Microsoft cries out to UK government against open source
blogs.technet.com
blogs.technet.com
The situation is over the decision to choose ODF vs. OOXML. Both seem to have open specifications.
ODF - https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=...
OOXML - http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecm...
As a result, no OOXML document can be opened in non-MS Office software and get the same result. In fact, Word/Excel documents created in the Windows version can barely be opened in MS Office for OS X, because the OS X version is always lagging behind, always lacking features, like macros. I routinely got and still getting Word/Excel documents that I can't view in MS Office on OS X or in LibreOffice in Linux, because users can't help themselves in using totally useless features and also can't be convinced to use more portable formats, because in their worldview, what could be more standard than MS Office?
OOXML is Microsoft's response to ODF - they released it because governments started worrying about keeping their data in binary formats. But make no mistake, OOXML is just a farce, meant to sidetrack a real standard from happening.
> I routinely got and still getting Word/Excel documents that I can't view in MS Office on OS X or in LibreOffice in Linux, because users can't help themselves in using totally useless features and also can't be convinced to use more portable formats, because in their worldview, what could be more standard than MS Office?
That's very sad, but where does this end? I don't like PSD files, force Adobe to implement XCF?
It sets a bad precedent if government can dictate software features.
Edit: I misinterpreted the situation -- the government acting as a customer should be able to set conditions of course
This is wrong on two levels.
Firstly, it is absolutely a role of a buyer of software to select software that has the features that they require, and is not broken in ways that will cause issues. Any government is going to be a large buyer of software.
Large enough buyers often get software features added for them, or have customised version of off-the-shelf software, or have entirely bespoke software written for them. If I hire someone to write software for me, it's a safe bet that I will dictate features.
Secondly, governments set standards that affect the wider business community that works with them, and may even end up used throughout the country. Setting standards that benefit everyone is a usual role of a government. It can be done well, or it can be done badly; it can be done by advice on how to interoperate or it can be done by law; but it is done.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the government dictating software features for the software they want to use. If anyone doesn't want to implement a specific feature, that's totally fine. But their software won't be eligible for government use and working with official documents.
After all, it's public money and documents may better be saved in a good and properly documented format so anybody could, in theory, open them now or in the future.
They're not are they? I thought they'd just dictated that they'd chosen a standard open format for their tax payer funded documents. Seems sensible to me, there's no obligation for software companies to do anything with their features.
(there is some for print media in CSS, but nothing fancy)
"Modern productivity applications are not selected on the basis of the file formats they support, but on the value they provide and the personal productivity they enable. This clearly transcends the cost (or otherwise) of any license. "
Judging by that thread, no.
Between messing with open standards and their many shill/PR/lobbying outfits, Microsoft hatred is hardly irrational, despite what their employees would like you to believe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7281283