Diversity vs. Conformity

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

Ben Langhinrichs — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:18:18 GMT

Ok, let's test this theory. You typed:

odt filetype:odt site:ibm.com

so let's type

docx filetype:docx site:microsoft.com

Funny. Microsoft has released Office 2007, and has not a single Open XML file on its site! I guess we can conclude something from this... or perhaps not.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

dmahugh — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:27:24 GMT

Well, Ben, that's a reasonable point to make. But nobody at Microsoft has suggested that Open XML should be the only format or lobbied for government mandates to use it, and Office 2007 isn't officially out for everyone yet (the consumer launch will be the end of this month).

I'll bet you a Burning River Pale Ale that the number of DOCX files on Microsoft.com will increase dramatically over time.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

Ben Langhinrichs — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:56:55 GMT

And I'll bet you a chocolate milkshake (not much of a beer fan) that the number of ODT files on IBM.com will increase. IBM seems to be using them more and more extensively, along with .odp file for presentations at shows, and so forth. The reason they don't show up on either site is because they are not universal enough yet. Lowest common denominator is HTML, or perhaps the old Word binary formats.

But do we really want to reach for the lowest common denominator? No. So, you strive for one level while you continue to support a lower level. I imagine the same is true for Microsoft. I just don't happen to hold it against Microsoft, and I am not sure why you think this proves much about IBM.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

Ben Langhinrichs — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 05:49:54 GMT

Oh yes, and I guess I should point out that IBM does have ODF spreadsheets on their site. Just try Googling

ods filetype:ods site:ibm.com

whereas, for what it is worth (i.e., not much), there are no hits for

xlsx filetype:xlsx site:microsoft.com

xlsb filetype:xlsb site:microsoft.com

xlsm filetype:xlsm site:microsoft.com

pptx filetype:pptx site:microsoft.com

Do you see how silly a task this is?

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

dmahugh — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:05:44 GMT

I agree that as a metric of anything these numbers can be a bit silly, but I think they're made more interesting by IBM's efforts to influence the ISO process. When they're mounting a worldwide campaign to convince people that the existence of ODF makes other formats unnecessary, and explaining in great detail the reasons to avoid the Office binary formats, most people will probably find it interesting to know that IBM.com contains about 1000 Office binary documents for each ODF document.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

zasx — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:38:12 GMT

After just browsing IBM's to confirm you, I am having trouble finding anything other than PDFs, another open file format :(

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

W^L+ — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:29:04 GMT

I just typed filetype:odt and guess what? Google does not index that file type. This means that we do not know whether IBM has files of this type on one of their public sites, nor do we know how many they might have if they do have them.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

W^L+ — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:42:46 GMT

I was wrong about that. On the Sun.com site, there were a few .ODT documents listed. But before I had posted the previous message, I had even looked at EDU sites where I know that they use StarOffice or OpenOffice.org without finding any .ODT or .ODS docs listed on Google.

I also checked under advanced search settings, where there is no such option listed.

IBM's .ODS files are all relatively new (2006). Could it be that they are just starting to post them?

More importantly, why post office application formats for static documents that should be in PDF form? I am thinking of e.g., http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/za/x/partner/xls/Tricon_Inventry.xls

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

just curious — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:54:48 GMT

Ben - that's poor form - you should have included a link to the post on your blog (http://www.geniisoft.com/showcase.nsf/archive/20070119-0821) where you say Doug's a zealot.

You are always very quick to comment on lots of blogs about ODF / OpenXML. I looked at your site and it seems you have close ties to IBM, are you an IBM Business Partner or something?

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

Ben Langhinrichs — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:04:16 GMT

I have seen nothing from IBM concerning use of binary formats, except for a general promotion of XML and more readable, easy to access formats. Not saying it isn't out there, but I haven't seen it. In any case, it is going to be a while before that changes, no matter how the process turns out for Open XML or ODF, since the current "standards" are combination of HTML, PDF and MS Office binaries.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

dmahugh — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:45:50 GMT

Ben, those two ODF spreadsheets on IBM's site sure have you impressed. You're right, I was wrong: IBM does use ODF documents on their web site, and the use of the plural "documents" as you've done several times now is correct.

Regarding IBM's characterization of the binary formats, the IBM blogs I've seen very consistently refer to them as "Microsoft's legacy binary formats" or "Microsoft's proprietary formats," which doesn't sound to me like an endorsement of their use.

As for zealotry, everything I write is signed "Open XML Technical Evangelist," so I think my role is pretty clear: my job is helping developers work with the file formats. on the other hand, if you'd care to explain your reason for doing things like trying to start a rumor that Excel "favors" the XLSB format in the last 24 hours, that might be of interest to your readers. Is that part of a deliberate agenda of misleading the public for some reason, or were you really confused about that? It would be great if you could explain the steps that led to that confusion, because it's sure hard to envision how it happened. If we've got some misleading material published somewhere, I'd like to clear that up.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

Ben Langhinrichs — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:28:20 GMT

I'm not the least bit impressed by the two spreadsheets, just pointing out that it was technically incorrect to make the original point.

As for the language, I think you are correct that IBM is fairly intentionally referring to the binary formats as "legacy" and "proprietary". I have taken those to mean "as opposed to new XML formats", but I see your point. Part of the difficulty there is that I have heard Microsoft employee's also talk about the "legacy binary formats", as a way of differentiating and distinguishing them from the new Open XML formats, but generally in a more descriptive and less pejorative way than some of the IBM people.

By the way, I posted about this topic on my blog, but am not sure of the URL format you use. The link is http://www.GeniiSoft.com/showcase.nsf/archive/20070119-0821 and it isn't very complimentary,I'm afraid.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

Kensho — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:20:40 GMT

Open XML and diversity don't have a lot in common. Surely you've read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar."

IBM's motivations are the same as mine. Being beholden to a proprietary format is expensive and is stifling innovation. Whether ODF is an ISO standard is really not important. ODF's importance is the fact that it is truly open. Not openish.

Microsoft has a policy of "embrace, extend and extinguish" in situations like this. The web browser war was won this way, although the technique didn't work so well with Java when Sun sued and won. It's no surprise that OpenXML can do things ODF can't.

ODF offers something OpenXML doesn't -- freedom. Whether that's important to us as users is an indivdual choice.

I love the picture of the woman running down the isle with the sledge hammer. If you squint, you can just make out the "ODF" on the hammer's head.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

grauenwolf — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:46:32 GMT

> Being beholden to a proprietary format is expensive and is stifling innovation. Whether ODF is an ISO standard is really not important. ODF's importance is the fact that it is truly open.

Really? Because from where I sit, it seems that ODF is also a proprietary format. Just because it is owned by IBM instead of Microsoft doesn't make it any more free.

IBM is screwing six ways from Sunday and you don't even know it.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

grauenwolf — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:42:37 GMT

Fact:

Lotus Notes supports Word Binary and ODF

Lotus Notes does not support OpenXML

The majority of documents are created in Word.

Microsoft is replacing Word Binary with OpenXML

Theory:

If OpenXML 'wins', Lotus Notes is royally screwed.

IBM bet on Sun's proprietary format, StarOffice/ODF, instead of Microsoft's proprietary format MS Office/OpenXML. Now if ODF doesn't 'win', they are in for a very expensive and time consuming rewrite.

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

artcoder — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:26:35 GMT

In response to the first comment "Funny. Microsoft has released Office 2007, and has not a single Open XML file on its site"...

Scroll down and you find a docx file for download on Microsoft Site:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=bbc16ebf-4823-4a12-afe1-5b40b2ad3725&DisplayLang=en

re: Diversity vs. Conformity

Ben Langhinrichs — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 07:20:35 GMT

artcoder - I never said there were no .docx files on the Microsoft site, or at least I didn't mean to imply that I could be sure. I just meant that given the test specified, in other words, searching on Google for "docx filetype:docx site:microsoft.com", there were no hits. There still are not. What does that prove? Precious little, but that is the equivalent of the search for "odt filetype:odt site:ibm.com" which was the guts of the original post. so, I'm glad you found a .docx file for download on Microsoft.com, but the fact that Google didn't find it means that the original point about IBM is quite likely faulty as well.