Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
Hi :) Brilliant! Thanks :)) I did eventual post a fairly long response but your shorter suggestion would be a better one to add and it's more likely that people would read it. The main one that is freaking me out is the extremely lengthy MS post which i probably wont even reach. Most of the pro-MS posts are trying to create delays. Actually i've gone though 10 out of 15 pages of comments and only found maybe half dozen pro-MS posts. So it's very positive reading and some of the posts have interesting links Thanks and regards from Tom :) On 27 February 2014 22:56, Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com wrote: Tom The author does not acknowledge there are many applications that can properly interpret ODF formats. Several of these applications are free. I would point out with links if possible the main download pages for LO, AOO, and Calligra. The cost of using obtaining any these is $0 (US keyboard). The only costs to the organization are for deployment, training, and rewriting macros. Note Office XP is scheduled to be unsupported in the near future. I think about same time that Windows XP becomes an orphan. That only leaves MSO 2007 and 2010 as versions that poorly support ODF formats. AFAIK, MS can issue a patch/upgrade to allow these versions to properly parse the current ODF standard. This is an internal problem for MS not the UK government. If MS does not want to abide by UK rules and requirements the UK government should say good riddance. Most of the professional arguments I have seen are about macros. Macros are a well-known attack vector and should be avoided in normal office documents including spreadsheets if at all possible. Often for Writer/Word documents and well designed template well handle what many macros are used for. On 02/27/2014 03:58 PM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) Aaarrrgh. I've been busily trying to deal with the FUD or ill-informed comments on the UK Govs proposal to set ODF, and only ODF as standard format for editable word-processed documents. But this one is such a long comment that i find it difficult to summarise or deal with at all! http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/807#comment-807 Suggestions would be welcomed a long as they manage to stay polite and cool and maybe a bit posh. Here goes ... The proposal premise is flawed. Personal Opinion The users are being compromised by this overtly technical discussion over proprietary versus open formats that seems to have been sparked by this Cabinet Office challenge. For the average user, there is no distinction around document formats. The Government department user wants to be able to create, collaborate and distribute the most effective and well formed information internally and externally to citizens and business users. The citizen wants to be able to respond and interact with the Government in the simplest and most effective way. The choice of appropriate software for both user groups is governed directly by these fundamentals, not by the type of document format that is produced. Until now! By positively discriminating against the Open Office XML format, The Cabinet Office is proposing to force tens of thousands of users (internal citizens) who have older versions of MSFT office to upgrade or to find alternative Office type software. As a citizen I do not just interact with the Government, I have work to do and social activities which require interaction and collaboration too. Am I supposed to also start creating documents for sharing with my local club and request that all participants also upgrade or otherwise change their software to access these open documents. The answer is yes if this proposal in current form gains any further traction. Please stop and think hard about the short to medium term consequences of this proposal. Professional Opinion. The proposal contains a statement that Users must not have costs imposed upon them due to the format in which editable government information is shared or requested There have consequently been numerous comments on this forum regarding the perceived cost burden to run MSFT Office. I would seriously question the premise of no cost. How or why is this realistic and why therefore is it included in the original challenge? This, I believe is another deliberate attempt at positive discrimination. The Government is freely able to impose cost burden across numerous other activities. As of today I believe that all UK citizens can purchase full MSFT office suite for £7.99 per month that is available for 5 devices per user. If the user is unable to own their own cheap PC or laptop they can use the web based version included in any library or public place that has bandwidth, thus there is not a requirement for an expensive piece of hardware as many have eluded to in previous comments. As you can hardly buy a gallon of petrol for this amount, it has to be seen that this represents extremely good value
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
On 27/02/14 22:56, Jay Lozier wrote: Note Office XP is scheduled to be unsupported in the near future. Office XP has been out of support for two years. Office 2003 is going out of support this year (April). That means companies and people moving to Office 2010 at the least, which I'm sure you are aware is COMPLETELY different in appearance and layout to anything 2003 and prior... -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
On February 28, 2014 12:28:26 AM PST, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: Office XP has been out of support for two years. Office 2003 is going out of support this year (April). That means companies and people moving to Office 2010 at the least, That is the scenario that Microsoft wants The bean counters are looking at a very different scenario. jonathon -- Your language. Your documents. Your way. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
On 28/02/14 09:04, Jonathon wrote: On February 28, 2014 12:28:26 AM PST, Gordon Burgess-Parker wrote: Office XP has been out of support for two years. Office 2003 is going out of support this year (April). That means companies and people moving to Office 2010 at the least, That is the scenario that Microsoft wants The bean counters are looking at a very different scenario.ning curve to jonathon The implication is, that now is a very good time to evangelise LO - as it is far far less of a learning curve to go from MSO 2003 to LO than MSO 2003 to MSO 2010 :-) -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
Hi Tom, my comment would be: Shouldnt we speak a common language? when talking to your government, would you like to be forced to speak a certain dialect and even pay for that? And the dialect is changing once and again without notice by the people, who are charging you. As our English is a free and open standard independent of company interests so it should be on the technical level of communication. Walther Am Freitag, 28. Februar 2014 schrieb Tom Davies: Hi :) Brilliant! Thanks :)) I did eventual post a fairly long response but your shorter suggestion would be a better one to add and it's more likely that people would read it. The main one that is freaking me out is the extremely lengthy MS post which i probably wont even reach. Most of the pro-MS posts are trying to create delays. Actually i've gone though 10 out of 15 pages of comments and only found maybe half dozen pro-MS posts. So it's very positive reading and some of the posts have interesting links Thanks and regards from Tom :) On 27 February 2014 22:56, Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com wrote: Tom The author does not acknowledge there are many applications that can properly interpret ODF formats. Several of these applications are free. I would point out with links if possible the main download pages for LO, AOO, and Calligra. The cost of using obtaining any these is $0 (US keyboard). The only costs to the organization are for deployment, training, and rewriting macros. Note Office XP is scheduled to be unsupported in the near future. I think about same time that Windows XP becomes an orphan. That only leaves MSO 2007 and 2010 as versions that poorly support ODF formats. AFAIK, MS can issue a patch/upgrade to allow these versions to properly parse the current ODF standard. This is an internal problem for MS not the UK government. If MS does not want to abide by UK rules and requirements the UK government should say good riddance. Most of the professional arguments I have seen are about macros. Macros are a well-known attack vector and should be avoided in normal office documents including spreadsheets if at all possible. Often for Writer/Word documents and well designed template well handle what many macros are used for. On 02/27/2014 03:58 PM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) Aaarrrgh. I've been busily trying to deal with the FUD or ill-informed comments on the UK Govs proposal to set ODF, and only ODF as standard format for editable word-processed documents. But this one is such a long comment that i find it difficult to summarise or deal with at all! http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/807#comment-807 Suggestions would be welcomed a long as they manage to stay polite and cool and maybe a bit posh. Here goes ... The proposal premise is flawed. Personal Opinion The users are being compromised by this overtly technical discussion over proprietary versus open formats that seems to have been sparked by this Cabinet Office challenge. For the average user, there is no distinction around document formats. The Government department user wants to be able to create, collaborate and distribute the most effective and well formed information internally and externally to citizens and business users. The citizen wants to be able to respond and interact with the Government in the simplest and most effective way. The choice of appropriate software for both user groups is governed directly by these fundamentals, not by the type of document format that is produced. Until now! By positively discriminating against the Open Office XML format, The Cabinet Office is proposing to force tens of thousands of users (internal citizens) who have older versions of MSFT office to upgrade or to find alternative Office type software. As a citizen I do not just interact with the Government, I have work to do and social activities which require interaction and collaboration too. Am I supposed to also start creating documents for sharing with my local club and request that all participants also upgrade or otherwise change their software to access these open documents. The answer is yes if this proposal in current form gains any further traction. Please stop and think hard about the short to medium term consequences of this proposal. Professional Opinion. The proposal contains a statement that Users must not have costs imposed upon them due to the format in which editable government information is shared or requested There have consequently been numerous comments on this forum regarding the perceived cost burden to run MSFT Office. I would seriously question the premise of no cost. How or why is this realistic and why therefore is it included in the original challenge? This, I believe is another deliberate attempt at positive discrimination. The Government is freely able to impose cost burden
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
Hi :) it would be really superb if people could start on the last page and work their way towards the front to answer questions or dispel blatant FUD. I have a feeling that MS fanboys are going to appear any moment. There are some comments where things are a little wrong or possibly just a bit wonky but are basically harmless and not really worth saying anything about. Things like Open Office clones are even less worth correcting because the term fork is really misunderstood or unknown whereas clones is easier for non-technical people. I suspect the o.p. on that one careful chose the term for that reason. Regards from Tom :) On 28 February 2014 13:31, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi :) I copied Walther's post but that still leaves the other comments that he could post if he/you has just registered! Regards from Tom :) On 28 February 2014 13:18, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi :) I like Walther's and Jonathon's suggestions. You guys still have time to register and post them yourselves. If you are not Uk-resident and not English then i think you can still have your say. you still have an hour or so to do this! :) Gordon's point, building on his previous post is worth us considering amongst ourselves but would need spin to be posted. Perhaps pointing out that many departments and large organisations are now paying huge sums of money to buy into 2010 which is 4 years old and vulnerable to all sorts of known issues. That without this proposal, or if the proposal adds OOXML, then they are going to be forced into paying those huge sums again soon. I have big problems keeping on-track and brief!! Regards from Tom :) On 28 February 2014 09:12, Walther Koehler w.koeh...@onlinemed.de wrote: Hi Tom, my comment would be: Shouldnt we speak a common language? when talking to your government, would you like to be forced to speak a certain dialect and even pay for that? And the dialect is changing once and again without notice by the people, who are charging you. As our English is a free and open standard independent of company interests so it should be on the technical level of communication. Walther Am Freitag, 28. Februar 2014 schrieb Tom Davies: Hi :) Brilliant! Thanks :)) I did eventual post a fairly long response but your shorter suggestion would be a better one to add and it's more likely that people would read it. The main one that is freaking me out is the extremely lengthy MS post which i probably wont even reach. Most of the pro-MS posts are trying to create delays. Actually i've gone though 10 out of 15 pages of comments and only found maybe half dozen pro-MS posts. So it's very positive reading and some of the posts have interesting links Thanks and regards from Tom :) On 27 February 2014 22:56, Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com wrote: Tom The author does not acknowledge there are many applications that can properly interpret ODF formats. Several of these applications are free. I would point out with links if possible the main download pages for LO, AOO, and Calligra. The cost of using obtaining any these is $0 (US keyboard). The only costs to the organization are for deployment, training, and rewriting macros. Note Office XP is scheduled to be unsupported in the near future. I think about same time that Windows XP becomes an orphan. That only leaves MSO 2007 and 2010 as versions that poorly support ODF formats. AFAIK, MS can issue a patch/upgrade to allow these versions to properly parse the current ODF standard. This is an internal problem for MS not the UK government. If MS does not want to abide by UK rules and requirements the UK government should say good riddance. Most of the professional arguments I have seen are about macros. Macros are a well-known attack vector and should be avoided in normal office documents including spreadsheets if at all possible. Often for Writer/Word documents and well designed template well handle what many macros are used for. On 02/27/2014 03:58 PM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) Aaarrrgh. I've been busily trying to deal with the FUD or ill-informed comments on the UK Govs proposal to set ODF, and only ODF as standard format for editable word-processed documents. But this one is such a long comment that i find it difficult to summarise or deal with at all! http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/807#comment-807 Suggestions would be welcomed a long as they manage to stay polite and cool and maybe a bit posh. Here goes ... The proposal premise is flawed. Personal Opinion The users are being compromised by this overtly technical discussion over proprietary versus open formats that seems to have been sparked by this Cabinet Office challenge. For the average user, there is no distinction around document formats. The Government department user wants to be able to create, collaborate and
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
Hi :) I like Walther's and Jonathon's suggestions. You guys still have time to register and post them yourselves. If you are not Uk-resident and not English then i think you can still have your say. you still have an hour or so to do this! :) Gordon's point, building on his previous post is worth us considering amongst ourselves but would need spin to be posted. Perhaps pointing out that many departments and large organisations are now paying huge sums of money to buy into 2010 which is 4 years old and vulnerable to all sorts of known issues. That without this proposal, or if the proposal adds OOXML, then they are going to be forced into paying those huge sums again soon. I have big problems keeping on-track and brief!! Regards from Tom :) On 28 February 2014 09:12, Walther Koehler w.koeh...@onlinemed.de wrote: Hi Tom, my comment would be: Shouldnt we speak a common language? when talking to your government, would you like to be forced to speak a certain dialect and even pay for that? And the dialect is changing once and again without notice by the people, who are charging you. As our English is a free and open standard independent of company interests so it should be on the technical level of communication. Walther Am Freitag, 28. Februar 2014 schrieb Tom Davies: Hi :) Brilliant! Thanks :)) I did eventual post a fairly long response but your shorter suggestion would be a better one to add and it's more likely that people would read it. The main one that is freaking me out is the extremely lengthy MS post which i probably wont even reach. Most of the pro-MS posts are trying to create delays. Actually i've gone though 10 out of 15 pages of comments and only found maybe half dozen pro-MS posts. So it's very positive reading and some of the posts have interesting links Thanks and regards from Tom :) On 27 February 2014 22:56, Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com wrote: Tom The author does not acknowledge there are many applications that can properly interpret ODF formats. Several of these applications are free. I would point out with links if possible the main download pages for LO, AOO, and Calligra. The cost of using obtaining any these is $0 (US keyboard). The only costs to the organization are for deployment, training, and rewriting macros. Note Office XP is scheduled to be unsupported in the near future. I think about same time that Windows XP becomes an orphan. That only leaves MSO 2007 and 2010 as versions that poorly support ODF formats. AFAIK, MS can issue a patch/upgrade to allow these versions to properly parse the current ODF standard. This is an internal problem for MS not the UK government. If MS does not want to abide by UK rules and requirements the UK government should say good riddance. Most of the professional arguments I have seen are about macros. Macros are a well-known attack vector and should be avoided in normal office documents including spreadsheets if at all possible. Often for Writer/Word documents and well designed template well handle what many macros are used for. On 02/27/2014 03:58 PM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) Aaarrrgh. I've been busily trying to deal with the FUD or ill-informed comments on the UK Govs proposal to set ODF, and only ODF as standard format for editable word-processed documents. But this one is such a long comment that i find it difficult to summarise or deal with at all! http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/807#comment-807 Suggestions would be welcomed a long as they manage to stay polite and cool and maybe a bit posh. Here goes ... The proposal premise is flawed. Personal Opinion The users are being compromised by this overtly technical discussion over proprietary versus open formats that seems to have been sparked by this Cabinet Office challenge. For the average user, there is no distinction around document formats. The Government department user wants to be able to create, collaborate and distribute the most effective and well formed information internally and externally to citizens and business users. The citizen wants to be able to respond and interact with the Government in the simplest and most effective way. The choice of appropriate software for both user groups is governed directly by these fundamentals, not by the type of document format that is produced. Until now! By positively discriminating against the Open Office XML format, The Cabinet Office is proposing to force tens of thousands of users (internal citizens) who have older versions of MSFT office to upgrade or to find alternative Office type software. As a citizen I do not just interact with the Government, I have work to do and social activities which require interaction and collaboration too. Am I supposed to also start creating documents for sharing with my local club and request that all participants also
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
On 2014-02-28 14:18, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) I like Walther's and Jonathon's suggestions. You guys still have time to register and post them yourselves. If you are not Uk-resident and not English then i think you can still have your say. you still have an hour or so to do this! :) Not as easy as all that. I tried to register last week, and am still waiting for the confirmation message. I tried again today with the same details and was told that my chosen user name and my email address were taken, but I still couldn't log in. So I connected my trusty VPN link to the UK and registered with another name and email address, and I'm _still_ waiting for the welcome message to drop into my inbox. :( -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:12:13 +0100 Walther Koehler w.koeh...@onlinemed.de wrote: [snip] As our English is a free and open standard independent of company interests so it should be on the technical level of communication. [snip] Brilliantly-put, Walther! May I have your permission to use that in a .sig line? With attribution, of course. Regards, Jim -- Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam filtering. If you reply to this email and your email is rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my web form at http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
Hadn't got that far, Tom. I hit the barrier at registering and didn't go any further. James On 2014-02-28 16:22, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) Give us the link to the post you want to reply to and the comment you wish to make and hopefully someone here can post it for you (e, and take the praise for it ;) ) Regards from Tom :) On 28 February 2014 14:44, James Wilde james.wi...@sunde-wilde.com wrote: On 2014-02-28 14:18, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) I like Walther's and Jonathon's suggestions. You guys still have time to register and post them yourselves. If you are not Uk-resident and not English then i think you can still have your say. you still have an hour or so to do this! :) Not as easy as all that. I tried to register last week, and am still waiting for the confirmation message. I tried again today with the same details and was told that my chosen user name and my email address were taken, but I still couldn't log in. So I connected my trusty VPN link to the UK and registered with another name and email address, and I'm _still_ waiting for the welcome message to drop into my inbox. :( -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
Hi Jim sure you and anybody can use it - with no license fees :-) Walther Am Freitag, 28. Februar 2014 schrieb Jim Seymour: On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:12:13 +0100 Walther Koehler w.koeh...@onlinemed.de wrote: [snip] As our English is a free and open standard independent of company interests so it should be on the technical level of communication. [snip] Brilliantly-put, Walther! May I have your permission to use that in a .sig line? With attribution, of course. Regards, Jim -- Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam filtering. If you reply to this email and your email is rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my web form at http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
Hi :) It's ok James. Plenty of people did make good comments and it was difficult to find something new to say when dealing with some of the FUD. The whole thing has just closed while i was halfway through editing one of my own comments but i was only tidying it up a little anyway. I didn't get Jay's comment in (sorry Jay!) but did use his idea of providing links to downloads of a variety of Office Suites and programs Regards from Tom :) On 28 February 2014 16:41, James Wilde james.wi...@sunde-wilde.com wrote: Hadn't got that far, Tom. I hit the barrier at registering and didn't go any further. James On 2014-02-28 16:22, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) Give us the link to the post you want to reply to and the comment you wish to make and hopefully someone here can post it for you (e, and take the praise for it ;) ) Regards from Tom :) On 28 February 2014 14:44, James Wilde james.wi...@sunde-wilde.com wrote: On 2014-02-28 14:18, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) I like Walther's and Jonathon's suggestions. You guys still have time to register and post them yourselves. If you are not Uk-resident and not English then i think you can still have your say. you still have an hour or so to do this! :) Not as easy as all that. I tried to register last week, and am still waiting for the confirmation message. I tried again today with the same details and was told that my chosen user name and my email address were taken, but I still couldn't log in. So I connected my trusty VPN link to the UK and registered with another name and email address, and I'm _still_ waiting for the welcome message to drop into my inbox. :( -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
Hi :) I like the way you can swap-out English and replace with almost any language to make it more apt for other situations too. The last comment at the end of the consultation had more FUD but there was no time to refute it. It was interesting that MS fanboys didn't wade in. Well over 90% of the comments seemed to be pro-ODF and anti-OOXML. I tried reading almost all of them thoroughly to see if they were tongue-in-cheek, ironic, subtle digs but they all seemed very genuinely pro-ODF! : I've just been through and saved all the html pages but i'm not sure if that captures the comments. is there a better way to do that? I'm a little worried about changes or misrepresentation so i wanted to catch the original source. Regards from Tom :) On 28 February 2014 17:19, Walther Koehler w.koeh...@onlinemed.de wrote: Hi Jim sure you and anybody can use it - with no license fees :-) Walther Am Freitag, 28. Februar 2014 schrieb Jim Seymour: On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:12:13 +0100 Walther Koehler w.koeh...@onlinemed.de wrote: [snip] As our English is a free and open standard independent of company interests so it should be on the technical level of communication. [snip] Brilliantly-put, Walther! May I have your permission to use that in a .sig line? With attribution, of course. Regards, Jim -- Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam filtering. If you reply to this email and your email is rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my web form at http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] comment-807
Hi :) Aaarrrgh. I've been busily trying to deal with the FUD or ill-informed comments on the UK Govs proposal to set ODF, and only ODF as standard format for editable word-processed documents. But this one is such a long comment that i find it difficult to summarise or deal with at all! http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/807#comment-807 Suggestions would be welcomed a long as they manage to stay polite and cool and maybe a bit posh. Here goes ... The proposal premise is flawed. Personal Opinion The users are being compromised by this overtly technical discussion over proprietary versus open formats that seems to have been sparked by this Cabinet Office challenge. For the average user, there is no distinction around document formats. The Government department user wants to be able to create, collaborate and distribute the most effective and well formed information internally and externally to citizens and business users. The citizen wants to be able to respond and interact with the Government in the simplest and most effective way. The choice of appropriate software for both user groups is governed directly by these fundamentals, not by the type of document format that is produced. Until now! By positively discriminating against the Open Office XML format, The Cabinet Office is proposing to force tens of thousands of users (internal citizens) who have older versions of MSFT office to upgrade or to find alternative Office type software. As a citizen I do not just interact with the Government, I have work to do and social activities which require interaction and collaboration too. Am I supposed to also start creating documents for sharing with my local club and request that all participants also upgrade or otherwise change their software to access these open documents. The answer is yes if this proposal in current form gains any further traction. Please stop and think hard about the short to medium term consequences of this proposal. Professional Opinion. The proposal contains a statement that Users must not have costs imposed upon them due to the format in which editable government information is shared or requested There have consequently been numerous comments on this forum regarding the perceived cost burden to run MSFT Office. I would seriously question the premise of no cost. How or why is this realistic and why therefore is it included in the original challenge? This, I believe is another deliberate attempt at positive discrimination. The Government is freely able to impose cost burden across numerous other activities. As of today I believe that all UK citizens can purchase full MSFT office suite for £7.99 per month that is available for 5 devices per user. If the user is unable to own their own cheap PC or laptop they can use the web based version included in any library or public place that has bandwidth, thus there is not a requirement for an expensive piece of hardware as many have eluded to in previous comments. As you can hardly buy a gallon of petrol for this amount, it has to be seen that this represents extremely good value for money. The proposal does not mention the cost to Government of using proprietary licences including Microsoft, but again there are many comments that the perceived saving of £m's will directly ensue form this proposal being adopted. If this is the intention of the proposal then please explicitly state so, otherwise, as I say, the proposal is flawed. Mandating a change to ODF across multiple Government departments, agencies NDPB's etc. will have huge implementation and subsequent Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) costs in addition to significant migration costs onto ODF. New products such as Libre Office from Germany, have well-formed credentials, but have grown out of the ashes of Open Office which has in the past had Oracle licencing connections. Oracle stumbled as they acquired Sun Mocrosystems and the result was a breakaway called The Document Foundation. Perhaps this is why comments regarding Open Office are light by comparison to Libre Office. Interestingly when researching this organisation, I noted that Michael Meeks who is a Director has published some positive comments about Microsoft's adoption of OOXML when it was first introduced. There is very emotive and strong criticism of Microsoft in many responses to your proposal and I feel that such emotion should not be part of what needs to be a professional debate. I have taken the opportunity to read and digest Microsoft's formal response to this proposal and find that their stance of requesting ODF and OOXML together is well founded, pragmatic and entirely supportable. If a Government Department is to request say Tender Submissions, they should be entirely free to request submission on both formats. Many Government Departments that I have dealt with still request submission in .doc format rather than .docx. I have no problem or issue in dealing with those requests. There are many comments
Re: [libreoffice-users] comment-807
Tom The author does not acknowledge there are many applications that can properly interpret ODF formats. Several of these applications are free. I would point out with links if possible the main download pages for LO, AOO, and Calligra. The cost of using obtaining any these is $0 (US keyboard). The only costs to the organization are for deployment, training, and rewriting macros. Note Office XP is scheduled to be unsupported in the near future. I think about same time that Windows XP becomes an orphan. That only leaves MSO 2007 and 2010 as versions that poorly support ODF formats. AFAIK, MS can issue a patch/upgrade to allow these versions to properly parse the current ODF standard. This is an internal problem for MS not the UK government. If MS does not want to abide by UK rules and requirements the UK government should say good riddance. Most of the professional arguments I have seen are about macros. Macros are a well-known attack vector and should be avoided in normal office documents including spreadsheets if at all possible. Often for Writer/Word documents and well designed template well handle what many macros are used for. On 02/27/2014 03:58 PM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) Aaarrrgh. I've been busily trying to deal with the FUD or ill-informed comments on the UK Govs proposal to set ODF, and only ODF as standard format for editable word-processed documents. But this one is such a long comment that i find it difficult to summarise or deal with at all! http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/807#comment-807 Suggestions would be welcomed a long as they manage to stay polite and cool and maybe a bit posh. Here goes ... The proposal premise is flawed. Personal Opinion The users are being compromised by this overtly technical discussion over proprietary versus open formats that seems to have been sparked by this Cabinet Office challenge. For the average user, there is no distinction around document formats. The Government department user wants to be able to create, collaborate and distribute the most effective and well formed information internally and externally to citizens and business users. The citizen wants to be able to respond and interact with the Government in the simplest and most effective way. The choice of appropriate software for both user groups is governed directly by these fundamentals, not by the type of document format that is produced. Until now! By positively discriminating against the Open Office XML format, The Cabinet Office is proposing to force tens of thousands of users (internal citizens) who have older versions of MSFT office to upgrade or to find alternative Office type software. As a citizen I do not just interact with the Government, I have work to do and social activities which require interaction and collaboration too. Am I supposed to also start creating documents for sharing with my local club and request that all participants also upgrade or otherwise change their software to access these open documents. The answer is yes if this proposal in current form gains any further traction. Please stop and think hard about the short to medium term consequences of this proposal. Professional Opinion. The proposal contains a statement that Users must not have costs imposed upon them due to the format in which editable government information is shared or requested There have consequently been numerous comments on this forum regarding the perceived cost burden to run MSFT Office. I would seriously question the premise of no cost. How or why is this realistic and why therefore is it included in the original challenge? This, I believe is another deliberate attempt at positive discrimination. The Government is freely able to impose cost burden across numerous other activities. As of today I believe that all UK citizens can purchase full MSFT office suite for £7.99 per month that is available for 5 devices per user. If the user is unable to own their own cheap PC or laptop they can use the web based version included in any library or public place that has bandwidth, thus there is not a requirement for an expensive piece of hardware as many have eluded to in previous comments. As you can hardly buy a gallon of petrol for this amount, it has to be seen that this represents extremely good value for money. The proposal does not mention the cost to Government of using proprietary licences including Microsoft, but again there are many comments that the perceived saving of £m's will directly ensue form this proposal being adopted. If this is the intention of the proposal then please explicitly state so, otherwise, as I say, the proposal is flawed. Mandating a change to ODF across multiple Government departments, agencies NDPB's etc. will have huge implementation and subsequent Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) costs in addition to significant migration costs onto ODF. New products such as Libre Office from Germany, have well-formed credentials, but have
