UK picks Open Document Format for all government files The UK Government has decided that Open Document Format, the OpenOffice-derived file format, is the best choice for all government documents. The Cabinet Office's Standards Hub explained its thinking on the matter and published the recommendation this week, using the following language: “When dealing with citizens, …
Hmm, Westminster cafes are going to earn a lot of money in the coming days from all the Microsoft lobbyists landing there to try and "open up" that decision for the only-in-name "open" monstrosity called MSOOXML which is not only a standard that only became a standard by (IMHO) flat out abusing the ISO process, but is even today not possible to implement by Microsoft itself...
I am *very* glad that the government is returning to the days of eGIF where the idea was openness and avoidance of single vendor leverage. I don't think that will mean MS Windows will be abandoned soon, though. I don't like the browser based stuff - far too risky as its network dependent and all your work has to travel. IMHO an absolute no-no for anything over "for public knowledge" ...
Well done. Now I'll sit back and watch what Microsoft does.
"Hmm, Westminster cafes are going to earn a lot of money in the coming days from all the Microsoft lobbyists landing there to try and "open up" that decision for the only-in-name "open" monstrosity called MSOOXML which is not only a standard that only became a standard by (IMHO) flat out abusing the ISO process, but is even today not possible to implement by Microsoft itself..."
You're out of date. The _original_ OOXML was a hurried mess, poorly documented and even including binary blobs. It was MS desperately trying to rush out something that qualified as Open back in the day when they suddenly realized they needed to. The _current_ OOXML is actually very nice. And yes, there are third parties that implement it. Best we forget all about the first attempt and focus on what we actually have today.
"I don't think that will mean MS Windows will be abandoned soon, but going browser based is a good first step in that direction too."
Openness is good because it allows free choice of vendor. You seem to want to actively lock out one (Microsoft). Office 2013 is really, really good. And there's also Office 365 which works in the browser pretty darn well. As pointed out earlier, ODF doesn't exclude Office at all. It's actually one of the best editors there is for ODF.
Could you be a bit more specific about the 'original' one and the 'current' one?
Is the original the ECMA proposal, the first implemented by MS in 20007 or the one that first got ISO approval and has never been implemented. Is the current one the now amended ISO one (never implemented) or the current MS implementation in 2013?
I wrote: "You seem to want to actively lock out one (Microsoft). "
You responded "No" with a big Fail icon.
Your comment which I responded to:
>>"I don't think that will mean MS Windows will be abandoned soon, but going browser based is a good first step in that direction too."
I think my comment was pretty justified. Lets have a simple answer: are you stating that you wouldn't prefer to see Microsoft Windows replaced in Government?
"are you stating that you wouldn't prefer to see Microsoft Windows replaced in Government?"
With what? Seven different distros of Linux each with its windows manager and that may not support some hardware because "proprietary drivers" are bad - if tehy do exist? And that may nor run some software until it is rewritten for Linux (or for the web, as long as it is possible and makes sense) - if ever - because actuall nobody bothered to do it because of lack of market? And then having to buy third party directory/management solutions because Linux is still rooted deeply into the '70s when it comes to very large deployments? At least Windows means a single API for developers - with a huge backward compatibility, large hardware support, and built-in directory/management tools.
Or with Apples, because of course a single *hardware and software* supplier is better than a single software supplier? Or with Google tools, to allow it to slurp every data about you the governemtn has?
Maybe MS after all is not the worst case scenario...
"With what? Seven different distros of Linux each with its windows manager and that may not support some hardware because "proprietary drivers" are bad"
Who said anything about using Gnu/Linux? Although I do myself.
Are you aware that Libreoffice is available for MS Windows and Apple?
Just because you seem to have an aversion to Gnu/Linux doesn't mean that users of other OS's are forced to use MS Office.
Yes, and before it was OpenOffice. maybe in a couple of years there will be ClearOffice, FreeOffice, DaiquiriOffice, CheOffice, ChavezOffice and something else, if some developers need to fell the chill of "la revoluciòn" again.
But standards are created to let people work the way they like using the tools they like. Why you say "LibreOffice" and not "OpenOffice" also? Because the new kid on the block is now the "holy tool" everybody should use to gain the "heaven of opensourceness"?
But that's exactly what you want to avoid when you have to plan a very large deployment. You need a stable path towards the foreseeable future, and not developers who leave a project just because Oracle buys Sun (which was headed to bankruptcy, don't forget it....) and they don't want to be touched by the evil of Larry. And how do you deal with the "Document Foundation" for support? I'm not sure I would like to make business with a company with a "Manifesto"? At least the Apache Foundations looks more sensible.
You know perfectly most people get Windows because of Office, when you remove Office from the equation the next step is to remove MS completely. I'm not saying it cannot be done - but what are the real benefits (especially if you have to rely on a commercial distro, as any sensible company would do), beside "feeling better"?
When you have to run a large company IT systems, you don't rely on an ideology and force it onto your users. You don't care if there is a "Free", "Libre" or whatever in the name, and assert your hate for "commercial companies" - you perform a risk/benefit analysis and choose what suits your needs better now and in the foreseeable future. Then what you do in your basement is up to you. But what you should not do is mixing the two things.
"With what? Seven different distros of Linux each with its windows manager and that may not support some hardware because "proprietary drivers" are bad"
I wouldn't chose it over Windows 7 or 8 myself, but just because there are seven(teen) different GNU/Linux distros out there, doesn't mean it's impossible to standardise on one. There are a couple of enterprise level distributions: RedHat and SuSE. I haven't used SuSE since about 6.4 but you could run RedHat alright with LibreOffice as your standard. Again, I would prefer Windows by far for enterprise management and user experience, but the nice thing about using open formats (whether that's ODF *or* OOXML) is that it facilitates choice.
I feel that you have used my admonishment of richard76's own biased post to semi-launch your own rant. Yes, I like Windows also and MS are very good at enterprise deployment and management, but choice is good and its flawed to say that just because there are many GNU/Linux distros, you can't standardise on one of the enterprise-ready ones.
What's the difference between using Microsoft only or using RedHat only? Again, you have a single supplier - just a different lock.in. and maybe a worse one if it doesn't fit your needs.
I'm not against Linux - just "Linux" means too many things, from the free distros like Debian to the commercial ones like RedHat or SuSE. Choosing one or the other is not the same - especially when it comes to support and maintenance. Are commercial distros so different from Windows? Maybe not so much. Linux talibans would use only "free" ones, with all the associated risks.
And I'm not against open formats - because they mean I can choose different tools to work with them. But for many open formats means "push Microsoft away". It could be sensible only and only if it doesn't mean a different lock-in. Thereby formats should be standardized - not the tools.
Just yesterday the "tool to use" was OpenOffice. Now it has been forked and there are both LibreOffice and OpenOffice. Which one should be used? Purists would of course want LibreOffice, even if OpenOffice is now at Apache, because it still has the stigma of being Oracle property for a while. What if it was forked again, or if development of one - the one you chose - stalls? When you plan a large deployment for important tasks, that's something you have to account for. Better to decouple the standards from the tools using it - and "force" companies to deliver tool with good support for standards, so you can play on the safe side - that's the only thing that can save you from any type of lock-in - in whatever OS/tool you like - including a Linux distro lock-in.
You're obviously some kind of Microsoft apologist (and they've got a hell of a lot to apologise for).
Linux is good enough for progressive governments from Munich to Brazil, and there are now gigantic global corporate deployments that would be impossible with the brokenware that MS supply. Open document standards are perfectly workable - their specifications include all the "value added" goodness that comes with proprietary formats, and they are operable with and manipulable by both open source and proprietary software.
MS Office becomes "just another" proprietary suite of programmes - just like Windows with a web browser is just a proprietary client for the Unix and Linux-based internet - beancounters the world over will ask if the "paid for" software adds anything that the free versions don't.....
Windows and Windows software will just continue its decline into irrelevance.
"Linux is good enough for progressive governments from Munich to Brazil"
But it is more limited in functionality and application support, and for instance in Munich up to 30% of users still need to use Windows as well - and the project took ten years and it cost approximately €30 million more than upgrading the original Microsoft stack to a best practices model would have...
This is why near zero companies are heading down that path. Just a few dated beardy wierdies in low paid public sector type jobs...
You seem to want to actively lock out Linux.
In fact your whole demeanour suggest a mindset where 'software by decree' is how you see organisations as necessarily being run.
I don't see it that way at all. It is simply allowing departments the flexibility to choose what suits them the best, without having that choice enforced on them by a de facto proprietary standard.
Shall I tell you about the time a circular letter came out to a group containing an unreadable Word document (to most people). I managed to read it with the latest libre office version and send a PDF back to the grateful originator so that all those MICROSOFT WORD users who could not read it, now could?
When even a proprietary vendor is no guarantee of interoperability, small wonder that sane people are looking for an open standard of document distribution.
One of the reason PDFs work, is because the standard at least was published, adhered too and readers made free.
Everyone has a PDF reader.
That's exactly the case now (for various values of reliably.) Nobody has said ODF is already perfect (indeed the quotes in the article show that the expectation is that later versions can be used as the spec develops) but at least it's not 100% controlled by a single US corporation with a staggeringly bad track record.
Except that ODF has always been vague on numerous parts of the specification, leading to the exciting prospect of "standards compliant" documents that can only be reliably opened in whatever version of whatever software originally created them.
Hey, is it lunchtime at Westminster? Go back lobbying for MS.
their Office products are by miles the best option for an ODF supporting Office suite
If you need VB and are desperate to waste screen real estate, maybe. For any other use I found Libre/OpenOffice actually vastly superior. Loads quicker, renders good in any OS, functionality stays stable because it's not infested with things only done to screw people over to buy the latest version - no thanks.
You seem to want to actively lock out one (Microsoft).
Actually, I'm OK with honest competition, but that's the one thing MS has never been capable of. Ever. Their ISO actions spoke volumes, because they had no problem with ruining an institution that until then had just worked on a more academic footing.
Office 2013 is really, really good. And there's also Office 365 which works in the browser pretty darn well. As pointed out earlier, ODF doesn't exclude Office at all. It's actually one of the best editors there is for ODF.
ODF is an afterthought for MS, it's an we-have-to-do-this-because-we-are-otherwise-out-on-our-ears-as-it-is-a-EU-standard approach. Even now, people buy MS Office because Open/LibreOffice still pretty much suck at opening the "x" formats (docx, xlsx, pptx), where "x" stands for eXclude competition. If you want proper ODF compatibility, LibreOffice and OpenOffice have years of expertise that MS still has to catch up on.
Personally, I think the UK government should take a lesson from the Germans here: when they needed security they sponsored further development of GPG. If the UK would sponsor an Open Source office package it would get massive upmarks for intelligent use of funding, and the whole nation would benefit, not a few oinks in expensive buildings. I don't care if that is Libre or OpenOffice, although I personally tend to get on better with LibreOffice.
"Office 2013 is really, really good"
Functionally possibly (I haven't probed it that hard), but to look at it most definitely is not! All flat and monotone, and bloody hard on the eyes/brain to distinguish parts of the screen and identify important data. Big text in random places likely just to make it easier to prob on a touchscreen.
Office 2010 was MUCH better to use.
"Office 2013 is really, really good"
If you ignore the UI, which is awful. And the spydrive integration. And the part where Microsoft tried to make it impossible to buy a non-subscription version. And the rage-inducing defaults like "smart quotes" and "adding space at the end of a paragraph instead of letting people mange using carriage returns." Oh, and the massive history attached to the vendor of said product that includes a whole lot of "not listening to customers" and "telling end users to **** off."
Other than all of that - and a few more nits here and there - it's middling to passable, yep.
"some other word processing / office suite software can't write to the formats favoured by Office"
Really can you name any widely used office software that can't read or write MS Office documents? I can't think of any. However I can think of mobile office suites that don't do ODF.
The whole point is that implementing good ODF support is actually a realistically achievable goal, whereas properly implementing Microsoft's "standards" is never going to be because that's the way MS wanted it. Having one highly untrustworthy foreign company calling the shots on data formats is just stupid and I'm amazed (but pleased) that the government has actually noticed and appears to be doing something about it.
>>"Remember what happened when Massachusetts tried this. There may be more to come on this."
Perhaps. But MS Office is perfectly compatible with ODF so there's no reason why they can't continue to use Word, et al. with this. It's mandating an open format (good) rather than mandating a particular company's software (bad).
I'm puzzled by the babble about in-browser editing is preferred as if this is intrinsically connected to openness. Is this some Google infiltration trying to push Google Docs, or something?
OXML was at least a step towards open standards from MS - you can now actually create and edit DOCX files using standard libraries for instance - and of late they have been supporting more FOSS projects (where it suits them obviously).
I wonder if longer term MS might actually move to supporting some standard life ODF by default?
"I wonder if longer term MS might actually move to supporting some standard life ODF by default?"
If by longer term you actually mean years ago then yes, Microsoft have supported ODF for a few versions and have asked the user which they wanted as default when running the suite for the first time.
Yes, but they ask in the most confusing way possible. as I recall it is something along the lines of: would you like to use open document format or open office document format.
the file format used by OpenOffice is the open document format, so without research it is hard to work out which is the od? and which is the MS format
"I'm puzzled by the babble about in-browser editing is preferred as if this is intrinsically connected to openness. Is this some Google infiltration trying to push Google Docs, or something?"
It's clearly government speak for some dodgy deal about to happen. It might be that they are about to renew the MS SA or that Google helped them write this. Even more clear since they chose PDF as the "non editable" format after all the BS about open standards and preventing lock in despite Adobes history with PDF.
"Yes but you don't need Adobe to read PDF."
Well no, but Adobe make all the best software for creating PDFs. You can export a document from Word to PDF and it will do it quite nicely - well enough for all my reports. But if I wanted to do something big and serious with PDFs, particularly dynamically creating reports in PDF format from templates I'd created (but other things too), I'd be using Adobe software. It's the same sort of "soft" control Google and other companies use.
Also, just to highlight how clueless the Government is, you *can* edit PDF documents. It's not always perfect but again, Office 2013 amongst others can do it. It's gone a bit screwy with PDFs made externally but when I've needed to edit a PDF generated by Word itself, it works absolutely fine. So choosing PDF as the "non-editable" format is a bit dubious. For real non-editability, you need DRM solutions. E.g. you can check the signature of a document.
The idea of using PDF isn't for making content impossible to edit, in fact that's an impossible and therefore pointless goal, as there will always be ways to edit data.
The purpose of PDF is for data that isn't intended to be edited, and thus the format doesn't include metadata that is unnecessary for simply viewing and is only useful if you want to edit. A similar analogy would be providing the document on paper, or providing a program in precompiled form.
"I think they meant documents that didn't need editing - like press releases."
Quite possibly. Then why can't they just say something like "finalized documents" or "documents for public dissemination"? Wouldn't something that accurately described the goal, rather than the method, be the correct way to classify things?
No you don't need to use adobe products to create the 'best' PDFS, not have you for many years.
Don't confuse a page description, with the tools needed to create a detailed and flexible page in the first place.
Quark was for many years the de facto standard of typesetting. It now exports PDFS as an alternative way to define the pages it creates. Because PDFS finally incorporated all the tools it needed to do that comprehensively.
Adobe tools (creative suite) are still regarded as inferior by many in that business.
> You need Adobe for some of HMRC's PDF forms.
Yes, and HNRC will fine companies until they succumb and buy a MS Win machine or licence so as to be able to run their specified version of Adobe Reader. However the article states that PDF is to be for non-editable documents. Hopefully non-editable will include forms, and that HMRC will abandon their traditional intransigence and comply with the guidelines. Even better if the guidlines are made mandatory.
You do not need Windows to submit to HMRC. I use Ubuntu Linux and have submitted electronic returns for the past 3 years. Mind you, I did have to write to my MP, Francis Maude as it happens, who persuaded HMRC to open up for Linux.
HMRC give detailed instructions for Linux users as well.
"Yes but you don't need Adobe to read PDF."
And what happened the first time MS tried to write PDFs from Office? Adobe said no and it was pulled last minute. I think you'll find that editing PDFs is still fairly limited because of this sort of behaviour which is probably what leads to the nonsense of PDF being a read only format in the article. It's no more read only than a Word doc file, it's just that the software to modify them is rare as rocking horse poo because Adobe are ass-hats.
A locked PDF file is a lot harder to edit than a Word file. There is a clear need for government to have access to a format which allows them to say that this is the final, official version of this document. PDF is suitable for that purpose. This is a quite different need than a format to be used for collaboration or a format to be used for raw data that can be re-used in databases and applications.
"I think in-browser editing means use wiki or HTML CMS to host data in a form directly accessible from a browser instead of using a format that requires launching a separate app like OpenOffice or Word when a browser will do."
Hmmmm. I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone would be so clumsy as to say "in-browser editing is preferred" to mean "use a wiki". I mean this is the UK Government so it's possible, but it's staggeringly inept even for them. It really sounds more like groundwork being laid for a deal with a company that primarily offers browser-based products. Some company that spends even more on lobbying than Microsoft and has a highly vocal and loyal supporters in the IT community, perhaps. ;)
Cheers to David Villanueva Nuñez who challenged incumbency with such clarity a few years ago.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/19/ms_in_peruvian_opensource_nightmare/
His letter to Microsoft is a bit on the long side, but then dragon-slaying is rarely a swift process. If he's still around maybe he could be asked to come over here for a few months and comment on the NHS proposals.
I particularly like this paragraph:
In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state [my emphasis], and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.
So here we are, over a decade later, reaping the rewards of not thinking along similar lines.
Did you also spot that this good man was already talking about untrustworthy code in those days?
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.
A very stylish, elegant and pretty lethal put-down.
Yes, because at every and each installation millions of lines of code are checked to see if there is spyware, and each machine is setup using only source code compiled locally, and not downloading binary packages from a repository maybe in the US - or mirrored from there... the "open source code is safer" mantra is just wishful thinking, because or you really have the resources to audit every line of code you install in your systems - and build from it, or you rely on suppliers the same way you rely with "closed source" ones. The fact that say, Red Hat open source code doesn't contain any spyware doesn't mean a binary distribution doesn't contain it NSA or the like were able to force it inside. That's why China builds its own OS with its own spyware. Thereby or a government buids an IT department able to build its own software and check all the code used, or there is no guarantee the code is safer - you just think so, and false security is worse than knowing you're not safe at all.
the "open source code is safer" mantra is just wishful thinking, because or you really have the resources to audit every line of code you install in your systems
There are few companies that have as many resources as a government. If a government decided to screen a version of Open/LibreOffice ,it not only has the means to do so, but the amount of money it saves on license fees also makes it a very viable proposition - not to mention the street cred of then offering the screened version to the population (who basically paid for that through their taxes). What's more, this will run on ALL platforms - no longer any lock in.
Your claim that every installation needs to have code checked is BS - stabilise version, check, fix, then checksum and roll out. End of story. Oh, and end of monopoly.
>>"If a government decided to screen a version of Open/LibreOffice ,it not only has the means to do so, but the amount of money it saves on license fees also makes it a very viable proposition "
As someone who has been a systems programmer for many years, I really don't think the above is correct. Especially as its a moving target. Nor would it be a good use of our taxes to employ legions of code reviewers rather than just buy in enterprise software.
A similar announcement was made a few years ago, stating that more open source software and more open standards would be used. It happened just around the time the government was negotiating a big Microsoft contract if I remember correctly...
The big issue is this - government departments don't have to pay attention to this edict. Only the department of the Minister in question does. Just like the whole 'let's centralise procurement' idea, which failed miserably as each department doesn't trust the others so has its own procurement scheme instead.
@localzuk - government departments don't have to pay attention to this edict. Only the department of the Minister in question does.
Errr, nope. This is the Cabinet Office, the department effectively in charge of how all government departments are run. That's why the government standards hub is part of the Cabinent Office. At the moment, it is only a 'recommendation' and doesn't *have* to be followed. However, if the Cabinent Office *mandate* something, all government departments do have to adopt such a mandate.
Yep. Back in September 2002 OGC published "Open Source Software: Guidance on implementing UK Government Policy." I wrote it.
And if you look very carefully at the cover of that document you will notice that it includes a picture of a laptop running the (then) popular X11 game called "kill bill".
Nobody, but nobody, in the publication QA process spotted it.
To quote: "A similar announcement was made a few years ago, stating that more open source software and more open standards would be used. It happened just around the time the government was negotiating a big Microsoft contract if I remember correctly..."
That was the time when several Government Ministers (including Blair) got lovely houses for when they left office......
Bair's Belgravia house was a "gift" from Bill Gates.
If Mr Blair says that this wasn't so, he's welcome to sue me - I'll be happy to see him in court (he knows where to find me) - and the whole sordid truth about him and his corrupt, banana-republic "government" will be revealed!
Moreover, the writ of the Cabinet Office does not run wide especially not as far as local authorities or non-departmental public bodies:
"According to information provided by Cabinet Office representative Linda Humphries in a meeting on Open Standards and Levelling the Playing Field on May 29, 2012, the policy would only apply to central government bodies, not local governments or other government bodies."
Which is inconvenient because the majority of IT spend takes place outside Whitehall as does the interaction with the public,
The problem is not only document format but also embedded code and over use of document formatting
It wouldn't be difficult to ensure public sector wide adoption, simply by re-using a model developed for other purposes (pdf) except, of course, we've been circling this buoy since at least 2002.
Mostly because it doesn't exclude MS, which would be the death-knell for a project like this. In fact, MS can't complain precisely because they support ODF. What it does mean is that interacting with government doesn't leave FLOSS users as second-class citizens because FLOSS is always chasing MS' own ever-changing file formats.
Meanwhile, back in reality, MS will find a way to exploit its own rendering engine to make sure Word doesn't quite render things in the same way that LO does.
A step in the right direction and very welcome too.
Er . . . Microsoft says it supports ODF, but if you upload an ODF file to skydrive, you get repeated warnings about loss of data, incompatibilities etc. This is for any file without special formatting. The warnings are there every time you open the file. Lets hope that gets fixed soon.
To be fair, LibreOffice does this too, if you choose to save a file in one of the legacy MS Office formats that it supports, e.g. MS Excel .xls it says "This document may contain formatting or content that cannot be saved in the currently selected file format ... Use the default ODF file format to be sure that the document is saved correctly.".
That's just telling it like it is; you can't really expect LibreOffice to track what incompatible features might have actually been used in a specific document. It reads a bit like "step away from the MS format...", but isn't really.
"because FLOSS is always chasing MS' own ever-changing file formats."
ever changing extremely well documented open file formats you mean? The ones which are "ever changing" every 2-3 years when a new version is released?
As opposed to the open source formats which seem to have changed on a very similar schedule according to wikipedia.
I am the Treasurer of a small voluntary group and use a spreadsheet to keep the accounts and produce the end-year numbers.
I used to use Open/Libre Office Calc. In 2010 I switched to a newly purchased Office 2010 Excel. Sure, Excel read the .odc files from Calc; but the 'total' field at the bottom of each column came across as just the number - the formula had been lost. So the total did not get updated when I inserted new transactions into the column.
It is that kind of "compatibility" which drives people to despair.
In a subsequent experiment I found that Calc -> export to .xls -> import to Excel did preserve everything. OK when you know, but truly compatible would allow any migration path.
Finally, I have doubts about Maude's policy to use csv files for spreadsheets. They do not preserve the formulae. In my experiments, Calc did not read Excel SLK format (which does preserve formulae) and Excel did not read Calc SLK. The de facto standard is .xls, but that includes fonts and margin widths as well as formulae.
OK, the fault with the .odc -> .xls transition clearly lies with Microsoft then, doesn't it? I mean, the .odc file must contain the formula (otherwise it wouldn't be there when you opened it again with LibreOffice), but Excel chose to import the value rather than the formula.
In a wider context this is a worry for the people in Departments at working level thinking of acting on the Cabinet Office recommendations. For better or worse, there are huge archives of proprietary word processing documents and spreadsheets which have contractual or quasi-legal status. You really don't want to introduce any chance of corruption (in the data sense!) in that area, so the transition is problematic.
Having said that, it's a long overdue move, and I'd be happier if it was a mandate rather than a recommendation.
I know of some systems which output data to a word processor or spreadsheet application.
That wouldn't be so bad but its coded in a way to call up winword.exe or excel.exe
So even if you save the output file in an "open" format you're still stuck with using (and paying the annual licence fee) for Microsoft products at source.
Can't speak for any other HMRC functions, but I do my tax returns using their online service. My desktop machine at home is a very obscure combination of PowerPC based Apple Mac running Debian Linux, but I've never encountered problems with either the downloaded documentation or web based data entry stuff.
From a purely technical point of view I'm fine with either - I have a cloud-sync-and-convert facility service running continuously behind the scenes which means I can edit the same file in SkyDrive/OneDrive on my Surface or Google Docs on my Chromebook, and they are kept in sync. Both options are perfectly fine, though I prefer SkyDrive purely as Google Docs own format is the obvious favourite of Google, and that way lies eventual vendor lock-in, something which in prior years was always a Microsoft speciality.
What I *do* have an issue with though is Google having scan-everything access to government documents, including any that might affect me. At least Microsoft's scanning is only for security, they don't actively try to understand the content in the way Google does for it's advertising.
BTW I am ignoring the NSA/GCHQ aspect. That applies whatever online choices are made so is irrelevant to the comparison.
It's all well and good Ministers spouting on about standards and cutting costs, but it flies in the face of the reality facing the majority of the populance.
Every government or department office I've ever come in contact with uses MSOffice. All those people use MSOffice at home because they've taken up the cheap MS home-use programme offer (or it was bundled with their PC). Every business I've come in contact with uses MSOffice. All their staff use it at home because they've taken up the cheap MS home-use programme offer (or it was bundled with their PC). All their kids know how to use MSOffice because its on the PC at home.
Sorry, MSWindows and MSOffice are ingrained in business, government and personal life. The techies on ElReg may decry this and say they all use non-MS products, but the reality is that the majority of the non-techie population use MS products day-in day-out. I use MS Office on my Mac, not because it is necessarily better than OpenOffice or Apple's offerings, but because I use it at work, always have done and I can't be bothered to learn another set of programs.
So this is yet another government announcement that sounds great but will be quietly forgotten about in the face of reality.
We can all see the problem here, it boils down to religion. Not the crusty old made up ones, but the new shiny corporate ones.
"I think $X is best back my $Megacorp. You can use $Y as there is no $Fosscorp behind it!!!. Are you mad..??". You get the idea.
The reality is, this is not rocket science, or any other type of science. De facto standards are just that - made up , popular , but not standard. The fact that M$ managed to buy themselves a standard, is a nice empirical data point for the fundamental untrustworthiness of any corporation, or other profit generating entity.
I'll believe it when I see it, but if the tax collecting authorities start using FOSS tools perhaps we will eventually see a return to sanity where it doesn't matter which $OS you use, applications can compete on merit not a) vendor lock in b) patent hostage taking c) general FUD d) we woz here first etc.....
P.
re lockin.
In-browser editing is preferred across the board, and “To avoid lock-in to a particular provider, it must be possible for documents being created or worked on in a cloud environment to be exported in at least one of the editable document formats proposed.”
SO : If the in browser is a spread sheet, and its savable in a txt format, then thats OK ?
what about all the formulas ? Dahh.
What about a document with formatting in it, be that a spread sheet or a document for publishing, then save that in a txt file is ok by these rules !
I guess they mean a spreadsheet can be saved as cvs, and a 'graphics' document as an odf , and a [ure txt file as a txt file, but
Or have I got this wrong.
Okay they're mandating using an open format and yet can still use MS Office, but generally from what they've announced they are strongly hinting the purpose is to reduce costs, which can only mean they think they want to shelve MS Office and use Open Office or Google Docs or similar and think this will be cheaper. It's been tried many times before with some official thinking it's like in the no-support home user world and just because they can download the software for free it will be free for them. Until they require enterprise level support, not to mention the costs of implementation (which is more than just installing the relevant software, as it includes changing back end systems to handle the open doc formats, convert existing documents, and bucket loads of training).
And god forbid they want to use Open Office on Android tablets ;) - or indeed any tablet given Open Office UI is still stuck in a very desktop & mouse Office 2003 world.
Or they could use Google Docs and do away with any useful features.
Anyway, all I say to the gov is, good luck with that, but don't go raising my taxes to pay for it.
"The problem is not only document format but also embedded code and over use of document formatting ..."
I'd agree with that.
1) if the document was reasonable and
1.1) a) (i) concise and
(ii)not indented
(x) too far or
(xx) unreasonably
b) plausible information
1.2) didn't contain
a) huge colour watermarks or
b) loads of commercial
(i) logos
(ii) trademarks or
(iii) telephone numbers that send you in circles
Of course the first failure would be inability to comply with para 1.1(a)(ii)(xx) or 1.1(b) and, when it comes to HMRC, 1.2(b)(iii) would be right out ...
What I do hope is that 'editing in the browser' doesn't mean cloud storage of data with insecure data transmission and manipulation ...
I have written my entire DPhil thesis (309 pages final draft with supervisors) using libreoffice, xmgrace and latex. Not to mention many opensource scientific tools (for messing with DNA/Proteins etc...).
Why latex? Because it does make very pretty equations, and they are embedded as SVG (though I recommend PNG for a thesis...). I highly recommend "pdftocairo -r 300 -png" for converting oodraw images, the output is really exceedingly nice (up the resolution everything scales nicely). SVG would be preferred for everything, only it is not quite there yet IMHO.
For government work, it is surplus to requirements.
P.
Sort of my point. The Tex plugin for libreoffice "just works". And better than the M$ equation editor, which I used in my MSc thesis in.... If I had used Latex you might be justified in the implied sneering...
Xmgrace is a weird one, I'll grant you. But for my molecular dynamics analysis I was able to *automatically* generate scaled, formatted , labelled, plots than could be pasted directly in a document. Not one or 2 , *thousands*.
I am unaware of any M$ product that would allow this complex workflow freedom....
Don't get me wrong, if Office Pro works for you , I wish you the best.
I "opted" out M$ tools because:
a) They don't do what I want
b) They are not sold for any platform I own.
c) They are incompatible with archival document requirements.(Yes, this is empirical)
d) They cost too much...
a) and d) could be consider opinions , but b) and c) are not.
P.
Regarding d) - Microsoft Office products for students cost £1.25 a month. I know things can be tight as a student, but I'm sure even the poorest student can stretch to that:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/microsoft-office-365-university-2013-FX102918415.aspx
Office might not do everything you want, but it certainly supports complex automated workflows and automated document generation.
It sound like you haven't used equation editor for a while - the latest 2013 version rocks.
You might also want to note this free Maths add-on: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=36777
The municipality of Munich, Germany, had these kind of considerations 10 years ago. There is also MigOS, the transition project of the Federal Parliament in Berlin to migrate from Windows to Linux, since March 2002.
So, the UK Government on the forefront of vendor-agnostic IT Systems? Strategically supporting technology companies to harden a more balanced economy for future market tumoils?
Hardly.
Just some hot air to negotiate lower licensing fees or to offshore more sensitive data and more jobs.
* Round-trip interoperability with Microsoft OOXML, particularly for DOCX, as well as legacy RTF, has improved considerably. A new import filter for Abiword documents has been added.
* Power and enterprise users on all platforms will like the new Expert Configuration window, which has been added to the Options tab.
Standards are a good thing - it allows people and organizations to focus on more important goals and also allows for incremental adoption of systems and software. If the NPfIT programme had focused on standards rather than implementation we would all have saved a lot of money.
Standards do however sometimes lead people to focus on the standard to exclusion of all else that matters and promotes muddled thinking. For example the article mentions collaboration as important, which it is, but actually the important tools used in collaboration are not the authoring and editing tools (such as Word, LibreOffice, etc.) but the important tools are the collaboration tools themselves, things like Huddle, Alfresco, Yammer, Jive, SharePoint etc.
I'm not suggesting we need a standard in this area, but focusing on ODF does not fix that collaboration issue.
I hope this article is not an indicator that UK Whitehall (civil servants UK united) has lost some of its IT credential numptyness - because it has not.
UK Whitehall is as numpty as it ever has been
For example: policy exists to state UK publicly funded power/department/authority cannot discuss individual cases in public yet they will persist to send personal judgements/stuff of a personal and confidential nature as open attachments to open emails
(I use 'open' not in its open software notion or open architecture notion but in the sense that to publish openly in an open environment such as unencrypted email/attachments into ipen email domain is a breach of existing policies (Yes Ombudsman Services and almost every English local authority in the land, I am thinking of you. UK numptyness in publicly funded services really is as high as ever it was if not peaking into rediculously sublime))
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
