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.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-10
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
Member since:2005-07-06
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.
Member since:
2005-07-06
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.