Is anyone else encountering the same problem?

This is a discussion on Is anyone else encountering the same problem? within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by cyberfish Open source != open standard, like MK27 has explained with the PDF (open standard) and Adobe ...

  1. #76
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    Open source != open standard, like MK27 has explained with the PDF (open standard) and Adobe Reader (closed source) example.
    Look, this is the last I say anything to you about this issue. You are starting to become annoying. Either you folks give each other a wake-up-call and get smart or the situation really becomes impossible to manage. There's so much ignorance I can take.

    Proprietary software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Open source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  2. #77
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    It's only supported PARTIALLY by OpenOffice. All but the simplest documents will fail to render correctly.

    It's like saying Windows has fork() support, through cygwin.

  3. #78
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    Windows - has DOC support
    Yellow Dog Linux - has DOC support
    MacOS - has DOC support
    Unix - has DOC support
    Solaris - has DOC support
    Redhat - has DOC support
    ReactOS - has DOC support
    Ubuntu - has DOC support
    Slackware - has DOC support
    Debian - has DOC support
    And don't forget cellphones, from Android to Symbian to the obvious Windows
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  4. #79
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    It's only supported PARTIALLY by OpenOffice. All but the simplest documents will fail to render correctly.

    It's like saying Windows has fork() support, through cygwin.
    That is odd, because I use OpenOffice at home and have never had a document render incorrectly regardless of whether MS-Office created it and I'm viewing it in OO or the other way around.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  5. #80
    Registered User QuestionKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    68
    lol...close
    Asking a question you already know the answer to might teach you something you did not know...

  6. #81
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    BTW, PDF is just as proprietary as DOC.
    Again, the issue was about standards and not ownership. PDF has an ISO standard, which means an independent third party can adjudicate, eg, if the owner suddenly decides tomorrow to make the format totally incompatible with previous versions -- you just violated your own standard, so whatever it is you are producing, it is not recognized by the ISO as a .pdf.

    Having standards helps to insure to developers that their work will not just be a waste of time. This is from Microsoft's own ".xlsm" format (the "Office Open" format for MS Office):

    ISO/IEC 29500 is a standard for word-processing documents, presentations and spreadsheets that is intended to be implemented by multiple applications on multiple platforms. According to the submitters of the document, one of its objectives is to ensure the long-term preservation of documents created over the last two decades using programmes that are becoming incompatible with continuing advances in the field of information technology.
    However, this DOES NOT apply to MS Word .docs -- the point being, Microsoft DOES NOT intend .doc files to be portable or used by third party software. They are the owner -- why would you insist someone use their product for a purpose for which it is EXPLICITLY not intended (portability)? Esp. if you are defending the proprietary model??
    Last edited by MK27; 12-18-2009 at 07:42 PM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  7. #82
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    That is odd, because I use OpenOffice at home and have never had a document render incorrectly regardless of whether MS-Office created it and I'm viewing it in OO or the other way around.
    That is strange indeed. Almost all documents I opened were rendered incorrectly in some way. Especially those that contain tables and footnotes/headers/page numbers. Sometimes the formatting would be completely off that I can't even guess what it was supposed to look like. All the text is usually on the page... somewhere, though.

    OO 3 does a lot better (could be due to the now-public specification), but still far from perfect.

  8. #83
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Necessarily more work needs to be done on the OOXML specification under Linux. As I understand OpenOffice has no desire to support it, so this is a unilateral decision of an Open Source project to not provide support to an open standard. There's only one place to complain.

    However Apache POI has been under fast development and this may as well be the library anyone will need for developing full OOXML support on their applications under Linux. It's right now so good already, it even has a .Net port which is used by windows developers to create applications that can interface with OOXML files without the need to have Microsoft Office installed on the user machine.

    Meanwhile, Office97-2003 support is pretty much established across the board on Linux. It's good enough on any application I ever worked with to produce perfectly readable documents. The one problem that hasn't been addressed yet by OpenOffice that may render a Windows Office 97-2003 unreadable is the MS Office Fast Save feature. In any case, the formats are all open and the only reason they haven't been fully implemented is cultural. Much more complex mappings have been achieved under Linux with less fuss.

    Linux users cannot blame anyone but themselves. Apparently it just isn't enough for a format to be an open standard. It must not be from Microsoft.

    Still Linux support for Word files is not limited in any way to OpenOffice. There's AbiWord, KWord, et cetera. And even tools that take a word file in linux and convert it on the fly or read it on the console. But these are mere amateurish tools. Best of the bunch is perhaps Antiword.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 12-18-2009 at 08:27 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    OO has supported OOXML since version 3.

    Note that ODF was ALREADY an ISO standard before Office 2007 came along. They just had to make a new standard with pretty much the exact same purpose, instead of just implementing ODF and make life easier for everyone (except Microsoft, of course, who will now lose a lot of money due to compatibility with OpenOffice).

  10. #85
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Alright, so I take it that ISO thing does cover .doc files, my mistake.

    To be honest, my problem with them is more about the word processor concept in general -- to me it makes more sense to prep what you want there (or whereever), then publish it in an immutable form like .pdf The web, for example, is not a mish-mash of dissimilar formats produced by various WYSIWYG editors. It would never work.

    But you KNOW a pdf file will always look EXACTLY the same whereever rendered. I've never seen a word processor (open source or not) that I would attribute that to -- I suppose because printing on paper is suppose to be the final product. Postscript is the same as pdf -- the final product is as good as a piece of paper. WYSIWYG word processor files are not like that, perhaps because of their nature.

    I kind of see a word processor file as being an unfinished thing -- like you give someone source code instead of an executable. Maybe appropriate for certain purposes, but unless the document is intended for editing or changing, it's just lazy or silly.
    Last edited by MK27; 12-18-2009 at 09:18 PM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  11. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    Here is an apparently biased comparison between ODF and OOXML by someone from the OpenDocument Foundation that claims OOXML is not as open and "clean" as MS advertised it to be.
    Achieving_Openness_1point0

    I cannot find any comparison favouring OOXML, help?

  12. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    ISO doesn't cover .doc. The specification was just published by Microsoft.

  13. #88
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    I wasn't very happy with OOXML specification either. Particularly the way it was done. That much we agree. However having more than one standard for the exact same purpose is really not something to argue about at this point; They are there. Besides, we know the damage that sometimes can be done when you only have one standard (take a look at the XML 1.1)

    But perhaps more meaningful is the simple observation that necessarily the ODF format could have the potential to put a dent on Microsoft's position in the office suits market. And you don't get to be the size of Microsoft without playing hard ball. I understand this may brush on the more susceptible Linux advocate minds, but on the world of high bowlers either you win or you lose. There's no middle ground. It's how the game is played and no one set the rules.

    But in any case, if anything, both standards have the advantage of being highly mappable between themselves since they base their formats entirely on XML. I wasn't aware OpenOffice had finally agreed to support OOXML. I distinctly remember they saying they wouldn't and could find the links to verify that much. But you are also right. They did in fact start their support with 3.0.

    The next question is perhaps why doesn't Microsoft implement ODF? Well, they did. You have a translation tool. And that's all you will probably ever get from them. Simply put, of course they have no interest in supporting ODF. They have around 95% of the Office Suit market and they intend it to stay that way. Bad Microsoft? Only if you don't want to assume you would do the exact same thing in their shoes.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  14. #89
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    I agree, they did what a business would do to maximize their profit.

    Just saying there are more... honourable ways to do business.

    For example, Photoshop. Adobe sells it for a few hundred dollars. There is a free alternative - GIMP.

    There is very little inter-interoperability issue in graphics formats (thankfully). Everyone can open everyone else's images perfectly. Yet, Adobe is still making a fortune selling Photoshop.

    Why? Because it has more features and more advanced functionalities that graphics professionals need.

    They had a choice and they choose Photoshop.

    The same cannot be said for MS Office. If I ever decide to start using MS Office, it would be because I have no choice. Of all current MS Office users, how many would be using OO instead if they are completely compatible (like in the Photoshop case)? Does MS Office offer as much more functionality as the price tag suggests?

  15. #90
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    I cannot find any comparison favouring OOXML, help?
    There may not be any. Personally I like ODF a lot more. You may find however Microsoft saying the world about OOXML without giving one sentence to ODF. And that's that.

    If you are being told there really is a battle between ODF and OOXML, get off that boat. It's for losers. That idea is only in the minds of anyone pretending ODF stands up to OOXML in terms of adoption. While Microsoft dominates the home and business markets and does not implement ODF directly in their products, you will keep seeing the world turning around at the sound of Office music. And it doesn't matter one bit to the end user what is best. Most of them don't even know what "an" ODF is or would be able to understand it, or care, if they were told.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Memory problem with Borland C 3.1
    By AZ1699 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 10:22 AM
  2. Someone having same problem with Code Block?
    By ofayto in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 08:38 AM
  3. A question related to strcmp
    By meili100 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-07-2007, 02:51 PM
  4. WS_POPUP, continuation of old problem
    By blurrymadness in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 06:54 PM
  5. Possible Windows MDAC problem
    By BobS0327 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-28-2006, 04:57 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21