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.
Of course, but it doesn't satisfy the requirement for actual content creation. They can make minor changes in PDFs, move and rotate pages, etc., but they can't realistically* do document and layout and send it to someone else for editing.
* Technically they can if a layout application exists whose native format is PDF. Adobe InDesign comes close to this, and Adobe Illustrator is this, but it doesn't apply to their Office-type needs.
Like I told Shadow. This discussion was based on earlier claims that security by obscurity is no security. And the point GE made was obscurity is a tenant of security. But as with most catchy little phrases they just fall apart under scrutiny.
All examples I gave were to try and illustrate that point and trying best not to be pulled off in different directions, so the original point would go ignored. I think we accomplished that. I believe we have 4 people now agreeing that obscurity is part of security and has a role in it. I don't believe anyone (I know I haven't) claimed that obscurity is the only thing you need to be secure, but it is one of the layers. Since we aparently agree on that, I don't see the need to try and prove who has the best definition for cryptologic properties. Early on it would have helped if we all had the same definitions, but in the end we actually got to agreement.
Now we have a PDF vs. ODF vs. O12 formats issue going on. If you have some new points to add to that, I'd be glad to discuss them. So far I'm looking forward to shadow's response to the license allowing one to write files.
Your reading comprehension skills are only slightly above GE, it seems. No one here has claimed it plays no part in security. It has been claimed that reliance upon obscurity is the mistake. Use it because it plays a part, but the algorithm is the key ingredient.
Maybe you weren't on the discussion early on (maybe it was on another thread), but yes they were claiming obscurity has no role whatsoever. In fact, antirepublicrat even stated obscurity is a waste and no money should be spent on it (or something like that).
It sounds like you and I are in agreement, so no need to argue over nothing.
Me too. Then they can tell the next state to shove it, and the next, and the next...
Because, in the long run, this is going to cost taxpayers deeply.
Let's see: Microsoft spends a relatively miniscule amount supporting another XML format (basically build a schema translator), or MA replaces Office with a ODF-compatible suite on their current Windows boxes at a cost of $0 to $69.95 per box. I can't really see a loss either way, especially since most are predicting that retraining for Office 12 will probably be harder than retraining for OpenOffice (which works a lot like Office does now, as opposed to Office 12).
Try reading for comprehension next time. You have to read the entire agreement, not just one phrase.
The part you're hung up on is, that they are saying you can't transfer the license. That means the State can't give me a license. I have to go to Microsoft for the license. Most contracts/warranties/legal documents are this way. Transference is the exception not the norm.
Do you not buy an appliance or car because the warranty won't transfer to the guy you're going to sell it to? I swear it's like you guys are just dying for a reason to not use office...why not just say you don't like it and would rather use product X.
Wrong. It's the "sublicensing" phrase that's incompatible with the Mass requirements.
The tens of thousands of other state workers, contractors, etc.? Yes, there are some interesting external aspects to the move, and they're the problem of those outside the state (although the software to read and edit the format is free, unlike Office), but the end goal is that in 20 years you can still read and edit everything regardless of the actions of any specific vendor.
It's called Adobe Acrobat.
You haven't been reading. First, it's called Acrobat Professional. Second, it only allows minor touch-ups of text and objects, moving pages around, etc. I use it every day, so I know it is most definitely deficient for content creation and full editing. Illustrator is excellent and reads and saves PDF directly, but it's best used for posters and drawings.
I don't follow why it's a huge issue that the state can't work out.
I actually like MS Office 2003 once I get it configured right (turning off the annoying stuff -- Clippy dies first). I use it every day at work. But for home I use OpenOffice because MS Office is just not worth the money to me.
Show me any evidence that any state was working on it a few years ago. When this works out, others will follow -- if they care about their citizens and open government.
They don't need to re-license the format. Mass can use the format without licensing the format from their vendor of choice. Why would sun want to sub-license it?
I can see that. At home I rarely use office--it's more of a business app (Must have at work) nice to have at home. Although I tried openoffice and staroffice and they both suck ass. I found corel a better suite, but still don't use it. However if I was looking for an alternative it wouldn't be the openoffice or staroffice junk I tried in the past.
How would the state work it out? The license originates with Microsoft. MS will license third party developers, but those 3rd-party developers cannot license anyone to access documents created by their own software,due to the "sublicensing" clause. The effectively prevents competition.
Another reason is that the gov't of Mass heard this:
"Someday, for all countries that are entering the WTO [World Trade Organisation], somebody will come and look for money owing to the rights for that intellectual property," Ballmer reportedly said.Since MS' XML format is owned by one company, under a restrictyive license, and the above quote comes into play, what would you think about MS' future intentions?
OTOH ODF is not owned by one company, it is a specification put out by a standards body, with various members. No one company owns it.
Mass. has already gone on record as saying this is not about economic reasons :
"What we've backed away from at this point is the use of a proprietary standard and we want standards that are published and free of legal encumbrances, and we don't want two standards," Kriss added.. . .That clause is the main sticking point not only for me, but for the state of Mass as well.
The latest versions are pretty good: Office clones, although without Clippy!
To create a competitor for Office.
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.