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 <[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
