<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> <!-- Parent-Version:1.771.96 --> <!-- 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 ResponseLettertotheWord 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!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--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 ResponseLettertotheWord Attachments</h2><blockquote><p> This<div class="infobox"><p> <em>This letter recommends OpenOffice; LibreOffice did not exist then. <a href="https://www.libreoffice.org/">LibreOffice</a> is what werecommend. </p></blockquote>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">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html</a>.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" --> <divid="footer">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 andsubmittingcontributing 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 andsubmittingcontributing 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-ND3.0 US.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 © 2003,20142013 Anonymous contributor</p> <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creativehref="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative CommonsAttribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United StatesAttribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> <p class="unprintable">Updated: <!-- timestamp start --> $Date: 2021/11/30 11:06:59 $ <!-- timestamp end --> </p> </div></div></div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> </body> </html>