is that Office 2k3 has Office 2k7 format plugins, but really, only the people who already know about them are probably going to be finding and using them.
Furthermore, considering that OOXML is basically Office 2k3 formats converted to plaintext and zipped up, I'd have thought there would ALREADY be support in OO.org by now... at least, soon. OOXML was m
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't matter ... we are screwed either way (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is a port of the Novell plugin for Ubuntu Feisty at Getdeb:
http://www.getdeb.net/app.php?name=OpenOffice.org+OpenXML+Translator [getdeb.net]
I have installed it and tried it out on various random .docx files I
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any proposed changes would have been evaluated, and if the different vendors reached a consensus that the changes provided a valid benefit, then they would have been accepted.
Many of the garbage that microsoft put into ooxml would probably have been rejected, because it provides no benefit to end users or any vendor except microsoft. Similarly, any requirements without full implementation details would have been rejected.
Isn't clippy also in OpenOffice? (Score:2, Informative)
Well, at least the OpenOffice clippy hasn't told me anything so far. It's just there, on the bottom of my screen smiling and cheerfully eating up a little bit of the mem
Not a great example (Score:3, Insightful)
Or.... like every other user in the world - just turn, clippy, off.
Code changes are not always a solution.
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.odfalliance.org/members.php#viewall [odfalliance.org]
Now perhaps you would care to answer the original question: why are two standards better than one ?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If you've been employed in a position to make buying decisions and you don't understand why open formats are valuable, your HR department should be sacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if there was an office suite that had 100% of the market, that would be prone to collapsing due to internal quibbling. However the beauty of open standards is that anyone, open and closed, can produce an office suite that utilizes the standard.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If your boss will fire you because a network card failed the business is doomed.
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, $60,000. For 164 person company.
We're a little over a 100 people and we spend over $500,000 a year on a single contract.
Why would Apache "fail"?
And why would anyone not directly involved in it even know what you're running?
But you said, and I quote "I make buying decisions".
Noooooo...... What is "holding OSS back" is the fact that all those companies have LARGE investments in their current systems.
It takes a LONG time for companies to migrate from something that is working TODAY that they know how to support TODAY and that has been paid for TODAY.
That depends upon what you mean by "established".
Microsoft has a MONOPOLY. Therefore, they are going to be around for a LONG time.
People will continue to buy from Microsoft because it is what they know and what they use and what works.
Free software (as in speech) will be taken up by non-US governments and such. It's easier to pitch a change there when you can show $X (or whatever the local medium of exchange is) being sent to Redmond, Washington, USofA instead of into the local economy.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a rolling budget that I have access to without having to submit pre-approved expenditures for. It's primarily used for replacing user PCs, phones, etc, which is why I mentioned it here. I can request as much as I want, I just don't always get it. For example, we moved to SAM-FS last year for recovery and it cost us a pretty penny thanks to a subsidiary that has an assload of data, but I had to request pre-approval for the expenditure.
Ah, yes, the hubris of the OSS community... forgot to mention that.
Apache can "fail" for many reasons. Your excessively technical question suggests to me that you're not very involved in the business. Regardless of why apache "fails" - be it because of some flaw in the program or because of a simple hardware failure - if apache is new apache is blamed. This is just how it is, unfair as it may be. I inherited IIS from my predecesor (who was, admittedly, clueless) and I won't risk my job switching to apache. The simple fact is that 99% of the failures in IIS can be patched or solved with a reboot and I come out the other side looking better for "fixing" the problem.
Perverse? You betcha. But I'm not a big enough man to risk my career for a technological principle, is what it all comes down to.
Again: when I'm the guy who's hiring for the position I'm in, we'll make some changes. Until then?
Not a bloody chance.
You'd be surprised. We deal one-on-one with a lot of businesses and I can't see too many of them running their own vertical apps. That being the case, most of them could switch to OSS/ODF with minimal effort and a moderate investment in training, they just choose not to for the same reasons I won't switch my people: if it goes wrong, I take the blame from higher-ups and I'm the one who's out of a job.
Parent
Huh? x2 (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot forecast when to replace PC's? And you have 160+ users?
Huh?
Huh?
Even at 100+ users, we lease our workstations and replace them every 3 years. It's a known cycle and they're under warranty. Not to mention that there aren't any surprises for Accounting for the next 3 years.
Yeah, maybe you could just answer the question, okay?
Yeah, maybe you could just answer the question, okay?
Yeah, the question, care to answer it?
How would they KNOW it was Apache? You haven't answered that question, either.
I didn't ask if it was "unfair".
I asked how Apache would "fail" and how they'd even know that it was Apache.
You have not answered either of those questions.
Seeing as how you cannot answer either of those questions and you think $60,000 is a lot of money for a business and you cannot even forecast workstation purchases
I've been deploying Linux throughout the company I work at. And no one can tell the difference. As long as the service is available, they're happy.
Here's a free clue. Hardware fails. Real professions know this and have already taken steps to mitigate such failures. If a drive dies on your Apache server, the end users should not ever know about it.
If you're claiming that they'll be complaining about running Apache when that happens
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
We have a LINE OF CREDIT with certain companies that we use to REPLACE or UPGRADE phones and PCs. Beyond that, I have to submit a budget and it has to be approved. I've done this in three different companies, so I'm thinking this is perfectly normal.
You're just being a dickhead for the sake of it. It doesn't matter why apache "fails". If the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're not competent to set up fallover support on a webserver so it'll cope with a dying hardware component, it is your fault, and you should be blamed if it's not "accesible"[sic].
The picture I'm getting here is that incompetent admins LIKE
I'm going to agree with you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any competent admin can keep IIS running. Any competent admin can keep Apache running.
And NONE of the users would even KNOW what webserver was running. My users don't know that I'm running Exim4. They don't know that ClamAV blocks the viruses. They only care about the SERVICE. And they're very happy with the service.
If you have to reboot IIS to get "kudos", then you're incompetent. That is all.
Competent admins get "kudos" for helping the end users perform their jobs faster and/or easier and for fixing the "I accidentally deleted an important document" problems.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lemme just step in right here. I don't think he's being a dickhead for the sake of being a dickhead. You're talking about two systems that purportedly do the same thing, but one of them is ridiculously flexible where the other one will only work on certain hardware, one is free whereas the other costs money, one is maintained by a vigilant community that fixes bugs quickly most of the time and the other one is maintained by an entrenched monopoly with no reason to improve itself. Also, in my own experience
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)