Group items tagged

Yet another wrapper around OpenOffice.org, this time the 3.0 version still in beta. $99.90 per seat for 10 users, Lots of Javascript to give a web collaboration capability. Perhaps most notable so far: [i] a sniff that there's a fair amount of money behind this one; and [ii] an article by Eric Lai says they approached the OOo Project but were rebuffed because they compete with desktop OOo. Support for different browsers planned. an XULRunner plug-in the works. Several mashups mentioned. Claims 80 percent of OOo features available, which is another way of saying that 20 per cent of the features are not supported. Claim that oSays code will be released under GPL. Apparently that's just their custom stuff because OOo 3.0 beta is LGPL. Building a business atop a code base controlled by a malevolent branch of Sun Microsystems seems less than wise. More at zooos.com. Preliminary impression: Like OOo itself, dead end technology that sucks mind and market share from software that supports truly open standards. The world needs to figure out that the OpenDocument format is roughly as open as OOXML. Open standards are fully specified so anyone can implement them.

The author clearly missed that Sun is a full-fledged Microsoft partner and that StarOffice 9, of all OpenOffice.org clones, is the only one that has write support for both ODF v. 1.2 and ODF v. 1.1, the latter of which is the only ODF version being implemented by Microsoft. The other OOo clones write only to ODF 1.2, which is dramatically different from ODF 1.2. So StarOffice will almost certainly have better interop via ODF with MS Office 2007 than will OOo 3.x or Lotus Symphony. For $25 per seat in the enterprise, $34.95 retail. The author simply misses that "pretty much the same thing can [NOT] be had for nothing from OpenOffice.org." There is a method to the claimed Sun madness, methinks. IBM gets left standing at the altar again.

ptsefton continues his rant that OpenOffice does not support the Open Web. He's been on this rant for so long, i'm wondering if he really thinks there's a chance the lords of ODF and the OpenOffice source code are listening? In this post he describes how useless it is to submit his findings and frustrations with OOo in a bug report. Pretty funny stuff even if you do end up joining the Michael Meeks trek along this trail of tears. Maybe there's another way?

What would happen if pt moved from targeting the not so open OpenOffice, to target governments and enterprises trying to set future information system requirements?

NY State is next up on this endless list. Most likely they will follow the lessons of exhaustive pilot studies conducted by Massachusetts, California, Belgium, Denmark and England, and end up mandating the use of both open standard "XML" formats, ODF and OOXML.

The pilots concluded that there was a need for both XML formats; depending on the needs of different departments and workgroups. The pilot studies scream out a general rule of thumb; if your department has day-to-day business processes bound to MSOffice workgroups, then it makes sense to use MSOffice OOXML going forward. If there is no legacy MSOffice bound workgroup or workflow, it makes sense to move to OpenOffice ODF.

One thing the pilots make clear is that it is prohibitively costly and disruptive to try to replace MSOffice bound workgroups.

What NY State might consider is that the Web is going to be an important part of their informations systems future. What a surprise. Every pilot recognized and indeed, emphasized this fact. Yet, they fell short of the obvious conclusion; mandating that desktop applications provide native support for Open Web formats, protocols and interfaces!

What's wrong with insisting that desktop applciations and office suites support the rapidly advancing HTML+ technologies as well as the applicat