"BearItAll" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1181033986.27231.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Jim Hubbard wrote:
>
>> Well, it wouldn't actually be Linux legislation (in fact, calling it that
>> may just get it killed), but it would have the same effect for Linux as
>> if
>> it were designed specifically to advance the Linux OS.
>>
>> We need to pass legislation that states that ANY company that outputs
>> user
>> data in ANY format is required BY LAW to publish that format FULLY and
>> OPENLY *BEFORE* implementing it in a new software program. And, that NO
>> data storage format may be used without FULL, OPEN disclosure prior to
>> implementation in a software program (to cover "updates").
>>
>> This would keep the data in the hands of those to whom it belongs - the
>> users. With open, published data formats - competing companies could
>> easily imoprt a user's data from any other application and give the users
>> a REAL choice in what program (or operating system) they wish to use.
>>
>> Then, programs and operating systems would have to compete on
>> functionality, usability and cost effectiveness for every consumer.
>>
>> We need to stop companies from holding user data hostage (and the users
>> along with it).
>>
>> Jim Hubbard
>
> I don't think that a law is appropriate here. It is by use of ODF
> spreading
> that we get rid of dependance on particular software. Promoting it's use
> in
> your own workplaces as well as at home. Also passing out the various
> available tools for ODF handling.
I agree that ODF is spreading, but wat we need is a key to break free the
captives in the Windows world.
Most Windows users (especially businesses) have a substantial amount of data
in proprietary formats that make it difficult (if not downright impossible
financially) to move to another application in the Windows world...much less
an app in Linux. These users are, for the most part, simple. They do well
to know how to get their work done as it is. Mention moving to a new system
or OS and they will freeze in fright at the very thought.
They freeze this way because they are afraid of what will happen to their
data. How will it be carried forward? Can we get it into a new system?
Can we still trade it with our clients and vendors?
For these reasons (all relating to the proprietary stranglehold placed on
their data) they don't go Linux or OpenOffice.
>
> There is more at stake than simply taking away dependance from a
> particular
> software vendor though, that is important but ODF can take us further than
> that. Some examples of where ODF can take us:-
>
> It is basically a XML-Like system, which means that it is ripe for
> database
> control. By making good use of tags you can create a document library that
> is much less wastefull than the current individual document libraries, but
> at the same time much more powerfull in document management.
>
> Reduced backup time and space, because there is only need to backup
> changed
> tag sections. That could prove particularly valuable with the modern trend
> of backing up over a VPN, the slowest backup of all backups but worth it
> because a single step backs up the data and gets it off site. ODF can
> reduce that traffic, in much the same way as a good rsync system can.
>
> Viewers, the number of applications that understand ODF and how to display
> it is growing rapidly, StarOffice, OpenOffice, browsers and so on. We in
> linux tend to hang around the plain text formats in most areas, there is
> no
> reason why not of cause, it makes things quick and accessible. But they
> are
> times when that format doesn't really work. Tagging and links as in emacs
> is very powerfull but there was always going to be times when it would be
> better if codes to help emacs (or any viewer/editor) weren't a visible
> part
> of the document in other applications or wouldn't cause the document to
> missform due to the use of some <0x20 codes. With ODF we have the best of
> both worlds. Simple and accessible, but can have controls for
> viewers/editors that will not missform the document in other viewers.
> Viewers can make use of the areas that are relevant to them, ignoring
> those
> areas that aren't.
>
> Tools, Many of the new tools are converters to ODF from other formats,
> often
> implemented as scripts, This is understandable because one of the first
> things companies need to do, and it has been suggested that some sort of
> urgency might be needed, is to convert the vast number of archived
> documents it already has. Before the application that can read them
> disapears. The importance of this can not be stressed enough.
All of those are good points for ODF. But, they still leave 95% of the
world's PC users trapped in Windows.
Honestly, it doesn't make a tinker's damn if every other application and OS
in the world goes ODF if the Windows users' data is not set free.
>
> A lot of company documents have a legal time associated with them. For
> example if your company is in construction, then the documents relative to
> each construction, plans, suppliers etc must be kept for the life of the
> thing that you build. So you could be talking of a very long period when
> those documents must be available for inspection in some form. Active pay
> data, in the UK it is seven years, then access to archived data after
> that.
> As for auditors well they can point to anything when they inspect and you
> must be able to come up with what ever documentation is associated with
> what they point at.
>
> Depending on your industry or trade area your archive period could be
> anything from two years to a life time. The reason ODF came about was
> because they was an idle threat made, I am not sure who actually made it,
> but it was to do with a suggestion that if MS change format and abandon
> the
> previous format, then a great deal of data is suddenly at risk. It is all
> very well saying you will keep a machine with Word2 on it, or what ever
> version the threat covers, but will that machine last a life time? Then
> when the machine does die and you go to install that application on what
> is
> now the modern hardware and operating system of the day, will you be able
> to load it at all?
>
> It is easy to work out. Try installing the applications that you used in
> 1995 on a modern machine. Some will actually work, DOS for example should
> still work on a modern PC, but will not work with modern drives unless you
> have a tsr for it. But how many of the applications from those days had a
> specific list of graphics cards or made direct use of drives rather than a
> system call because at the time the application tended to have the machine
> to itself, so it could cheat in order to work faster? The truth is that
> even just ten year old data is already at risk because the applications
> and
> formats of the day are in many cases no longer available. I am not only
> talking about MS here. How many of you can still access a Quatro
> spreadsheet or a Wordstar document and many others.
>
> If in ten years we already have lost access to some documents then all of
> the data archiving in the world isn't worth anything at all. Laws would
> have to be changed to make companies 'not' responsible for the data, In
> tracing a problem the buck stops at the last document, assuming each in
> the
> chain has done their part as best they could. So if you built a bridge
> that
> falls down and you can't get access to the documents to tell the
> inspectors
> where the material came from, then the buck stops with you, you become
> responsible for the bridge and all of the consequences.
That's where full disclosure of data and document formats would be most
useful.
ANY company could open and read your data. And, the ones that want the
lion's share of their market will do just that.
In fact, you'll also see 3rd party companies that only write conversion
software for use by software companies. These tools would be invaluable to
software companies and would be easy to incorporate into each new version of
their software. In fact, that's done now by larger companies wanting to
take market share from their competition. But, (as with the newer office
2007 formats) it's a complicated and costly process to decode the new
document/data formats and almost always something is missed (like with
formulas and OpenOffice's Calc vs Microsoft's Excel).
Even if all software companies stopped development, you still would have
access to the fully disclosed formats and could hire someone to convert the
data you needed.
>
> So ODF is not only a helpfull and usefull format, it could actually prove
> essential to your company.
I agree that ODF is useful. And, I'd even agree that legislation was not
needed to force full disclosure of docuent and data formats IF you can tell
me just how we are going to get Microsoft to use ODF.
jim
|
|
