After a month of news largely dominated by pro-ODF announcements, such as the release of ODF-compliant office suites, patent non-assertion pledges and the like, the opposition has just lowered the boom. And if they are successful, it’s a big one.
The Axe Falls on ODF in Massachusetts?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Microsoft wins again!
Democracy in its bad form… corrupt politicians bought by multinational companies… typical…
The beauty about a democracy is that you can keep trying, and I think the US still holds close to that. So, if you live in the state of Massachusetts, and you support the ODF move, then you can contact the people in office and let them know how you feel. If you feel they aren’t representing your interests, keep on contacting them until they do.
yup, typical.
How is what they did with ODF any different?
It’s not democracy. You know why? Because the population of Massachusetts had no say.
I’m not saying I agree with either thing (using ODF, or not using it), but to say this announcement is democracy gone bad and the decision to use ODF is not, is a bit short-sighted.
People are not supposed to vote on every single decision that is made, they ellect representative who will run offices who will hire people to do the work. In this case, the people who do the work have been doing without anyone complaining until they decided that they should switch their document standard. Suddenly, a new bill pops up to circumvent that decision and remove whatever power that group had. This is where the problem lies.
Yes, and that is called a Republic, not a true democracy.
Well, in a true democracy ‘copyright’ in regard to ‘intellectual property’ does not exist. So no EULA for anyone
That’s a problem with Republics. Please, never refer to a Republic issue as a “problem with democracy” ever again. Issues can flow down the chart, typically, but almost never flow up it (and when they do, it’s coincidence and not rule).
But yes, lobbying is probably one of the single worst problems we have in America today, in my humble opinion.
“But yes, lobbying is probably one of the single worst problems we have in America today, in my humble opinion.”
Everyone lobbies. From the women, and their rights, to the unions and their members rights (Stop laughing!).
How else is a nation of several million people going to be heard?
at best i guess its a representative democracy. as in you select someone thats supposed to stand in for you when desisions have to be made.
about the only true democracy in the world i think is switserland or something like that…
:'(
We just have to hope they keep up with the standard….
AFAIK, the use of OpenDocument Itself doesn’t constitute a violation of anything, I mean, freedom scientific and other makers of screen readers, and other text to speech tools could well be making even more money by making ODF compliant tools (Like the next versions of Jaws for Windows and OpenBook)
Or better, I noticed that adobe reader has a feature that reads outloud the documents, and it works with StarOffice’s PDF converter (I assume will work with PDFs from OOo too)
But then again, In this case, I hope this doesn’t get approved
Reading through it looks like a power play.
This is outrageous. We all know who is behind this (Microsoft), and it smacks of sticking their fingers up at the US DOJ and saying “f–k you”. Absolutely outrageous. Personally, if a transcript of the meeting just gone with the Senator is released to the public, and it can be seen that his decision was already made, then he should be sacked from office immediately. In Australia, we have royal commissions, and if you have them over there, then that should be tne next step. That should thoroughly investigate any wrong doing, bribes, etc, etc of any of those involved in last Friday’s meeting.
Dave
OpenDocument will continue to be supported and integrated by the FOSS community, to a point where other companies will begin to adopt OD as well. Microsoft can’t buy out every company/government/organization there is out there. It will begin to spread via it’s lack of vendor lock-in, much like most of the other FOSS tools have.
It’s becoming increasingly evident the USA has the best ‘democracy’ money can buy.
The last time I looked around you certainly had the choice to use other software alternatives. The heavy handedness of companies like Microsoft and Sony,for example, really gets old. I thank god for linux and open source. If this was happening in my state I’d be irate.Where are the petitions?Something needs to be done. this is all out of hand!
really, do you care if the Mass. government runs Word? it won’t change my stance on free software . it won’t put open source “out of business”. its a big non-event that has been trumped up into the fight of the century.
on the scale of government waste and graft, let me assure you that licenses for Office are a rounding error. in particular in MA, look at the big dig….now THATS graft!
That’s not so much a “Microsoft is evil” development as it is a “bureaucratic government busybodies are evil.”
I hate the thought of government mandating file formats. You never get more choice that way. If ODF can’t win without government intervention, then it’s not worth having.
That’s not so much a “Microsoft is evil” development as it is a “bureaucratic government busybodies are evil.”
No. It’s not one or the other. It’s both. Consider: Which one is better? Which one is worse?
I hate the thought of government mandating file formats. You never get more choice that way.
Although I agree that government should not mandate things which do not need mandating, it is not unreasonable for any organization, including a government, to adopt a standard for its internal operations. Having once worked for a state agency in a state where there was a hostile guerrila war over the adoption of competing office software products, I have some idea of the ensuing chaos. The overt war was over which software to use, but a sophisticated, functional set of document formats used by all candidates would have rendered that foolish conflict very nearly a moot point.
Of course there were other issues, valid and not, that were also proferred as argument, but none were as significant as the foundation issue of avoiding divergent document formats. The need for the latter directed the adoption of an official software suite (not the one you would expect), but hostility to the software and its functionality fueled the conflict.
If Massachusetts attempted to mandate that all individuals and institutions in the Commonwealth must use ODF, I would consider that not only wrong, but outrageously so, notwithstanding my preference for an open, freely-usable format as opposed to a closed, proprietary, licensed-only format.
If ODF can’t win without government intervention, then it’s not worth having.
Although I am reasonably certain that you did not mean to say so, your statement, given political reality today, unfortunately becomes equivalent to, “If ODF cannot afford to buy as much political influence as wealthy special interests, then it’s not worth having.”
Mickle though it fashes me to consider the lesser of two evils rather than what I really think is right, I’m afraid that leaving all to the marketplace doesn’t work when the marketplace is not, as they say, “a level playing field.”
P.S., thanks for the edit function which I used to correct some minor wording and grammar errors.
Edited 2005-11-03 05:29
No. It’s not one or the other. It’s both. Consider: Which one is better? Which one is worse?
Government busybodies are worse. By far.
Although I agree that government should not mandate things which do not need mandating, it is not unreasonable for any organization, including a government, to adopt a standard for its internal operations
Isn’t MS Office, at this point, the de facto standard? Mandating a different standard (ODF) that would make interoperation with outside agencies more difficult is just not a good idea.
I’m not necessarily pro-Microsoft, but I am pro-captialism. If MS can make a business case and sway politicians, then more power to them. I don’t consider Microsoft evil. Aggressive? Sure. What big company isn’t? But the marketplace is fair enough.
I’m not necessarily pro-Microsoft, but I am pro-captialism. If MS can make a business case and sway politicians, then more power to them. I don’t consider Microsoft evil. Aggressive? Sure. What big company isn’t? But the marketplace is fair enough.
Monopolies are very bad for capitalism, so if you’re really “pro-capitalism” then you should support the ODF as it will stimulate competition.
Monopolies destroy competition, raise prices and inhibit economic development. From your argument, it seems that you’re not “pro-capitalism”, but really “pro-Microsoft” since you’re basically saying that it’s all right that other vendors be shut out of providing access to government documents (since the MS Word format belongs to MS and MS only, which uses it to futher its monopoly).
I think this should give Massachussetts enough reason to launch another anti-trust trial against MS, this time specifically targeted at file formats and their central role in how the company abuses its monopoly. The goal would be to force MS to open its file formats, so that other companies can compete.
Monopolies are very bad for capitalism, so if you’re really “pro-capitalism” then you should support the ODF as it will stimulate competition.
There is a difference between me supporting a formatting, and the government *requiring* it. If the goverment requires you to use a particular format, how exactly does that stimulate competition? Even if a better competitor came along, you couldn’t use it; you’d be required to use something else.
Monopolies destroy competition, raise prices and inhibit economic development. From your argument, it seems that you’re not “pro-capitalism”, but really “pro-Microsoft” since you’re basically saying that it’s all right that other vendors be shut out of providing access to government documents (since the MS Word format belongs to MS and MS only, which uses it to futher its monopoly).
Who has shut out any vendors? The various government agencies have free choice *right now*, they choose (by default) Office. Microsoft can’t require the government to use Office.
Look, I’d like to see ODF and OO.o take off. You’re right, competition is good. OO.o doesn’t do much for me, but I’m playing with Gobe Productive now, and will probably end up buying it. I like competition. What I don’t like is government intervention. Every time government mandates something, you lose a freedom.
Edited 2005-11-03 14:08
The government is not trying to mandate that you do anything. They are simply setting a standard document format for their own use. Specifically, they are standardizing on the ODF document format, because they feel it’s simply the best choice for what they want (open standards, long term usability, vendor neutral, and so on). Companies do the same thing all the time. It has absolutely ZERO impact on anyone living in Mass., unless they happen to be writing (and storing) documents on behalf of the government.
ZERO impact? How about requiring anyone who wants to view a document from the Massachusetts Government to obtain an office suite or word processor that can read the document? They either have to download it (might be trouble for dialup users) or order a copy online (they have to wait for it to arrive).
Personally, I think PDF would be the best choice for publishing Documents. You can get free software to view it (like OpenDocument), and the reader is a much smaller download then OpenOffice.
I just don’t understand why people think the Government mandating OD for internal use creates competition or is a victory for freedom. It is certainly not a victory freedom, since there is no choice now.
What I really wish MS would do is create a DOC viewer (not editor) that was a small download and made available on multiple platforms, for free. I’m sure they’d be blocked from being allowed to include it in Vista or Windows Service Packs, but making a small DOC viewer available would be nice. The Government could then link to the DOC viewer download when providing documents to its citizens. Kind of like most sites do with PDF.
Personally, I think PDF would be the best choice for publishing Documents. You can get free software to view it (like OpenDocument), and the reader is a much smaller download then OpenOffice.
Have they said that they will stop publishing documents in html and pdf? I don’t think they have.
You may be right. I hope they don’t force ODF on citizens by publishing as ODF. HTML and PDF would defeinitely be much better.
HTML, like ODF, is an open standard. It’s up to MS to support it. If they don’t, they are shutting themselves out of the market.
ODF makes sense. It fosters competition. It make sure the citizenry isn’t subjected to vendor lock-in. It’s an open standard.
I’m sorry, but there’s no real defense for your position other than “protecting MS’s monopoly is in the public good” which simply makes no sense.
I’m sorry, but there’s no real defense for your position other than “protecting MS’s monopoly is in the public good” which simply makes no sense.
Apparently you didn’t read my post then.
The government should make documents as accessible as possible. If this meant making them available as word files, then so be it.
But again, PDF and/or HTML would probably be the best solution by far for publishing documents, NOT ODF or DOC.
The government should make documents as accessible as possible. If this meant making them available as word files, then so be it.
If they’re in a proprietary format, then they won’t be as accessible as possible, since people who use Linux/BSDs/Solaris/etc. won’t be able to read them (unless they spend additional money to buy Crossover Office).
But again, PDF and/or HTML would probably be the best solution by far for publishing documents, NOT ODF or DOC.
ODF is an open format, like HTML, and its specs are widely known, like PDF. It would be very easy for MS to produce a MS Word filter to import/export in this format. Therefore ODF is a very good candidate. The only reason MS has to refuse adding ODF capability is that it wants to keep its monopoly, i.e. vendor lock-in. Anyone defending MS on this one is saying that vendor lock-in is a good thing, and therefore is against competition (i.e. the foundation of a market economy).
As I’ve said, the only people who can reasonably defend MS on this one are people who have interests in the company, either because they’re employees or shareholders. Or fanboys, but those don’t act rationally in the first place.
Again, you’re not differentiating between reality and idealism.
ODF is an open document, yes, but it requires software that can read it first. In this case, for windows, OpenOffice. That’s a big download.
HTML or PDF are already accessible by everyone NOW without needing to download huge software that is kind of slow. You can get a PDF viewer as a quick download, and everyone can view HTML.
And don’t try your retarded debate tactics on me. “If you agree with X, then you are A, B or C”. Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no interests in the company, nor am I an irrational blind fanboy. If it makes you more confident in your posts and makes you feel better, then go ahead and think that. But what you think and the truth are not neccesarily the same thing.
{ODF is an open document, yes, but it requires software that can read it first. In this case, for windows, OpenOffice. That’s a big download.
HTML or PDF are already accessible by everyone NOW without needing to download huge software that is kind of slow. You can get a PDF viewer as a quick download, and everyone can view HTML.}
A quick download ODF viewer for a number of different platforms is available here:
http://visioo-writer.tuxfamily.org/EN/
The actual reality turns out to be that an ODF viewer at least as accessible as a PDF viewer, and far more accessible (in terms of cross-platform support) than any MS .doc viewer.
A quick download ODF viewer for a number of different platforms is available here:
http://visioo-writer.tuxfamily.org/EN/
Ouch! That completely demolishes sappyvcv’s argument. Careful, he might start calling you names now…
You have demostrated you are critical of anything MS and praise FOSS day in and day out. If it walks like a duck…
Not at all! I own an Xbox (I develop games for that console) and I like it very much. In fact, MS takes good care of its Xbox developers.
As such I actually develop closed-source products for a living. I have nothing against closed-source for certain types of application.
I also use MS Office on my Linux laptop. It’s a very good office suite in an of itself.
That said…I am opposed to Microsoft’s anti-competitive practices. I dislike its smear campaign against Linux and FOSS in general. I think vendor lock-in due to its closed file formats is bad for the industry in general.
In other words, I have a much more nuanced view of MS than you give me credit for, and I believe I’m much more objective on the issue than you are, based on post history.
And I do not feel the need to resort to insults when confronted with arguments, whether they are solid or weak (like yours).
Well guess what buddy?
I hate quite a few Microsoft products. I hate IE with a passion.
I also have done work on Linux over the past 18 months. I helped write a daemon that was written specifically to run on Linux, and still do maintanence work on it. I have made more money doing work for Linux than I have for windows.
And yes, you did resort to insults. You just tried to sugar-coat your insults.
Meanwhile, will you acknowledge that you were wrong in saying that ODF requires a large download for Windows users, now that someone has indicated that there is an ODF reader available?
Will you acknowledge that this counters your argument, and finally admit that ODF is as valid a file format choice as PDF and HTML are? Or will you try to sidetrack the debate in order to avoid recognizing that you were wrong?
Stop trying to predict what I will say.
Yes, I have no problem admitting I was wrong about an ODF reader.
And yes, ODF is a valid file format choice. But I still believe it is NOT as good of a choice as PDF or HTML. PDF can be argued, but HTML can not.
HTML is a good choice for web-only documents. For downloadable, printable documents it often sucks.
BTW I still don’t see where I insulted you, except if you consider that “fanboy” is as much of an insult as “shithead”. Considering how rational you’ve shown yourself to be, that wouldn’t surprise me…
A sugar-coated insult is still an insult. Go look up the definition some time.
Again, you’re not differentiating between reality and idealism.
I strongly disagree. There’s nothing idealistic about an open format, rather it’s a very pragmatic approach that would have a direct impact on competition and ensure that citizens of Mass. don’t suffer from vendor lock-in.
ODF is an open document, yes, but it requires software that can read it first. In this case, for windows, OpenOffice. That’s a big download.
Because it’s an open format, Microsoft could easily make an import filter for existing versions of Office and support it natively for the next version.
It will also be relatively easy to make an ODF viewer, just like there are PDF viewers (which you still need to download, by the way).
Not only that, but Sun has offered use of its grid to convert documents from ODF to .doc (and vice versa) online. Same with OpenOpenOffice.
And don’t try your retarded debate tactics on me. “If you agree with X, then you are A, B or C”. Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no interests in the company, nor am I an irrational blind fanboy.
Too bad your arguments say the contrary. There is no reason to support .doc as a format if you don’t also support MS’s file format lock-in. That’s not being retarded, that’s just simple logic (and the fact that you’d resort to insults is another indication that I’m on to something here…)
As for you not being a fanboy…well, your post history clearly shows you as critical of FOSS and as a MS apologist. If it walks like a duck…
What I really wish MS would do is create a DOC viewer (not editor) that was a small download and made available on multiple platforms, for free.
Well its not on multiple platforms but its decently small and yes its free.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=95e24c87-8…
Hot damn! Thanks a lot.
Quote: “If the goverment requires you to use a particular format, how exactly does that stimulate competition?”
Quite easily in this instance. There are several products that easily support ODF. The only one that doesn’t want to support it, is Microsoft, when it’s quite easy and feasible for it to do so. Why is this? Because they do not want any competition to their DOC format. Now, that is monopolistic, especially since they have 98% of the Office suite market. I’ll repeat it for you, there is nothing stopping Microsoft from supporting ODF. And, if they did so, they can, and would, compete against the other software manufacturers. In the end, they’d most probably still end up getting the government contracts anyways! Just that the governmental documents would be in ODF rather than DOC formats.
Quote: “Who has shut out any vendors? The various government agencies have free choice *right now*, they choose (by default) Office. Microsoft can’t require the government to use Office.”
No one has shut out any vendors. Microsoft can still compete. It just doesn’t want to. Microsoft does NOT want any competition. It wants the entire market, so that it’s money gravy train exists forever. This is a classic example of where a corporation’s interests pressure a government’s decision to favour it. This is not competition on merit, but competition on bribery and deceit. That is not healthy. I hope the US DOJ is watching closely. Very closely. I think that there’s a very strong chance that this can be construed as breaching the anti trust settlement.
Dave
There is a difference between me supporting a formatting, and the government *requiring* it. If the goverment requires you to use a particular format, how exactly does that stimulate competition? Even if a better competitor came along, you couldn’t use it; you’d be required to use something else.
Government regulate standards all the time. There are standards every auto maker must follow, and yet that doesn’t stifle competition! The only way the government could stifle competition by mandating a file format was if, say, the file format was proprietary (i.e. like the MS Word format). And since the government must choose a file format for its own documents, it makes sense that they would pick an open file format, and therefore allow for competition by software vendors, who can all adopt the same format.
Who has shut out any vendors? The various government agencies have free choice *right now*, they choose (by default) Office. Microsoft can’t require the government to use Office.
If they choose to use the MS Word format, then they’re stuck with MS Office. I think you fail to grasp what’s at the center of the debate here: the issue is not the software, it’s the format. They’ve chosen the format best suited for competition: ODF. If Microsoft chooses not to support it, they’re excluding themselves. It’s their entire responsibility.
What I don’t like is government intervention. Every time government mandates something, you lose a freedom.
If there was no government, there wouldn’t be any freedoms. I know that lots of right-wing americans are anti-government, but most of the rest of the world understand that the absence of government means that the strongest get to call the shots. Government passing laws to promote freedom and openness is GOOD, not bad.
I’m not necessarily pro-Microsoft, but I am pro-captialism
No your not. You are pro monopoly and anti-competition. Adoption of an open standard allows for free competion between suppliers of software Adoption of closed patent protected proprietary formats by a state government is helping to mantain an <illegal> monopoly and of itself my in fact be illegal and make the state government liable to civil action by its citizens.
Sorry, but no one cares about de facto standart when I don’t use any of Microsoft products – in fact, I’m totally Linux/BSD/OS X junkie and have been for three/four years. And I don’t see NO reason to stick with Microsoft _because_ goverment (MY elected goverment) that I should do.
You just don’t seem to grasp what is democracy about. It is not about “I have bigger balls, I will rulle this place”. Someone would like to be that way, but, well, it isn’t.
Aparently your word processor does not have a spell or grammer checker. 😉
Do you mean a apparently, spellING, or GRAMMAR? Please let us know you witty man.
I think that the MA ITD was able to get the ODF ball rolling due to the fact that the person in charge aggressively wanted it, and abetted by the fact that most legislators are not tech savvy and probably did not care about the matter one way or the other. Now the legislators do, for various reasons, one of them being their fear of the unknown, no doubt egged on by Microsoft, and the other having to do with turf wars-the idea that a huge decision like this can be done by a seemingly obscure technocrat, unelected to boot.
Looks like Microsoft is back at the MA table, but I think Microsoft could have added ODF support and saved all this aggravation; it could be that MSFT felt that ODF, even if supported by MSFT products, would open state purchasing agents to the idea of cheap or free alternatives that support this non MSFT format.
Capitalism leads to monopolies, monopolies lead to imperialism.
all i see is everyone here bantering back and forth without getting anything done.
if you really care… take action!
email the Mass senators and tell them what you think.
doesn’t matter where you are from.
go here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?…
I’m not pro or anti US, but really poor America…
I’m not sure how the actions of a local state government reflects on the US national government.
Could you explain the connection?
Or is this Yet Another Baseless Anti-USA Rant?
The IT guys failed to submit the proposed “IMPROVEMENT/CHANGES” to the “POWERS-THAT-BE”.
The IT guys make the networks run smoothly, occasionally update security patches, keep the system backed up, and repair/update/upgrade the hardware as necessary. They aren’t allowed to MAKE policy CHANGES, and resultingly stepped on some toes.
You just know they have enough confidence in their abilities and the capabilities of the software to make this work, but they didn’t inform and consult the “INNER GROUP” by using the proper CHAIN-OFCOMMAND procedures.
Had they properly formulated a definitive proposal about what they were trying to IMPROVE, along with the estimated monitary $avings, and presented that along the proper CHAIN-OF-COMMAND, eventually to the top, then they would have had a much better chance of making this fly.
Once it made it to the top, then the proper committees (“POWER MONGERS”) to analyze this would have been appointed, and they (the IT guys) would have been called in to explain/demonstrate how these changes could be implemented with minimal disruption and beneficial results.
If the “POWERS-THAT-BE” aren’t too WHIZZED OFF by potentially being circumvented, perhaps the IT guys will get a fair chance to STRUT THEIR STUFF….
Hopefully so, as a sucess at this stage could potentially lead to incorporating open source into the total computing environment, IF THE IT GUYS LEARN ABOUT CHAIN-OF-COMMAND????? ……..
Actually, you miss main point of democracy.
Goverment is NOT a ship with one captain. It is a team with captain just makes sure that each member of team doing the best for the team. For this example, IT guys do what they have to do – they answer about regulations, policies, technical service IN THEIR FIELD. Guess what, they don’t try to manage whole state. Instead of that, they make god damn sure that this ship could stay afload at least ten years.
It is TYPICAL power abuse what we see here. Someone (guess who) was very disappointed with decision – and typical power play comes in.
Do you want to deal with such politics and such company (again, won’t name it)? I _don’t_.
The ones making the decisions about ODF in Mass. were doing it correctly. If they hadn’t, there wouldn’t be a need for this new ‘task force’ and their decissions would simply have been over ruled.
The author of the article seem to think the ‘task force’ will contain four people, while the first qoute he provides explains there will be eight. (Four appointed by the govenor and four appointed by other instances.)
You just know they have enough confidence in their abilities and the capabilities of the software to make this work, but they didn’t inform and consult the “INNER GROUP” by using the proper CHAIN-OFCOMMAND procedures.
The ITD Director & Chief Information Officer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, has the responsibility to set information technology standards; review and approve secretariat and department information technology strategic plans; be involved in the planning, design, and operation of information technology systems; manage central information technology systems, as well as the Commonwealth’s mailing operations. Emphasis is mine.
Microsoft Word is a de facto standrad, not a de jure. So, it can be replaced by another de facto standrad, ODF. Simply say, sorry – resend this as ODF as I do not have the tools the read proprietary formats such as Word. People will learn to cope and no legislation si necessary.
Agreed, it would work like that…. in a perfect world.
However, Joe Officeworker has not got a clue about the following formats;
ODT
RTF
PDF
All of these can be opened and edited in a multitude of programs across all platforms, but if Joe Officeworker is not educated in using them, then they will simply continue to create a DOC in Word, click send, and continue to propigate the hold MS Office formats have on themselves.
Nop.
It is not like that.
User simply uses what do you provide to them. It is as simple as that. They dont care about formats – and they SHOULD NOT. That’s why we need something like ODT – because then I have no worries what kind of software you have, you will open it.
Very excelent example is PDF – it opens as you see it everywhere and have no problems to implement support for it in any software. OpenDocument is needed as it’s editable and storage brother.
However, Joe Officeworker has not got a clue about the following formats;
True, bud sad. Very sad. This will sounda bit sentimental, but I fear that his ignorance will bring the civilization (as we know it) to a grinding halt one day.
I don’t that that everyone should know everything, but workers, office or not, should at least know and understand the tools they are working with.
I think one fact is being forgotten here. RTF.
The situation we’re seeing here is known as the “power of the default”.* Word can save in other formats (some less locked in), but has only one default. Guess which one it is?
*I belive there was a story awhile back that talked about the power of the bootloader, or some such.
Linux torvalds started doing that years ago..re: send in a readable format. Personally, I’ve never used MS office suet(SP) and i do know what an rtf,odt, and pdf file are. Suprisingly all my office software(OO.o and abiword) have the ability to use and export to all those file formats. Shouldnt that work for the state of Mass?,, Sad..politicians will sell you out for a fat wallet. A POX on them all!!!
When the news first broke that Massachussetts would be adopting the OpenDocument format, many open source/free software advocates declared victory — prematurely it seems. This is the big chance for others to complete on a level playing field with Microsoft, if ODF is officially adopted. As it is, it’s obvious that Microsoft has a lot of clout, and still has time to fight the implementation of the policy. The writer of the article is correct, this is a potentially huge setback for the adoption of ODF in Massachussetts, and to the acceptance of open standards and software in general.
Don’t underestimate how important this moment can be for the future of free and open source software, and competitiveness in the technologicial market in general. As others have suggested, write your senator to know how you feel, do not let corporate interests dictate how politicians exercise their power in this case. And for all of those open source enthusiasts, please do not assume the battle will eventually win itself, it belittles the hard work that has been done so far, and the even harder work to be done.
Finally, a thank you to the some of the unsung heroes of this saga: the civil servants in Massachussetts who are responsible for necessitating an open standard in the first place, and not just bowing down to Microsoft. They are on the front lines at the moment and Microsoft is using every ounce of leverage they can in order to scrutinize and override this decision.
Actually, it is NOT important. It is desperate messure, because it seems Microsoft can’t stop ODF now, but now they want at least make it difficult to pass it as default policy. If it was that voted for ideology, then they could succeed. But they have to say to public why they doing this and this. If they will fail, they will not achieve nothing.
It is simple power play to scare those people who made right decisions. Typical Microsoft style.
But I think ODF will stay where it are. Because, well, it is working – and no legislation can do nothing about it. Cat is out of box – so effect is already made.
Why do we keep electing these idiots! The two party system has us electing dumb or dumber over and over again. We need to stop voting for the the lesser of two evils out of fear of the the greater evil winning. The only thing that this ensures is that evil will always win! I say it’s time to vote for people who know the value of freedom and will stick by it! People who will refuse to line their pockets with Microsoft money and favors. Screw the Republicrats! I’m voting third party and independent from now on!
Then just not decide to vote for third party and independent, get the lot of people to know that democracy in US in big danger. Inform them, poletly, inform about issues what “two evils” system causes, maybe even form or join some party.
People are ignorant because they don’t know that many people inside feel the same way – f–ked up. So connect with them! Let them hear you!
The bad decision that Massachusetts did ,
was that the move to OASIS was performed before
a plugin for MSOffice had been developed
(maybe this is the fault of OASIS Committee, releasing the format before releasing ways to support it and
forcing users to use Ooffice).
In this case the OASIS format would bring more choices,
now it reduces the available ones!
WE have to accept that teh format won’t take off without full suport for MSOffice. And don’t wait for MSoft to implement that: they are not willing to see OASIS taking off!
Edited 2005-11-03 10:33
I think you’ve missed the boat ‘plainstyle’
It is _NOT_ in Microsoft’s best interest (or should I say the interest of their monopoly profits) to support any of the Open Document formats. When Microsoft Office supports .odt and the other OASIS formats then people aren’t tied to using MS Office. They can use OpenOffice, StarOffice, CorelOffice, etc. MS Office will have to compete on features and price. The usual Microsoft trick of making MS Office+1 .doc format slightly incompatible with MS Office .doc format thereby forcing everyone to upgrade to MS Office+1 the moment one person that you have to communicate with does won’t work any more.
Of course if you aren’t tied to MS Office, then a major reason to keep MS Windows, instead of switching to MacOS or some flavor of GNU/Linux, disappears. Before you know it MS Windows will have to compete based on features and price, instead of being tied to MS Office.
As you can see, loose the lock on office document formats leads to loosing the lock on office application suites. Loosing the lock on application suites leads to loosing the lock on the operating system. Loosing the lock on the operating system means loosing you monopoly profits and leverage. Loosing your monopoly profits and leverage means that you, me, and the citizens of Massachusetts gain choice and affordable innovative products.
If Microsoft supported OASIS formats, they run the risk of everyone, _BUT_ Microsoft winning.
So waiting for Microsoft (who is on the OASIS committee that drew up the Open Document format) to support it _BEFORE_ anyone else uses it, is simply a non-starter. Not going to happen.
I hope that helps,
[email protected]
(Just my $0.02 Canadian, before taxes)
Thats exactly what I was saying!
The only way to stop the monopoly of Microsoft in
the office suite is by implementing the MSOffice(even an
opensource external installation file) that would give
teh oportunity to organisations to adopt the OASIS format , without pushing everybody to abandon MSOffice, with all its features. Then OOffice users would equally be able to use their favourite suite without having compatibility issues. New formats should bring solutions, at this point, without a MSOffice plugin, OASIS format brings limitations.. unfortunately…
Steve
“However, Joe Officeworker has not got a clue about the following formats;”
True, bud sad. Very sad. This will sounda bit sentimental, but I fear that his ignorance will bring the civilization (as we know it) to a grinding halt one day.
I don’t that that everyone should know everything, but workers, office or not, should at least know and understand the tools they are working with.
————————————-
If bickering about file formats brings a civilization to ruin, then it deserves it. What a dumb statement (assuming I understood the point correctly).
There are far worse things to worry about these days other than stuipid file formats.
I get a sense that all the people who hate MS and how they run their business are trying to force others to use what is considered “favorable” … OD format, for example.
Well, if OD becomes a big enough issue, then (as MS has said) it will support it in Office. This is how they deal with competition…the incumbant adds a feature to match what the competition has, and then the incumbant is ok for a while. If price is an issue, then the buyer (Massasschucets, in this example) can turn the screws on MS by stating that they are actively looking at a cheaper alternative. If MS thinks that they are actually doing this and it’s not just lip service, then they may end up giving them a better deal.
It comes down to this, in my opinion. MS Office has the clout, and no other Office package does, at the moment in the US. If you believe it’s a POS and that MS must be stopped, then good for you. This is not the case for everyone. YOU can stop using the stuff, and explain why you did so. But don’t be so arrogant as to think that because YOU decided YOUR way was the best that everyone else must ditch what they have and follow YOUR decision.
Yes, each entity must decide for themselves what they need to do. Nobody is ever “locked in” any more since there are alternatives. What has to happen is that an analysis must be done to find out the benefits and costs of moving to something else.
No matter how much a zealot may want the world to agree with their view on an issue, it’s up to each individual entity or agency to do their own homework and decide who they want to proceed.
It’s good to have choice, as we do today, and I don’t consider MS as much of a Monopoly as people have them out to be. There are, in fact, many viable alternatives. However, not all of them are BETTER than what MS has in all aspects.
As OSS packages improve, then the chances of it getting adopted improve also. It may be easier for smaller companies or individuls to decide to use this stuff than a large organization. This makes sense, as the ability to make changes like this are easier if fewer people are involved. However, in competition, sometimes the more nimble can out perform a bigger opponent. Whether an Office package gives a competitor an advantage in the marketplace is questionable, though.
Wasn’t it Ghandi who said “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”.
We’re at the fighting stage. Even if open standards loses this battle, it brings the whole concept greater attention. Because of all this coverage, more people will think about it, consider it, and then demand it.
The fight in MA is not the end, it is the beginning.
The Massachusetts Secretary of State
It’s no secret that America’s Federal Aviation Authority puts commercial interests before passenger safety. It has done for years, everyone knows it, and it’s a matter of public record. Compare this to the British response to problems with the Comet, the worlds first commercial jet liner, where it was grounded until a full investigation took place.
Looking at the orginal proposal, to my European eyes, this looks like a clear case of commercial interests being appointed as a stranglehold on the political process. It’s a clear power grab by corrupt politicans who’re hand in glove with big business, and the sort of corruption you’d expect from a failed state.
Me? I think, this isn’t just a federal or state problem. It’s a people problem. America has always had suspect motives and actions, and an increasingly mad-house culture that leaves the rest of the world looking on in bafflement. And before you get going, this isn’t because we envy you? We don’t. We pity you.
At least some of you here realize that. It’s very easy to spot those who lack political sophistication by their improper use of the word “democracy.” The US is not a direct democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy
I mean, I am a money-no-problem guy. I can’t effectively control a large body of decision making people so what do I do: make those which I can control establish some committee with a small number of people who will have the power, and who I will absolutely be able to buy. Case closed.
What about “accessibility” by people who do not have $150 – $500 disposable income to spend on purchasing an office suite? The OpenDocument standard has absolutely no negative effect on accessibility. Since it is xml it is fully stylable to the users desire, and is actually a step in the right direction.
Why does MS have to support someone else’s file type… why not the other people support ms office format? why do I have to embrace FOSS? Why can’t FOSS embrace what I use today, and works for me?
Honestly, people are so FOSS ROXORS MY BOXORS that they forget that people might be happy with what they have. If you want to compete against microsoft then do it, but don’t get all pissy because you don’t offer a better product and think MS should dumb down theirs for your benefit.
MS Office is a GREAT program. If it wasn’t people would use something else.
Why does MS have to support someone else’s file type… why not the other people support ms office format?
Because Microsoft refuses to publish the specs for its file formats, forcing anyone who want to be compatible with them to reverse-engineer it – something which hasn’t been achieved with 100% so far.
Honestly, people are so FOSS ROXORS MY BOXORS that they forget that people might be happy with what they have.
But if I’m happy with Linux, BSD, Solaris or a BeOS derivative, then I won’t be able to consult the documents, because MS won’t publish a version of its office suite for those OSes. And if I use a Mac, I’m basically at MS’s mercy – it could decide to stop development of Office for the Mac, just like it stopped development of Explorer.
Let me repeat something so that you understand: it would be very easy for MS to add ODF support to Office. In other words, no one would be forcing anyone to use OSS or something else than MS Office, but MS itself.
I’m having a hard time not thinking that there are quite a few posts here made by Microsoft employees. Only people with direct interest in Microsoft will argue that Mass should adopt .doc as its official format, instead of requiring Office to be able to edit ODF files.
I fully expect this post to get modded down, but I don’t care.
I’m having a hard time not thinking that there are quite a few posts here made by Microsoft employees.
That’s because you’re a clueless shithead that tries to assert victory by accusing people who don’t agree with you as zealots, trolls, or hired by Microsoft. Grow the f–k up.
Come on, now, don’t be naive. Microsoft’s multi-billion dollar empire is partly based on its control of office file formats, who lock people into their MS Office suite, which in turn locks people out of most alternate OSes. If you don’t think that this is a crucial battle for them, then you don’t understand much about the economics of this industry.
Now, as I’ve indicated in my previous post, the fact that your only recourse was to resort to insults shows that you’re completely out of arguments.
For your information, I’m not trying to “assert victory”, I’m simply interested in dispelling FUD. I don’t accuse people who don’t agree with me of zealots, in fact I’ve only used this word when I was myself accused of being one for making reasonable, sensible arguments. I call trolls by their name when it’s clear that they’re trolling. And I simply stated the fact that I do believe that this issue is too important for MS for them no to engage in astroturfing, as they have been known to do before (on court records, nonetheless).
If you can’t handle these simple facts, that’s your problem, not mine. Obviously, this is beyond your debating skills and therefore you have decided to abandon all pretenses of rational debate and instead have descended into name-calling.
Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
You started the name-calling buddy, don’t play stupid.
Really? Show me where I specifically insulted you. I’m curious as to what you’ll consider an insult…
“As I’ve said, the only people who can reasonably defend MS on this one are people who have interests in the company, either because they’re employees or shareholders. Or fanboys, but those don’t act rationally in the first place.”
It’s a sugar-coated insult, and you’ve done it quite a few times in the past. Apparently when you disagree with someone, you assert victory by declaring them shills, trolls, zealots, or anything that attempts to discredit them.
NO ONE is telling Microsoft to embrace OpenSource. They are being asked to support a document format that was developed in agreement by a group of developers from an organization they are members of. As for you saying that FOSS should support whatever microsoft is using, I honestly don’t agree, supporting Microsoft’s document format is like shooting at a moving target that keeps having significant changes from one revision to the other(Office 2k diferent to Office xp and different that Office 2k3 and Office 12 WILL be diferent) and if you add the license and patent maze that needs to be sorted out long before trying to support it without risk of facing MS lawyers.
because PDF, like ODF, meets the requirements and reponsibilities of government and governmental/archival IT departments.
— Namely, PDF is an open, well-documented, published format, that anyone can implement without needing to get someone else’s permission to do so.
1) Such open formats can reasonably be expected to be decipherable 10, 50, or 100+ years down the road, when people are no longer using Windows or MS Office (for example — it’s only been a few years since Word-Perfect was the “defacto” standard).
The people (citizens) and their government will not be dependent on the ability or willingness of specific corporations — should the corporation still even be in business — to maintain, and make available particular software neccesary to properly render the pertinent documents accurately. (This is already a problem with older formats, including older versions of Microsoft Word formats).
2) The public can access and read the pdf-formatted documents created by their own government, without being required to purchase and use a specific, proprietary program or operating-system favored (deliberately or unconsciously) by their government. In some countries this has come to be colloquially refered to as “the Microsoft tax”. For example, should Adobe collapse or simply decide to stop distributing free (no fee) ‘Adobe Acrobat’ pdf viewers or document-creation products, there are plenty of free and comercial alternatives, that run on more than on OS.
3) The government can solicit genuinely competetive bids. Because these easily met data formats are open and available to all contenders, every qualified contender has the oportunity to compete to provide products or services to the government. And the government (and taxpayers) are not locked-in to a single provider who effectively controls the market.
This ability to obtain products and services from more than a single source is considered an essential requirement of government contracting, and there are laws enforcing multi-source standards on government purchasing. The computer-software field has been allowed to evade these basic requirements for some time, but it is not in the public interest to permit such “blind eye” abrogations of standard practice to continue.
— Such considerations actually REQUIRE responsible (let alone democratic) governments to seek out and implement open, standard formats, and to move away from products, standards, and supliers that fail to satisfy these concerns.
———————
— sidebar —
<rant> If Microsoft feels that it’s profits justify failing to meet these reasonable, open standards, that’s their privilige. They could very easily meet these standards if they wished to do so. But MS has an established, documented history of deliberately, consciously, even explicitly quashing or subverting similar standards in order to pursue ever greater dominance and eliminate competition. They furthermore have an established record of using dirty tricks and even flat-out illegal actions to do so. So when, in the light of the rational considerations I have decribed, I see MS and it’s mouthpieces whining about supoosedly “unfair” restrictions, I can only do my best to counter this blatently misleading PR effort. </rant>