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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 >>> -- 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
