4 ms·

Not to sound ungrateful (this is actually really awesome, not that I have use for it right now), but why only ".doc"? In the spirit of openness, it'd be great i

by apgwoz 18y ago

Not to sound ungrateful (this is actually really awesome, not that I have use for it right now), but why only ".doc"? In the spirit of openness, it'd be great if they were also available in an open format such as the OpenDocument Format.

aston 18y ago
The .doc is actually a more widely readable format. Why care how hackable a document format is if all you want to do is view and edit it?
- apgwoz 18y ago
  It's been a while since I've used a .doc on my personal computer, but when I do, I use Open Office. It's never understood .docs perfectly and has always been a pain to send back and forth to people. Now, I think I remember reading something about Microsoft "opening" it's formats, so maybe this is a non-issue these days? Even still, in the more general case, the idea that a file format is locked up and has to be reverse engineered for some people to view/edit it always presents at least some problems for someone. Supporting open formats, while perhaps not as widely used right now, at least is a step in the right direction. Maybe Joe Hacker, whose been using MS Office all his life, gets curious when he sees a .odt. Maybe he looks it up and sees that he'd rather be apart of a movement to free the world of non-open/proprietary office file formats and makes a vow to only create documents in a free format like OpenDocument (and convert .docs to .odt). Maybe he tells all his friends and the demand for OpenDocument is increased. Oh, and I hear Microsoft is supporting OpenDocument these days (at least via a plugin).
pxlpshr 18y ago
a hacker can't use Google Docs (ie: free) to open a .doc file and copy/paste? :)
- apgwoz 18y ago
  While Google Docs is free (as in beer), it is not free as in freedom. Some people will not use software because of that. I'm not so much a zealot and would consider using Google Docs, if I could be sure my "sensitive" documents were only readable by myself. These documents, in particular, I would think, lend themselves to being a bit more private than your average college paper. Also, Google Docs supports OpenDocument, at least according to WikiPedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenDocument_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenDocument_soft...)
  - gabrielroth 18y ago
    "While Google Docs is free (as in beer), it is not free as in freedom. Some people will not use software because of that." The correct inference to make from that is "and those people will miss out on certain opportunities as a result," not "so everyone else should bend over backward to accomodate their self-imposed restrictions."
    - apgwoz 18y ago
      I think you miss the point of free software. The thing free software people are trying to _avoid_ is restrictions. Lets remind ourselves of the 4 freedoms the Free Software Definition states: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
      - gabrielroth 18y ago
        I'm familiar with the advantages of free software. But if you refuse to use proprietary software, you are, by definition, imposing a restriction on yourself. I'd also suggest that, when someone makes valuable business documents available to others (a fine example of 'free software'), and you decline to use them because they're in a ubiquitous proprietary format, you are maybe missing the free-software forest for the trees.
- ali_ 18y ago
  Why does it take a hacker to figure out how to convert a .doc file to an open format?

by apgwoz 18y ago

aston 18y ago

The .doc is actually a more widely readable format. Why care how hackable a document format is if all you want to do is view and edit it?

apgwoz 18y ago
It's been a while since I've used a .doc on my personal computer, but when I do, I use Open Office. It's never understood .docs perfectly and has always been a pain to send back and forth to people. Now, I think I remember reading something about Microsoft "opening" it's formats, so maybe this is a non-issue these days? Even still, in the more general case, the idea that a file format is locked up and has to be reverse engineered for some people to view/edit it always presents at least some problems for someone. Supporting open formats, while perhaps not as widely used right now, at least is a step in the right direction. Maybe Joe Hacker, whose been using MS Office all his life, gets curious when he sees a .odt. Maybe he looks it up and sees that he'd rather be apart of a movement to free the world of non-open/proprietary office file formats and makes a vow to only create documents in a free format like OpenDocument (and convert .docs to .odt). Maybe he tells all his friends and the demand for OpenDocument is increased. Oh, and I hear Microsoft is supporting OpenDocument these days (at least via a plugin).

pxlpshr 18y ago

a hacker can't use Google Docs (ie: free) to open a .doc file and copy/paste? :)

apgwoz 18y ago
While Google Docs is free (as in beer), it is not free as in freedom. Some people will not use software because of that. I'm not so much a zealot and would consider using Google Docs, if I could be sure my "sensitive" documents were only readable by myself. These documents, in particular, I would think, lend themselves to being a bit more private than your average college paper. Also, Google Docs supports OpenDocument, at least according to WikiPedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenDocument_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenDocument_soft...)
- gabrielroth 18y ago
  "While Google Docs is free (as in beer), it is not free as in freedom. Some people will not use software because of that." The correct inference to make from that is "and those people will miss out on certain opportunities as a result," not "so everyone else should bend over backward to accomodate their self-imposed restrictions."
  - apgwoz 18y ago
    I think you miss the point of free software. The thing free software people are trying to _avoid_ is restrictions. Lets remind ourselves of the 4 freedoms the Free Software Definition states: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    - gabrielroth 18y ago
      I'm familiar with the advantages of free software. But if you refuse to use proprietary software, you are, by definition, imposing a restriction on yourself. I'd also suggest that, when someone makes valuable business documents available to others (a fine example of 'free software'), and you decline to use them because they're in a ubiquitous proprietary format, you are maybe missing the free-software forest for the trees.
ali_ 18y ago
Why does it take a hacker to figure out how to convert a .doc file to an open format?