Re: [libreoffice-marketing] pro-OpenDocument Format arguments

On 11/25/11 11:03 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

> Does anyone have a link to a calm, rational and preferably unbiased
> article about why ODF is so much better and what the problems are
> with MS proprietary formats?

There is a huge amount of literature on the web, but unfortunately is
either incomplete or strongly biased.

I have just written an email that covers the subject on the users@ list,
although partial in terms of scope.

I know that you have read my email, but I attach the text for all the
others that might have lost it.

--

TDF developers are working hard to improve the level of interoperability
with many file formats, because we want LibreOffice to be both the best
implementation of ODF (a format that we want to be the standard for
electronic documents) and the most interoperable office suite.

Users are free to use LibreOffice to read and write RTF and DOC/XLS/PPT
files (and even DOCX/XLSX/PPTX files), although they should understand
that only ODF will provide the best level of document interoperability,
as it is the native LibreOffice file format and it is also supported by
the latest versions of MS Office for Windows.

Of course, users should also understand that proprietary formats like
RTF and legacy MS Office formats have been developed in order to lock
them in into using MS Office, and should avoid the formats not because
they are intrinsically bad (although they often are) but because they
intentionally reduce their freedom.

Although user habits could let many user think that MS Office legacy
formats are the most practical for interoperability, they should not
overlook the fact that by sticking to MS Office legacy format they
perpetuate their lock in into Microsoft products.

TDF is actively promoting ODF, which is the format of choice for all
actual and future versions of LibreOffice. ODF is not only open and
standard, but is also easier to implement than other ISO standard
formats.  For instance, OOXML has been approved as ISO standard in 2008,
but after almost four years is still implemented in the non standard
"transitional" version even by Microsoft (the company behind the
original format) because of the incredible complexity of the format
(confirmed by the length of the documentation of over 7.200 pages, i.e.
almost six times as many as the ODF documentation).

This incredible complexity is a new form of lock in, as it makes
extremely difficult to reproduce the file format. LibreOffice, on the
other way, represents the best third party implementation of OOXML.

I think that LibreOffice advocates should promote ODF by suggesting them
to install LibreOffice, in order to get all the benefits of a truly open
and standard format as ODF, but should also respect the choice of people
who are not willing to change their office suite. Of course, if these
people are still using MS Office 2003, it is easy to explain that
LibreOffice provides a very similar user experience while offering a
large number of new features and security updates.

--

The problem is more political than technical. ODF is not superior per
se, under the technical point of view, but because is more accessible
and easier to implement.

OOXML complexity is the new lock in. Although the leap year bug has been
known for more than 20 years now, solving it means rewriting Excel (not
a trivial task). Because of this single bug, MS Office files - as of
today - are not compatible with the Gregorian calendar, which is
recognized as a reference standard by everyone (including Muslim and Far
East countries, with their own calendars) but Microsoft.

-- 
Italo Vignoli - italo.vignoli@gmail.com
phone +39.348.5653829 - VoIP +39.02.320621813
skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vignoli@gmail.com

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted