Posted on 10/05/2005 7:42:38 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Opinion: It's not coincidence that after Massachusetts made it clear that it would support open formats, Microsoft is now going to include PDF in the next version of Office.
What is Microsoft up to, anyway, with its sudden plan to finally support PDF?
It wasn't announced by Bill Gates loudly to the world at the Professional Developer Conference a few weeks ago. It also wasn't proclaimed to the Microsoft faithful at its recent Most Valuable Professional Global Summit.
No, instead, Microsoft quietly squeaked out the news on a Saturday afternoon in Microsoft Office Program Manager Brian Jones' Weblog.
Could it be that it's because Microsoft is backing its way into ever so reluctantly supporting an open format after Massachusetts decided that it would only use office suites that supported open formats like PDF and OpenDocument?
It certainly looks that way to me.
For all of its talk about being an innovator, Microsoft is really just a follower.
PointerClick here to read more about Microsoft's decision to build PDF support into Office 12.
Sometimes, of course, the company is a very, very reluctant follower. It took Microsoft's leadership forever to live down the fact that they had initially dismissed the Internet. Now, I see Microsoft slowly and painfully embracing open standards.
Mind you, this move is just a beginning. I recently pointed out that it would be trivial for Microsoft to add OpenDocument support to Office.
I don't see that happening anytime soon now though.
With PDF support alone, Microsoft can still try for Massachusetts government contracts without having to add OpenDocument.
Well, until StarOffice, OpenOffice.org and WordPerfect's support for OpenDocument force Microsoft's hand anyway.
After all, PDF is much more of an end-result format than one that most people actually want to edit in. As OpenDocument and the applications that enable it gain more support, Microsoft will find itself forced into supporting it too.
Now, some might say that this is just Microsoft giving the people what they want. Many users have been asking for a PDF option from Microsoft since Adobe Acrobat 4 appeared in 1999.
eWEEK Special Report: Office Politics
But, if that's all there was to it, then why was Microsoft banging the drum for its own PDF substitute, Metro, only a few months ago?
Still others might say that is part and parcel of Microsoft's recent efforts to compete against Adobe in other ways: Sparkle vs. Flash, Acrylic vs. Photoshop and so on.
To which, I say, "Why now? Why announce it in such a subdued way?"
No, all those other things play a role, but at the end of the day, Microsoft felt that it must make at least a concession to open standards by adopting PDF.
After all, it's not like Massachusetts is the only entity that is seriously considering making supporting open standards a requirement for its software purchases. Massachusetts was just the first to make it official.
Microsoft would love it if it could make everyone stick to its proprietary formats. That forces customers to keep buying its products. But it can't. And, much as Microsoft may hate it, its executives know it. So it is that as quietly as the company could, Microsoft is, once more, making concessions to open standards.
eWEEK.com Senior Editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has been using and writing about operating systems since the late '80s and thinks he may just have learned something about them along the way. He can be reached at sjvn@ziffdavis.com.
Funny thing is I always thought the phrase was "Security via obfuscation is no security at all". I used that on here in a tech discussion once and I was corrected by someone to say that it was obscurity.
Definition of obfuscate: to make obscure
LOL.
Is that not a bit like saying my car key is obscure because you don't have it or a copy of it in your hands? Without my key or access to it there is no easy way to know what it looks like.
I can see how someone might call this obscurity, but I don't think there is any question that it is far closer to secrecy..
I can see how someone might call this obscurity, but I don't think there is any question that it is far closer to secrecy..
Well that's why I said you need to try and keep your hash SECRET; however, the one-way hash is a process to obfuscate (to make obscure) the password. So hiding your HASH (or key) is "secret" also not telling anyone the actual password is also "secret". However, the hash itself is considered to make the password obscure. One makes the password obscure via a hash so that if the hash is obtained it's still very difficult to find out the password.
Using the definitions you posts:
Obscurity: The quality or condition of being imperfectly known or difficult to understand.
So the hash is "difficult to understand"
Secrecy: The quality or condition of being secret or hidden; concealment.
The fact that you hide your password and try to protect the hash from falling into the wrong hands is considered secrecy as it is hidden.
We're only arguing about semantics here and I think the point GE made is very valid and accurate. He just made us all think of the obvious, but now people are trying to keep from letting GE make a good point so they are grasping at straws (like Knitebane using confidentiality).
Sure there is: If they want to business with MA gov, they'll quit bellyaching and support ODF.
I think what he's saying is that Microsoft is going to piggy-back on the bogus waiver that PDF was granted.
This all goes to Taxachussetts going along with the ABM crowd, and it just blew up in their face. Also Taxachussetts could easily create an add-in to Word that will allow them to save in ODF format. So it's not about ODF format at all...it's about trying to make up business reasons to not use Microsoft simply because they don't like them...and this is all at taxpayers expense.
Technical question:
Does the feature export and import pdf??
I guess the question I have is regarding editing the files. If one wanted to reopen a PDF to edit it, Word's new function wouldn't support that. It's essentially a save-to function, like a converter filter. That's fine for archiving, but not for a work in progress.
ODF, as implemented in OOorg, is an open, edit, save, reopen, resave, etc. kind of function. To do that with PDF, one would need Adobe Acrobat. At least that's the way I understand it. Thus, I'm not sure PDF helps Microsoft in this situation.
They're probably writing off those liberal wankers in mASS already, did you see their briefing with Chicom proverbs about why they were switching?
Open source always has been the poor man's or liberal solution, but the lines are about to start getting a whole lot clearer.
Which I think would be fine, MS should be eligable to be used anywhere a PDF generator is needed..
"Sure, I can't reach those grapes, but I don't care, they're probably sour anyway."
Reference? Is this "fact" documented anywhere?
At least the XML is text. It is a step in the right direction.
Now if it can do both or it does allow ODF then it sure is worth looking at..
If it can't open and edit PDFs, it's not the same thing at all. Any damn fool can export to PDF. There's software that will make a PDF out of anything that can be printed.
I think what the MA standard contemplates is the ability to create, edit, save, archive, reopen, reedit, resave, etc. all sorts of files. That's what OOorg does with ODF.
I think this Microsoft announcement is all sauce and no clams.
Who cares really. The bigger knews is all these supposed conservatives on here slobbering at the mouth to line up in lockstep behind the liberals.
More sour grapes. Poor thing.
How so? This is exactly what I've been predicting all along.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.