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 <[email protected]> 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 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 regarding the view that an ODF format will be >> robust and unchanged for many years to come, in comparison to an >> implicit suggestion that the MSFT format will not, thus supporting >> ODF adoption to protect the ability to view digital information >> archives in the future. I was very interested in this and consequently >> did my research. I was unable to find any such assurance from any >> source that ODF will remain unchanged in the future. Perhaps my search >> was not exhaustive enough, but I would be very interested to see what >> actual evidence there is to support these numerous claims. The issue >> of future proofing digital archives is a vast and complicated one and >> I suggest that if there are some solutions forming then it would be >> most useful to everyone to share the facts. Personally I am still able >> to access Word & Excel documents created as far back as the 1990's >> with my current software and this has served me well without >> interruption or complication. >> >> Finally, whilst I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this >> debate, I am very concerned that this consultation does not appear to >> be far reaching and has therefore attracted a tightly formed, >> vociferous minority voice, which has no basis on which to make >> fundamental policy change the like of which is being proposed here. >> The vast majority of individuals that I have spoken to are simply >> unaware of it and are therefore excluded from giving an opinion. We >> need to have a much wider user based forum which extends well beyond >> the mainly technical discussion that has raged here. Perhaps this is >> the intention and of so I would welcome that wholeheartedly. >> >> In conclusion, I would submit that there should be a longer period to >> extend the consultation and consider more fully the wider implications >> of this proposal. My combined personal and professional opinion is >> that we should conclude that the proposal should extend to include the >> widely adopted MSFT OOXML format to allow the best and widest option >> for maximum user satisfaction across all users that this proposal will >> affect. >> > > -- > Jay Lozier > [email protected] > > > -- > To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] 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
