A decade ago, the largest concern with corporate monocultures in software was quarterly-cycle thinking that would degrade the quality of software on which governments rely.<p>Now, we also see the active weaponization of trade and threats to supply chains, and it is no longer just about dark corporate patterns but about dependence on private entities tied to the U.S. in its slide away from democracy.<p>I firmly believe that promoting software that exposes governments to diplomatic coercion should be treated as treason and scrutinized by intelligence.
Exchanging files in ODF seems much more frictionless to me than in DOCX. Thankfully, there is much better support nowadays for both formats.
Probably a good idea to create a bunch of "Simple docx to odf converter" websites with officially looking UI soon :D
Those small tornados you are noticing are the result of a million .xlsx jockeys sucking in a breath.
Well done Germany
This should be applied to the whole EU.
If only they had web pages for submitting those documents, but no, you gotta send them by snail mail.
Lets see how long it holds, being hopeful it will stick.<p>Some NRW libraries used to be on SuSE, are nowadays Windows on kiosk mode.
Sounds positive. Good job, Germany.<p>Fricken apply this thinking to as much software / formats as we can.
The mandate should be for open, replicable, and fully published formats. If you want to be super-strict, add the requirement that there have to be at least two fully interoperable implementations under the control of two separate organizations.<p>Locking everyone into a particular format is always a bad idea.
Just in time for everyone and their brother to vibe code a docx editor. This doesn't make much sense except as a token gesture that will make everyone's life worse.<p>[Edit: I work on a Word competitor for lawyers. If anyone here thinks this type of move does anything but further entrench someone like Microsoft who has the resources to implement every format under the sun, I’ve got some news for you. So if it’s not anti-monopolistic, then what? Do you actually think the User prefers it? Honestly?<p>The world standardizes on VHS two decades ago. How is mandating betamax going to benefit anyone other than the established players and box ticking bureaucrats?]
Do you mean an ODF/.odt editor? Why vibe code them? they already exist. MS Office can open ODF files now. The British government has been using ODF for most files exchanged with the public (e.g. downloads from gov.uk) for many years now with no issues I know of.
The point is that compliance around docx has become a commodity. Now that you have to support 2 formats with your application, that is orders of magnitude more complex.
The same reason you vibe code a Rust version of SQLite.
In your roadmap you listed pdf support, so hopefully your system already has abstractions in place to handle multiple input formats without rewriting everything, no? You'll just have to pull-in an odf crate (or vibe code one).<p>I understand that it's extra work for you, but if you take a step back and look around you maybe you'd see the greater good.
Yes, we support reading .doc, .pdf and read/write on .docx. Perhaps there is some greater good here, but I can tell you it's a burden for at least one competitor in the ecosystem. We basically cannot market into Germany now until we've baked this in. This certainly doesn't hurt Microsoft.<p>Then of course maybe that isn't the point which is fine. I'm actually surprised at people reporting on here that ODF is their preferred format. I've worked professionally in documents for two decades and never come across one other than as accidental output from Libreoffice. So perhaps it is my ignorance on display and Germany never was a viable market without this.
I've been using ODF professionally and privately for years now without any issues. What's the problem your side?
A <i>token</i> gesture. I see what you did there.