As an addendum, yesterday
we mentioned the latest OOXML slam from Rob Weir. To repeat
what was said:
OOXML: The Formula for Failure
[...]
As I've shown, in the rush to write a 6,000 page standard in less than a year, Ecma dropped the ball. OOXML's spreadsheet formula is worse than missing. It has incorrect formulas that, if implemented according to the standard may cause loss of life, property and capital. This standard is seriously messed up. And shame on all those who praised and continue to praise the OOXML formula specification without actually reading it.
Rob talked about some of the mind-blowing problems with the specifications. It is clear that working on a program without specifications for many years leads to
non-elegant inelegant [Thanks, John] code, workarounds, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and some 'features' that are intended to make different versions of the same software incompatible (to force upgrades and thereby elevate revenues). Writing (or rather "deriving") specifications from 20 years of coding is no way to write a specification. It's just a description of a program, with its bugs and deficiencies included.
An
ongoing analysis of OOXML, to be carried out by a technical committee, will lead the way to a
working group meeting. They can already see deficiencies. Read their observations carefully:
"OpenXML is designed to represent the existing corpus of documents faithfully, even if that means preserving idiosyncrasies that one might not choose given the luxury of starting from a clean slate. In the ODF design, compatibility with and preservation of existing Office documents were not goals. Each set of goals is valuable; sacrificing either at the expense of the other may not be in the best interest of users." (p.6 Ecma Response)
As usual, the smart folks from OpenMalaysiaBlog have produced a
fairly comprehensive and well-studied article. It demonstrates the serious problems which Rob refers to.
[OOXML:] Mathematically Incorrect
[...]
So when it comes to comparing MSOOXML and ODF v1.0 on the basis of the inclusion of "Formula Definitions", it becomes clear that the anti-ODF folk have not much to shout about. In fact MSOOXML's "Formula Definition" is deficient and inaccurate.
Can Novell (and particularly de Icaza) still praise OOXML? Can they truly recommend it, invest resources in it, and imply it is the way to go (or at least suggest it's an acceptable specification)? This whole scenario is worrisome. Is
this what Novell got paid over $300,000,000 to do (at least in part)? Whose side are they committed to? The Free software community, which supplied all the software? Or is it Microsoft, which has just
betrayed Novell? Perhaps the Jim Allchin comment on
"slaughtering Novell" should have served as a clue. Microsoft only embraces in order to weaken and destroy (not only ODF, but also Novell).
This debate about document formats continues. Simon Phipps of Sun Microsystems
has published his own bits of advocacy in his professional Web log. He distinguishes between standards that serve companies and standards that serve the customer (that's where
preservation and portability, for example, play a significant role).
There are plenty of examples of a choice of "standards" in our lives (usually validated in some way by a vendor body), but I have yet to find one that actually leads to a benefit to the customer.
Yesterday we talked about some unfortunate news.
TurboLinux's involvement in this 'scandal' must now be taken into consideration. I have not read the press release at the time. The press release came from Redmond (not TurboLinux). There were hints there which expose Microsoft's trick of shoving in proprietary formats through the desktop monopoly. TurboLinux has apparently been paying Microsoft for the right to play media files encoded using proprietary code. Novell was
indirectly involved in something similar. This leads to Linux 'taxation'. OOXML achieves exactly the same thing. That's why it must be rejected. The world has already got a single, unified document standard.
Comments
Stephen
2007-07-11 08:41:33
Francis
2007-07-11 09:38:39
I think you mean s/ODF/OOXML/.
Roy has got it mixed up though. Novell are huge supporters of ODF; they are part of the ODF alliance. See Novell statement on file formats for office applications.
Unfortunately sites like this tend to pose interoperability with OOXML as something inherently evil, which is actually a little crazy (this is one of the most-needed things to ensure a proper migration to Linux). A couple of very vocal people (i.e. this website) go on about this, while other distributions very happily include all interoperability features that Novell introduce into OOo. A good example is OpenOffice.org support for Excel VBA.
Kind of similar to the really quite comical statements made on this site about Mono. Despite what you think, Roy, your statements on Mono and interoperability are unsubstantiated and are anything but representative of the community (or do you want me to start naming all the distributions that are grateful to have such code? Hint: this includes the distribution you use).
John Drinkwater
2007-07-11 10:45:35
Stephen, you meant Miguel "recommends" OOXML? Of course he does, he thinks open-source (but not free) implementations of Microsoft standards are the way to go. Read his blog.
John Drinkwater
2007-07-11 10:58:54
Francis Giannaros
2007-07-11 11:13:28
* the statement was that Novell and Miguel recommend OOXML, which is patently false. * Interesting. I read his blog too, I've never seen that. Please point to a specific blog post where OOXML is recommended over ODF or retract your statement. I promise you that you won't find any such statement. * you do know that Mono is free software, right? See http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing
Francis Giannaros
2007-07-11 11:26:00
ODF will still always be the default on OOo and all Novell/SUSE products. As ODF increases in popularity use OOXML can be completely phased out. Let me repeat: _no-one_ in Novell is pushing for OOXML; they're part of the ODF alliance. Novell have just (again) taken it on themselves to implement a very much needed selection of features that we all want.
You don't want particular things in OOo? I'm sorry, but millions of others do. And as always, those who code decide.
Shane Coyle
2007-07-11 11:27:43
But, I can't say I recall Miguel or Novell mentioning a preference for OOXML, just the desire to read and write it. I mean, ODF is still default in Novell OOO, right? (Francis just answered that while I was typing, see above)
The problem with OOXML compatibility is it's impossible, the standard is absurd and relies on proprietary information and features for full implementation.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-07-11 12:20:37
@ Stephen:after writing that sentence (I typically write in a single quick pass) I had second thoughts, so I added in brackets "or [Novell] at least suggest it’s an acceptable specification". I realised at the time that what I had typed went a bit over the line.
@ Francis: I know people who like Mono and do not fear it. Often I just feel like it's a case of blissful ignorance. They don't realise that they rely on patented technology that could one day have a real cost (not necessarily just monetary). Just look how Red Hat escapes MP3 and recall the lawsuit filed against Microsoft.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-07-11 13:25:12
http://www.wictorwilen.se/Post/Does-the-size-matter.aspx
Look! Pro-Microsoft Web site uses de Icaza's arguments to defend the 'monopoly enabler' and fight ODF.
Not surprising at all...
Stephen
2007-07-11 13:35:17
A previous poster hits the nail on the head in saying that users of Microsoft products will not move until there is full interoperability. And this goes beyond mere office formats, which are a start, but we need...
- MS Project - MS Visio - Adobe
Oh, hang on - Novell did this survey years ago ;-)
The reality, right now is that F/OSS equivalents don't exist (and don't sell Planner and Dia here, please, you know what I mean!)
Francis
2007-07-11 15:02:58
> Francis, you do know that Novell made a patent deal with Microsoft that covers all previous infractions before the deal by both parties, then Novell agreed to pay MS royalties going forward for a promise not to pursue their supposed patent rights - including Mono patents, right?
Great! Now let me see any evidence. You know just as well as I do that there is no general agreement to not sue each company. Microsoft can still sue Novell for patent infringement, and Novell can still sue Microsoft.
Curious that you bring Mono in, since I hope you know that mono is specifically a community project. I mean, there are even Mono patents on the OIN list; yes, the OIN which Novell is a founding member of. Nice of them, isn't it?
> The problem with OOXML compatibility is it’s impossible, the standard is absurd and relies on proprietary information and features for full implementation.
Why exactly do you have a problem with Novell implementing interoperability features, then? You know that OOo will always be under a free software license.
Roy,
Even if you had any weight in which to back up your argument, it's a little arrogant from you again to suppose that all popular community distributions have got things with mono patents and that all distributions (Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu, Debian, etc) are in a state of "ignorant bliss" by including mono. Anyway, the reason isn't because people like being in ignorant bliss, but because they can all read FAQs.
The link you provided shows Miguel criticizing a technical shortcoming (as he sees it) of ODF. What exactly is your problem with that? Miguel is one of the most respected developers in open source, and if you think developers shouldn't voice any technical problems (valid or not) with free software then you're probably hanging around in the wrong community.
shane coyle
2007-07-11 17:05:18
Anyhow, here is the evidence of Novell's patent deal with Microsoft.
Enjoy.
Sebastiaan Veld
2007-07-12 21:04:21
Novell denies there are any patents violated. Tough MS migh have wanted this patent 'protection' part in the whole package deal with Novell, that makes patent violation itself in Linux and other software not true.
Miguel de Icaza
2007-07-13 00:16:21
To the commenter above: I have never recommended OOXML, not once. You guys can not make an argument without making some shit up to prove your point.
My actual discussion on OOXML and ODF is here: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html
Not once have I advocated the use of OOXML over ODF. All I have tried to do is to stand against the FUD that people have engaged against OOXML.
I believe that we -the open source community- can take the high road and not use FUD to promote our agenda. I do not believe in using fear tactics against others to prove my point.
I advocate the support for OOXML in our products, but that does not mean that I favor it over ODF. On my hard disk I have a few hundred ODF documents, and I count 2 OOXML files (one is a test file, another a powerpoint presentation).
Miguel
Roy Schestowitz
2007-07-13 00:48:24
According to what you say, we were right all along. A day ago I wrote this to clarify:
http://boycottnovell.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=981
That is exactly what I believed. Nothing has changed. If anything, you have just confirmed my suspicions.
Sebastiaan Veld
2007-07-13 16:12:22
So, actually why do -you- have a problem supporting OOXML in OpenOffice? OpenOffice does already support all kinds of document formats, reading and writing (including all MS formats) for interoperatbility reasons. Adding just another one to that does not seem to be such a big deal to me. Also this comes a plug-in, if -you- do not want it, don't install it.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-07-13 23:05:48