Microsoft Office Says ODF Files Are Corrupt
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2008-06-19 15:33:21 UTC
- Modified: 2008-06-19 15:33:21 UTC
Shades of DR-DOS FUD tactics
One day ago we wrote about ways in which Microsoft seems to be discouraging the use of ODF. It's a must-read for background. We promised some screenshots and we finally have them thanks to Eruaran. Here is the portion of the IRC discussion which explains what you see at the bottom.
<Eruaran> The first one is what comes up if you try to open an .odt in MS Word 2007 (after I clicked 'details')
<schestowitz> Thanks!
<Eruaran> no problem
<Eruaran> so, you click ok and you get the second one
<schestowitz> And the third...?
<Eruaran> so, you click 'yes' to 'recover the contents' of this document and you get the third
<Eruaran> third shows after I clicked 'details'
<Eruaran> click 'ok' and thats it
<schestowitz> "the file is corrupt," eh? The last time I checked it's Microsoft that corrupted Swedish folks for OOXML.
<Eruaran> try to open the same document back in OOo or KOffice and its perfect
[...]
<Eruaran> "Microsoft Office cannot open this file because some parts are missing or invalid" ~translation~ "Microsoft Office could open this file but wont because some parts are missing (you know, those binary blobs that keep you dependant upon us), so we've decided your choice of file formats is invalid".
Dialogue 1:
Dialogue 2: (click to enlarge)
Dialogue 3:
Thoughts?
⬆
Comments
Shane Coyle
2008-06-19 17:50:11
What ODF plugin is being used here? Word doesn't support ODF natively, yet, right?
When you had the open file dialog, what filter for file type was applied, or was it all files? Then, did it ask you to choose a file type because this format was unrecognized, or did it just assume it was OOXML?
I know MS said that ODF support was coming, fulfilling the last of Stafford Masie's prophecies, but it's not here yet that I noticed - something about a service pack, I don't use Office so I dunno. We'll also have to wait and see on how well it is implemented, I suppose.
Stephane Rodriguez
2008-06-19 20:39:56
Is that worth a blog post? Who said Word 2007 natively supports .ODT ?
Roy Schestowitz
2008-06-19 20:50:31
I'm not sure if you read the previous post. We show here only the fairly intimidating dialugues that discourage ODF use or at least introduce doubt (even for future use). We also mentioned how this relates to the fiasco around DR-DOS in this IRC Chat (full logs posted this morning)
A reader wrote to tell me about another example a couple of hours ago (E-mail):
In regards to this one ( or another on the same topic ) http://boycottnovell.com/2008/06/19/microsoft-mso-mocks-odf/
I've noticed, second hand, that MSIE gives a 'security' warning when accessing Gmail.
See those 'smoking gun' from DR-DDS again. This may not be deliberate this time around, but it does not help, either.
Roy Bixler
2008-06-19 20:56:01
Victor Soliz
2008-06-19 22:34:18
Roy Schestowitz
2008-06-19 22:37:09
I'm not sure about the word "hope". :-)
Either way, about half of the visitors of this Web site use GNU/Linux.
Victor Soliz
2008-06-19 23:28:28
Roy Schestowitz
2008-06-19 23:51:21
Eruaran
2008-06-20 01:44:49
"It looks like they fed Word an ODT file" - Yes I did.
"but implied (or word assumed) that it was OOXML" - Microsoft knows what an ODT is. Word could simply report that the format is unsupported, but it doesn't do that.
"Dialogue 3 says it’s a malformed OOXML file, which it likely is." - It was a simple text document that was not malformed at all. This supports my point - Microsoft's dialogues have made an impression on you.
"It’s also likely a malformed mpeg file" - I don't know why you think that.
No ODF plugin was used. Office assumes it is OOXML.
You can also choose "recover text from any file", and Word will spit out some revealing information: It correctly identifies the document type as an OASIS open document, it can output all of the meta data, it knows what version it is, but it absolutely will not at any time output the single line of text that the document contained.
The purpose of this exercise was simply to show that Office will give the user information that is misleading in response to a perfectly good ODT file. It is easy enough to replicate.
Eruaran
2008-06-20 02:01:03
The purpose is to show that Microsoft Word is deliberately misleading.
This is what Word will give you if you try to "recover text from any file":
mimetypeapplication/vnd.oasis.opendocument.textPK Configurations2/statusbar/PK Configurations2/accelerator/current.xml Configurations2/floater/PK Configurations2/popupmenu/PK Configurations2/progressbar/PK Configurations2/menubar/PK Configurations2/toolbar/PK Configurations2/images/Bitmaps/PK content.xml€½–MoÃâº0 7Uz{o€ª€±V`[Oô 8i“#xyt4 h styles.xmlÃÂZ[oÃâº6 D[\%R )_úëw ;ÃÅ€±ÃâÃË{"KÃâã-[æP:Ut?V >èà âl$IdQR ;( 5S€£]C =ââ¬Â¹€ªÃžmGgÃân;àš$€£jtnXæ RAm+ÃÆ!Ãâ°qÃâ€tFS€¹' _3C UÃÂÃÅÃËHââ¬Â¡HóÀ4^”Ãâ €®ÃÂ¥Tl+€º…%&ìB"+a SY逬ÃÆòà â2€±●€²€°Ã¢â¬ÂºÃÂ¥,ÃÅ wi[K…U€) M 9ÃËjk_€Ã±^ :yB OpenOffice.org/2.4$Win32 OpenOffice.org_project/680m12$Build-9286Agent Smith2008-06-20T11:32:54Agent Smith2008-06-20T11:33:141PT25SPK Thumbnails/thumbnail.pngë &+KV]i /ÃÂÃâ¢ó€´lþõyÃâ¡vÃÂÿ\5ãrfÃÅúã…ök’uNGðï~k ÷€¹Tâùñs;ìïçÃâ¢ÃÅ¡ÃÅ /8n=ßn]muà â settings.xml€µYQWâ: -d*R-ÃÂbP- 7ÞB뀤U€¯/—Ãâ¹ÃâÃ¥ù)ÃÅ y€½yuuU●o7C Y>k^6. qÃâéoGy2d H g &__WtÃÅââ¬Å¡Ã±>íÃËIEà' _?* N]€¥€¡Ã€£€¹ ðŽ5&CTÃâGn* - P5o€¶Ã¦k-MQEM] META-INF/manifest.xml€µ●KjÃÆ0 'ÃÅ¡@,Ãâ €¥ÃÂ`à ¾Ãº(Uà  q:bÃŽbqW *ꀸ“ý€½_PrSõ4I7 Z bþ€K|0H€³c-2 mimetypePK Configurations2/statusbar/PK Configurations2/accelerator/current.xmlPK Configurations2/floater/PK Configurations2/popupmenu/PK Configurations2/progressbar/PK Configurations2/menubar/PK Configurations2/toolbar/PK Configurations2/images/Bitmaps/PK content.xmlPK styles.xmlPK meta.xmlPK Thumbnails/thumbnail.pngPK settings.xmlPK META-INF/manifest.xmlPK
Eruaran
2008-06-20 02:08:28
Jose_X
2008-08-12 21:04:37
These diagrams seem to indicate Word doesn't support ODF yet, but consider the following.
That is the problem with a monopoly. When most businesses and users use a specific product, the vendor calls the shots. What the user sees is "an illegal ...blah blah...." They know next time if they want to "preserve" their work to use Monopolyware and not take chances with other products. This is FUD that helps keep the monopoly together to be leveraged another day.
The user also eventually will recognize the .odt ending and avoid it like the plague.. so much that those advocating it will have another hurdle to overcome to get their legitimate message across or sell their product.
[Hypothetical] Without a monopoly, it would be much clearer to many users that this product was badly designed in assuming OOXML formatting and in not adequately supporting ODF by this time. Rather than to hold the monopoly fort, in such a hypothetical case, this product would rightly lose marketshare. Thus, even this "innocent" error interaction serves to strengthen the monopoly, and few would claim Monopolysoft was playing dirty. Most would attribute this to incompetency, sloppiness, negligence... point is, all of these natural human failings help support the monopoly automatically.
Better formats and products get marginalized severely as long as you have a monopoly. It pressures vendors of new products and those contemplating format changes to do so on the monopolist's terms and timeline. This defeats major advantages of innovators.
And who can outmarket a Monopolysoft backed by its cashcows and controlled marketing venues (your *desktop* and the many partners kept in line through fear and NDA secrecy).
Monopolysoft has numerous interlocking monopolies not just one.
[IMO] Monopolysoft will fight ODF by helping to create the appearances of ODF products and documents that "don't work". This is a major facet of what they mean by "supporting" ODF today but "OOXML is the future". They will partake in the poisoning of the ODF well until they have "fixed" ISO OOXML and changed their software to "match" it.