Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday September 01 2016, @05:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the making-a-buck-from-free-software dept.

The European Union's interoperability page reports:

Austria published a call for projects on 27 July. The deadline for submitting proposals is 4 October. Information regarding requirements and selection criteria are available at Austria's Research Promotion Agency (FFG).

This is the second call for AT:NET projects. The first round, launched in April, received 50 proposals out of which 31 projects will now be funded with [a] total [of] €3.6 million.

The AT:NET project promotes innovative digital start-ups and small and medium-sized businesses. The project is calling for companies and projects that deal with digitisation of products or services. Topics can include eGovernment, eHealth, eLearning, and eInclusion, as well as commercial products and services.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @06:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @06:17PM (#396299)

    I wonder if any of this money will go to bug fixes in the Open Office code? Plenty of little incompatibilities with MS Office that keeps them from a larger share.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 01 2016, @06:34PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday September 01 2016, @06:34PM (#396306) Journal

    Hey gew... OriginalOwner. Got a list of the 31 funded projects?

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by sendafiolorkar on Thursday September 01 2016, @10:21PM

    by sendafiolorkar (6300) on Thursday September 01 2016, @10:21PM (#396420)

    It's not a bug it's a feature, from Microsoft side.

    Excerpt of the interview with Italo Vignoli of The Document Foundation, the organization responsible for developing LibreOffice which is a fork of OpenOffice:

    Swapnil Bhartiya: What are the practical and technological problems by using Microsoft’s products or the OOXML format (DOCX, XLSX and PPTX extensions).

    Italo Vignoli: MS Office locks-in the user not only with proprietary formats but also with the OOXML pseudo-standard format. This is due to the way the supposedly standard format is handled by MS Office.

    In fact, each version of MS Office since 2007 has a different and non standard implementation of OOXML, which is defined as “transitional” because it contains elements which are supposed to be deprecated at standard level, but are still there for compatibility reasons.

    Although LibreOffice manages to read and write OOXML in a fairly appropriate way, it will be impossible to achieve a perfect interoperability because of these different non standard versions.
    In addition to format incompatibilities, Microsoft – with OOXML – has introduced elements which may lead the user into producing a non interoperable document, such as the C-Fonts (for instance, Calibri and Cambria).

    C-Fonts are the default choice for MS Office documents, but their license forbids users of other office suites to adopt them for any document (as you must own a Microsoft Office license).

    So, a LibreOffice user who receives an OOXML document will be able to open it properly, but the document will not look the same because the C-Font will be automatically replaced by another font.

    Most of the times, the LibreOffice user will think that the document does not look the same because of LibreOffice and not because Microsoft intentionally induced him into this “visual incompatibility”.

    So, using MS Office with the native OOXML format is a problem for everyone, and the more people are using OOXML the more non standard documents will be around.

    Read more at:
    http://www.linuxveda.com/2014/11/29/never-use-microsofts-ooxml-pseudo-standard-format/ [linuxveda.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @11:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @11:57PM (#396463)

      I was aware of this stuff back around 2010.
      The "specification" for OOXML was over 6000 pages.
      Compare that to ODF 1.1. [archive.li]
      (The S/N comments engine still removes instances of %22 in URLs.)

      ...and, after all that, the OOXML "specification" isn't even an actual specification.
      It looks like an encrypted inter-office memo [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org] passed among MICROS~1's code monkeys.

      OOXML is a complete crap.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday September 02 2016, @08:22AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Friday September 02 2016, @08:22AM (#396597) Journal

        A long specification isn't a bad thing, and that argument is part of why ODF adoption was hampered. C is a language with about a dozen keywords and its spec is longer than the ODF spec, and a lot of implementers think that it's inadequate. The sorts of people who were proposing regulations mandating an office document format are used to dealing with specifications and know that ambiguity is the absolute worst thing that you can have in a specification. A longer spec is almost always a sign of a more detailed spec.

        The ODF 1.1 spec is short because it's completely inadequate. I've not read the entire thing, but the things I've looked up in it (mostly in the spreadsheet parts) were clearly drafted by people who have no idea of the purpose of a specification and full of ambiguity. The part of the spec for spreadsheet formulae was a disaster, for example.

        OOXML is not a good spec either, but claiming that it's bad because it's long both misses the reasons why it's bad and discredits your opinion when advocating another format. For reference, the PDF spec is over 6,000 pages and PDF implementers complain that parts of it are insufficiently detailed (for example, the JavaScript integration bit needed for complex forms to work doesn't describe the objects that are exposed by the viewer to the script in adequate detail).

        --
        sudo mod me up
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @02:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @02:45PM (#396668)

    open office and libre office haven't been the same thing for years. the incompatibilities between ms office and libre office are purposely caused by microsoft because they are stupid douche bags. this is not exactly top secret info. try pulling your head out of your ass b/c you're spreading MS' lies.