A Set of RFI Responses for Sherlock Holmes 57
Andy Updegrove writes "In early May, Massachusetts issued a 'Request for Information' on plugins that could help ease the transition from a Microsoft Office based environment to one relying on ODF compliant software. Now the seven responses received have been posted by the ITD: six from vendors large and small — and one from Microsoft that purports to be informational, but in fact gives no information beyond what is already publicly available. Like everything else in the ODF saga, many of the responses are as much political as technical, with some delivering off-topic messages, one (from the ODF Foundation, strangely) refusing to disclose much at all, and several contradicting each other on the technical challenge of working with Office absent further code disclosures by Microsoft. All in all, they make for an intriguing read on multiple levels — offering more of an Easter egg hunt than informative offering. It will be interesting to see which, if any, of these offerings the Mass. ITD decides to utilize."
Slashdot editors... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot editors... (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot editors... (Score:1, Funny)
Mod parent...something. (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow. (Score:2)
50% Overrated
50% Redundant
How 'bout Off Topic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Funny)
Open? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. What is the present state of efforts to create ODF plug-ins or converters for Microsoft Office, whether undertaken by respondent or others through projects with which the respondent is familiar?
This information is available under the terms of a confidentiality agreement.
I guess in the land of Microsoft, an open door and a closed door are the same thing.
Re:Open? (Score:5, Funny)
That's because people enter through the windows.
Re:Open? (Score:5, Funny)
And more often, through the backdoor
Re:Open? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that the ODF doesn't want MS to break whatever APIs they are using for their plugin in Office 2007. Office 2007 is still _beta_ code. We've seen significant changes in the beta in the last few months, and theres nothing to stop these changes from occuring in the near future.
I have no fears whatsoever that ODF will release the plugin under an open-source license. Furthermore, if you feel that you could do the actual development work, the format is avaliable for all to see; there's nothing sketchy going on here.
Novell didn't release the XGL code until it was near-finished, because they a) wanted to WOW the world, b) didn't want to argue about their architectural decisions, and c) wanted to get it done by the SuSE PRO desktop release cycle for 10 (which hasn't occurred yet). There are other projects that operate under similar levels of secrecy; and there's _nothing_ wrong with that.
You're free to develop Open Source code in secret. You're free to use Open Source code in secret (think Google). The only time you need to share the source, is when you distribute the binary. That's the beauty of the GPL. Want to use a heavily modified linux for your cruise missile guidance code?
Fine. The only person you have to distribute it to is your customers, and they don't have to distribute it to anyone they don't want to. The essence of GPL style "freedom" is that when you get a piece of software, you get the guts of it, too; and you can redistribute any and all of it. GPL style "freedom" doesn't mean that the world as a whole gets your development time, or all the crap you strip out before you release your GPL code into the wild. It doesn't mean that a customer can demand all your alpha/beta versions before release, either. It just means that when you get a software "product", you get all the aspects of it, including distribution rights and source code.
That's essentially why the GPL is compatible with capitalism.
Re:Cruise Missle Source, Please (Score:2, Funny)
Cruise Missle Source, delivered. (Score:2)
All part of the job, m'am.
Re:Open? (Score:2)
Indeed, if you're writing it from scratch you can even distribute testing builds as binary-only, and only release the source after it's been developed to the point where it's stable (or whenever).
Re:Open? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're writing it from scratch and only releasing binaries it's not (yet) Open Source then, is it?
And then we have the likes of Sveasoft who like to distribute GPL'ed software under the guise of 'not really quite happy with it yet' for money without source compliance.
Behind closed doors... (Score:5, Funny)
Conversation between ODF advocates before they submitted their responses:
"Ok, let's see here... cryptic response?"
"Check."
"Stick something in there about penguins?"
"Check."
"Refuse to reveal any actual information?"
"Yep."
"Awesome. Finish it up with something about Bill Gates eating babies, and send it out."
"You got it."
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Behind closed doors... (Score:2)
Re:Behind closed doors... (Score:2)
"Nonsensical statement involving plankton?"
"Check."
Re:Behind closed doors... (Score:1)
"Acknowledgement and acceptance of terms."
Microsoft as a machine. (Score:2, Insightful)
For some reason, when it comes to being big giant anticompetitive liars, their mission is always perfectly executed. It is quite amazing, really.
Re:Microsoft as a machine. (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft as a machine. (Score:2, Funny)
"Malice and stupidity are NOT mutually exclusive."
Re:Microsoft as a machine. (Score:2, Insightful)
The FP says MA wanted info "that could help ease the transition from a Microsoft Office based environment" (bolding mine).
What motivation did Microsoft have to cooperate at all? "I would like you to give me information on the best time and place to kick you in the balls".
Same as they did with DOJ, same as they are doing with the EU.
Again... "We have decided to go on a witch hunt, and you look like a witch... Please provide evidence that would allow
Re:Microsoft as a machine. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft as a machine. (Score:1)
When reading their response (the parts about "NA", "NA", "NA" and "NA" come to mind), I was wondering why they weren't being MORE cooperative.
The Commonwealth has apparently already decided that they need to work with ODF to some extent, and they've apparently spent a ton of money on Microsoft products. Microsoft should be saying, "Thanks for continuing to use our products. Here's EXACTLY
Re:Microsoft as a machine. (Score:3, Interesting)
Had Microsoft simply said that Office 2007 would fully support ODF, I'm willing to bet there would be a very good chance that Massachusetts would choose Office 2007 for the supported desktop configuration. Having working in IT for years (and two years in MA state IT), I can tell you
Re:Microsoft as a machine. (Score:1)
That is not a great argument for supporting your claim that Word is a better product. It would be an acceptable argument if you were claiming that Word is a better product if you are a book publisher and the features relevant to book publishing are indispensable to you.
See, most people do not work at book publishers.
(And, by the way, for those th
Re:Microsoft as a machine. (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft as a machine. (Score:1)
I am just pointing out that the argument you use to justify your claim that "Word is, hands down, a better product [than OOo]" is really not good enough. I am just pointing that comparaisons as to what is better than what have to be done relative to a "better to do something specific" or "better for some particular use".
For the uses most people I know use Word for, WordPad would be a better product. For the uses I could possibly use Word for, LaTeX+vim is a better product. You get the idea.
I'm not a witch (Score:2)
She turned me into a newt!
Microsoft fails to provide adequate awnser? (Score:1)
Let me go out on a limb ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having lived in MA most of my life, let me describe the selection process that will be used. First, which of the companies has significant ownership by MA pols or relatives or friends of MA pols? Since MA is a one-party state there is non-existent oversight on these matters. If that does not determine a clear winner, we move on to the next most important criteria
Re:Let me go out on a limb ... (Score:2)
It's even simpler than that... (Score:3, Funny)
Then they throw down their pencils and head for Dunkin Donuts.
Oh wait - I may be thinking of another roadmap...
A VB Macro Converter (Score:3, Interesting)
I have some spreadsheets written by a coworker to automate some procedures. They have Visual Basic Macro's for some of the processes.
I'd like to be able to open these with OpenOffice and have them function in the same way as with Excel. But I don't want to devote the time to learning how to rewrite the macros.
SRR
Re:A VB Macro Converter (Score:1)
Re:A VB Macro Converter (Score:4, Insightful)
I was under the impression that VB.NET and VB Script (which is what gets embedded in Office documents) are about as different as Java and Javascript.
Re:A VB Macro Converter (Score:3, Informative)
It's not the same as VBScript... actually, it's much closer to VB6 (and since it allows you to add references to COM objects, VBA can do many of the things that VB6 can do).
But yes... either way, VBA (and VB6 and VBScript) is much different than VB.NET and is not completely convertable (from old VB to
just reverse engineer converters (Score:2)
Re:just reverse engineer converters (Score:1)
Re:just reverse engineer converters (Score:1)
Well maybe not in market share, but certainly in performance and functionality.
As for Exchange, I can't think of anything that is OSS. I hear Groupwise and Lotus Notes are good, but as I haven't used either, I can't guarantee that they are any good. Mind you I've never used Exchange, but I've used MS Outlook (Outlaw?), and that was utter rubbish, so who knows.
Is It Too Much To Ask... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is It Too Much To Ask... ? (Score:2)
Re:Is It Too Much To Ask... ? (Score:2)
Re:Is It Too Much To Ask... ? (Score:1)
Some ODF info was on groklaw in May (Score:3, Informative)
Sherlock Holmes Responds and Doug too (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently the RIF responses are nothing to do about much.