Authored by: Dogeron on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 02:45 AM EDT

Please post any corrections here.



--Dog [ Reply to This | # ]



Typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 06:44 AM EDT

Authored by: Dogeron on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 02:46 AM EDT

Please post any off topic items here - so we have in one place :-)



--Dog [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 02:49 AM EDT

From posting of the problem to posting of the solution.



Simply incredible.



...though I imagine they've been working on this for longer than that... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 02:54 AM EDT

Does anybody have a link to this? I would be very interested in trying this

plugin. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 03:42 AM EDT

Great!



Where can I get it? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 03:52 AM EDT

From 0 to 0wned in 7 hours.



Sorry, couldn't resist. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 04:08 AM EDT

I wonder... this puts the burden on Microsoft NOW to make sure that newer

versions of Office also work with this plug-in. If not, it would be SO clear

that they want what they want, when the want it, and aren't going to play if

it's not by their rules. If this plug-in works as promised, that pretty much

kills the so-called "Office Open XML."

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: gary.edwards on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 04:15 AM EDT

Don't bother hunting for a download. It's not available. The ODF Plugin came

out of testing last week. I wish i could say we did this last night, but it's

been at least a year in development.



The first stop for the ODF Plugin will be Massachusetts, followed by the EU and

California.



We were not aware of the RFi until this past Friday when we notified

Massachusetts tha tthe ODF Plugin has been competed. Hard as it is to believe,

it's completely coincidental that Massachusettes decided on the RFi route the

day before we notified them that the ODF Plugin had completed testing. It just

looks like we did this overnight.



Hey, maybe that's not a bad thing :)



Unless you're completely caught up in Win32 bound business processes, legacy

systems dependencies, and shared collaborations, i would suggest you forego the

ODF Plugin and immediately download OpenOffice.org and GooglePack. The ODF

Plugin was developed for workgroups and individuals caught between a rock and a

hard place, unable to get their information into ODF any other way. Unable to

move forward into the age of collaborative computing until Chairman Bill decides

how he wants to do it, decides when his solution will be available, and

determines what it will cost.



So please, consider the ODF Plugin as an important part of that wave of desktop,

server, and device applications moving to ODF everywhere, all the time, for

every purpose.



Let no application be left behind,

~ge~







---

OpenOffice.org volunteer serving on the OASIS OpenDocument TC [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 04:17 AM EDT

I like this plugin, it effectively calls the Microsoft bluff "MS Office don't not doing no OpenDocumentFormat". Because NOW it does! [ Reply to This | # ]



not for long - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 01:48 PM EDT

Authored by: pointwood on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 04:52 AM EDT

Authored by: cybervegan on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 05:17 AM EDT

I wouldn't like to be an executive chair in Redmond today ;-D



-cybervegan



---

Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in

public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jmc on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 05:52 AM EDT

So, to Microsoft: never mind. You don't need to lift a finger. I thought it was chairs that Ballmer lifted? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Hygrocybe on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 06:05 AM EDT

Churchill once stated: This is not the beginning of the end, but it is the end

of the beginning.



We now have the same thing but in the world of software and the fight to force

Microsoft to use open, international standards that are not of their own

proprietary interest and development. This plug-in obliterates problems with

version read from Office97 to current release in all Microsoft formats - and all

are transcribed to an ISO standard.



From where I stand, my perception is that this incredible plug-in has just

completely taken the initiative away from Microsoft......and Microsoft has no

choice but to follow. Indeed, it has other ramifications: If all Microsoft

Office suites can now be translated into ISO ODF formats, why bother purchasing

any update of Office ?



This is almost a software version of the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre".



My sincere congratulations to the programmers who worked on this amazing bit of

software.



---

Blackbutt, Australia [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 06:51 AM EDT

i.e. how many microsoft patents it had to break to get inside the various

office programs.



Just because you can technologically get data out of proprietary systems doesn't

necessarily mean it's legal to do so. (Isn't that one of the whole themes of

this open document debate?) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 07:09 AM EDT

The plug-in is great news, however...converting Microsoft Word documents to ODF

word type documents is only one piece of the landscape. We also need

conversions for Excel, Access, PowerPoint, etc., etc., etc. It's convenient

that most government documents are likely word processing but I would bet that

there are also a lot of databases and spreadsheets that need to be shared as

well. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: GreatDrok on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 07:33 AM EDT

I know it says it works with every version of Office to date but does that

include

Mac Office? It would be a real boon to me to be able to use MS Office on my

Macs to work with ODF. The current version of NeoOffice won't run on my Intel

Mac, OpenOffice 2 X11 is clunky and I keep closing it by hitting AppleQ and

Pages 2 (good though it is) doesn't talk ODF at the moment either. A solution

for Mac Office would be a great help, especially in converting MS Office docs to



ODF although from my experience the compatiblilty of Mac Office with Windows

Office is only a little better than OpenOffice manages and sometimes I use

OpenOffice because Mac Office mangles stuff from a PC. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 07:36 AM EDT

I'm sure MS can update Office/Windows such that the plug-ing breaks. Remember:

"Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: beserker on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 08:48 AM EDT

It looks to me like the name Office Open XML was deliberately chosen to cause

confusion between the two formats. Is "OpenOffice" trademarked? IANAL

but if so then this might make a good trademark infringment case. If not could

it still be trademarked since "Open Office" has a few years of history

using the name?



---



"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend,

Inside of a dog, its too dark to read."

- Groucho Marx [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 08:52 AM EDT

M$ has just lost a big piece of their monopoly because

of this. I'll bet you "dollars to doughnuts" that BG

is loosing sleep trying to figure out how to put a stop

to this. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I don't think it will be pretty.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: thorpie on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 09:09 AM EDT

It all reminds me of the last game of monopoly I ever played many years ago. I was adult, had a couple of young kids & was around at a friends place who had older children. It was an adults game, and silly me I read the rules. I found one that I had never ever noticed before and built 4 houses on the cheap blocks, used all the houses and refused to change them to hotels. No-one else can build houses. To put it in proper english parlance, it just aint cricket, old chap. The ructions caused by a friendly game of Monopoly showed me that  theres rules and theres rules. Missus didnt have a civil word for a month, I was the worlds biggest ----, etc etc, and the missus still dont let me forget, 20 years later. Well Bill, I do believe that you have just done the same, only big time. I believe that you have now gone beyond what is considered acceptable in cricket, baseball or soccer and that the big boys, the old money and still the power, will now have a good hard look at reviewing and codifying what is acceptable. I dont think the big boys will be impressed or happy that they have to get involved. I believe that they will start playing your game back. And I do believe you have aggravated them enough so they will play back hard. Ah - the sweet sound of monopolies starting to crack. ---

The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 09:24 AM EDT

Microsoft will rapidly develop their own support for ODF in MS Office 12, and

block provision of alternative support. There will be mysterious issues with

the generated ODF documents that Microsoft will blame on deficiencies in the ODF

standard itself. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 10:22 AM EDT



Warning!!!

Make sure your are not drinking any beverage, or have any liquid within thirty feet of your keyboard before you read this!!!



http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/apps/story/0 ,10801,111130,00.html

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 10:27 AM EDT

Every post here I read says you can't download it.

and the guy from Openoffice or whatever even posted that its just for people

between a rock and a hard place.



but if you can't download it, what good does it do?



I need a tool like this, but apparently I can't get it.

so, what's the point?



Is it available or not? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 10:33 AM EDT

Thanks Gary for your hard work. I work in local government and one of the

problems I've faced moving to ODF is that we have a Police Department

application that links to MS Word. The plugin would be helpful to me as well. If

there's a place we could sign up for using the plugin that would be helpful.



Ro [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jsusanka on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 10:54 AM EDT

great news



let the migrations and savings begin!!!



now is good time to clean out all your doc files and save

the important ones as odf with this plugin and then go get

get openoffice and never pay another microsoft office

license fee again and never have to worry about the bsa

coming to your door for office license fees. now you can

get your real work done instead of counting licenses. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 11:07 AM EDT

I notice this plug-in'll also undercut one of Microsoft's big bogeymen: accessibility functions for the disabled. If the plug-in works and all the accessibility features of MSWord work just fine, MS will be left to explain just why they made such a fuss about accessibility not working right except with native Word documents. I think the community's position should be "But why wouldn't accessiblity work just fine in MSWord? It works when Word reads a Word95 document, or an HTMl document or a plain text document, why would it stop working just because it's reading an ODF document?". [ Reply to This | # ]



acessability fuctinos - Authored by: LocoYokel on Friday, May 05 2006 @ 12:16 AM EDT

Authored by: kozmcrae on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 11:10 AM EDT

This is the software equivilent of a pie in Bill's face.



Richard



---

Darl, have you been lying to us? I'm a frayed knot. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 11:55 AM EDT

I didn't give you permission to write software to interface into Office, using

my published controls.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 12:42 PM EDT

In one way, it seems like this will really hurt adoption of OpenOffice because

people can now use ODF with Microsoft Office. In another way it seems like it

could help OpenOffice, as people could start using ODF now with Microsoft Office

and switch over to OpenOffice whenever convenient. However, I think inertia

makes the former much more likely than the latter... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 02:27 PM EDT

I'm totally confused about this. People are jumping around but over what? Over

another piece of proprietary software? I believe that by not releasing this as

open source, Mr. Edwards has viciously abused the public trust as well as the

good will. Are you with us or against us, Mr. Edwards? If you *are* with us,

then go ahead and open source it in a GPL-compatible way.



All this PR you have received is infuriating until and unless the plugin becomes

free (as in freedom) and does not just stand to benefit the government but the

society as a whole.



The way things stand now, I strongly believe that the credit PJ gave you is a

HUGE HUGE overcredit. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Erbo on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 02:52 PM EDT

This is a fine example of what I refer to as "The Principle of Leverage" in action: If you create leverage within your product and make people aware of it, they will eventually exploit this leverage to the betterment of your product. Microsoft has long been aware of the Principle of Leverage. The "plugin" APIs into Office create just this sort of leverage for people to exploit, as do macros, VBA, and similar "programmability" features. And now these developers have just exploited this leverage to make Microsoft's products more useful, by supporting a set of document formats not otherwise supported in these products. Everybody benefits...yes, even Microsoft, counter to their own goals though it may be. (Just so you know: No, I didn't come up with this principle myself. I originally read it somewhere, though I can't remember where right now.) ---

Electric Minds - virtual community since 1996. http://www.electricminds.org [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 03:05 PM EDT

... may possibly read like one.



Just reading through this story again [and I've been following this since PJ

brought the story to our attention] one nagging doubt refuses to go away.



The Commonwealth of Massechussetts [hereunder CoM] have expressed a wish to have

a file format that is completely open and free of restrictions, in order to

permit any member of the public of the Commonwealth to be able to access that

information, now and in the future, by a means of their choice.



So at this point we start a wonderful and interesting debate that introduces us

to ODF and the Microsoft alternative, but one perhaps self-evident and possibly

even trivial question remains un-answered. What is it about the file formats of

Microsoft Office 95, 97, 2000 and XP, etc, that their owning Company, Microsoft,

believes gives them such an incredible competitive advantage as to render them

precious intellectual property?



About 10 days ago a friend of mine asked me to help rebuild their PC after a

hardware failure [HDD crashed] and after installing a new disc we re-installed

their OS [Windows 2000] and their software stack [including Office 2000]. I

noticed from the list of supported file formats that Office can be configured to

read and write in something like 15 or 20 different file formats [including

those of numerous competitors]. What, then, is so special about ODF that

Microsoft believes that it *can* support WordPerfect but *cannot* support ODF?



More importantly, what is it about Microsoft's own "Word" file format

that contains such cutting edge technological advances? It's a file format,

right?



Now, I could accept their argument if an MSWord file occupied significantly less

disc space than something I save under OpenOfficeWriter2.x. I might be pursuaded

if the file could be opened in significantly less time than a similar file

loaded into KWord. You might even tempt me if you could demonstrate that the

file could be text-searchable and/or securely encrypted in a better manner than

comparable competitors. Unfortunately, the reality is that none of the above

assertions are true.



So I return to my original question [with profound apologies to all if this

topic has been "done to death" elsewhere...]



What, exactly, do Microsoft believe that they have in their expansive,

slow-loading, insecure and not spider-friendly file format that makes it so

special? OK, I think you realise that this is a rhetorical question asked with

tongue firmly placed in cheek... The answer, of course, is that Microsoft owns

the "proprietary" nature of the file format, the format is in use in

probably the majority of PCs in use on the planet today and, by keeping the

format closed, they have the ability to insert hidden tweaks that keep the

Office clones [KOffice, OpenOffice, StarOffice, etc] one jump behind.



We still don't have a valid or reasonable answer to my question, however. If

this were a piece of software that we were talking about, I could understand

Microsoft wishing to assert copyright or claim that the content was their

intellectual property. [Frankly, they would be welcome to it]. What I can't see

the logic of, however, is how this extends to a file format. Unless of course

your motives are other than those publicly stated.



As a 20-year veteran of the IT Industry, I spend a lot of my time dealing with

vendors who want to demonstrate leading or cutting edge software to my employer.

[I work for a very large multinational organisation]. It is common practise

under these circumstances for us to put in place an NDA [Non-Disclosure

Agreement] to allow the company to discuss the details of their technology in

advance of a formal, public launch. It helps my employer with purchasing

decisions and helps vendors sell technology.



If Microsoft believe that their technology is so special and so superior to ODF

or others and yet has content that is so super-secret that they cannot simply

publish Word2000 format to the public, perhaps the CoM could enter in to an NDA

with Microsoft so that the software company can explain in detail exactly what

is so special about the Word2000 .doc format?



What makes it so super-secret that noone else could be allowed to know about.

Perhaps Microsoft could even specify all the patents that they have relating to

the Word2000 or WordXP file format? Because of course, if Word2000 or WordXP

file formats contain such valuable IP, it would of course be patented, wouldn't

it? After all, don't Microsoft support the use of patents to protect valuable

IP?



You don't suppose - just a wild guess here - that any such patent, written in

appropriate language, would run foul of so many protests of prior written art

[dating from the days before MS produced a Word Processor, that is] that any

attempt to patent the Word file format would fall at the first hurdle?



And of course, if MS tried to engineer it into the next release of their

product, it would break compatability with older software versions, thus

rendering them entirely vulnerable to the argument given by the CoM to go with a

common standard in the first place ....



Nope, the more I think about this, the more I suspect we've somehow missed

asking the obvious question of Microsoft. It's a bit like the one we've been

asking The SCO Group all these years? What's so special about Word's .doc

format? Where is your evidence of IBM's infringement?



Just on the off-chance that this line of thinking hasn't convinced you yet,

here's another example to consider. A few years ago a company called Iomega

produced a "Zip" Drive with the capacity of 100Mb [later versions went

to 250 and even 750Mb]. It was designed to replace the floppy disc. Iomega

designed to hold back [or use restrictive licence deals] that made it very

difficult for competitors to enter that market with them. The PC industry

desperately needed a new medium to transport the ever-expanding bloatware,

sorry, software packages, used by Windows PCs. Compare and contrast Iomega's

approach with that of Phillips, inventor of the Compact Disc. In the space of

months CD Drives had become a de-facto standard in PC hardware specifications -

and as an industry we haven't looked back.



In the ODF and CoM debate, Microsoft are behaving like Iomega, while the rest of

the world are cosying up to Phillips.



In the latest round of advertisements, Microsoft are using actors dressed up as

dinosaurs. Do you think this is a coincidence? If Microsoft are dinosaurs, I

think Open Source might be the comet...



Hmmm...





sproggit

[who seems to be having account problems and can't log in...] [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 03:24 PM EDT

I asked a similar question yesterday. I read a lot of people saying this is a

win for open formats and it will lead to use of open source programs. How? You

have just given anyone who wants to continue to use M$ Office a way to do it.

What about the comfort factor? Do you really believe that people are going to

change the program they are used to because a plug in allows them to write files

in another format? Microsoft knows about the comfort factor, thats why they

bundle things. Once someone is used to a program it takes a lot to get them to

change.

Second, whats to stop state governments to continue to license M$ office and

spend our tax dollars? All it will take is a little cash under the table and a

few paid for fud studies. The politicians will be listening to state workers who

do not want to change because of the comfort factor. Next it will be time to

raise taxes because of the costs involved. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 04:53 PM EDT

Any software which is not available for download, purchase, or via source is

considered vaporware in my book.



If their is a beta, it should be open to the public for testing. Otherwise, it

is just smoke coming from the OpenDocument Foundation.



Call me a troll or not, but its the truth.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 10:10 PM EDT

Astounding! That last paragraph, starting with "Our

reply"... Wow! I haven't read anything like that since a

billion-dollar business plan in Palo Alto in 1999! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 10:48 PM EDT

While waiting for my account to be set up.



sarcasm

It's nice to see that Office:Mac users don't need this feature. Thank god we

won't

be burdened by an open format, and can stay in the warm, loving embrace of

proprietary file formats. Go ODF!

/sarcasm [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 09 2006 @ 10:22 AM EDT

The article states that the plugin supports every version of Microsoft Office back to...., but there seem to be a total disregard for the fact that Microsoft Office also have lived on the Mac for as long as there has been such a product. (MS Excel 1.0 in 1986 on the Mac Plus and Word 1.05 even earlier.) The concept of open format gets a pretty strange ring to it, if the openness is just available for Windows and Linux users. In my estimates there must be 25 + million Mac Office users out there with documents that could benefit from this plugin. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 02:17 PM EDT