Top posting.

In fact, I came to OOo in 2006 because I used to use MS Word to compile data 
and one day a file got corrupted for an unknown reason. I discovered that there 
was no way to recover the file because it was proprietary. I think that at that 
time the .doc format was not disclosed yet (but I may be wrong). What is sure 
is that I could not get my file back. So I searched the net and found OOo and 
ODF. And I adopted OOo because of the file format (I had already tried OOo 1 
but did not like it).
If OOo had not gained popularity, I'm not sure MS would have created something 
similar with their OOXML. And if the vendor lock-in policy is less an issue 
now, OOo and ODF may be for something. What it would be if they hadn't been 
there?

Just to precise something: I'm not complaining, and I don't say Linux people 
are the best or whatever. I just say that file format is an issue. I admit that 
I think MS do not play fair (but that's logical, else, they would certainly 
lose users).
Up to the user to decide what is more important for him.

But if the focus is the application and not the file format, then what? Make a 
free clone of MS Office? Just a lost cause then.
That's perhaps the problem today. Not that obvious when OOo was the leading 
software. But now that there is LibO, if there is no discussion about what 
should the ODF become, it will be a question of what poison to chose (to use 
Dennis' words).
In this case, there is a point supporting OOXML. But it would slightly become a 
de facto standard (what was .doc, ...). But would never be fully implemented in 
all the applications due to the references to the proprietary functions.

Hagar


Le 02/10/2016 à 23:06, Xen a écrit :
Hagar Delest schreef op 02-10-2016 21:56:
Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit :
Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without 
compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.
I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the
users back the property of their own data. This was to give users an
alternative to the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not
allow intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open
standard.
Well Jörg stated this:

ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw, sxc, 
etc.)
written only for OOo.

So maybe I should have been more specific. The reality is that ODF was not designed; it 
already existed and apparently, was only slightly adjusted and then turned into an 
"open standard".

But please, I want you to also look at the reality and not just the shoulds and 
wants.

No one outside of the open source community really uses ODF. Probably, some new 
application will see reasons to create its own format if only to provide extra 
features or whatever that the old standard doesn't. Also, even if you are not 
commercial and trying to limit what another can do with your files, you can 
have a reason to e.g. not use a zip file format, or whatever else you might say.

So, since ODF was not really designed, and since you can turn any standard into an open 
standard, you could say e.g. Microsoft "should" implement and support that open 
standard, but that's not really related to it being open; being open merely guarantees 
that it would be easier.

But the question was incompatibilities.

By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open
format : if the file format is fully documented, then each software
should respect that format and then the compatibility with other
applications will be achieved.
Tell that to the person who tried to open a Calligra document in LibreOffice: 
all of the bulleting marks were replaced by something else and the document 
didn't look the same at all.

But moreover I think many "open standards" must or apparently always do accept 
a reduced level of functionality, think of the specification for DLNA/UPNP in which some 
really useful functionality is barely possible. Causing smaller companies that do want to 
provide a good user experience to use their own format or protocol, or to extend the 
thing although hardly possible.

So the reason Microsoft is so hard to make compatible (and many others perhaps) 
is that they do introduce stuff for their own that hardly anyone else can use.

But that's also how you create a better user experience and be honest, most of 
the Linux software world... If I must not speak of AOO here then I will mention 
GIMP, which has the full top menu under the context popup (right mouse button) 
which is such a glaring deficiency (no actually context menu, then) that no 
serious party or company that would want to earn money would ever design such a 
product that way.

GIMP is just near (or nigh) unusable. But I am straying from the subject.

In the best case an open standard is going to force companies to reduce their 
level of functionality. In the worst case it is just not going to be adopted 
and remain a pecularity of a select few that can open their own documents but 
no one else does anyway.

So without regard for principle or ideals, look at the actual outcomes today.

- We have one side of the world using a closed standard and the other using an open standard, and 
the only reason the "open product" can (or has tried to) read the "closed 
product" is because of market share. OpenOffice *needed* to read MS-Word (for instance) but 
MS-Word did not need to read OpenOffice all that much. Both are really doing their own thing and do 
not communicate much.

They are both "islands" in that sense.

Meanwhile AOO and LibreOffice are infighting and Calligra is too 
under-developed to be worth anything. And seeing my personal experiences, 
support for the format is no guarantee that the document will look the same 
from supporting-application to supporting-application.

Hence /format/ seems not to be the focus point but /application/. An 
application needs to have a guaranteed, dependable way of rendering the format 
without quirks.

If it does not, having an open format is of no use really. Microsoft's format 
is probably quirky as hell (or its application is) and that is more of a 
problem than being closed.

So closed or open does not seem to determine much of actual outcomes.

Almost every program can open .doc documents so there never really was a threat (at least 
not today) of your data being "hijacked" or 'locked' due to vendor-lock-in. 
That's not a realistic situation. It is /more/ difficult to archive or migrate bookmarks. 
Of course Linux people (perhaps) wanted to have something they could change and alter and 
control themselves. Sure.

But that's an aspect of creativity and not being a company, the thing would 
need to be document in order to cooperate.

In a sense that is also a "company motive", so there are now two companies, one 
has one operational model, the other a different one. As a consequence, the one company 
does not feel much need to share information on its structure, while to the other it is 
its lifeblood.

They are still both "enclaves" of their own, just using different strategies and 
mechanics. That might be virtually opposed, but still. You could even call them diametrically 
opposed but still they are still two islands of their own. So while you can claim superiority or 
prevalence or relevance due to your format being "open" it is more of a necessity for the 
operation of the machine (open source) than it is something that actually affects interoperation 
with the other island.

It is an internal requirement, not an external requirement. The closed-source 
nature of the .doc format (etc.) is also an internal requirement, not an 
external requirement.

So both 'companies' are actually using internal reasons for their choices, and 
it has nothing really to do with being better than the other. You are both 
doing it for your own reasons, that work for you.

That is why the "it's not equal and we're better" is misplaced. What I see mostly is s... I can call it 
complaining and I can call it "self-pity". Some would brag about their format and at the same time yell 
"poor me" all the time because the big bad bully doesn't comply. And the only reason for this complaining and 
this self-pitying is /THAT/ you have called yourself "superior" because it might give a person a sense of 
entitlement, and when that entitlement is not met (we are better, but they are still not cooperating with us and making 
our lives easier) the 'suffering' starts.

And it is self-created by even caring about what the other party does. Do stuff 
for your own good, and not because of something else.

If Linux people didn't care and really did their own thing they wouldn't need 
to constantly blame Microsoft for all their misfortune.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Reply via email to