OSNews

Here is the kicker.

MSFT can implent ODF with minimal fuss over licensing.

No one can implent MSFT's Binary XML format without paying MSFT, and once you do you can't redistribute said format. No GPL, BSD, CDDL, CPL, Basically no FOSS software would be allowed. Therefore the only ones who could is corel. How much do you think MSFT would charge for that?

Yes it is a Binary XML. MSFT is using XML to sort and store Binary data.

False

Maybe one of you would care to illustrate where the OP that I replied to is accurate past the 2nd sentence?

Aww. Here, I'll give you a hint. He's probably right about the GPL.

Edited 2005-11-01 23:39

Indeed, adhering to open standards would make the most sense. So it stands to reason that besides the disabled, who benefit from MS's braille support, noone that's not back by MS would oppose it.

Note: It seems I've misjudged the parents complaint. But this is still aimed at the people who are actually questioning the move to OASIS:

They did that. And then Microsoft refused to implement a standard file format within their Office Suite. Not that they've stated a good reason not to; it'd be a weeks work for some excellent engineers on each team.

Their plan seems to have accounted for all problems, including those who physically need Microsoft Office. And, instead of petitioning Microsoft to implement the format, they're yelling at the Government to not require the use of standard formats. The Government, of all organizations in the world, needs to be using standard formats when it makes any sense at all. And in this situation, it makes no sense not to! Afraid your graphics might fall out of line a centimeter on that old 8x11.73" printer? Who cares! You're saving in a format for which there's a printed, documented method of reading and interpretting it! And not only that, but you can write code to do that if you so choose without concern for legal action!

I'm really sick of people acting like this has anything to do with people being "anti-Microsoft." This has to do with Microsoft not listening to its customers. This has to do with the Government seeking technology which does not discriminate on any basis: Yes, open standards don't discriminate; anyone can implement them! And that means, any user can use them! No purchase required.

I can almost guarantee that more money is going to go into lawyer fees over these trumped up law suits and people "talking" and "discussing" this issue then will ever go toward "migrating" people to something like OOo. Not only that, but it'll cost more than it does to buy Office for every worker, on his office machine and at home! At full retail price! Why? Because lawyers are expensive. Judges cost money! And this is nothing but a big waste of people's time!

Let them make the move people. It's not like they haven't thought this through! They've thought of the disabled: There's an exception for them (as stated in the article). They've thought of migration time, they're not requiring this until 2007 (but at this rate they'll still be getting sued well into 2010!). Give it up, give it up.

Edited 2005-11-02 01:31

That's kind of the point. The state executive has already done the review (for at least 2 years already) and choosing OpenDocument v.1 was the result.

Microsoft is now fighting a rear-guard action by lobbying to try to overturn that.

Of course they should take care of crime, housing, health and education. Exchanging information is an important part of those tasks. Exchanging information requires open standard if it has to fit inside a democratic society.

That's all there's to it...

Hear hear!

You're wrong. Exchange of information requires common standards not open standards.

It certainly doesn't need standards that are the IP of a single private entity.

MS only had to support ODF in the next office. They can do it easily. The fact that they don't is a clear demonstration that they don't have the public's good at heart, and this is really what this is about.

MS doesn't want to let go because it know its monopoly relies on the vendor lock-in created by MS Office format. And it is lock-in: even I, a Linux user, have to use MS Office (though OpenOffice filters are becoming better).

Excuse me, the decision has been made by an expert in that particular area, namely, Information Technology; the decision to demand OpenDocument format has been made known, the individual in question has NOT closed off the opportunity for Office to win the contract; all he has done is add OpenDocument format support as part of the requirements in regards to tendered contract.

In regards to the function of government, it isn't about saving money, its about ensuring that government documents that are made today, are acccessible in the future, via a freely available format; access to this document is not only required for pratical reasons but for compliance to legislation that was passed recently by the federal government, in regards to archiving and so forth.

Its a smart move on the states part; put the requirement out there; if Microsoft wants to win the contract, they'll comply, or otherwise other states will see it as a good way of getting away from Microsoft.

Edited 2005-11-02 06:26