Open standards and open source software got political on Monday when Linda Hamel, the general counsel for the Massachusetts Information Technology Department, suggested that groups that oppose the OpenDocument file format standard might be influenced by Microsoft. Hamel was testifying before the Senate’s committee on Post Audit and Oversight at a hearing regarding the state’s switch to the OpenDocument file format.
…shown logs of their at-work pr0n-browsing by Steve Ballmer.
influenced in the sense that they’re using the same arguments as Microsoft. Like “ODF means Microsoft can’t deliver any solutions”, “All applications supporting ODF is based on OpenOffice.org”, “GPL is evil”, “Open standards only works with open source, there open standards are evil” etc.
I have to say I was dissappointed with the theme of this article. It would be nice if politicans could lay out hearsay and objectively evaluate the facts. This decision should not be influenced by Microsoft zealots or open source/standards advocates. It should be the result of a needs analysis and a side-by-side comparison of how each of the available formats meets the needs of this organization.
I’m confident that the State would choose Open Document Format after undergoing such a review. Adhering to open standards clearly makes sense in government. However, if they chose to go with a proprietary MS Office or Corel Word Perfect (lol) format, than I’d hope that the decision was made on fact and not as a result of interest group bullying.
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 8×11.73″ 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.
This is a brave bold move on the account of the State of Massachusetts, it’s the right move for many reasons.
The first step is always the hardest, but the world must wake up and quit bowing down at the feet of Microsoft.
The domino effect is coming, the most effort comes pushing that first domino over.
When people have become so programmed that they would choose a closed proprietary format over a closed one for essential files, it should ring a alarm.
Apparently certain members of the State of Mass. have heard that alarm and are taking appropriate action. More power to them!
I’m amazed that this has to even be argued. We’re talking about documents that have to be around in 10, 25, 50, 100, 200 even 500 years. It should be a no-brainer that an open format is your best hope of preservance.
You can buy a lot of influence with money.
Hear Hear for Ms Hamel!
Don’t the good Senators of Mass have more important things to worry about than the format their underlings save documents in.
They should be thinking about crime, housing, health and education. Not listening to the bleatings of some special interest document format proponents.
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. The most open standard in the world won’t help you exchange information if next to noone supports it.
And Senators should not be involved in this sort of rubbish. Leave them to the higher issues (the ones the broad public actually worry about) and let decisions on which document format to use be made by the people who can decide best – those actually creating the documents and know how format choice will affect the document’s creators and users.
You freaks would be in fits if a Senate committee was considering standardising an entire government on MS Office documents (and rightly so), but there’s nothing but wholehearted hypocritical support if the document format they’re trying to shove down everybody’s throats is the latest open source fad.
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
suggested that groups that oppose the OpenDocument file format standard might be influenced by Microsoft.
You think? You can also tell this is true in the wildly defensive manner the Senator used when he was accused of that. I think Linda Hamel responded quite well.
Also, pay absolutely no attention to disability groups when it comes to software. They really are thick and stupid, and they swallow anything a company like Microsoft comes up with. Microsoft will have told them about the impending doom and these blind and disability groups will have swallowed it whole. They believe the party line, Office is generally what they use every day and can’t think of anything else, and you also have to remember that Microsoft gives out millions in freeby software and handouts every year to these people. It’s fashionable to go along with these disability groups, but they are very far from impartial.
Pacheco said there were still public concerns about users with disabilities and total cost of ownership.
Ha, ha, ha. Now where did a Senator pick up phrases like ‘total cost of onwership’, and they also really confused the use of Open Document as a standard open format (which MS Office could easily use) and open source software. Hmmm. I wonder who could have put ideas like that into their heads…
I’m 100% pro the Massachusetts’ move,
however it was made before the Opendocument format can
be outputed from MSOffice, the suite that 98% of the
Massachusetts people use, hence it might bring trouble
and bring teh public opinion against the open standars format! OpenOffice shouldn’t monopolise the format in the Windows platform, or else the format won’t take off
(and hence give wings to OOffice )
Those developping the Office plugins sghould hurry up!
Steve
It’s really difficult to convince people that freedom is important.
It’s really quite bizzar!
And you wonder why other professionals laugh at IT.
In every other mature business you have to conform to standards; whether you are compatible with ISO / Kite Mark (in the UK) / etc.
In every other mature business if you were making a substantial order but only got a quote from one company you would be laughed to the dole queue.
I don’t know whether OASIS is a better format to MS Office / Wordperfect or others but currently it is the only document standard in front of the standards body. If the other players reckon their standard is better – fine put it in front of the standards body and let them fight it out.