Comments on: The Most Important Reason OOXML Should Be Defeated http://www.linuxloop.com/2008/09/02/the-most-important-reason-ooxml-should-be-defeated/ Linux news, Ubuntu news, open-source software reviews, and Ubuntu tutorials Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:01:09 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Drummer http://www.linuxloop.com/2008/09/02/the-most-important-reason-ooxml-should-be-defeated/comment-page-1/#comment-1413 Drummer Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:29:27 +0000 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/?p=587#comment-1413 "I had a printed version, a version saved out of Microsoft Office 2007 (for the record, I made that document on someone else’s computer), and a version saved in the Open Document format (ODF). Unfortunately, where I was, I only had access to Microsoft Office 2003 and no ability to install software." So... that means you also must not have had a machine with a copy of any software that would have read the ODF version of the document either. And since you couldn't install any software, you couldn't download a copy [e.g. "Open Office"] to use on that machine. You were stuck re-typing. Let's say that the Office2007 version of the document didn't exist either. You'd still have had to re-type it because an ODF-compatible program was not on the computer, and you had "no ability to install software." I'm sorry, but that part of your story seems a bit of a red-herring. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a fan of Microsoft and definitely not of Office 2007. But you had a document in two newer formats (ODF and pseudo-OOXML) and ONLY complain that the MSO2007 version was unreadable (when both were) seems... well, silly. As I noted above, I'm not a fan of Microsoft. I've personally installed OOo on over a dozen of machines at work, and I use it virtually exclusively over the pre-installed MSO2000 that most of the office uses. I only use OOo (a beta of 3.0) at home, with excellent compatibility toward my co-workers files. I run Linux or MacOS at home, and I've clandestinely installed a dual-boot of XP & Linux on my PC at work (some things just work a lot easier on Linux) but run XP all but about 1 hr/week at work. Despite our IT department head insisting that we should all be moving to MSO2007, there are actually fewer machines at work with it installed than with OOo 2.4 - most who received the "upgrade" bitched so much that it was removed and MSO2000 was re-installed. I work for a non-profit, and most of our PCs have processors running well under 1GHz, so Vista & MSO2007 are really out of their league in terms of processing requirements. As noted in another post, the ISO has given its blessing to this stillborn child of Microsoft. Nevertheless, some countries have now rejected the idea that this "standard" is valid and will not use OOXML in their governmental documentation. BRAVO! I wish more nations would get some cojones and do the same. See - http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080901094932564 “I had a printed version, a version saved out of Microsoft Office 2007 (for the record, I made that document on someone else’s computer), and a version saved in the Open Document format (ODF). Unfortunately, where I was, I only had access to Microsoft Office 2003 and no ability to install software.”

So… that means you also must not have had a machine with a copy of any software that would have read the ODF version of the document either. And since you couldn’t install any software, you couldn’t download a copy [e.g. "Open Office"] to use on that machine. You were stuck re-typing.

Let’s say that the Office2007 version of the document didn’t exist either. You’d still have had to re-type it because an ODF-compatible program was not on the computer, and you had “no ability to install software.”

I’m sorry, but that part of your story seems a bit of a red-herring. Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT a fan of Microsoft and definitely not of Office 2007. But you had a document in two newer formats (ODF and pseudo-OOXML) and ONLY complain that the MSO2007 version was unreadable (when both were) seems… well, silly.

As I noted above, I’m not a fan of Microsoft. I’ve personally installed OOo on over a dozen of machines at work, and I use it virtually exclusively over the pre-installed MSO2000 that most of the office uses. I only use OOo (a beta of 3.0) at home, with excellent compatibility toward my co-workers files. I run Linux or MacOS at home, and I’ve clandestinely installed a dual-boot of XP & Linux on my PC at work (some things just work a lot easier on Linux) but run XP all but about 1 hr/week at work.

Despite our IT department head insisting that we should all be moving to MSO2007, there are actually fewer machines at work with it installed than with OOo 2.4 – most who received the “upgrade” bitched so much that it was removed and MSO2000 was re-installed. I work for a non-profit, and most of our PCs have processors running well under 1GHz, so Vista & MSO2007 are really out of their league in terms of processing requirements.

As noted in another post, the ISO has given its blessing to this stillborn child of Microsoft. Nevertheless, some countries have now rejected the idea that this “standard” is valid and will not use OOXML in their governmental documentation. BRAVO! I wish more nations would get some cojones and do the same. See -
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080901094932564

]]> By: David Claughton http://www.linuxloop.com/2008/09/02/the-most-important-reason-ooxml-should-be-defeated/comment-page-1/#comment-1412 David Claughton Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:57:40 +0000 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/?p=587#comment-1412 Erm, sorry to be one to break it to you, but OOXML has been an ISO standard for almost three weeks! See http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1151. It a travesty every which way you look at it, but it looks like its a done deal now :-( Erm, sorry to be one to break it to you, but OOXML has been an ISO standard for almost three weeks!

See http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1151.

It a travesty every which way you look at it, but it looks like its a done deal now :-(

]]>