4 ms·

Thank God. I'm a big fan of libre office but could never fully switch to it as 1/10 documents created in Word would just look broken when opened in libre. >Mic

Thank God. I'm a big fan of libre office but could never fully switch to it as 1/10 documents created in Word would just look broken when opened in libre. >Microsoft files are still based on the proprietary format deprecated by the ISO in April 2008, and not on the ISO approved standard, so they embed a large amount of hidden artificial complexity. Why isn't there an anti-trust lawsuit against this artificial monopoly on office formats?

thaumasiotes 5y ago
>> Microsoft files are still based on the proprietary format deprecated by the ISO in April 2008, and not on the ISO approved standard, so they embed a large amount of hidden artificial complexity. > Why isn't there an anti-trust lawsuit against this artificial monopoly on office formats? What? You want it to be illegal for Microsoft to use a file format of their own design when implementing their own software?
- fsflover 5y ago
  Yes, if they use it unfairly against the competitors while being a monopoly.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    How would they do that?
    - fsflover 5y ago
      By using proprietary file formats rather than open standards, which forces users who share data into adopting the same software.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        So your position is that any use of their own format is abusive in itself? The anticompetitive part of Microsoft Word is the bare fact that it exists? Under what circumstances would it be legal to use your own file format?
        fsflover 5y ago
        The anticompetitive part is that MS Word has >90% (?) market and forces its users into proprietary formats. Now, anyone who wants to use an alternative software will likely have to interact with the users of MS Word and will have to buy and install MS Word.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        If that were true, MS Word would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
        fsflover 5y ago
        I don't see any connection here.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        Word was not the first word processor. Everything you're angry at Word about now was also true of the popular word processors that preceded it.
        fsflover 5y ago
        At that time, word processors were not as widespread and user-friendly. Word was more user-friendly than alternatives, I think, and attracted many new users. Or maybe it was just a luck for MS, who knows...
        liketochill 5y ago
- marcodiego 5y ago
  Microsoft pressured ISO to approve their format but NEVER implemented it according to the specification. In the meantime, many governments adopted MSO with the promise that compatibility would evetually be the norm. It never happened. I don't know if an anti-trust lawsuit is adequate, but governments should ban adoption of proprietary formats entirely.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open....
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  Microsoft produced the boondoggle 'Office Open XML' formwat in reaction to the moves made by several large organisations to standardise on the Open Document format as used by OpenOffice et al. Microsoft reacted like they often did: they created their own 'open' format, deceptively named 'Office Open XML' to make it easy to confuse with the OpenOffice XML-based format and submitted it to standardisation bodies in the hope that one would bite. ISO - which already standardised the Open Document format - did, giving Microsoft a weapon to wield in any bidding war on which file format should be adopted as a standard. I called OOXML a boondoggle because that what it was. Microsoft's documentation of the format consisted of a several thousand pages long semi-binary dump of the files produced by Microsoft Office - which are not much more than memory dumps containing binary blobs, poured into an XML container with vague descriptions of what the data types actually were - often no more than 'as produced by Microsoft Office version x.y'. A large portion of the original OOXML files consisted of blobs of binary MS Office data, making it close to impossible to implement that version by non-Microsoft entities. When pressured Microsoft agreed that the current versions of Microsoft Office were not producing 'standard-compliant' OOXML but that this would change in newer versions. Well, the future came, the OOXML format was cleaned up and documented so as to be interoperable but Microsoft never adapted Microsoft Office to the standard, instead producing its own iteration of 'the standard'. In short, the only reason why they every produced OOXML - the 'standard' - was to use it as a club to wield in negotiations. They never meant for it to be an actual data interchange standard, they never aimed at having third parties stand on a like footing with regard to which version of OOXML was meant to be canonical. It was, and still is, meant to be a box to tick on a compliance list for getting large contracts, not a file format standard to which their products would be tailored. Their vision is whatever is produced by the latest incarnation of Microsoft Office is 'the standard', just like before. The real question to be answered here is why ISO went along with this charade when they already had a working file format standard in the Open Document format. They could just have said 'no' like other standards bodies did, Microsoft could have been made to implement the ODF format and the world would be a better, more interoperable place. So indeed, Microsoft should not be allowed to use a file format of their own design when implementing their own software while selling it as if it abides by an ISO standard.
0zymandiass 5y ago
Ironically, Microsoft Office also fails to render most of my ODP/ODT files correctly, which are open standards. One might infer it's by design...
squarefoot 5y ago
> 1/10 documents created in Word would just look broken when opened in libre. Versioning might play a role here. On Office I've often observed the tendency to use by default the latest format available, no matter if the poor guy on the other side will have to upgrade the suite to load it, therefore LibreOffice might come late since its developers for some time have to debug what Office already implements. I now set up all LO installations i do for me and other people to output where possible (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) in Office 97-2003 formats, so they hardly give problems on Windows machines. Nobody complained so far, as it is extremely unlikely that those "ancient" but well oiled formats don't support the features needed by 99.9% of users.
davidgerard 5y ago
> as 1/10 documents created in Word would just look broken when opened in libre. I don't believe you. Bug report numbers?
tpoacher 5y ago
Whenever I'm in a situation where I predict compatibility complaints, I preemptively go on the offensive by turning the tables and say "Please be aware that MS Office has bad compatibility with open standards; if you need 100% certainty your document will render correctly, then use a different office suite to open this file."

thaumasiotes 5y ago

>> Microsoft files are still based on the proprietary format deprecated by the ISO in April 2008, and not on the ISO approved standard, so they embed a large amount of hidden artificial complexity. > Why isn't there an anti-trust lawsuit against this artificial monopoly on office formats? What? You want it to be illegal for Microsoft to use a file format of their own design when implementing their own software?

fsflover 5y ago
Yes, if they use it unfairly against the competitors while being a monopoly.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  How would they do that?
  - fsflover 5y ago
    By using proprietary file formats rather than open standards, which forces users who share data into adopting the same software.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      So your position is that any use of their own format is abusive in itself? The anticompetitive part of Microsoft Word is the bare fact that it exists? Under what circumstances would it be legal to use your own file format?
      - fsflover 5y ago
        The anticompetitive part is that MS Word has >90% (?) market and forces its users into proprietary formats. Now, anyone who wants to use an alternative software will likely have to interact with the users of MS Word and will have to buy and install MS Word.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        If that were true, MS Word would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.
        fsflover 5y ago
        I don't see any connection here.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        Word was not the first word processor. Everything you're angry at Word about now was also true of the popular word processors that preceded it.
        fsflover 5y ago
        At that time, word processors were not as widespread and user-friendly. Word was more user-friendly than alternatives, I think, and attracted many new users. Or maybe it was just a luck for MS, who knows...
        liketochill 5y ago
marcodiego 5y ago
Microsoft pressured ISO to approve their format but NEVER implemented it according to the specification. In the meantime, many governments adopted MSO with the promise that compatibility would evetually be the norm. It never happened. I don't know if an anti-trust lawsuit is adequate, but governments should ban adoption of proprietary formats entirely.
- fsflover 5y ago
  More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open....
the_third_wave 5y ago
Microsoft produced the boondoggle 'Office Open XML' formwat in reaction to the moves made by several large organisations to standardise on the Open Document format as used by OpenOffice et al. Microsoft reacted like they often did: they created their own 'open' format, deceptively named 'Office Open XML' to make it easy to confuse with the OpenOffice XML-based format and submitted it to standardisation bodies in the hope that one would bite. ISO - which already standardised the Open Document format - did, giving Microsoft a weapon to wield in any bidding war on which file format should be adopted as a standard. I called OOXML a boondoggle because that what it was. Microsoft's documentation of the format consisted of a several thousand pages long semi-binary dump of the files produced by Microsoft Office - which are not much more than memory dumps containing binary blobs, poured into an XML container with vague descriptions of what the data types actually were - often no more than 'as produced by Microsoft Office version x.y'. A large portion of the original OOXML files consisted of blobs of binary MS Office data, making it close to impossible to implement that version by non-Microsoft entities. When pressured Microsoft agreed that the current versions of Microsoft Office were not producing 'standard-compliant' OOXML but that this would change in newer versions. Well, the future came, the OOXML format was cleaned up and documented so as to be interoperable but Microsoft never adapted Microsoft Office to the standard, instead producing its own iteration of 'the standard'. In short, the only reason why they every produced OOXML - the 'standard' - was to use it as a club to wield in negotiations. They never meant for it to be an actual data interchange standard, they never aimed at having third parties stand on a like footing with regard to which version of OOXML was meant to be canonical. It was, and still is, meant to be a box to tick on a compliance list for getting large contracts, not a file format standard to which their products would be tailored. Their vision is whatever is produced by the latest incarnation of Microsoft Office is 'the standard', just like before. The real question to be answered here is why ISO went along with this charade when they already had a working file format standard in the Open Document format. They could just have said 'no' like other standards bodies did, Microsoft could have been made to implement the ODF format and the world would be a better, more interoperable place. So indeed, Microsoft should not be allowed to use a file format of their own design when implementing their own software while selling it as if it abides by an ISO standard.

0zymandiass 5y ago

Ironically, Microsoft Office also fails to render most of my ODP/ODT files correctly, which are open standards. One might infer it's by design...

squarefoot 5y ago

> 1/10 documents created in Word would just look broken when opened in libre. Versioning might play a role here. On Office I've often observed the tendency to use by default the latest format available, no matter if the poor guy on the other side will have to upgrade the suite to load it, therefore LibreOffice might come late since its developers for some time have to debug what Office already implements. I now set up all LO installations i do for me and other people to output where possible (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) in Office 97-2003 formats, so they hardly give problems on Windows machines. Nobody complained so far, as it is extremely unlikely that those "ancient" but well oiled formats don't support the features needed by 99.9% of users.

davidgerard 5y ago

> as 1/10 documents created in Word would just look broken when opened in libre. I don't believe you. Bug report numbers?

tpoacher 5y ago

Whenever I'm in a situation where I predict compatibility complaints, I preemptively go on the offensive by turning the tables and say "Please be aware that MS Office has bad compatibility with open standards; if you need 100% certainty your document will render correctly, then use a different office suite to open this file."