Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Fw: 'Open' Standards dependant on a single company?

When MSO 2007 first came out and they were the only one that could use 
.docx formats, the US government started to produce .docx documents for 
the Library of Congress for public assess for documents.  At that time 
for whatever reason MSO get the US government to REQUIRE the people to 
upgrade to MSO 2007 if they wanted to read public documents.  MS had 
that much power back then.  I wrote a letter to LOC and some other 
government officials, via email and post-office-mail, about that 
subject.  I stated how much I was concerned that the US government no 
required their people to buy one company's newest software to access the 
documents required by LAW to be FREELY ACCESSIBLE.  The US government 
was producing documents that was no longer freely accessible since you 
were required to buy MSO to use them.  Forget the MSO file readers.  You 
need to be able to read/edit/use those government documents.  You could 
not do that for free at that point.  The government was breaking its own 
laws for freedom of information.

Now there are other office suites that can read/write .docx files, so it 
is not as much of a concern.

But, the US government needs to realize that there are more vendors out 
there that can be used for their office suite needs.  Yes, having them 
switch to ODF formats instead of MSO formats would be challenging, but 
packages like LibreOffice can replace most government users office 
packages without too many problems.  They still will be able to use the 
.doc and .docx file, along with the spreadsheet and presentation files.  
Access files may take a little longer to get a Base version usable by 
both types of users.

I really think instead of "open standards", we need "open vendors".  Get 
people to realize that there is more than MSO to be chosen as their 
office package.  THEN we can start getting people to look into ODF as a 
replacement for MSO's formats.  Even MSO is now working to read/write 
ODF, although not up to any real quality.  IF their users started to 
demand MSO to read/write ODF more that it does now, then "Open 
Standards" for office file formats will get a real boost.

The US government is pushing open source, but I have not seen nay 
articles about them pushing open source for office packages in the 
government offices. Just think what savings it would be if instead of 
buying the newest MSO for 10,000 computers, they install LO's newest 
business ready version [not 3.5.1 at this point, but 3.4.5/3.4.6].  Even 
with a discount for volume, Free 10,000 package vs. $50 each for 
10,000.  That would give those agencies that get the 10,000 LO packages 
a half-million of monies to use for other things in their limited 
budgets [ less the cost of helping the user to realize how easy their 
work is with LO].  This will only work for those who do not use MSO for 
those complex document needs that less than 0.01% of MSO users seem to 
need.  The average office worker, or at least for those agencies I have 
worked with, do not do or need to do complex documents.

YES
we need to get MSO for being the one company in control of the office 
document formats that most governments use, as well as the people who 
have to deal with the government agencies.

We need to have it in the hands of the community who knows better what 
they need than one company telling us we need this and nothing else.

BUT
get the users to realize that MSO is not their only choice for a good 
office suite than can read/write MSO formatted documents.

THEN
let them know that there are other formats that are out there that more 
and more people/businesses/governments world-wide are using successfully 
instead of what MSO tells us we have to use.

We who use Linux, knows what it is like to not be able to read/write 
documents that were in the newer MSO file formats, till OOo/LO came 
along, if did not have a Windows machine as well.  So we might be more 
vocal about open documents standards.  Windows users need to start being 
as vocal as some Linux users.  If Windows users start demanding open 
document standards for their individual and business use, the MSO might 
get the point.  If we can get the Windows users to realize that they do 
not need to use MSO, and they start switching over to LO and not buy the 
newest MSO offerings, the MSO might take notice.  Once you get a user to 
use LO, it may be an easy step to get them into using an open standard 
for the documents, instead of MSO's one company controlled standard.

That is my opinion.
.
On 03/30/2012 07:51 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
> HI :)
> Hmm, ok so i have read the Open Standards Consultation web-page on
> http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/open-standards-open-opportunities-flexibility-and-efficiency-government-it
>
> They claim they want ...
> "
> Background: The cost of the Government’s IT is
> currently too high and needs to be reduced. There is a lack of market
> diversity in existing government contracts. A more diverse market and
> level-playing field for access to government IT contracts is needed to
> improve competition, reduce cost and improve public service outcomes.
>
>   
>
>  From a user perspective, it is difficult to transfer information and
> data across government boundaries and systems due to a lack of
> interoperability between products and services.
>
>   
>
> Citizens, businesses and delivery partners must be able to interact
> with the Government, exchanging information/data across in the software
> package of their choice and not have access costs imposed upon them by
> the IT choices which the Government makes.
>
>   
>
> A lack of interoperability also makes it difficult for the Government
> to reuse components, switch between vendors and products or to deliver
> efficient public services that leverage the value of government
> information, for instance through the provision of interfaces that
> allow delivery partners to build on government information services,
> delivering more innovative solutions.
>
>   
>
> Government is therefore seeking to:
> give citizens and businesses a choice in the software they use when accessing government information and servicesreduce lock-in to a particular vendor or product;reduce the cost of IT through a more competitive and diverse market and sustained commercial leverage; andimprove software interoperability and sharing of data and documents across government boundaries." 
>
> Interestingly the full booklet is only available in English (Uk? or US?) and only as a Pdf. 
> So, it's probably better to deal with their stated goals rather than just do a rant or a ramble like mine.  In fact now i re-read mine i'm a bit embarrassed about it. 
>
> Regards from
> Tom :)
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 30/3/12, Tom Davies<tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>
> From: Tom Davies<tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Fw: 'Open' Standards dependant on a single company?
> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
> Cc: marketing@global.libreoffice.org
> Date: Friday, 30 March, 2012, 12:35
>
> Hi :)
> I have forwarded a long rambling rant i just sent to the "Open Standards" agency.  Short and sweet might have been better.  Please feel free to write your own or perhaps modify bits of mine.  The marketing list had a great post a few weeks ago from someone in Thailand or Vietnam or somewhere and some of the comments from that would be superb. 
>
> I would really like to see "e-letter" write to them because it's one of the things he is fantastic at. 
>
> Please, even if you don't live in England (or the rest of the UK) or/and are not English please write in to the "Open Standards" office to express dissatisfaction about the Microsoft formats.  I guess it wouldn't work if your email address clearly places you in a different country but .com or .org addresses would be great. 
>
> Regards from
> Tom
>   :)
>
>
> --- On Fri, 30/3/12, Tom Davies<tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>
> From: Tom Davies<tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: 'Open' Standards dependant on a single company?
> To: openstandards@digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk
> Date: Friday, 30 March, 2012, 12:24
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I heard that an American company is trying to push their exclusive formats as an "Open Standard". 
>
> The format as used in their programs apparently differs according to which version of their 
> operating system is
>   being used and which version of their product is used to view the format.  While they have managed to get a format granted ISO status and the format they use in their programs has the same name it seems there are significant differences between any of their implementations and the ISO version.  Other companies are kept out-of-the-loop about variances so agreeing to use their formats means being tied in to constantly buying their latest products. 
>
> Interestingly they attempted to do this before with a format called .Rtf (= "Rich Text Format").  
> The newer format seemed to magically appear just after
>   they lost a court-case involving the Rtf format and they have withdrawn development support for it. 
>
> Meanwhile all other programs and office suites continue to happily use the ODF format that has been an ISO standard for so long.  The upgraded 1.2 version of the ODF standard has recently been released after extensive testing out in the field with many programs on many different platforms.  The older ODF format will continue to be supported for many years.  Most other programs and office suites allow add-ons that can provide support for specific formats.  Such add-ons are usually maintained by various companies or individuals. 
>
> So, unlike the American company's format the ODF standard does not depend on a single company to maintain and develop it.  If one company withdraws from developing and supporting it the others carry on and new ones join the umbrella organisation. 
>
> Also from a security
>   point of view the American company's format makes a lot of noise about security but keeps getting compromised.  Just this week my company has had trouble with a few machines running their office suite.  Microsoft seems to blame the user after their formats have been compromised and then sell them their latest product. 
>
> By contrast the ODF format has never been compromised out in the wild (ie "in the field").  Indeed a huge fuss was recently made when someone noticed a theoretical possibility of a potential problem and a patch applied far before anyone could take advantage. 
>
> Perhaps Microsoft don't keep records of how often their various products get compromised and so they can claim "there are no problems on record".  I would try google or any other search engine to test the validity of such claims. 
>
> Regards from
> Tom Davies


--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+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/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted