2009

To all my readers, to my colleagues at Ars Aperta, to my family, to Mel, to OpenOffice.org community, to the Libervis Network and the FOSS community in general, I would like to wish a Happy New Year 2009, good health, personal and professional success, strength, wisdom and beauty.

I would like to thank the readers of this blog for their continued loyalty and interest, and I will of course be happy to write here in 2009. It will be a challenging year, but I think it’s a year that could bring some light to this world, despite the crisis and the turmoil our planet is going through.

Meanwhile, have a great new year’s eve, and don’t drink too much! Or drink a lot, it’s up to you, after all, tomorrow is 2009.

Cheers up!

Some thoughts on the Microsoft’s implementation of ODF

This post is a bit hard to write. Let me just put it this way: If my predictions below are true, it will mean that Microsoft will offer some crippled and low-level support of ODF 1.1 in its next version of Microsoft Office. It will also mean that OpenOffice.org will have gained a competitive edge on the market.

 

Now you may wonder why I find it difficult to write down these things. The reason is the recent post of Doug Mahugh in regard of the support of ODF by MS Office. Instead of providing a detailed review on the matter, Doug explains -a bit laboriously- that interoperability does not mean that each implementation has to do things the same way and that some implementations are more extensive than others. We are then being told that Microsoft Office will have limited support in for ODF tables in Word.

 

Doug’s initial point is true: there are differences in implementation of a standard. When you have a truly open standard, you can expect implementers to be able to deliver some reliable implementation of the standard. Of course, it depends of the implementation’s focus. Suppose for one moment that I’m in the business of developing and selling IT systems for ATMs. I have an OS that sports an user interface for ATM transactions, another one for administration, and among several other features, an editor that prints out your receipts and the records of your past transactions on demand. One might expect that this editor can support ODF natively and will create ODF documents. These documents are not very complex, and to say it all, they’re even very basic. All what is required for me is to implement the bare minimum of ODF to be compliant and adequately call myself compliant. The minimum compliance with ODF is my right, as the vendor of the ATM receipts editor. My business is not print complex spreadsheets, nor fancy presentations, no: my business is to allow cash machines to print customers’ receipts of their cash transactions at the ATM, that’s all.

 

Now you have Microsoft’s bellydancing and basically declaring that they, who sell the “best office suite on the market” (I don’t make that claim) will offer poor support on ODF because of product limitations. Am I the only one here feeling that Redmond is trying -again-to play games? Any additional information would be welcome at this stage, of course, but the market should pay close attention to this issue.

 

I have hailed and declared myself positively satisfied the inclusion of Microsoft in the ODF committees at the OASIS consortium. I have read the contributions of its employees and they were useful and constructive. This being said, Doug’s blog leaves me with an odd taste in my mouth.

 

To be frank, I feel that Doug has been looking for a way to tell us that Microsoft’s support of ODF will be crappy and that it was intended to be that way. I realize I have no substantial evidence of what I’m asserting here, but since when does Microsoft speak of the new features of MS Office with a sorry tone?

 

That’s why I just don’t know how to properly assess what kind of message Microsoft is sending right now. The way I see it, Microsoft expects customers will stick to Microsoft Office since it also supports an Open Standard, ODF. However, the support of ODF being of poor quality, customers will roll back to Microsoft’s formats, and life will go on back like it was in the good old days.

 

I realize this is all « prospective » thinking, and that there is nothing solid aside Microsoft’s announcement of poor support of the ODF file format. I am disappointed by these news, though. Once again, Microsoft’s declarations turn out to be “all hat, no cattle”. The way out of it is known: Choose OpenOffice.org, choose ODF, choose any other office suite, but not the one that offers partial support of an open standard that puts the users first.


Protect Innovation: Don’t use Proprietary Software (and other Advent niceties)

Last week I attended the OpenWorld Forum Conference (to be distinguished from our good friends of OpenForum Europe) and I met several interesting people. The location was very nice and I look forward its second edition; many thanks to our hosts and the conference organisers.

One specific conference I was attending was the FOSS strategy track. At some point there was a  panel discussion where the CEO of Red Hat France, two persons from the competitivity clusters Cap Digital and Systematic, the COO of Talend who joined the Open Source work group of the Afdel. The Afdel is an organisation representing French software vendors. By vendors they usually mean proprietary vendors. By French, they usually mean Microsoft and some french software vendors. For some reason  unknown to me, they always side with Microsoft on every issue. They must think Microsoft is French or something of that kind. But I digress.

At some point the pannel discussion touched to the sensitive topic of software patents. I felt compelled to listen even more carefully as I’m concerned with the economic and moral issues of software patents, and the quite undemocratic attempts to include them in the European IPR system. For those interested, I recently gave a speech on this topic at an European Commission workshop.

The Afdel’s point is that it was right to protect innovation. By innovation they mean code, so their point was that it was crucial to properly protect code, even open source code, so software patents were valid. The Afdel was adamant at letting us know about what I can only translate as being software “fraud”, that is, people stealing code from other developers. This argument was obviously justifying software patents.

This got me thinking. Forgive me this simple reasonning, but I think it makes sense to conclude that since there’s only Free and Open Source Software code that is widely available on the Internet, then the Afdel thinks that using, running, modifying and distributing Free and Open Source Software is actually code steal. The issue is of course that there is no such thing when it comes to FOSS. So whoelse might be stealing that code? …  Proprietary software vendors maybe? After all we have no way to really know if they haven’t integrated code that is publicly available in their products and then claim it’s all theirs… I’ll stop there, some will call me disingenuous if I continue my rant.

In other news, Germany has decided to start a nation-wide migration to ODF.  I wonder what the DIN thinks of that announcement. Okay, I got it, I’m stopping this post right here. I promess.

Until then…