Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Massachusetts Office Party

Posted by Zonk on Thu Sep 01, 2005 08:10 AM
from the we-all-saw-how-the-first-one-went dept.
Quattro Vezina writes "The Inquirer reports that the state of Massachusetts has performed a modern-day Boston Tea Party, by dumping Microsoft Office in the proverbial ocean. According to the article, 'every state document must be in PDF or using Open Office formats' starting in 2007." Forbes has the story as well. More from the article: "The switch to open formats such as these was needed to ensure that the state could guarantee that citizens could open and read electronic documents in the future, according to Massachusetts - something that was not possible using closed formats. The proposal, which is open for comment until the end of next week before it takes effect, would represent a big boost for open source software such as Open Office, which is created by volunteer programmers and made available free of charge."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Altima(BoB) (602987) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:14AM (#13453385)
    ...Hopefully they did it all while wearing festive penguin suits, or for the politically correct Bostonians, Spheniscidae American suits.
  • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:15AM (#13453394) Homepage Journal
    PDF [adobe.com]

    and

    Open Office XML [openoffice.org]

    Strangely, both say you need Adobe reader to read them ;)
  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:16AM (#13453401) Homepage Journal
    Currently, Microsoft office can't read or write either of these formats[1]. So which is Microsoft going to add? They could relatively easily add PDF output as an export-only option, similar to the OpenOffice implementation, and treat it like printing. This would potentially have the effect of reducing the number of people using .doc as an interchange format, reducing lock in. The other alternative, supporting OpenOffice formats seems much less likely - if MS Office could read and write these formats it would be a lot easier for people to migrate away from it.

    [1] Yes, I know it can with third party products, some of which are Free.

    • by Coryoth (254751) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:37AM (#13453626) Homepage Journal
      Currently, Microsoft office can't read or write either of these formats[1]. So which is Microsoft going to add?

      Both? PDF is making steady inroads as an interchange format and from what I understand of Avalon it should make generating PDF on Vista pretty much as easy as on OS X. It would make sense to support it.

      As for OpenOffice.org - they're using the OASIS format and Microsoft is a sponsor [oasis-open.org] of that so you'd think they'd get around to it eventually. I think Microsoft is realising that locking up Office document formats isn't going to work for much longer (see their various efforts to create more "open" XML based formats for MS Office) and are trying to work out what to do instead.

      Jedidiah.
    • Neither (Score:5, Insightful)

      by doublem (118724) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:57AM (#13453814) Homepage Journal
      MS will offer the state some discounts on Microsoft Office. If they're desperate they'll push RTF as a document format instead.

      As we've seen far too many times in the past, government bodies tend to use moves like this as a way to force a better deal out of the existing vendor.

      This isn't about using Open Source to build a better solution. It's about leveraging Open Source to get a better deal on the existing solution
      • by Rude Turnip (49495) <`valuation' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:33AM (#13453587)
        No, it doesn't. That is a built-in feature of OS X. Any program with a print option in OS X has a "Save as PDF" button.
              • I don't have it. (Score:4, Informative)

                by doublem (118724) on Thursday September 01 2005, @10:50AM (#13454935) Homepage Journal
                At least, I didn't have it until I installed a licensed copy of Adobe Acrobat Standard.

                The Adobe PDF printer you're seeing was added by a third party application, probably some flavor of Adobe Acrobat Standard or Professional. I don't know what other Adobe products also add a PDF printer driver. Photoshop might, and I'm pretty sure Illustrator does as well.

                No, it's not part of Windows XP, and the only way to (legally) get it is to buy the necessary software from Adobe.

                Some demo versions of Adobe software may have a bug that results in the PDF Printer remaining behind after an uninstall, or after the demo expires. That could be another way you got the option.

                But no, the rank and file Windows XP users do not have a PDF Printer available by default in either the Home or Professional editions.
      • by doublem (118724) on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:12AM (#13453939) Homepage Journal
        They will support the format just enough that they can tick the box on the list of features, but not enough that it will be reliably compatible with any other implementation

        What do you think their XML format is all about?

        The data is still an obfuscated binary, it's just crammed into pseudo XML to bloat the file a bit more.

        They get to check off "XML" support, and yet it's completely useless unless you're using Microsoft development tools for anything outside of Office itself.
  • by sfontain (842406) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:16AM (#13453404)
    I hardly see how Open Office and PDF formats "guarantee" citizens will be able to view electronic documents in the future any more so than MS Office formats. For all anybody knows, in 5 years, all of these formats could be dead as new formats emerge. And guess, what--When that happens, there will be conversion tools for the next mainstream formats, too.
    • I hardly see how Open Office and PDF formats "guarantee" citizens will be able to view electronic documents in the future any more so than MS Office formats.

      Open Office formats are zipped XML. All you need to get at the data in them is an unzip program and a text reader. It's a good way to "guarantee" that anyone can view them in the future.
    • by Ihlosi (895663) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:22AM (#13453469)
      If the format is properly documented and the documentation is available, it is only a matter of getting someone to write an appropriate viewer or conversion tool.

      If the formats documentation is not available, you are pretty much at mercy of whoever invented it, and their willingness and ability to provide viewers and conversion tools.
    • by jeffvoigt (866600) on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:06AM (#13453882)
      This is more of a push by the state of Massachusetts to force Microsoft and other similar vendors to provide an export option that contains no proprietary data in it.

      While it's true that standards change over time, the fact that there would be an open standard means that a document could be successfully reconstituted (all standards include version information). Requiring an open document storage option means that even 5 years after a standard has gone the way of the dodo, a developer such as myself could still recreate the document if needed.

      This is not true of .doc files and other proprietary storage formats. Basically, MA is making a law that states that they do not ever want to be committed to any one vendor, and that all they really care about is the document and the actual information it contains.
  • by ChrisF79 (829953) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:17AM (#13453423) Homepage
    I understand that Microsoft wants to keep the files that Office creates in a closed format. But, in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening, why not offer an open format as an option in the "Save As" dialog box? That way, users such as the Massachusetts government could be satisfied and still use Office, and everyone else could continue using the closed format. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I really think 99% of the users would still just click the save button as usual, because I doubt the average Office user is aware or even cares that they are not saving in an open format.
    • You point out the problem yourself: Normal users don't think about the format they save in.

      The "Massachusetts government" is not one entity, but a lot of pretty normal users. Why should these be capable of thinking to save "right", when millions of exactly as normal users can't?
      MS could add an option to set the preferred format, so that admins could take care of the problem beforehand, but that's the point where simply switching software becomes effective anyway, from an administration (not necessarily a
    • by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:38AM (#13453635) Journal
      If Office opened and saved OO.o documents, there would be a flood of people migrating away from it.

      Think about it, if you knew you could download OO.o for free and anyone with Office could open/edit/save the files you'd made in it, would you spend hundreds of dollars for Office? Hell, what could possibly motivate you to buy it at that point?

      I would say that if MS opens the door to OO.o formats, they may as well just shoot themselves in the head and be done with it, because they're toast.
  • Groklaw coverage (Score:5, Informative)

    by stevey (64018) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:17AM (#13453425) Homepage

    This was also covered on groklaw [groklaw.net], yesterday.

  • by bgfay (5362) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:18AM (#13453428) Homepage
    For years I used WordPerfect and liked it a whole lot. However, I didn't like the price of it, the upgrades (I know, I didn't HAVE to upgrade), and the fact that the Linux version sucked while the Mac version was discontinued. So I switched to OpenOffice.

    Only when 2.0 comes out will I have easy access to all those WP documents.

    I use OpenOffice for a lot of reasons, one of which is that I think I have a good chance of being able to open my documents for a long time.

    That said, I think that this is all a PR thing to get MS to lower their price. I don't believe that a government bureaucracy will make this step for real. Next thing you'll tell me that they've decided to run Linux.

    There needs to be a new name for this sort of thing where groups say "I'm switching!" in order to get the real price from MS. Let's call it the Boy Who Cried Linux or BWCL for short.
  • AéîLsJ? (Score:5, Funny)

    by loggia (309962) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:23AM (#13453484)
    PK ä'/á¥19 mimetypeapplication/vnd.sun.xml.writerPK ä'/Ogä$ $ layout-cache p P 0 P ^ P S PK ä'/
          content.xmlí [wÚ8ú}...-½oep f/íl"!Í¥"(TM)Ü&$íÓ aÐ`Kl0~?Ù F HÛi^ÒXúîwÉnýø èrvP2z
      æqYAéîLsJ? íÝßO®ï>Ýoe"íRìûÜKBÂbÍã,ÑÍýû
    ócTÒjë!a×)X^vrwç" >ÚéU
    2zU?öKï- YYí "úq...ÈÁcò BK)0î Bäà¾À£Bh6Ïá|
    = #+...4\×ý}Q;ã"ÄSY Ê KáÓÝ "%abIpOEYÙ%zè-"z ða*×ÇØ~)Ä"E,...E,? eûK tj--(TM)¼x2Y
    K©~z ÃbÉ3R ý^£è "ÅÃdíYMC9CMY ÑsO¼ :|-- ùi eÏ WwÏCl"P--g ] Ò`oeo"jÅèGâ Ý3
    (TM)LÐe{zÎñGÿy ---Ðí!=ý P Ð+8Oä[&÷&"iH"tEFè (±e*½ [ Q õ #z%''+-À"%oeÄ@!¦z-'z6ýùL... cÊf"ó
    Ü xØÏ7`AV¾ôAËÚ1f> @N` Ä)è 6ðxÀ!£ÿÑíBêÏôXa Û)# Ö Ìz îÁ ɾÝ-s_Ìdôi4

    AéîLsJ?
    • Funny, but.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Noksagt (69097) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:36AM (#13453614) Homepage
      This is amusing.

      However, less-astute readers should remember that the OO.o formats are well-documented & any other program can easily write an implementation to spec.

      They are also XML files, which can be understandable in plaintext. This means many people don't even have to bother looking at the spec to extract useful information.

      So why the gobblygook? Look at that "PK" at the beginning of the string. That indicates that it is zipped. Rename the .sxw extension to .zip & throw it into whatever unzipper you wish to.
    • by Demerara (256642) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:37AM (#13453620) Homepage
      from the comment:

      Ê KáÓÝ "%abIpOEYÙ%zè-"z ða*×ÇØ~)Ä"E,...E,? eûK tj--(TM)¼x2YK©~z ÃbÉ3R ý^£è "ÅÃdíYMC9CMY ÑsO¼

      Good point, well made.

      But consider %oidjowKE%OokssoSeok @o~oOKEN#(SIojNS.
  • by yagu (721525) * <<yayagu> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:28AM (#13454072) Journal

    In the posts here I see a lot of back-and-forth with some holding fast to the notion staying with MS Office is the prudent thing to do for various reasons including:

    • MS Office can produce PDF docs
    • MS Office docs can be viewed and printed using the free Microsoft Viewer software
    • Probably the simplest solution is to Save As... RTF.

    (bullets borrowed from Donny Smith(567043))

    From personal experience I think the most important factor is getting out of MS' talons and whimsical changes to their own formats. I've posted about this before.

    I've actually been in business meetings which couldn't not get started on time because attendees had to sort out getting copies of the agenda or memos which they'd actually received beforehand but were in formats incompatible with their version of MS Office! This, ostensibly at one company using tools to help conduct business. Were this a one-time anecdote would be one thing, but I encountered this scenario many times. (There are grooves in my eye-sockets from so many eyerolls waiting for business to proceed.)

    OpenOffice may not offer the perfect solution, but any move away from unpredictable and untouchable formats brings hope to eventually working with technology that improves our productivity. (I shudder to mention the car analogy, but it's so fun: can you imagine a car industry with such an approach (or maybe it's the highway infrastructure)? Every year or so you find out some cars can't be driven on the highways because of some change it their design, blah, blah, blah.)

    • The government's bottow line is the same as the tax payer's bottom line. Either through taxes or deficit, every dollar that is spent by big brother comes out of our pocket. Not quite sure of the point of your post, except to jip by out of FP! :)
      • by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Thursday September 01 2005, @11:18AM (#13455238)
        ... that the state of Massachusetts bottom line is not just cost. They are arguing that open file formats = democracy and closed file formats don't which makes sense to me. A citizen should not be forced to invest money in proprietary software because that is the only way he/she can read official documentation. The current situation of publishing official electronic documentation in *.doc, *.xls or some other closed file format is akin to making law books publically available for free or at worst a small nominal fee but printing them in such a way that you must buy special glasses that can only be purchased from company X in order to read them. People take it for granted that laws and other such documents are publically available to anybody at minimal cost when the medium is paper and ink, why should any citizen have to shell out several hundred dollars for a MS Office suite in order to read the exact same material on his computer?
          • by PriceIke (751512) on Thursday September 01 2005, @12:33PM (#13455964)

            Here's an example, not MS-based, but a true story and one that illustrates (I think) the GP's point.

            One closed format is the QuickBooks one. Last year, as I went to start preparing my taxes, I opened up my business' QuickBooks file so I could generate reports for my accountant. Now, so there's no misunderstanding, I *puchased* this software about two years previous and was using it on my Mac G4 computer all that time. When I upgraded my OS several months prior, I backed up everything to another drive, performed the OS upgrade, and copied everything back. So when I went to open QuickBooks it acted like it had just been installed and asked for my serial number. No problem, I found it and entered it.

            Then QuickBooks goes to match that against some nebulous database elsewhere on the net, and returns an error message: this serial number cannot be authenticated. Oh really? It was just fine when I entered it the first time. I tried again and again, always to get the same response. So I called Intuit to get a working serial number .. know what they told me? They don't support my version of QuickBooks anymore. If I wanted a new serial number that worked, I would have to buy the new version. The upgrade would cost me $200+shipping.

            That's extortion. Maybe unintentional extortion, but extortion. If I wanted access to MY data using MY software on MY computer, I was going to have to pay them AGAIN. This was not an arragement I agreed to when I bought the software. Having no choice, I did, but it taught me an important lesson about software "ownership" and the rights and expectations of those who do business with companies like Intuit, like Microsoft, and others who, in the name of "security" and "copy-protection" are stripping away basic rights of legitimate users to use their legally purchased software and hardware.

            If I had had an alternative to accessing my QuickBooks software file, especially an open source one, you bet your ass I would have used it.

          • pdf files (Score:4, Interesting)

            by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000&yahoo,com> on Thursday September 01 2005, @01:17PM (#13456450)

            When I first encountered a PDF file on the web I wondered why it was not a plain text file which anyone could read regardless of OS. It was three times larger than any other file format and I had to go hunting for a program to install and view the file. I've hated Adobe PDF format ever since.

            Sure you may need a program to read pdf files but pdf files look the same in Acrobat Reader on all platforms and the fact is is to read any document on a computer you have to have softwear to open it in. What I don't like is that all too often Acrobat Reader crashs or freezes on my computer.

            Falcon
    • Your knee-jerk needs to be reprogrammed. It's still in bitch-about-companies mode.

      The government is not a corporation. The government takes your money by force and spends it. Any time they're spending less money, you should be happy, because it's your money they're saving.
      • by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:16AM (#13453976) Homepage Journal
        Any time they're spending less money, you should be happy, because it's your money they're saving.
        That's right. Because we all know that government's never do anything beneficial to the community: like roads, education for those who couldn't otherwise afford it, public transportation, water supplies, defense, the police...

        A knee jerk libertarian is a still a jerk.
        • by saider (177166) on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:27AM (#13454061)

          Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
        • by ilyaaohell (866922) on Thursday September 01 2005, @11:15AM (#13455211)
          Roads are and should be maintained by the government, along with basic city planning. The reason for this is that roads are created by the community and for the community and are not a profitable enterprise, unless you start charging more tolls to use these roads. When every road starts to have entry fees, then the argument can easily be made that a private company needs to take over.

          Education for those who couldn't otherwise afford it need NOT be provided by the government. All that they should provide is the money so that the education does become affordable. In other words, the system of financial aid that allows students to go to a high quality private college needs to be brought down to lower grade levels. Vouchers are a good start. As for those who don't qualify for financial aid, they already DO pay for their public schools in the forms of taxes. Just because you don't give the money directly to the school district supervisors doesn't mean that this isn't exactly where that money goes. The difference would be that then you WOULD know where it goes, and you'd still be paying the same amount.

          Public transportation need not be provided by the government. Most major cities go into contract with private transportation companies who run city bus routes. Why is the government involved at all? They're doing nothing but skimming off the bottom line of the company as a "fee" for being given the opportunity to run their business. The airline industry isn't run by the Federal government, and has functioned well for decades (and arguably better than under a government beurocracy). Taxis are operated by private companies, why aren't you complaining that they should be taken over by the government? There is a proven track record, both on a local, national, and global scale, of private companies successfully running transportation businesses.

          Water supplies are a utility. Natural gas is usually provided by private companies, as is electricity. Why is water so special that only the big, powerful government is to be trusted?

          Defense and the police are needed to protect the population, and every Libertarian would tell you that this should be the ONLY service that a government should be providing. Therefore, mentioning this point is in no way an argument against Libertarianism.

          I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not an anarchist, and I don't agree with many of their principles, but common sense dictates that there's no reason why the government closes off entire lucrative markets when private companies, concerned with efficiency and customer satisfaction rather than the status quo, would deal with things more efficiently. Especially when the government is already IN COMPETITION with private industries, as is the case with public transportation, the postal system, education, and a whole host of other industries.

          Governments DO supply communities with many beneficial things, including every item on your list. However, there is absolutely NO reason for why they should be doing this when there already are alternatives.
    • by /ASCII (86998) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:50AM (#13453756) Homepage
      I think it is surprising how little people care about open formats. For me it is very important to know that I'll be able to open and edit my own documents twenty years from now, and to convert them to whatever format is all the rage then.
      • by shis-ka-bob (595298) on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:27AM (#13454062)
        I agree completely. Here is one example. A dissertation is often printed about three times (one for the department, one for the univerisity library and once for the student to keep). If the document is shared, it is shared electronically. What are the odds that you can read an Word 3.0 document compared with the odds that you can read a PDF, LaTeX or even RDF? It blows me away that people will work hard to produce a document that should become part of the corpus of human works, and then save in in a format that will be dead in a few years.

        Open formats are the clear answer.

      • by Shotgun (30919) on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:43AM (#13454203)
        When I was laid off, I spent nearly a year working as a security guard. ProEngineer was giving away a 3D CAD program, ProDesktop, so I thought I'd use all that late night desk time to draw up my airplane.

        Fast forward a few months, ProEngineer decides the giveaway didn't make them much money, so they kill the program. They were nice though, and gave all the current users a 5-year liscense key to use their current copy.

        Fast forward a year. My laptop crashes, and I have to wipe and re-install. My ProDesktop key is gone. I now have several megs of very detailed and very useless drawings.

        This is the reason that governments should be using open formats. Thank you, Massachusetts. ...and all those Slashdotters claimed there wasn't a God.

      • by Boing (111813) on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:44AM (#13454213)
        I think it is surprising how little people care about open formats.

        How can this be surprising? To 98% of the people in the world, the computer is, and shall remain, a black box. They don't care how it works inside. They don't care about LZW compression, or XML, or TCP/IP, or C++, or the difference between OR and XOR. They don't think of their files as being in a "format" unless poor user interfaces dictate that they must. To them, the file is a photograph they took, or a screenplay they've written, or a song they downloaded, and the internals of its definition are irrelevant.

        And to take a small jab at the open source community, this is where we have problems reaching the desktop market. We design interfaces for ourselves, and we care about the internals. We want to know that PNG supports alpha transparency, or that our Windows XP installation is on /dev/hda1 while our Linux swap partition is on /dev/hdb2. We care whether the songs we listen to use VBR to save a few extra kilobytes on a 300 GB hard drive.

        But when you provide these things as options to a user who doesn't know or care what they mean, you're asking them to commit to a choice when they don't want to. They'll feel helpless, and stupid, and if/when they complain, we too often reply "well it's not our fault you can't use it. RTFM."

        Okay, I kinda veered off topic there... regarding open formats: in the end, there's relatively little difference between an open and a closed format on a twenty-year timeline, from the perspective of the 98% group. Either way, they're not going to be the ones designing the conversion tool. If it's an open format, they have to hope that enough geeky guys with free time find it an interesting or relevant enough problem to solve. If it's a closed format, they have to hope that the company's still in business and updating its tools, or that it released something before it went belly-up, or that it opened its file formats, or that its developers are good samaritans. And here's the kicker: the 98% group does not know which of these alternatives is more likely to be the case. They probably don't realize the problem exists. It's not because they're stupid or willfully ignorant, because once again they only see the computer as a tool. You might as well call them stupid or willfully ignorant for not knowing what machine screws are used to hold their washing machine together.

        • by xtracto (837672) on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:54AM (#13454311) Journal
          Well, I remember when I decided do get rid of the pile of 5 1/4 in. floppies I had accumulated (like 120 or more), I engaged in the daunting task of revising each one of them to see wtf did they had... I found a lot of documents I have done in several formats, from Qpro spreadsheet (dont remember the extension) to PW (Professional Write anyone remember that program? it saved me thousands of times when the !"£@ MS Word for 3.11 didn't want to work) and Banner, Printmaster between several other files.

          Of course, I could not open a lot of those files (some others where 1337 h4ck1ng and cr4ck1ng courses, anarchist cookbook etc etc... from my "computer hippie days")... of course, I am sure that will suddenly happen with the .DOC 95 MS Office format or others... in 100 years... if instead we have an open format, you are SURE that someone will know about it.

          And, if you use a human readable format like LATEX (which I am using lately to write scientific papers) then it will be easier at least to get the /information/.
    • by kilodelta (843627) on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:25AM (#13454048)
      We're slowly moving away from MS apps in RI too. For example, most servers are now LAMP vs. being MS IIS, Exchange, etc. There are still a couple of Novell GroupWise servers but those are slowly being phased out.

      For example, my agency has 60 users. For MS Office assuming a government discount that makes the end price $200 we'd be shelling out $12,000.

      And lets not forget the obscene pricing of MS software for servers. A 50 user MS-SQL for instance would run you approximately $8K to $10K and that excludes the OS.

      LAMP - server cost $5K. Cost of software $0, Cost of configuration time: $1K or so. So for the $20,000 above you could buy three new servers and have them congigured to do what you want them to.

      And a desktop can be had for
      So yes, it is a bottom line exercise and a clear signal to Microsoft that:

      a) We won't pay bloated prices for sofware that we only use a small subset of features on, but isn't crippled from occasionally using the gee-whiz features.

      and

      b)Constant upgrade cycles in which we shell out full retail for something that is an upgrade.

      They had better wake up and smell the coffee. As government goes, so goes business that interacts with government. Microsoft could be staring at a huge defection of customers in the near term.
    • Well, the format specification is here [adobe.com]. If you don't like their implementation then write your own. There are no license constraints on the format - you are free to do whatever you want with the specification.
    • What version have you been using? Adobe 7 is very quick (even the professional version) in opening up PDFs. Heck, I don't even notice sometimes that my PDF is already open, it's so fast. Even with 6, you could move the plugins to a different folder so that Adobe wouldn't load them all up at the same time.

      Did I miss your point? I don't know how else you could mean what you said.
    • Re:PDFs? (Score:5, Informative)

      by m50d (797211) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:56AM (#13453807) Homepage Journal
      KDE now has a very nice and efficient implementation (kpdf), which will be available for all major platforms eventually.
    • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Informative)

      by Red Flayer (890720) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:29AM (#13453547) Journal
      Actually, the Boston Tea Party was held to incite the British into open action against the rebel minority in the colonies. In effect, the rebels wanted to increase the divide between Britain and the colonies so that the colonials who preferred amity and compromise would come to their side.

      The pretext of the BTP was to protest the imposition of import taxes, it had nothing to do with opening up the market to American tea traders.
    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday September 01 2005, @08:31AM (#13453568) Homepage Journal
      Open Office isn't exactly created by volunteer programmers either. It was written by paid programmers from Star Division. It was then bought by Sun and open sourced[1]. 75% of the contributors work full time for Sun, and are paid to work on Open Office. The majority of the rest work for Novell and are paid to work on Open Office.

      I wish the media would understand that there is a difference between Free Software and Volunteer-Developed Software. There is overlap between the two groups, but they are by no means identical.

      [1] Of course, this didn't really happen, because we all know Sun are evil and out to destroy all open source software.

    • I'll take that bet! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by btarval (874919) on Thursday September 01 2005, @09:32AM (#13454116)
      " ...how long will it last? Any bets that Microsoft will be there, trying to get this reversed?"

      Sure. I'll take that bet, IF I can bet on Microsoft being there to get this reversed. I'd even bet on Microsoft being successful, by giving the State a huge discount on their Office products, along with intense bribes (excuse me, lobbying) to the local politicians.

      You know, the Standard Operating Procedure these days.

      Followed by a huge Press Release saying that the State is dropping OSS in favor of Microsoft. Which in turn will alert even more states that they can get MS software for a huge discount just by issuing a Press Release.

      Now, if the State was REALLY smart, they'd include a clause that any Word documents which couldn't be read via the current Word technology 5-10 years in the future would require Microsoft to pay a fine of, say, $100 per document. To cover the States' cost in converting it so that it could be read again.

        • Re:Come on now ... (Score:5, Informative)

          by jc42 (318812) on Thursday September 01 2005, @10:36AM (#13454781) Homepage Journal
          ... you know that any official/legal notice will be sent by US mail, certified mail, or delivered by hand.

          Not true at all, at least not in Masachusetts.

          There are a number of agencies that send out things like tax and license notices via email, if you've registered to receive them that way. If you don't pay, you will eventually get that registered-mail notice. But if you do pay, that email becomes your only notice. It's a real convenience for us computer-literate types, and saves the government a lot of money. It's been years since I've received a hand-delivered government notice. Some things still arrive via first-class mail, but very often the email/web approach has handled it already.

          They can get away with it legally, because such "pre-notice" messages aren't the legal notices; they're just a convenience for the taxpayer.

          But we've had problems with government web sites that are only tested, and only render sensibly, with IE. Some downloadable docs are only in MS-Word format. Again, this is legal, because you aren't forced to use them; you can always use the hard copy. You can take a day off work, drive downtown to the agency, and pick up the docs you need. Or you can buy a Windows machine and download the Word doc, saving yourself a day off work and lining Bill Gates' pockets by another (to him) small amount.

          There are those who think that it's not quite right for the government to be in bed with a major manufacturer like this. It's not a new story, of course; that's why the Boston Tea Party is brought up. Look up the history of that event. It's not an exact parallel, but it's close enough for media reports.