SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Microsoft could get the boot from the French government if a new recommendation from an official advisor is adopted.
DISIC (Direction interministérielle des systèmes d'information et de communication de l'État) has recommended that French authorities ditch Microsoft Office tools in favour of the Open Document Format (ODF). DISIC is responsible for harmonising and reducing the costs of all state computers, including government ministries, state and regional departments and local authorities, and sees ODF as the best way to make them all interoperable.
According to sources, an initial draft of the report envisaged outlawing Microsoft's Open XML altogether, although with some agencies using tools specifically developed for use with Open XML, DISIC relented.
However, the final version strongly encourages the phasing out of Microsoft's ware in favour of ODF.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday July 25 2015, @01:08PM
I cannot explain the dominance of MS Office by anything other than herd mentality. You have a free product that does 98% of what 98% users need. It works on all major computers, not just Windows. Or you can pay.
Sure if you have a hedge trading spreadsheet with extensive macros that entirely runs your bailed-out bank, you're locked in. But everyone else? Is it just momentum? Too focused on the latest tweets to stop a second and think? "It's not my money so who cares?"
Why do you pay for MS Office?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by inertnet on Saturday July 25 2015, @01:38PM
Maybe because schools use MS Office. Whenever my kids have to create documents for school, I have to remind them to save them in .doc, .xls, .pps or whatever MS format, because their teachers can't be expected to be able to open ODF files. MS has been pushing Office in schools for years (all over the world) because once kids are used to it, most will stick to it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday July 25 2015, @01:44PM
You've simply pushed the question back one layer. Why do schools buy MS Office when there is a free, compatible alternative? The joy of spending Other People's Money? And teachers whine that they're perpetually underpaid...
> MS has been pushing Office in schools
Well sure. Every money hungry company has been pushing its products since forever. So what? That doesn't mean anyone has to buy them.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimios on Saturday July 25 2015, @01:54PM
Schools aren't independent when it comes to software acquisitions relating to the curriculum. They buy (or get directly from the government) what they have to teach. And what they teach is determined by a select few who are ... um ... incentivized to include only MS / Adobe / Autodesk products.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday July 25 2015, @02:03PM
In my opinion, it should not be legal for a government to use a proprietary format where an open one exists. It forces people to buy from a specific supplier and ties them to that for future purposes as well.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday July 25 2015, @02:28PM
I'd go one step further and say the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize or prop up one corporation over another.
There are laws that require tax funded entities to solicit bids and buy from the lowest priced supplier. But everybody knows the loophole around that one: simply write a "sole source" declaration: we have to buy from $ExpensiveCorp because they have a monopoly.
Wrong! If you've just documented a monopoly, government shouldn't be allowed to buy that. Government could only buy when there is competitive bidding. It would put a stop to a lot of crony capitalism. Which is why it will never happen, I guess.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @08:25AM
shh... don't say stuff like that or gewg_'s head might explode
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @02:03PM
Our public school system now has students save their work in ODF on Google Docs. They used to use Doc but had too many problems with files not opening when created on home computers but opened on school computers. Openoffice/Libreoffice to the rescue!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @02:58PM
Our public school system now has students save their work in ODF on Google Docs.
Very convenient for Google, a company which clearly respects people's privacy.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @03:33PM
You could put that question another way: why are most word processors clones of (an old version of) the Word GUI?
Simple: because everyone in the Real (aka business) World uses Word.
Schools are a training ground for business. Therefore they too use Word.
Why did business go with Word instead of AmiPro or WordPerfect? Some professions didn't -- architects and lawyers loved WordPerfect. On the whole, though, MS came up with a better product that did what you wanted, was snappy, and worked decently with other programs. I know that this is heresy, but Word was the easiest solution for most businesses. Its adoption in government and schools followed later, because government emulates business and schools provide training for business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @03:45PM
Schools are a training ground for business. Therefore they too use Word.
Nonsense. Schools are supposed to educate people (as in real education, not just turning people into corporate drones), not force them to use proprietary software and proprietary formats that do not allow education. It is awful that it's even allowed for schools or governments to use proprietary software; the only possible reason I can see for bringing in proprietary software is if you want to educate people on how to reverse engineer it (which should be 100% legal).
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday July 25 2015, @07:50PM
A school that considers itself a training ground for business is a school you should avoid like the plague.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @02:55PM
That is simply unacceptable. The idea of schools (which are supposed to educate) using proprietary user-subjugating software (which is anti-education) is quite sickening and shouldn't even be allowed. The company holds all the cards, will likely violate people's privacy, and people will not have the four essential freedoms.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @01:40PM
I pay for MS Office because it fucking works.
I need an office suite that I can trust. I need an office suite that I know will work. MS Office is that office suite.
I'm not going to waste my time fucking around with LibreOffice or AbiWord.
Instead, I pay MS to provide me a great product, and that's exactly what they do, and that's exactly what I get.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @02:28PM
You modded AC a troll? Not everyone has to be an F/OSS zealot.
There is nothing wrong with paying for software that meets your needs. You may not be a fan of <insert name of big software company you hate> but that doesn't make their customers trolls, or evil or stupid (as many F/OSS advocates like to state).
I bill by the hour, so not having to futz with software that doesn't really meet my needs costs me more than the price of software that doesn't require the extra efforts or that has all the features I need (implemented correctly and reliably). It also makes it cheaper for my clients.
I'm not knocking F/OSS. It does the job for millions and millions of people. That doesn't mean it meets everyone's needs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @03:01PM
And this is the problem with the "open source" mentality; it focuses on convenience rather than freedom. The four freedoms are essential for any software to be called free, and proprietary software certainly does not qualify. Maybe you do not care about your freedoms being violated, but the government and schools have absolutely no business providing corporate welfare or using software that discourages education and subjugates users.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @12:17AM
this is the problem with the "[closed-]source" mentality; it focuses on convenience rather than freedom
That works for me now.
...and, of course, that "convenience" is short-term; the next release of the closed app and its proprietary formats will be incompatible with previous versions[1] and will require you to get back on the treadmill with your wallet out.
[1] ...and as tekk mentioned above, the old documents are incompatible with the new version of the proprietary app often enough to negate the "convenient" argument.
...and the FOSS app does a better job with those.
.
this is the [advantage of] the "open source" mentality; it focuses on [freedom rather than convenience]
That now works for me as well.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @12:37AM
Your AC here.
Maybe you do not care about your freedoms being violated ...
I'm paying for software and using it for what I need it for. I'm not giving up anything except money. Software is a tool for me and I use it to generate income for my family. The "if you're not using F/OSS you're a pawn in the software industry's game and you have traded your soul for a license to use their software" mentality is too drama queen for me. I buy something that meets my needs. It works and meets my needs. Period. My time has value, just like yours does. I choose to spend less of it twiddling with something that comes close to getting the job done, but not quite, and more of it either working billable hours or spending it with my family. It may only save me an hour or two a week, but that's enough to watch a movie on the couch.
... but the government and schools have absolutely no business providing corporate welfare or using software that discourages education and subjugates users.
If you're saying that governments - and by extension any federal, state or local agencies that use taxpayer dollars to fund their operation - should always try to use products that are lower cost (as long as their needs are met) then I agree with you. The cost of ownership - including support over the expected lifetime of the product - should be the lowest as long as it meets their actual needs and not some "ooh, and one person needs xyz so we all have to have Product ABC!" bullshit (the same kind of crap that employers use to sneak N1B visa workers into the country). If a F/OSS product - and its support - meet their requirements then the F/OSS products should be used.
Total cost of ownership can be as fuzzy as Hollywood accounting, but it should be easy to calculate "if we switch to this F/OSS product, and have to spend $X millions to retrain everyone, will it still save us $ millions in the long run?". The answer will often be "Yes!" and so that effort should be made. Unfortunately that type of long-term commitment isn't a priority in any taxpayer-funded situation.
But when it comes to me, I'm allowed to trade my money for time with my family. And if you think that means I'm giving up freedoms, well, you and I have very different priorities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @08:34AM
Remember the introduction of ribbons?
How about windows 8?
The argument that FOSS TCO is more expensive because everyone is used to Windows and would otherwise require training is retarded. LibreOffice Writer is more like old versions of Word than current versions of Word is.
In many cases FOSS is cheaper because it's free and the amount of work integrating it isn't significantly higher than integrating any updated Microsoft product. Where FOSS really shines though is savings over the long run.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Justin Case on Saturday July 25 2015, @04:26PM
> all the features I need (implemented correctly and reliably)
If you're mentioning reliable software in the same breath as Microsoft, well, all I can say is you and I inhabit different universes. Who is President over there? Has Greece paid back their loans yet?
MS intentionally makes it so MS Office files can't be opened in other versions of MS Office, just to drive the upgrade churn. How is that "reliable"?
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday July 25 2015, @05:33PM
Of 3 computers running 2 different versions of windows that I have, I was having problems just moving the same .doc files between them, all on Different ages of MS Office. Once I'd loaded OO on all three I've never had any problem opening or working with any text document nor any spreadsheet document. Nor any formatting problems even with MS Office documents. And no problems opening any cloud file nor any file sent to me via email. With MS Office I often had problems opening and working with cloud files and file sent via email.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @11:27AM
It's lucky you never have to open files with references or cross-references [documentfoundation.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @11:33PM
I bill by the hour, so not having to futz with software that doesn't really meet my needs costs me more than the price of software that doesn't require the extra efforts or that has all the features I need (implemented correctly and reliably). It also makes it cheaper for my clients.
This also describes my use of an office suite. And explains why I (have to [1]) use the free one instead of the ms version.
[1] Depends on which features you need, YMMV etc
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @03:21PM
BWAHAHAHAHA... MS employee no doubt.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Saturday July 25 2015, @02:03PM
Nobody ever got fired for buying IB^H^H Microsoft.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @11:37PM
Nobody ever got fired for buying IB^H^H Microsoft.
Actually, in my* company anybody buying Microsoft would be.
* As in "I own it", and being the boss does have some perks (admittedly it is a very small company).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @11:41PM
Nobody ever got fired for buying IB^H^H Microsoft.
Actually, in my* company anybody buying Microsoft would be.
* As in "I own it", and being the boss does have some perks (admittedly it is a very small company).
Same AC again. I forgot to say that I took the lesson of Ernie Ball [myitforum.com] very seriously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @04:51PM
I personally have never paid for a copy of Office. Yet I use it every day.
Why?
Because everyone around me does. File formats are like viri. Once a *key* person starts using it everyone else has to follow.
If I gave up my files in odf format I would be 'the weird guy who doesnt like docx files'. Personally I do not care. It is a tool I use to get my job done. MS Office is one of the best office drone productivity suites out there. That my company says 'use this' does not hurt me much either. I could switch but then it would be weeks of 'where is this stupid button' 'where is this stupid short cut'. Then what do I get on the other end? The *exact* *same* *thing*. That is a waste of my time.
Also all of the MS formats are text files. The are disguised zip files. Unzip them you will find a few blobs of XML that contain your files.
In the end mostly things like this are about money. Someone wants a discount and balked at some crazy multimillion dollar bill MS was trying to hand them. I dont blame them. Office has not been updated for 3 years it didnt somehow become millions of dollars better. 365 looks like a treasure trove of 'let the hackers at my stuff'. I am sure MS tried to push 365 on them and the when 'oh hell no'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @05:41AM
Pivot tables and pivot charts. If MS did anything right that was it. Nothing I have found matches this function in excel and I use them 20 or 30 times a day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @08:22AM
two words... "Microsoft Access"
and believe me the company I work for is trying to get away from it too, but it takes time to migrate to a more reliable, stable, scalable and flexible LAMP-based solution