1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
|
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays upholding action" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>A Response to Word Attachments
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<meta http-equiv="Keywords"
content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation, Linux, general, public, license, gpl, general public license, freedom, software, power, rights, word, attachment, word attachment, microsoft" />
<meta http-equiv="Description" content="This essay explains why Microsoft Word attachments to email are bad, and describes what you can do to help stop this practice." />
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/anonymous-response.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>A Response to Word Attachments</h2>
<div class="infobox"><p>
<em>This letter recommends OpenOffice; LibreOffice did not exist then.
<a href="https://www.libreoffice.org/">LibreOffice</a> is what we
recommend.</em>
</p></div>
<hr class="thin" />
<p>
I'm sorry, but I was unable to read the Microsoft Word document you sent
me. Microsoft has been steadily changing the .doc format over the
releases of Microsoft Word (4.0, 95, 97, 2000, and now XP). Microsoft
has also intentionally refused to release the specification of the .doc
format to the community, making Microsoft Word the only application
that can reliably open this format. There is the Microsoft
Word Viewer application, but it only runs on Microsoft Windows
operating systems and does not allow one to edit the document.
</p><p>
The development team that designed the software I choose to use
(OpenOffice.org), has tried hard to figure out how the .doc format is
created and interpreted, in order to make it available to more people.
They believe that all people should be able to exchange information
electronically, and .doc is one of the most common formats. So, they
tried to make OpenOffice.org, the main competitor to Microsoft's own
Office suite, as compatible as possible with Microsoft's own formats.
But Microsoft did not like this, because it would mean that people that
have not bought Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office would be able to
read and write .doc documents.
</p><p>
Unfortunately, it seems that Microsoft is sometimes successful. My
non-Microsoft application was unable to open the .doc document you sent
me. As a result, we cannot exchange information, until one of the
following happens:
</p><p>
[0] The information intended to be read/processed by me is converted to
an open format that people who don't use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft
Office are able to process.
</p><p>
[1] I purchase and install Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Word, and by
deduction all other Microsoft applications necessary to do my work.
</p><p>
Because it will be a cold day in hell before I do the latter, I would
suggest we find a different way of exchanging information
electronically.
</p><p>
--A
</p><p>
PS: I hope you realize that I have nothing against you as a person. I
just can't use the document you sent me, and I tried to explain why the
implicit assumption that I would be able to read it, was mistaken.
</p><p>
PPS: When I tried to open the document you sent to me, my word processor
crashed, obviously unable to properly interpret the .doc format. My
word processor was handling 4 other documents at the time. Two of them
were assignments, and all changes I had not saved were lost. On
aggregate, about two hours of my work were lost because the
OpenOffice.org developers were unable to overcome the barriers Microsoft
put in place, and render the document properly. I believe they are the
last to blame for this failure.
</p><p>
PPPS: For further reasons why .doc should not be the format of choice
when exchanging information electronically, I invite you to read
<a href="/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html">
gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html</a>. It may be
long, but it certainly exposes the compromises both you, as the
sender, and I, as the receiver, are making by exchanging Microsoft
Word documents.
</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
document was modified, or published.
If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
<p>Copyright © 2003, 2013 Anonymous contributor</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2021/10/02 08:22:57 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
|
