> This is not a minor procedural oversight. It is a structural bias built into the process which sends out a clear message: full participation in EU policymaking requires a Microsoft licence.
Im gonna be honest it sounds more like a procedural oversight.
When the policy is that X happens, procedural oversight can't be claimed when X doesn't happen. If X doesn't happen, then the policy is being rejected or ignored. No matter which, it allows the executing agent bias to be on full display and set the tone. There's a reason why a compliance office becomes the norm.
But the "oversight" is likely due to the fact that those policy-makers only see MS Excel used around them, and only expect people to use MS-Excel - which is why they did not think there might be any problem with requiring its use in a procedure. So, the people doing policymaking, and other related technical work, at the EU do actually need their MS license to work.
Nope: they have signed a contract with Microsoft, it is not oversight, there was a clear decission by the specific committee to buy Microsoft Products and Support, and it is costing us (EU taxpayers) lots of money just to interact with the EU.
I would argue they are the same thing. What is a procedural oversight if not bias in the system? The existing process missed an obvious issue because of bias.
LibreOffice using AI against Microslop/anything related to it doesn't feel very Libreoffice of it to me.
I know that this pattern is used by AI but it only said this is, one time not two times and then continued with It is rather than the pattern that you mention. An AI would've probably used "This" second time instead of "It" most likely given that its probably really trained on it.
I mean, we do use "this is" in a sentence atleast once like they did.
How else do you want them to write this point :/
I don't think that Libreoffice team is using AI to write their messages.
Ever since LLM generated content proliferated we now have “This isn’t X. It’s Y” shibboleths EVRYWHERE!
A person doesn’t normally start a sentence with “This isn’t a silly minor thing that you wouldn’t think it was but I had to say it out of the blue as a set up for the next sentence.” only to be followed by “This is a major deal worthy of you resharing and liking!”
They might do the clauses in the other order, though. “This is a huge deal! Not just business as usual.”
Yes, but it's not natural to say "It's not <non sequitur thing no one was talking about>. It's <amazing globally impactful thing that should make you pay attention>." That's how LLMs write though.
This might seem quite pedantic but I like the fact that they’re calling stuff like that out - over here office documents are more or less synonymous with MS Office, despite me having used LibreOffice for years with no significant issues (aside from their bibliography being broken while writing my thesis, super annoying but I found a workaround).
I’ve never actually had anyone complain about me sending them ODT or ODS files since even the said MS Office doesn’t have a big issue with those.
Oddly enough, if you ever also see a CSV, LibreOffice Calc will give you a nice import dialog whereas by default MS Excel will happily open it wrong and fuck everything up for you.
Edit: oh wait there was a case in university where I did a presentation in front of like 60 people and it referenced fonts that weren’t on the other machine and they didn’t get embedded in the presentation file. It fucked up all of the font layouts. Since, I do presentations in PDFs (the archival kind). Except recently I also wrote my own presentation tool that outputs HTML pages and can also serve everything from a folder, or I might just put them on my server. I think I reinvented worse Google Docs.
I get why libreoffice has the file open dialog, but it irritates me. 99% of the time I just want the file open to see the shape of the data, not make a bunch of parsing decisions for a file I've never seen before with unknown idiosyncrasies.
100%, the file format compatibility drama is long over. I have no issues at home using Excel files with LibreOffice. Microsoft has not meaningfully changed any Office file format in fifteen years, you can go all the way back to Office 2007 (with the compatibility pack) and open modern documents.
Office has no issues with ODS formats either. This is a purely performative exercise.
Office formats have also, as mentioned in the source link, been an open standard for fifteen years. It may not be the better open standard, but it is an open standard, and it works fine, including with LibreOffice's software, for many years.
This is like if Google was whining someone sent them a JPG instead of a WebP. Not invented here syndrome more than an actual openness complaint.
It's also stupid and self-defeating: The top reason people disregard LibreOffice as an option at work is because people believe it's incompatible with the Office everyone else uses. And it's NOT! But if LibreOffice itself keeps promoting misinformation about its own software, it's going to continue to be obscure in business.
LibreOffice is better software and deserves better marketing than this incredibly dumb claim made above.
Well, first of all, your source is the same author as the blog post. Second, a messy standard is still a standard.
And the biggest problem is by claiming it doesn't handle OOXML well, LibreOffice sabotages its own marketability. This blog is exactly what you write if you want to torpedo LibreOffice's success in the business environment.
You can not like Office or Office's file formats, but it's important to understand that it is table stakes for LibreOffice to promote how well it handles those formats and how safely it can be used as a replacement for Microsoft Office in an environment dominated by it.
You can also open all of those documents with LibreOffice. My point is the support LibreOffice has for Office documents is fine and not at all a problem, because Office formats have not meaningfully changed over time and they have been supported in LibreOffice for all of that time.
The comission has themselves made the commitment to reduce the reliance on exactly such standards. You are arguing for a position that they themselves aren't even arguing for as they recognize the importance of the problem.
By your logic, it would have been fine for Apple to stick with the Lightning port for charging because USB->Lightning charging ports are widely available so "it's not a problem at all".
No, because Lightning is not an open standard. OOXML has been an open standard for nearly two decades.
And a big issue for me is this blog post hurts LibreOffice because the largest reason enterprises won't touch it is that it is perceived as incompatible even when that compatibility works just fine.
If success and good marketing was the focus, LibreOffice would happily promote that it will take any file format they get because they have robust interoperable software that doesn't actually mind handling XLSX!
I see this frequently. People want data that are organized in some fashion, so they start with a spreadsheet.
The drawback is that spreadsheet cells are a terrible way to convey narrative information. I’ve seen detailed product requirements in spreadsheets with thousands of cells, that failed to capture what the team actually wanted to build, and were never read.
If i have one regret over the OOXML corruption scandal was to not bring the whole thing to court. We had some many evidences of Microsoft captureing the whole process.
I just downloaded the ODS version and it comes with .pdf extension, had to rename it. It also uses Aptos Narrow font (from MS Office), which gets substituted.
I mean it's a small thing but this seems like the bureaucracy equivalent of seeing your friend get up for a smoke break out of habit and reminding them that they're trying to quit.
It's frustrating how we're still fighting over this stuff when 99% of documents and spreadsheets (the data, not the formulas) could be zipped html except if not that spreadsheet editors and document editors don't have a standardized subset of html to support.
That sounds rather bad idea. HTML is really not designed for proper data storage. It can display something, but I don't think it is right tool for the job. Just because html can present something like tables doesn't mean it is right tool for tabular data.
I don't mean HTML+CSS, I mean just HTML, as a middle-step between CSV and full spreadsheet file.
HTML with only the table tags allowed get you a document that you can
1) View in a browser,
2) Has table headers and the ability to define column widths and combine cells
But you can leave presentation up to the viewer.
Same principle as Markdown, but markdown tables are bad.
This is like saying that HTML is "just" ASCII/UTF-8 text. Lots of formats are based on XML, but they're not compatible with each other and their schema require complicated parsers.
Im gonna be honest it sounds more like a procedural oversight.