| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
OpenOffice celebrates turning 2.0 | |
|
||
| Time: 09:37 EST/14:37 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
OpenOffice.org includes a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation creator and--with version 2.0--a database. Project organizers had hoped to release the upgrade last week, on the fifth anniversary of the creation of the open-source project, but a last-minute bug derailed the plan. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:49:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 10/21/2005 10:05:33 AM |
|
yawn....
I suppose 3.0 will have the ribbon. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/21/2005 10:55:18 AM |
|
#1: the Editor's Choice ribbon? Let's hope so. btw when's Office going to fully support OpenDocument?
|
| #3 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 10/21/2005 11:36:50 AM |
|
Why should they? They shouldn't have to do anything they don't want to with their product.
No..the ribbon i speak of is the new UI ribbon on office 12. But you knew that. You just like trolling I am sure. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/21/2005 1:25:12 PM |
|
#3: but I thought MS was all about the consumer and innovation. Surely, supporting the document format they helped innovate benefits the consumer, no?
I've never seen Office 12 and had no idea what ribbon you were talking about. |
| #5 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 10/21/2005 2:07:20 PM |
|
#2 "when's Office going to fully support OpenDocument"
Never it looks like. OpenDocument is toast if the following patent is upheld: http://news.com.com/Small+company+makes+big+claims+on+XML+patents/2100-1014_3-5905949.html I hope Massachussetts will enjoy paying the XML tax on the way. Proprietary is economically safer. |
| #6 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 10/21/2005 2:48:26 PM |
|
#6 I assume your idea of innovation is the open source idea that no successful proprietary application should be left uncloned (badly done at that)?
|
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/21/2005 2:57:10 PM |
| #5: Massachussetts didn't bow down for your beloved Microsoft, so you hope they will somehow be punished. Real nice, Parker. Well, the chance of that bogus patent being upheld are zero, pretty much as the article indicated. As for your last line, that's total nonsense and you know it, but then you'll say anything if you think it has even the smallest tangible benefit to MS. If that crap patent was upheld, which it won't be, MS would be stuck like everyone else in having to license it for many of their products. Where's the proprietary benefit there again? |
| #8 By 37 (207.118.181.206) at 10/21/2005 4:54:27 PM |
|
Latch...MS is about making money first, then the consumer.
What was your point? |
| #9 By 1401 (65.255.137.20) at 10/21/2005 5:29:32 PM |
| that's nice... |
| #10 By 32132 (207.216.249.232) at 10/22/2005 12:02:48 AM |
|
Latch, the key to remember is that thi Massachussets initiative is based on anti-Microsoft bigotry. They seem to have no problem with pdf, despite the fact that it is copyrighted by Adobe.
You hate Microsoft, they hate Microsoft, they'll lose, you are a loser. |
| #11 By 32132 (207.216.249.232) at 10/22/2005 12:07:20 AM |
|
PDF is copyrighted by Adobe.
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/pdf/PDFReference16.pdf From the PDF guidelines: "1.5 Intellectual Property The general idea of using an interchange format for electronic documents is in the public domain. Anyone is free to devise a set of unique data structures and operators that define an interchange format for electronic documents. However, Adobe Systems Incorporated owns the copyright for the particular data structures and operators and the written specification constituting the interchange format called the Portable Document Format. Thus, these elements of the Portable Document Format may not be copied without Adobe’s permission. Adobe will enforce its copyright. Adobe’s intention is to maintain the integrity of the Portable Document Format standard. This enables the public to distinguish between the Portable Document Format and other interchange formats for electronic documents. However, Adobe desires to promote the use of the Portable Document Format for information interchange among diverse products and applications. Accordingly, Adobe gives anyone copyright permission, subject to the conditions stated below, to: Prepare files whose content conforms to the Portable Document Format Write drivers and applications that produce output represented in the Portable Document Format Write software that accepts input in the form of the Portable Document Format and displays, prints, or otherwise interprets the contents Copy Adobe’s copyrighted list of data structures and operators, as well as the example code and PostScript language function definitions in the written specification, to the extent necessary to use the Portable Document Format for the purposes above. The conditions of such copyright permission are: •Authors of software that accepts input in the form of the Portable Document Format must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the software they create respects the access permissions and permissions controls listed in Table 3.20 of this specification, to the extent that they are used in any particular document. These access permissions express the rights that the document’s author has granted to users of the document. It is the responsibility of Portable Document Format consumer software to respect the author’s intent. Anyone who uses the copyrighted list of data structures and operators, as stated above, must include an appropriate copyright notice |
| #12 By 12071 (210.84.34.227) at 10/22/2005 3:19:57 AM |
|
#1 "I suppose 3.0 will have the ribbon."
Perhaps it will. Why? Will you only use an Office suite that has a ribbon on some of it's applications? #2 "btw when's Office going to fully support OpenDocument?" The same time that Microsoft do anything - when there is a risk of them losing market share/money or if there is some incentive to make money. Until then you and I as a consumer can ask until we're blue in the face. Why would they want to support OpenDocument and risk their Office market share? Obviously not everyone would switch from Office to an alternative suite of applications but some would if they could be ensured of having a portable format. #5 "I hope Massachussetts will enjoy paying the XML tax on the way." Did you stop to think that if that patent were to be upheld (and that's a huge IF) - then no-one would be exempt from the "XML tax" as you call it? Massachussetts would still have to pay the "XML tax" if they went with Microsoft's proprietary Office format. "Proprietary is economically safer." Really? Please tell us all on how going with Microsoft would have been safer from your so called "XML tax", I'm curious. #11 "They seem to have no problem with pdf, despite the fact that it is copyrighted by Adobe. " What's the copyright have to do with anything? Or have you confused yourself once again? You do understand the difference between a trademark, copyright and patent don't you? Why should they have a problem with PDF? Microsoft don't seem to have any issues integrating PDF into Office which Massachussetts would have had if they went with them. You love Microsoft, you hate everything that isn't made or supported by Microsoft. |
| #13 By 37 (207.118.165.194) at 10/22/2005 9:06:24 AM |
|
"#1 "I suppose 3.0 will have the ribbon."
Perhaps it will. Why? Will you only use an Office suite that has a ribbon on some of it's applications?" Na. I think it's funny that when MS comes out and buys up a competitor and reintroduces a product, or introduces a new product by essentially copying someone else, that is BAD and NON -innovative to open source zealots. But when MS comes up with some more original, or introduces new ideas, UI, etc, and then is copied by open source developers, "it's ok". That is EXTREME double standards. So, if Open Office.org 3.0 gets "the ribbon", THATS ok. But, if MS didn't have the ribbon, and Open Office introduced the ribbon in 2.0, and MS copied it with their next version of office, its NOT ok. <shakes head in disbelief> |
| #14 By 12071 (210.84.34.227) at 10/22/2005 12:03:53 PM |
| #14 Fair enough - but I do think you're jumping the gun a little, no-one has said anything about OpenOffice copying the "ribbon" as being "OK". I myself have not used the beta, only seen the screenshots so it's hard to judge the "ribbon" but it just seems like a prettier way of displaying the same buttons that were previously there. |
| #15 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 10/22/2005 5:49:59 PM |
|
Actually, what it is really doing is exposing items to users that they didn't know existed, and it makes it easier for them to know which tools work when the current item/area is selected or being worked in.
Give the beta a try. It took me a bit to find things, but now that I know where they are, it's SUBSTANTIALLY easier to access. I am not a keyboard command user, but those that are will still experience the same keyboard shortcuts. As for jumping the gun, I was only proving a point. I don't know, and don't care, IF they ended up using the ribbon in a 3.0 release. |
| #16 By 32132 (207.216.249.232) at 10/22/2005 8:41:35 PM |
|
#13 I was sure the reason the anti-Microsoft bigots chose to use as their "cover story" for dumping office was because of "open" standards.
PDF is no more open than Microsoft's document format. Adobe will still have control of the format. They will be allowed to add new features as they do in every version that Microsoft will be forced to use to keep their application compatible with every other PDF docment creating application. "Microsoft don't seem to have any issues integrating PDF into Office " As an export format. You Microsoft haters should try for some consistency in your bullsh*t cover stories. |
| #17 By 12071 (210.84.34.227) at 10/22/2005 10:34:31 PM |
|
#16 Fair enough, like I said I haven't tried the beta so it's a bit hard to judge something purely on screenshots. It might work really well but I wonder if people will be keen to press buttons they previously didn't press because they weren't quite sure what they do. As for trying the beta, it would be nice to but I simply don't have the time at the moment and we are currently in discussions with Microsoft in regards to getting a beta of Excel Server as that will potentially be a very valuable tool.
#17 "PDF is no more open than Microsoft's document format." PDF is copyrighted, Microsoft's is patented and Adobe allows you to do more with their format without having to kiss their backsides or pay them licensing fees. "As an export format." Oh right - so copyright doesn't matter when you use it as an export format only as an import format? And how is that different to Massachussetts using OpenDocument and exporting to PDF? I really wish you learnt the difference between trademarks, patents and copyrights and stopped having such double standards. It won't happen, but I wished it did. Now if you go back to #13 you'll find that you missed a few questions. Please explain to us all how proprietary is economically safer. |
| #18 By 32132 (207.216.249.232) at 10/22/2005 10:53:00 PM |
|
#18 "Adobe allows you to do more with their format without having to kiss their backsides or pay them licensing fees."
Nonsense. Microsofts Office 2003 XML format is royalty free. On the other hand, Adobe says this in the copyrighted PDF specification: Authors of software that accepts input in the form of the Portable Document Format must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the software they create respects the access permissions and permissions controls listed in Table 3.20 of this specification, to the extent that they are used in any particular document. That means Adobe has the right to control your software if it reads PDF documents. Again, this is a superb example of the Microsoft haters willing to sell their soul to anyone who competes with Microsoft because of the old adage: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". You'll let companies like Adobe make you jump through hoops if it makes you feel better about your bigotry and hate directed at Microsoft. As for your stupid claim that Adobe's PDF isn't patented: "Adobe has a number of patents covering technology that is disclosed in the Portable Document Format (PDF) Specification, version 1.3 and later, as documented in PDF Reference and associated Technical Notes (the "Specification"). Adobe desires to promote the use of PDF for information interchange among diverse products and applications. Accordingly, the following patents are licensed on a royalty-free, non-exclusive basis for the term of each patent and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces, consumes, and interprets PDF files that are compliant with the Specification: U.S. Patent Numbers: * 5,634,064 * 5,737,599 * 5,781,785 * 5,819,301 * 6,028,583 * 6,289,364 * 6,421,460 In addition, the following patent is licensed on a royalty-free, non-exclusive basis for its term and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces PDF files that are compliant with the Specification (specifically excluding, however, software that consumes and/or interprets PDF files): U.S. Patent Numbers: * 5,860,074" So Kabuki boy ... tell me the difference between PDF and Office 2003 XML? This post was edited by NotParker on Saturday, October 22, 2005 at 23:00. |
| #19 By 32132 (207.216.249.232) at 10/22/2005 11:04:12 PM |
|
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/support/topic_legal_notices.html
... continued: Patent clarification notice: Reading and writing XDP files Adobe has a patent pending covering technology that is disclosed in the XML Data Package Specification, versions 2.0 and later, concerning the use of XML Data Packages ("XDP") as secure XML containers for transactions using PDF forms and other data (the "Specification"). Adobe desires to promote the use of XDP for information interchange among diverse products and applications. Accordingly, the pending patent is licensed on a royalty-free, nonexclusive basis for the term of such patent and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces, consumes, and/or interprets XDP files that are compliant with the Specification. The above licenses are limited to only those rights required to implement the Specification and no others. That is to say, Adobe grants only those rights in the above patent(s) necessarily practiced to implement the Specification, and does not grant any rights not required to implement the Specification. The licenses do not grant the right to practice any patent covering other technologies, such as implementation techniques that are not explicitly disclosed in the Specification, nor does it allow the use of any patented feature for any purpose other than as set forth in the applicable license grant. Adobe has other patents in various fields, none of which are hereby licensed. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:49:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
