FSFE/fsfe-website
25
31
Fork 91
Code Issues 65 Pull Requests 10 Wiki Activity

BBC and Heise article aboult MS-OOXML

Browse Source 
svn path=/trunk/; revision=8588
This commit is contained in:
Björn Schießle
2007-07-17 10:00:18 +00:00
parent 04b5410289
commit dbb052be77
4 changed files with 406 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

17
documents/document-msooxml-converter-hoax.en.xml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<documentset>
<document type="political" date="2007-07-16">
<title>The converter hoax</title>
<description>
FSFE Guest Commentary on Heise.de: "Conversion between Microsoft's Office
OpenXML (MS-OOXML) and the vendor-independent Open Document Format (ODF)
has been proposed by Microsoft and its associates as a solution to the
problems caused by Microsoft's efforts to push a format into the market
that conflicts with the existing Open Standard. [...] If these converters
were actually able to do what they promise to do, they would be
unnecessary."
</description>
<link>/documents/msooxml-converter-hoax.html</link>
</document>
</documentset>

18
documents/document-msooxml-questions-for-ms.en.xml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<documentset>
<document type="political" date="2007-07-11">
<title>Questions for Microsoft on open formats</title>
<description>
Featured article by <a href="/about/greve">Georg Greve</a> and <a
href="/about/jakobs/">Joachim Jakobs</a> about the need for Open Standards
in archival, and why using MS-OOXML risks future data loss: "Digital
information could potentially be stored without loss of quality for a very
long time to come. But without knowledge about the encoding, our documents
will become a meaningless series of ones and zeroes to future generations,
just like cave paintings are too often meaningless bits of colour on stone
to us."
</description>
<link>/documents/msooxml-questions-for-ms.html</link>
</document>
</documentset>

143
documents/msooxml-converter-hoax.en.xhtml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title>FSFE - The converter hoax</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1> Guest Commentary: The converter hoax</h1>
<p>
Originally published on Heise.de, 2007 July 16th.
</p>
<p>
Conversion between Microsoft's Office OpenXML (MS-OOXML) and the
vendor-independent Open Document Format (ODF) has been proposed by
Microsoft and its associates as a solution to the problems caused by
Microsoft's efforts to push a format into the market that conflicts with
the existing Open Standard. Microsoft's business partners <a
href="http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20061218045851480">Novell</a>,
<a
href="http://www.xandros.com/news/press_releases/xandros_microsoft_collaborate.html">Xandros</a>,
<a
href="http://www.linspire.com/lindows_news_pressreleases_archives.php?id=219">Linspire</a>
and <a
href="http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1180812442">Turbolinux</a>
all committed themselves to work on the converter in the individual deals
they signed.
</p>
<p>
Just like the UK National Archives fell for the <a
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6265976.stm">myth</a> of
better archival through MS-OOXML, which has been analysed in more depth
in a recent followup <a
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6291124.stm">article</a> in
the BBC Technology news, influential groups like Gartner have swallowed
the converter claim hook, line and <a
href="http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=502091">sinker</a>.
</p>
<p>
Here is the problem: If these converters were actually able to do what
they promise to do, they would be unnecessary.
</p>
<p>
When the standardisation effort around Open Document Format (ODF) began,
Microsoft was invited to participate, and chose to remain
silent. Although people implore them until today to join the global
standardisation effort, Microsoft does not contribute its ideas and
suggestions to the multi-vendor Open Document Format.
</p>
<p>
Instead Microsoft focusses on MS-OOXML, which it promotes on the grounds
of technical superiority and wider range of features. But if Microsoft's
claims to technical superiority of MS-OOXML over ODF are true, how could
one ever be converted perfectly into the other?
</p>
<p>
Microsoft maintains that while it would have been easy to support the
Open Document Format (ODF) natively, it had to move to MS-OOXML because
this was the only way for them to offer the full features of its office
suite. But if Microsoft itself is not able to represent its internal data
structures in the Open Document Format (ODF) in its Microsoft Office
suite, how could an external conversion program from MS-OOXML accomplish
this task?
</p>
<p>
The answer to both questions is that it is not possible because two
things cannot be the same and different at the same time.
</p>
<p>
If the two formats could in fact represent the exact same data, there
would be no reason for MS-OOXML to exist. And there would be no excuse
for Microsoft not to use ODF natively for its office application.
</p>
<p>
So Microsoft had to add some additional features to make both formats
represent different data and function sets. This means it will never be
possible to convert all documents from one format to the other.
</p>
<p>
The promise of the converters is an empty one. It is a hoax.
</p>
<p>
If users of MS-OOXML make use of the Microsoft specific functions, they
will find themselves locked into as much vendor and product-dependency as
if no Open Standard or converter existed.
</p>
<p>
To gain at least some of the advantages of Open Standards, users of
MS-OOXML would have to avoid using any of the Microsoft specific
functions and features, and stay within the realm of the existing
functionality of the converter.
</p>
<p>
But how can a user know which function is Microsoft specific?
</p>
<p>
Microsoft Office does not have warning labels on its buttons and it does
not have a "use ODF-compliant functions only" setting. In fact, it does
not even support the Open Document Format natively, because Microsoft has
more interest in lock-in than competition.
</p>
<p>
The only effective way for users of Microsoft Office to avoid that
lock-in into a single-vendor dependency would be to save all their
documents in the Open Document Format (ODF) by using the ODF plugin <a
href="http://www.sun.com/software/star/openoffice/">for Microsoft</a>.
</p>
<p>
In other words: The only way to not be locked into MS-OOXML is to stay
away from it. Because no matter what Microsoft and its business partners
claim, the converters promote lock-in, they don't avoid it.
</p>
<p>
More questions that you should be asking <a
href="msooxml-questions.html">are online</a>.
</p>
</body>
<timestamp>$Date$ $Author$</timestamp>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

228
documents/msooxml-questions-for-ms.en.xhtml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title>FSFE - Questions for Microsoft on open formats</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Questions for Microsoft on open formats</h1>
<p>
Originally published on BBC, 2007 July 11th.
</p>
<p>
After Microsoft announced it would work with the UK National Archives to
help open old digital document formats, Georg Greve and Joachim Jakobs,
of the Free Software Foundation Europe, question the US giant's motives.
</p>
<p>
Today's customers drive the technological development of tomorrow. This
insight is common sense.
</p>
<p>
But when the same customers pay one and the same company for first
creating a problem and then pay them again for solving that problem, most
people would expect the customer to be dissatisfied. Although, at least
some people seem to be pleased.
</p>
<p>
The problem: Microsoft dominates the desktop and office market
with a share of more than 90%. Any document stored in their proprietary
binary formats and especially every document shared between multiple
people strengthens the monopoly and harms competition, economy and
society as a whole.
</p>
<p>
The more widely these formats are being used, the higher the network
effect forcing others into the same dependency - just as it happened to
the UK National Archives.
</p>
<p>
What happened: Microsoft asked the UK National Archives to invest
in a solution that would grant access to their legacy data.
</p>
<p>
Only last week BBC News reported on Mr. Gordon Frazer, managing director
of Microsoft UK, who voiced concern that customers could lose their own
data: "Unless more work is done to ensure legacy file formats can be read
and edited in the future, we face a digital dark hole."
</p>
<h3>Honest statement</h3>
<p>
This is a surprisingly honest statement from a company that is the
largest provider of incompatible and undocumented legacy file formats in
the world.
</p>
<p>
The best solution Microsoft can apparently offer is to "emulate" the old
versions of Windows under the current version of Windows Vista.
</p>
<p>
Indeed some libraries and museums may want to offer an idea of the
previous ages of computing, and not all of them may want to offer the
fully authentic experience of running it on the old hardware to get the
original "look and feel" of bygone times.
</p>
<p>
But are the UK National Archives primarily a museum dedicated to
preserving the original experience of ages and technologies long past? Or
are they focused on archiving the knowledge, thoughts and ideas of the
generations we build upon?
</p>
<p>
The broad audience may not want to read Caesar in the hand writing of a
particular scribe on the original clay tablets or skin.
</p>
<p>
Images of them would normally be sufficient, although indeed most people
would prefer a transcription on paper or screen may be sufficient.
</p>
<h3>Good translation</h3>
<p>
Even more people are probably served best with a good translation. File
formats are the equivalent of the transcription, they encode the original
writing into a form for storage.
</p>
<p>
This idea is not new. Humankind has always sought to preserve its
knowledge, as is documented by clay tablets, scrolls and cave paintings
of ages long past.
</p>
<p>
But while the storage medium can last for a very long time, sometimes the
meaning is lost because the key to the information is lost.
</p>
<p>
In modern terms: We no longer know the encoding used for the cave
paintings.
</p>
<p>
Digital information could potentially be stored without loss of quality
for a very long time to come.
</p>
<p>
But without knowledge about the encoding, our documents will become a
meaningless series of ones and zeroes to future generations, just like
cave paintings are too often meaningless bits of colour on stone to us.
</p>
<p>
The best way to preserve the encoding is to spread it as far as possible,
to make it a public good that is preserved with the same or higher
diligence than the encoded information itself.
</p>
<p>
At best, there is currently only one company that knows exactly how it
has implemented its proprietary legacy file formats.
</p>
<p>
If Microsoft had used Open Standards from the moment it was founded in
1975, this problem would not exist.
</p>
<p>
In fact, the users of GNOME Office, Koffice or OpenOffice.org would have
no problems reading documents written by users of Microsoft (MS) Office.
</p>
<p>
As it is, the stability of the encoding completely depends on the future
existence and behaviour of one company.
</p>
<p>
Thanks to the co-operation of many companies that find themselves in
strong competition, but understand the necessity of preserving the
encoding, there is an Open Standard for office documents: the
"OpenDocument format" (ODF), which is maintained and further developed by
OASIS, an international e-business standardisation organisation, and has
been certified by the International Organisation for Standardization
(ISO).
</p>
<h3>Serious doubts</h3>
<p>
Microsoft has said it has its own open format, called MS-OOXML. But there
are serious doubts whether MS-OOXML can be considered an Open Standard:
Like a Russian doll, it wraps a number of legacy formats like "Word95" or
"Word6", which are not publicly available and can only be implemented by
Microsoft.
</p>
<p>
Another issue is that OOXML may be subject to patent claims. Ultimately
the development of the format depends completely on the future existence
of one company. Can we bet our future on Microsoft to exist in 4007?
</p>
<p>
The impact of such dual standards was recently explained by Open Forum
Europe, a business association with members such as Fujitsu Siemens,
Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, Novell and Sun.
</p>
<p>
Their conclusion was to back ODF: "Multiple Open standards in the area of
Interoperability are unwelcome, costly and impractical for both users and
suppliers, and will be rejected by the market."
</p>
<p>
The public needs to understand: As long as only Microsoft can write
software that will be able to make use of the full extent of the
predominant office file format, Microsoft will remain the predominant
vendor for lack of alternatives and competition.
</p>
<p>
In order to make MS-OOXML the predominant file format, Microsoft is now
seeking approval through ISO for its format, expecting its market
dominance and global lobbying efforts to coerce a sufficient amount of
national standardisation bodies into approving MS-OOXML at ISO.
</p>
<p>
We have laid down six questions we want Microsoft to answer - but the key
one is this: Why did and does Microsoft refuse to participate in the
existing standardisation effort?
</p>
</body>
<timestamp>$Date$ $Author$</timestamp>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->