×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

264 comments

Is it safe? (2, Interesting)

CasualFriday (1804992) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149220)

Hopefully this won't be bundled with a trojan like MechWarrior 4. THANKS UNCLE BILL.

Re:Is it safe? (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149252)

Naw ... this one is like crack. Getting you hooked is "free" but once your documents are in its clutches, um, I mean file format, then your ass belongs to them.

Re:Is it safe? (-1, Troll)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149694)

I don't really understand this FUD. Even if Microsoft does have a slightly different flavor of OXML it's not like it's impossible to convert them to something more neutral even if Microsoft took a play from Steve Job's playbook and completely went to the dark side. I understand fear of the old pre-2007 formats since they were impossible to read without Microsoft's software, but the modern formats can be unzipped and your content is available plain as day. I'm no Microsoft apologist, but in this case your fear is unfounded.

Re:Is it safe? (5, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149802)

I don't really understand this FUD. Even if Microsoft does have a slightly different flavor of OXML it's not like it's impossible to convert them to something more neutral even if Microsoft took a play from Steve Job's playbook and completely went to the dark side.

Man, you must be really, really new here.

This is exactly the problem (and the same facile response) we've been coping with since the mid-90s, and I can tell you from experience that things are never as simple as you describe.

Let's take one client I'm working with right now. They're a national institution, responsible for archiving court documents in perpetuity. That means, effectively, forever. Just about everything right now is being sent to them in PDF or DOC format. What do you think the odds are of being able to access these documents in 25 years' time?

If, however, these documents were stored in plain text markup (e.g. XML) following an open, formal and workable specification whose definitions are slightly more robust than "Do this formatting the way we did in Word 97" and which consists of slightly more than dumping blobs of binary data inside tags, we might stand a chance. It would still be a bit of an ask, but in the worst case scenario, we could probably infer (or ignore) the parts that puzzled us most.

Document formats matter because a great many of them -especially those produced by the public sector- have historical value and need to be preserved for a very long time.

Re:Is it safe? (2, Insightful)

fullgandoo (1188759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149986)

What you say is right but not relevant to this discussion. The parent had commented on the comment of the GP that once you have a file in MS format, your ass belongs to them.

This may be true whether it is a file in Word format, PDF or an even more proprietary format from Apple. So it is not something unique to MS.

And as to your 25 year time frame, I can still read the oldest document produced by Word on the latetst MS Office. And lastly, who's stopping you from storing files in XML format in Office?

Re:Is it safe? (1, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150138)

It's true though. Once your docs are in MS format, your ass does belong to them. And let's not talk about macros. Other formats having the problem is true, but kinda irrelevant. PDF at least is well documented, and , IIRC, open.

I can't read my WordStar CP/M docs that easily anymore. Do you think MS will be eternal-ier than WordStar ? Do you trust MS to eternally produce good software at reasonably prices ? Or others to risk lawsuits and such for trying to import it ? And older versions of Word do have at least formatting issues with later versions. MS are doing their darnedest to leverage the document pool into more software sales, do you expect that to change ?

XML per se is not really good for simple docs, there's too many way to do things. MS's OOXML neither, it's too vague and immaterial.

Re:Is it safe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32150262)

.docx is basically a .zip'd set of XML files, with a different extension... you can snag/read/process the content with open/free resources, and aren't tied to MS. Now how hard it is to do this, really depends. As to your wordstar files, if they're in a binary format, it's understandable.. for MS docx, or odf etc, it's a zip file with xml... Binary attachments/images may be a different story, but are pretty standard themselves.

Re:Is it safe? (5, Interesting)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150156)

What you say is right but not relevant to this discussion. The parent had commented on the comment of the GP that once you have a file in MS format, your ass belongs to them.

Yes, that was exactly the intent when MS created its own proprietary document formats. There was a time when WordPerfect was happy to convert to and from Ami Pro, when Star Writer exported just fine to Word. Microsoft changed all that by relentlessly leveraging compatibility to feed their revenue stream.

This may be true whether it is a file in Word format, PDF or an even more proprietary format from Apple. So it is not something unique to MS.

Agreed. That's why I mentioned both Adobe and Word formats in the same sentence. I don't think either one is particularly appropriate (although PDF as a published specification is a great deal easier to work with when doing document conversion).

And as to your 25 year time frame, I can still read the oldest document produced by Word on the latest MS Office.

That's hard to believe, and not entirely relevant. What I'm talking about -as a minimal scenario- is a situation where the original software just doesn't exist any more. Twenty-five years ago in 1985, Word was something called Multi-Tool. I sincerely doubt one of its files would open in Office 2010 without significant effort from a developer.

And lastly, who's stopping you from storing files in XML format in Office?

Nobody. That's exactly what we do. The problem is that we work with legal documents from over 20 countries and hundreds of different sources. We have a limited amount of development resources (mostly just me) and we need these documents to be available forever, effectively. If people could actually settle on a standard that really was a standard, if people could actually agree to look slightly farther down the track than their own desktops, we could actually spend time building new searching capabilities, ontologies and frameworks to make the data way, way more useful than it is today.

Instead, I spend all my time dealing with half-assed, unstructured formatting brought about by the fact that people are content to use a second-rate implementation of a deliberately obfuscated format.

Other vendors may be guilty of this, too. But Microsoft has done it longer and more effectively than most.

Re:Is it safe? (4, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150318)

Just about everything right now is being sent to them in PDF or DOC format. What do you think the odds are of being able to access these documents in 25 years' time?

That complaint about .DOC is very correct. Just a couple weeks ago someone at the company I worked for received a Word 2.0 document and was asking for my help opening it as he only had Word 2010.
Those formats are very temporary in their usability.

To be fair however PDF has a reasonable chance of surviving way past your requirement of 25 years.

PDF was made in 1993 by Adobe, which was only 17 years ago yes. But PDF is just a bunch of additions to PostScript ( or .ps files) which has been a widely used format since 1982, which was 28 years ago.

As long as one avoids the worst of the PDF specific features like DRM and scripting, the bulk of the content and markup will be readable.
This is one format that will probably remain around next to forever, just like ASCII.

PDF (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150348)

you are converting the PDF to PDF/A right?

I'd say the likelyhood of being able to access those 25 years from now is pretty good.

Re:Is it safe? (2, Insightful)

onenil (624773) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150458)

Have you looked at the OOXML standard? Have you ever opened up Word 2007, saved a document, renamed it to .zip, and had a look at its contents? I would hope you have considering the inference that you work in document management.

"If, however, these documents were stored in plain text markup..." - that's exactly what OOXML format is.

May I suggest, particularly for the .DOC files, you could recommend to your client to start building a process to convert them to .DOCX files using perhaps the Word 2007 user interface, or maybe the APIs. That way the majority of content is plaintext readable, and the markup can be made sense of except for most extreme layout nuances.

And tell me, while you're at it - what do you need to do to get Word 2007 or 2010 to store all of a document's content as binary blobs? Are you referring to image data? Image data which can be stored in a .docx file in its original format i.e. PNG, JPG, GIF, BMP etc etc?

While we're at it, lets look at an alternative. HTML, I'm sure you'll agree, is a plain text markup (XML-like) standard which is open, and as formal and workable a specification as there can be. Do you think, in 25 years time, there will be a web browser that will be able to render a page from today's web in perfect form. Hell, can you show me a web browser TODAY that renders the most complicated web page markup perfectly? It all depends on how complicated the layout of the document is, and how complex the markup is.

In 25 years time, assuming there's a ZIP library of some description around, I will be able to open my OOXML .docx files and happilly read the content inside. I'll be able to develop something that could come pretty close to rendering those documents except for a few edge case layouts.

You need to get on-topic, this is a discussion on OOXML, not the previous .DOC file formats.

Re:Is it safe? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149944)

I don't really understand this FUD.

Are you serious or are you just that stupid? Microsoft's entire business model is based on locking their customers into formats of one form of another. I mean, I guess the whole embrace, extend, extinguish [wikipedia.org]never happened, right? Yeah.

Internet explorer started out being fairly standards compliant too until they squished Netscape out of existence. Then we had IE6 for the better part of a decade and a whole internet full of "We're sorry, we don't support your browser." You'd have to be the dumbest motherfucker on the face of the Earth not to suspect that MS will attempt to do the same thing to OOXML when and if they eliminate their competitors.

I understand fear of the old pre-2007 formats since they were impossible to read without Microsoft's software, but the modern formats can be unzipped and your content is available plain as day. I'm no Microsoft apologist, but in this case your fear is unfounded.

Based on their past behavior, it is a virtual certainty that they are trying to figure out a way to stop you from doing just that. And you are an arrogant prick if you honestly think you are so smart that you can just get around it.

Re:Is it safe? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32150388)

Man, have you ever sucked cock for docs man?

Re:Is it safe? (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149366)

I downloaded MW4, where is the trojan found so I can remove it?

Re:Is it safe? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149486)

Stuck up your ass, where the shemale left it after you let "her" fuck you.

Re:Is it safe? (2, Informative)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149508)

I am impressed you got it downloaded, I think he means the downloader program was the trojan, since it didn't work correctly and messed up you computer if you tried using it.

I think it will be hard for MS to start charging for the free version consider there not much to the free version anyway.

How exactly do you pitch this to management? (2, Funny)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149406)

How about something like this?

"Well, you see, Google got hacked, they had the code to their global authentication taken, who knows what the hackers found there and what access they've got now... So, we decided to go with Microsoft instead."

 

Re:How exactly do you pitch this to management? (2, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149472)

At which point they simply purchase a copy of Microsoft Office instead for most use, just as Microsoft hopes they'll do. I don't imagine any business will want their office software tied to internet connectivity. And many won't want their documents in the cloud out of their control. So Microsoft Office EXEs will still be profitable while the online Office offers essentially what most companies already have in the form of Outlook Web Edition.

If the documents though are stored on your Microsoft(tm) Sharepoint(tm) server running on Microsoft(tm) Windows 2008 Server(tm) then you can use Sharepoint(tm) to host your documents off of Microsoft(tm)'s server while still using this free interface while on a mobile device.

Personally I find Google Docs only marginally useful even for the simplest of tasks, it would never replace a copy of Office for me. But it has some really useful features and is great for collaboration. Collaboration requires everyone to have free access though. I can't put up a document and require a client to purchase XYZ software to be able to make edits.

I don't see this cutting into Microsoft's sales too badly.

Re:How exactly do you pitch this to management? (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149540)

Personally I find Google Docs only marginally useful even for the simplest of tasks, it would never replace a copy of Office for me.

Personally, I find any "office suite" useless for the simplest of tasks. Why do people think their to-do list or 1-page memo requires anything more complicated than plain text?

Re:How exactly do you pitch this to management? (0)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149578)

Personally I find Google Docs only marginally useful even for the simplest of tasks, it would never replace a copy of Office for me.

Personally, I find any "office suite" useless for the simplest of tasks. Why do people think their to-do list or 1-page memo requires anything more complicated than plain text?

Even multi-page letters and reports should be in a plain text file. All the bad formating does is make the document harder to read.

Re:How exactly do you pitch this to management? (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149932)

Sad thing is that today people don't even know what is plain text format, but they do know what is .doc file.

Re:How exactly do you pitch this to management? (1)

flabordec (984984) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150192)

I'll have to disagree. If I have a table of numbers I just obtained from a benchmark and I want to see how they compare to the past then it is very easy to use a spreadsheet to automatically give me the percentages. Further still, if I want to see graphically if the numbers are better or worse I could use conditional formatting to give me shades of green or red, depending on how much better or worse it is, then, with one quick look, I will be able to say "you know what, xyz got much worse but everything else looks the same, maybe we should investigate that". If I only had plain text the information would still be there, but unless I were a computer it would be very hard to make any sense of it.

Re:How exactly do you pitch this to management? (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150210)

That is a spreadsheet (math), not a document (text).

Re:How exactly do you pitch this to management? (1)

flabordec (984984) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150290)

That is a report that will eventually get to decision makers and if decisions have to be made fast they will want the information to be apparent not hidden in text only.

Re:How exactly do you pitch this to management? (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149952)

Because Times New Roman is boring, and they don't know you can change Notepad's default font to Comic Sans anyways.

Re:How exactly do you pitch this to management? (2, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150176)

I usually have OOo open, and opening another app for simpler documents seems kinda silly. Plus I like the creature comforts (files history, automatic bullet lists...)

second post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149232)

suck the shit off my dick you faggot!

Re:second post (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149552)

suck the shit off my dick you faggot!

You have shit on your dick? And you're calling someone else a "faggot"?

Re:second post (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32150140)

Now, now women can also enjoy being anally penetrated doncha know.

Requires .EXE Download (5, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149240)

As a number of people in the Seattle Times Forum have noted, using this "web based" Office product *requires* downloading and installing an .exe

Re:Requires .EXE Download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149248)

IEXPLORER.EXE ?

Re:Requires .EXE Download (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149280)

IEXPLORER.EXE ?

Nope. Sorry, should have made it clear, some kind of "helper" exe. But I wonder, does it work on any browser or only IE? That I don't know. Perhaps the "helper" exe is an... (get ready) ActiveX componant? Of course they are not calling them that anymore...

Re:Requires .EXE Download (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149276)

As a number of people in the Seattle Times Forum have noted, using this "web based" Office product *requires* downloading and installing an .exe

IEXPLORER.EXE ?

That *is* an interesting thought. Which browsers does Online Office 2010 work with? If it requires an .exe that kind of excludes Linux & Mac users (not to mention thise crazy enough to try it on their smart phones).

Re:Requires .EXE Download (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149292)

It does not. It works with plain old JS and CSS in IE, Firefox, Safari and Chrome on Mac/PC.

Re:Requires .EXE Download (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32150496)

Incorrect. It's a browser plugin so the JavaScript doesn't matter and it uses Microsoft's SilverLight / Novell's Moonlight which is .NET to draw Microsoft Office.

Microsoft haven't embraced HTML5, they're still pushing SilverLight.

Re:Requires .EXE Download (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149320)

Even on linux?

Re:Requires .EXE Download (2, Informative)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149340)

The exe is only necessary to allow Windows shell integration with the online Office service, i.e., so you can double click on a docx on your desktop and have it open in the web office.
If you want to go through the same hassle to open local files you go though with other online office suites, it is not required.

Re:Requires .EXE Download (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149452)

You mean saving a shortcut that goes to a local file, or dragging and dropping the local url to put on your desktop?

Re:Requires .EXE Download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149524)

No.
1. establishing some kind of link/synchronization between the cloud-resident & local file.
2. performing authentication to log in to the cloud.

You wouldn't want that kind of information stored in the local copy, now. would you?

Bash MS all you want but after knowing the facts. Since I don't know what that executable does I will refrain from making any positive or negative statements. Although I think that the above two tasks can be performed using a dll instead of an exe. may be exe is the installer, who knows?

Re:Requires .EXE Download (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149758)

As someone who has been on record defending Microsoft from some of Slashdot Microsoft can do no good crowd...
I think it is more to the point you need to install a platform specific program to your computer. Which really misses the point of having a web based version of your tool. The point of having a web based program is to not have any bit run on your computer... Why?
1. Security. Although a lot of fuss and whining about security of a cloud etc... But if it access data on your drive it can effect overall security. So you have a virus infected excel file, that you open up and share with other systems then download it again... Guess what that gets infected too. Secondly ok you have an EXE it is only matter of time the data that EXE does is found out. It seems like a way to try to work around some bad security practices.

2. Updates. A lot of IT for companies are not keen on keeping your systems up to date. They should but they don't however to compensate that they try to lock your computer down so if you try to install this EXE it will fail, sure you may be able to get the EXE once... But if they update their code and you cannot get the EXE then you are stuck.

3.Platform indépendance. Yes I know Microsoft is using this to push windows... But really... Use silverlight or some other Microsoft plugin that even pretends that it is more platform independent then an EXE.

4. Mixing the worst of both worlds... So you are going to have a clumsy browser to do the UI with an EXE to do some communication... Seems kinda backwards to me.

Microsoft for Web Application has been on the record of being really bad... I have tried threw out the decade (with my last attempt a couple of months ago) to see Microsoft web based applications and they all seem to be a decade behind the time. Heck I do a lot of Web Based Development with .NET however I rarely if ever use any of the additional tool boxes that come with it... Because they are so crappy that I have to make them myself to get any real quality of out my product.

Re:Requires .EXE Download (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149594)

As evidenced by this discussion and the plethora of "where does shit go?" options in the beta...

Microsoft's offering is fucking convoluted as hell.

Also, while an EXE may be required to sync documents. At this time, near as I can tell... You can't^h^h^h^h^h aren't allowed to create new documents on their service without installing it.

Re:Requires .EXE Download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149534)

It's written on http://www.microsoft.com/office/2010/en/office-web-apps/overview.aspx that: "You must install the free Microsoft Office 2010 Beta before using Office Web Apps. Install it today, and then get started using Office Web Apps.", but it's not true... I'm using with Linux, Chrome and no .Exe ;-)

OO 3.2 kicks ass! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149250)

Why bother? I swear to god, I can do anything I want in sun (oracle? no hate here.) oo32 that I used to do in o2k3

Have you seen the OO32 release? My God! hahaha

I already collect text editors, but gosh darn I just can's see paying thousands anymore? Maybe you got a translator or some proprietary nonsense? I think we all would be wise to audit and revise what we really need.

Hey if you need Microsoft Office, more power to ya, the only thing I need now is a way to export their proprietary format to a real format which can be used in oo32 ;)

Re:OO 3.2 kicks ass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149360)

I remember back in the day when NT 3.5 wasn't even known by my COLLEGE! word perfect on dos was on the boxes. I've been through AVERY label school god damn it.
I had those extra memory cards what was they called um hell I forget, but they had switches and chips and software (which was always hard to find for some reason) memory expansion cards that's right.. OKay back then, their stuff was friggin DOS and not the good kind with deltree, masv, if you were lucky you had win 3 4 networks! hahahaha Where are all those MFM parts now? hehehehe There's one flaw with cloud computing, and I ain't even saying Microsoft ain't being gracious by providing this. But I ask myself do I need a Live Passport? No. Do I need a webmail which opens up exploits? No. Now can I open a VM on the cloud and edit and export to some other format? If yes, then cool, there's my new primary goal for such a service. The problem with the cloud is Denial Of Service. It doesn't matter why. So if it's up, I convert my docs to something else then hang up. the opposite of ATDT ATH_ Especially when these garden of fruitbowl documents have rich rivers and dangerous mammals. ;o)

Re:OO 3.2 kicks ass! (1)

blai (1380673) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149518)

Why bother? I swear to god, I can do anything I want in sun (oracle? no hate here.) oo32 that I used to do in o2k3

I've been hoping to think the same way as you for 6 years now, but I still can't have something as trivial as rotating an image in a word processor to be done within the program where the image is: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=689876 [ubuntuforums.org]

Re:OO 3.2 kicks ass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149614)

That's where GIMP in 3..2..1..

Re:OO 3.2 kicks ass! (0, Flamebait)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149994)

Do you still use Google to look for "linux problems" or did your master tell you to switch to Bing?

Re:OO 3.2 kicks ass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32150100)

fancy graphical newsletters should not be made in writer, but draw. OO better segregates the office applications than Microsoft does.

Re:OO 3.2 kicks ass! (2, Interesting)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150162)

If you read the thread you linked to you would have found plausible solutions on the 1st page.

Re:OO 3.2 kicks ass! (0)

MBC1977 (978793) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149914)

I beg to differ, kinda. I've been using OpenOffice 3.2 for about a month now and I'm not very impressed (could be because I enjoy using MS Office, but thats a different argument). Building charts in Excel take me about 5-10 mins tops (including the information I need to plug in). It took me 2 hours (and frequent references to the help, which on an aside, why is not available locally!?). I will grant its definitely made some improvements since the last time I tried it. Writer is actually fairly decent, I actually could use that without really needing to go back to MS Word.

While I haven't gotten to try out the other aspects, I will note that I am also conducting a 6 month experiment where I use Linux exclusively for my day-to-day work. So far its interesting, not as bad as I thought it would be (though I don't like having to type my password in for system updates or to use sudo (speaking of which if anyone can tell me what the difference between sudo and su is I'd appreciate it).

Re:OO 3.2 kicks ass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32150042)

you have an excuse, your using it for a specific application. Excel . So use what works for you. I never said don't use Office, nor did I ever say don't use the cloud, I merely give up some cautions.

Re:OO 3.2 kicks ass! (2, Informative)

Zerth (26112) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150134)

su changes to another (priveleged, presumably) user and requires that user's password

sudo merely allows you elevated privileges based on your own account and does not require sharing a password. Changes made are still logged as being done by you, ownership doesn't change, etc. It is less of a security risk than su since you don't have to share the password of a priveleged account.

Re:OO 3.2 kicks ass! (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150306)

though I don't like having to type my password in for system updates or to use sudo

This is no different than using Windows from a limited user account, which you should already be using. If you are not, you are being silly. Updates are an administrative task and thus belong to administrator, not Joe or Jane in Sales.

su - requires root's password
sudo - doesn't require root's password - no password sharing. It also allows you to unset root's password so users can't login as root directly, and cough "guests" to the system must guess which user (you should not be using fingerd) has sudoer rights in order to access root privileges.

--
BMO

Jews for Nerds! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149256)

Jews, also known as kikes, hebes, hymies, yids, gold niggers, oven magnets, hook noses, sheenies, swindlers, criminals, "firewood", and Arabs in denial are a subhuman species of reptilian extra-terrestrials and adherents to one of the world's oldest major religions, called "Judaism", otherwise known as "The Worship of Money" or "Eating Arab Babies".

Judaism was the world's first master race theory. The Jew religion teaches that Jews are the Chosen People of God and that there is a sacred mystical quality to Jew DNA. In olden times, Jew prophets would, under the command of YHWH, frequently lead the Jews on genocidal rampages against neighboring populations, and even today Jew leaders often cite Jewish religious ideals to justify their ongoing genocide of sandniggers. Judaism ironically found its mirror-image inversion in the anti-Jew Aryan racialism of the Nazis.

Despite only being 0.22% of the world's population, Jews control 99% of the world's money. Not only do the Jews control the world, but also the media, the banks, the space program, and LiveJournal's porn communities and Gay communities. All Jews possess the following features: an extremely large nose, fake boobs, curly hair that reeks of faggotry, one of those gay hats, a love of coke, a law practice, a roll of money, a small cock, or shitty taste in dental hygiene.

Jews invented both Communism and Capitalism. Karl Marx, of course, was a Jew, which was why he understood money so well, and in fact he was converted to Communism by another Jew, Moses Hess, the actual founder of Zionism, who ghost-wrote Marx's The German Ideology. Capitalism was created when Christian Europeans threw away their morals and decided to embrace Jewish practices like usury (see: John Calvin). Jews were the first group to create a sophisticated banking system, which they used to fund the Crusades in order to pit Christians and Muslims (both adhering to religions derived from and controlled by Jews) against each other to kill as many people as possible in a macabre human sacrifice to YHWH.

The Jew banking system was based on fraud and lies, so when it inevitably collapsed, the Jews just pwned as many people as possible by unleashing the Black Plague on them. Later, Jews economically controlled medieval Venice (the first modern maritime trade empire), and then crypto-Jewish merchants economically controlled the Spanish Empire, including the slave trade. Openly Jewish bankers orchestrated the Dutch Empire and founded Jew Amsterdam (later Jew York). Later the Dutch Jews moved to London because they thought it would be a better base for a global empire, and actually brought a Dutch nobleman, William III, with them, who they installed in a coup d'état (more like Jew d'état, amirite?) as new King of the British Empire. For hundreds of years, Jewish bankers controlled global trade through their bases in Jew York City and London. European colonialism was, through its history, essentially a plot whereby Jews could gain control of gold and diamond mines in poor countries and increase their stranglehold over the global economy.

Jews also enjoy slicing up baby penises for fun, some even enjoy sucking them. See below.

Jews also created Jew search engine Google, so now they can find all Jew information on Internets.

Some suggest that we should use Jews instead of dogs to sniff out large amounts of concealed cash or anything else worth smuggling at airports due to their sensitive Jew noses. Obviously, this is a horrible idea, because the pay is bad, and the dirty Kikes would probably form a union and demand moar money, thus increasing the burden on taxpayers everywhere.

Re:Jews for Nerds! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149288)

Cool story bro.

Jews for Nerds! redux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149326)

Cool story bro.

Perhaps you'd like to read it again, then?

Jews, also known as kikes, hebes, hymies, yids, gold niggers, oven magnets, hook noses, sheenies, swindlers, criminals, "firewood", and Arabs in denial are a subhuman species of reptilian extra-terrestrials and adherents to one of the world's oldest major religions, called "Judaism", otherwise known as "The Worship of Money" or "Eating Arab Babies".

Judaism was the world's first master race theory. The Jew religion teaches that Jews are the Chosen People of God and that there is a sacred mystical quality to Jew DNA. In olden times, Jew prophets would, under the command of YHWH, frequently lead the Jews on genocidal rampages against neighboring populations, and even today Jew leaders often cite Jewish religious ideals to justify their ongoing genocide of sandniggers. Judaism ironically found its mirror-image inversion in the anti-Jew Aryan racialism of the Nazis.

Despite only being 0.22% of the world's population, Jews control 99% of the world's money. Not only do the Jews control the world, but also the media, the banks, the space program, and LiveJournal's porn communities and Gay communities. All Jews possess the following features: an extremely large nose, fake boobs, curly hair that reeks of faggotry, one of those gay hats, a love of coke, a law practice, a roll of money, a small cock, or shitty taste in dental hygiene.

Jews invented both Communism and Capitalism. Karl Marx, of course, was a Jew, which was why he understood money so well, and in fact he was converted to Communism by another Jew, Moses Hess, the actual founder of Zionism, who ghost-wrote Marx's The German Ideology. Capitalism was created when Christian Europeans threw away their morals and decided to embrace Jewish practices like usury (see: John Calvin). Jews were the first group to create a sophisticated banking system, which they used to fund the Crusades in order to pit Christians and Muslims (both adhering to religions derived from and controlled by Jews) against each other to kill as many people as possible in a macabre human sacrifice to YHWH.

The Jew banking system was based on fraud and lies, so when it inevitably collapsed, the Jews just pwned as many people as possible by unleashing the Black Plague on them. Later, Jews economically controlled medieval Venice (the first modern maritime trade empire), and then crypto-Jewish merchants economically controlled the Spanish Empire, including the slave trade. Openly Jewish bankers orchestrated the Dutch Empire and founded Jew Amsterdam (later Jew York). Later the Dutch Jews moved to London because they thought it would be a better base for a global empire, and actually brought a Dutch nobleman, William III, with them, who they installed in a coup d'état (more like Jew d'état, amirite?) as new King of the British Empire. For hundreds of years, Jewish bankers controlled global trade through their bases in Jew York City and London. European colonialism was, through its history, essentially a plot whereby Jews could gain control of gold and diamond mines in poor countries and increase their stranglehold over the global economy.

Jews also enjoy slicing up baby penises for fun, some even enjoy sucking them. See below.

Jews also created Jew search engine Google, so now they can find all Jew information on Internets.

Some suggest that we should use Jews instead of dogs to sniff out large amounts of concealed cash or anything else worth smuggling at airports due to their sensitive Jew noses. Obviously, this is a horrible idea, because the pay is bad, and the dirty Kikes would probably form a union and demand moar money, thus increasing the burden on taxpayers everywhere.

Re:Jews for Nerds! redux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149426)

are jews responsible for the neo-nazi dupe hordes or the thought police?

Re:Jews for Nerds! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32150230)

I'm a Jew you insensitive clod!

Don't forget kids! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149266)

That first sample of crack is free too!

Re:Don't forget kids! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149494)

That first sample of crack is free too!

Not to mention a whole lot more fun than Microsoft Office.

Re:Don't forget kids! (4, Insightful)

mgblst (80109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150498)

This is completely not true. Have you actually ever tried to get the first sample for free? It doesn't work.

Oh joy! More Cloud computing (1)

dwillden (521345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149328)

So now the PHB's in the upper offices find this and think it's great, and move everyone to this. Great! Until the day the network has problems. Or you have to finish that presentation but are temporarily sitting in an office with no network because yours is getting remodeled.

Two weeks ago my entire office was shut down for doing any real work, because all our work data is on a shared drive located on the network. Problem was that our office was being re-carpeted and the temp space they moved us into had NO network available.

On the other hand we did enjoy watching several movies at work that day.

Re:Oh joy! More Cloud computing (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149702)

So now the PHB's in the upper offices find this and think it's great, and move everyone to this. Great! Until the day the network has problems. Or you have to finish that presentation but are temporarily sitting in an office with no network because yours is getting remodeled.

And therefore this thing is completely useles!

Wow, congrats, you should tell Microsoft why this product is completely pointless and utterly sucks. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear your insights.

Two weeks ago my entire office was shut down for doing any real work, because all our work data is on a shared drive located on the network.

Wow, way to invalidate your very complaint. As you point out, people are *already* hosed if the network goes down. Doubly so if you have remote sites hooked up over VPN.

Change in business model ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149332)

Is Microsoft slowly changing it's business model ? Selling Microsoft Office licenses is one of the major sources of revenue.

And at what point will there be a free windows version ?

Re:Change in business model ? (3, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149362)

And at what point will there be a free windows version?

When they can get it to run in internet explorer.

Re:Change in business model ? (3, Interesting)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149520)

Is Microsoft slowly changing it's business model ? Selling Microsoft Office licenses is one of the major sources of revenue.

And at what point will there be a free windows version ?

YES, Microsoft is changing their business model big time. Steve Ballmer announced in his recent University of Washington speech [microsoft.com] that Microsoft is dedicating 70% fo their software engineers to creating cloud-based versions of their local software, and by next year it will increase to 90%. They were slow to adopt the cloud but plan to become a big contender in a short amount of time.

The speech is about 90 minutes long and is very interesting, for those who care to watch. He's quite a good speaker with a very good knowledge of the industry, and he handles people's questions directly and in detail. What impressed me most was that he openly praises other companies and their cloud apps like Salesforce and Google.

Business model (2, Interesting)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149334)

I see MS doing several things with this, including:

The free version builds understanding and credibility; especially if it integrates with teh desktop version. Once taht is done, migrate to paid for versions for businesses since the model is now accepted.

Working to a client server model (despite the "cloud" what's old is new again) and partner / acquire a company in that space to offer businesses a full suite of services.

If OfficeLive catches on, advertising will follow.

Ultimately, I think it's about building a tight eco-system around office / entertainment / information that allows them to capture eyeballs for ads and combat piracy so content providers sign on. This is but one more shot in that battle.

Re:Business model (5, Insightful)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149522)

My take on it: they decided to do it because Google's doing it, and they don't want to get "left behind". Then they came up with a plausible-sounding business case for their scheme.

Re:Business model (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150344)

My take on it: they decided to do it because Google's doing it, and they don't want to get "left behind". Then they came up with a plausible-sounding business case for their scheme.

Yea, that works for me as well. MS has always been a fast follower; letting someone else build the market and then moving in to capitalize on it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Don't forget GUID. (3, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149342)

Remember that all Office applications embed a GUID in the document. My guess would be that the online version would as well. So your privacy is up for grabs.

Who cares if it's free, if you don't want it anyway?

Re:Don't forget GUID. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149348)

What sort of information is in the GUID?

Re:Don't forget GUID. (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149356)

Remember that all Office applications embed a GUID in the document. My guess would be that the online version would as well. So your privacy is up for grabs.

Oh joy! Does this mean I'll be able to track my documents via Facebook or will Facebook just do it for me without my knowledge?

Re:Don't forget GUID. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149418)

Does this mean I'll be able to track my documents via Facebook or will Facebook just do it for me without my knowledge?

First one, then the other.

Re:Don't forget GUID. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149674)

Microsoft used it once to track down a virus writer. You may remember that case. But what it boils down to is that Office "called home" and reported to Microsoft what this person's GUID was. And Microsoft looked it up in their database to find the person who originally authored a Word macro virus.

Cool, huh? Except that the potential for abuse is far larger than any good such data would be used for.

People on the Web need to wise up to the concept that mere existence of personal data creates a potential for abuse.

Re:Don't forget GUID. (3, Informative)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150186)

Microsoft used it once to track down a virus writer. You may remember that case. But what it boils down to is that Office "called home" and reported to Microsoft what this person's GUID was. And Microsoft looked it up in their database to find the person who originally authored a Word macro virus.

This is false - though typical Slashdotist - anti-Microsoft hysteria.

What actually happened was simple, old-fashioned police work. The original upload of Melissa was tracked to a newsgroup posting, which was subsequently tracked to an IP address belong to an AOL account. The police got the logs for that account from AOL, identified the address of the number that dialed into it, and then arrested the resident along with seizing their computer.

The only role the GUID played was as supporting evidence that the document containing Melissa was, in fact, created on the computer that they had seized. It was also used fairly extensively throughout the computing world to identify other viruses that had been written by the same author, as they all had the same GUID.

No phoning home. No centralised database of Office users. No conspiracy.

Re:Don't forget GUID. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32150128)

It's stuff like this that has me pre-print random patterns of tiny yellow dots on any text documents going to paper. It's bad enough that I keep running out of yellow anyways, at least this way I'll use it to stay anonymous.

I'm sure somebody clever enough knows a way or two to spoof GUIDs as well.

S.O.B. (1)

smchris (464899) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149344)

Trying to do a cloud version of what they did with Office 97's monopoly underpricing against WordPerfect. We'll see how it works this time.

More to the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149358)

How long until they drop the retail version and charge a monthly fee for the on-line? They've been trying to push for a monthly fee for Office for a long time. They won't stop trying until they get everyone paying a monthly fee. The problem they are facing is just how many more must have features can they add? Open Office has done everything I needed for 6 or 8 years at least so most Office users wind up needing an upgrade more for the new OS than features, gee I wonder if that's a coincidence? Really their only hope of keeping a cash flow is to get everyone on a subscription. They've known this for years but they have yet to make a compelling case to switch. Internet penetration with their core customers is near a 100% so they can potentially phase out upgrades to Office and go to subscriptions. Other softwares are headed in that direction including a lot of graphics software. Really what's their choice? Either get people to pay a monthly fee or face sales dropping and the company radically downsizing. Microsoft really has two products, Windows and Office. By tying Windows to new computers they have some security there but Office sales are very subjective. They've yet to have a blockbuster product like Apple, Xbox was only profitable from game sales the hardware was never all that profitable. Zune? How many people do you know that owns one? Zero for me but I knows dozens with iPods, maybe hundreds personally. They either force people to pay monthly or yearly for Office or the company will loose value very soon.

Re:More to the point (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149388)

Dude! Repeat after me: "<p> </p> and <br /> work on Slashdot". Geez!

Embrace, extend... (-1, Troll)

feepness (543479) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149412)

...exsanguinate money trying to compete in markets they are a decade behind in...

Free is a good price (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149446)

I can afford it. No return hassles. No sales tax. No need for a warranty. No elevated expectations. Can they do this with Windows?

Re:Free is a good price (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149470)

Yes, you should try the new OS release: http://www.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com]

Free to use, easy to install, no viruses, software store like iTunes but for your desktop!

Re:Free is a good price (1, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149546)

I can afford it. No return hassles. No sales tax. No need for a warranty. No elevated expectations. Can they do this with Windows?

Did that years ago, at piratebay.

JavaShit (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149456)

Why would you use a CrapTastic JS based office 'web app' when you can just use openoffice or another better, free, minimalist more responsive ad-free version? Desktop applications re-written in JavaScript suck, especially if they are made by Microsoft

Re:JavaShit (0)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149964)

Starting the word processor in OpenOffice is slower than either Pages or Word on my Mac. It's incredibly slow. GoogleDocs in Chrome is the fastest (when internet connection cooperates) and when I need to edit something offline I use Pages even though I don't like it as much as Word Windows. At least Openoffice is free so I can't really complain, but I'd like if they could focus on speeding it up instead of chasing the latest features in MS Office.

Eat somewhere else (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149458)

God what a bunch of FUD mongering pussies. Get a life people. This is a free lunch. If you don't like it eat elsewhere.

We all live in a giant cloud of death (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32149482)

b1ecause of it's inherent instabilities and identity requirements, a true cloud would have no such restraints, and though the day can be clear the operations of such a cloud would be to convert to a useable format anonymously and then exit the system. Surely your not even thinking about voting through such hogwash?

This has nothing to do with OOXML. (4, Interesting)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149492)

Microsoft has no interest in OOXML. From Microsoft's perspective, it's deprecated. That's why they let it go. This is about XAML, upon which Silverlight is built. And XAML could be a very powerful thing.

A subset of XAML, XPS replaces Postscript. Any static page that can be printed can be stored as XPS. XPS is/will be the printer control language in Windows.

But XPS can also be displayed on screen (good bye Acrobat). XPS could be used to store any static document (goodbye Illustrator).

But the superset XAML is dynamic framework for rich internet apps (goodbye Flash).

XAML pages/apps can be designed in an Illustrator-like ExpressionWeb (goodbye HTML5 and CSS).

Of course, you can use the Office Web Apps without Silverlight and you can still see PNG images of your document. But if you should decide to install Silverlight I bet you'll find it a better experience.

Re:This has nothing to do with OOXML. (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149616)

I get it. XAML is the new .NET, which was to replace C/C++/Java, and did a helluva...

Re:This has nothing to do with OOXML. (2, Informative)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149652)

No, XAML is the new HTML. At least if Microsoft get its way. Get thee to Wikipedia and read. It's very comprehensive. Put the blinders on if you wish, but don't say I didn't warn you. .NET is subservient to XAML. .NET is an effort to herd the corporate developers to XAML. XAML has always underlied .NET.

Re:This has nothing to do with OOXML. (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149820)

No, XAML is the new HTML. At least if Microsoft get its way. Get thee to Wikipedia and read. It's very comprehensive. Put the blinders on if you wish, but don't say I didn't warn you. .NET is subservient to XAML. .NET is an effort to herd the corporate developers to XAML. XAML has always underlied .NET.

Nonsense. .NET started a long time before WPF, which introduced XAML.

Re:This has nothing to do with OOXML. (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149920)

And you don't think they had a plan? I am a Windows developer and was left wondering for a long time why they were literally backing up in terms of productivity. Most of the industry was as well.

In the beginning, nobody knew what .NET was.

Compare with Apple who wanted to lock their developers into their own IDE. Then a new architecture comes out and everything works on it. Okay, now I get it....

clear strategy (2, Insightful)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149562)

The summary suggests this is a push to cement the OOXML standard and ultimately lock-in for MS Office. I don't really see why they need a free cloud-based offering to do that, MS Office has done extremely well at locking-in their standards in the past. TFA that it refers to also clearly argues this is MS having to compete with Google Docs, a much more evident profit motive. MS is also quoted that they see this as an opportunity to get at least a little income from people who, for various reasons, aren't currently paying for MS Office.

Whether it remains free indefinitely depends on how it works out, i.e. whether they think it is making more money (directly and indirectly) than doing something else. Stating the obvious but it's a silly question. Even Openoffice is freely supported by Sun for a profit motive: breaking the MS standards lock-in.

The Google quotes are on the money though. It's standard practice now for businesses to install Office on every machine while all the documents are saved to a network drive. This is a bit of a kludge really, people hunting through directories trying to find files is very cumbersome, especially since lots of people insist on saving works-in-progress to their desktop and only copying over when they're finished - and very often forgetting or not getting around to it.

will this remain free indefinitely? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#32149880)

Only if viable alternatives still exist. Once they are put down, then it will be converted to a pay service.

probably not (4, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#32150050)

Or is Microsoft just trying to firmly establish its OOXML standard,

I doubt that's the case at all. When you're going against other software such as Google Documents, you either have to offer a better product, tight lock-in, or better pricing. Free is hard to beat, you've committed (on paper anyway) to open standards which greatly hobbles your lock-in, and so you're left having to offer at least a good chunk of the features the competition is giving that you currently are not.

Right now, Google Documents is offering a powerful new online service. I use Google Spreadsheet daily. It ain't perfect, but considering how new it is, it works amazingly well. It's easy to forget you're using a web browser when you just hit certain key combos for example out of habit, and to your surprise, they work perfect. Some of my spreadsheets can't be used with it, but the ability to collaborate online with others maintaining the same spreadsheets, at the exact same time, no emailing files back and forth all day or fighting over update locks on the LAN (or possible file corruption / data loss from an update war) it provides a unique, powerful, useful feature that my current use can't live without, and that MS Office doesn't offer. And my needs are far from unique. Everyone I tell about this is amazed and wants to try it because it gives them a useful option that MS Office just can't deliver.

This is it for Office, this is their shot to either keep or lose a market. It's not surprising in the least that they're rushing to get something available asap for online collaboration.

And if it were anybody but google, you can bet your last dollar that MS would have a whole herd of lawyers at someone's door with fistfuls of litigation trying to put a stop to it or at least stall it a year or two to give them a chance to catch up.

IMHO Google Documents is one of THE best things to come out of Google Labs. In the end, who knows, maybe MS will be offering a superior product. But there's simply no way this could happen without the necessary motivation.

Re:probably not (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32150308)

In the end, who knows, maybe MS will be offering a superior product.

Fortunately for the world, MS just don't know how to create a superior product. They rely on lock-in, monopoly tactics, bribery and end-user naivety. All of which work for a while, but not in the very long term.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...