Generated.

[homepage.git] / blog / archive / 2012 / 05 / 05.rss

diff --git a/blog/archive/2012/05/05.rss b/blog/archive/2012/05/05.rss
index fc63854c73ab93ee20754bb58ffc0aa38e64027c..dfcff74268abfb717b1126dd3a6b0779dadd8f46 100644 (file)
--- a/blog/archive/2012/05/05.rss
+++ b/blog/archive/2012/05/05.rss
@@ -445,5 +445,54 @@ utmerket for blinde.</p>
 </description>
        </item>
        
 </description>
        </item>
        

+       <item>
+               <title>The cost of ODF and OOXML</title>
+               <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_cost_of_ODF_and_OOXML.html</link>        
+               <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_cost_of_ODF_and_OOXML.html</guid>
+                <pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 18:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
+               <description>&lt;p&gt;I just come across a blog post from Glyn Moody reporting the
+claimed cost from Microsoft on requiring ODF to be used by the UK
+government.  I just sent him an email to let him know that his
+assumption are most likely wrong.  Sharing it here in case some of my
+blog readers have seem the same numbers float around in the UK.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt; &lt;p&gt;Hi.  I just noted your
+&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/does-microsoft-office-lock-in-cost-the-uk-government-500-million/index.htm&quot;&gt;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/does-microsoft-office-lock-in-cost-the-uk-government-500-million/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;
+comment:&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;They&#39;re all in Danish, not unreasonably, but even
+with the help of Google Translate I can&#39;t find any figures about the
+savings of &quot;moving to a flexible two standard&quot; as claimed by the
+Microsoft email. But I assume it is backed up somewhere, so let&#39;s take
+it, and the £500 million figure for the UK, on trust.&quot;
+&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;I can tell you that the Danish reports are inflated.  I believe it is
+the same reports that were used in the Norwegian debate around 2007,
+and Gisle Hannemyr (a well known IT commentator in Norway) had a look
+at the content.  In short, the reason it is claimed that using ODF
+will be so costly, is based on the assumption that this mean every
+existing document need to be converted from one of the MS Office
+formats to ODF, transferred to the receiver, and converted back from
+ODF to one of the MS Office formats, and that the conversion will cost
+10 minutes of work time for both the sender and the receiver.  In
+reality the sender would have a tool capable of saving to ODF, and the
+receiver would have a tool capable of reading it, and the time spent
+would at most be a few seconds for saving and loading, not 20 minutes
+of wasted effort.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Microsoft claimed all these costs were saved by allowing people to
+transfer the original files from MS Office instead of spending 10
+minutes converting to ODF. :)&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;See
+&lt;a href=&quot;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12_vl02.php&quot;&gt;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12_vl02.php&lt;/a&gt;
+and
+&lt;a href=&quot;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12.php&quot;&gt;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12.php&lt;/a&gt;
+for background information.  Norwegian only, sorry. :)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+</description>
+       </item>
+       

         </channel>
 </rss>
         </channel>
 </rss>