Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Opposing California Open Doc Bill
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Apr 08, 2007 08:02 AM
from the write-fax-or-email dept.
from the write-fax-or-email dept.
ZJMX writes "Microsoft is going through its email and phone lists asking people to support their opposition to California A.B. 1668 — 'Open Document Format, Open Source' — by writing to the California Assemblymen involved in this bill (contact info in the link). Apparently they fear that California will join Massachusetts in wanting documents based on open standards in their government. Let's see if this community can raise as much support for the California ODF bill as Microsoft can raise opposition."
This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
Allow Me to Summarize (Score:5, Interesting)
"Blah blah blah politics. Bitch bitch bitch IBM did this so now we do it."
I read this hoping for some key points in distinguishing the functionality or benefits versus costs in using either format.
Nope.
The closest they get to that is "ODF is tightly tied to OOo." Oh, no! Not that! You know, that argument is null and void, right? Because these document formats are supposed to be open, like the names of both of them imply. Who cares if it's not yet integrated into your product, either format should allow that. It is, in fact, confusing to me why they don't let both formats exist and allow the government bodies to pick whatever the hell the want to store their data in. That's all this is, a political issue which is why it's filed in the politics section I guess.
If Microsoft truly believed their product to be superior to the alternative, they would sit back and let California make the mistake. Then, when everything falls apart, they could step in and save the day, while at the same time setting a precident for one format being better than the other. But, we all know that's not going to happen because I haven't heard Massachussetts hurting due to their choice. So, I guess Mr. Ballmer is going to have to set his fears aside & simply come to the harsh realization that another community developed format is just as good or better than their format. Heads up, ODF community, he just may fucking kill you.
And I certainly don't appreciate them demonizing IBM. "Big bad evil corporation launches national campaign to force their consumers into using something!" Pot calling the kettle black, in my opinion. If you could track the amount of money I have paid to a company--directly or indirectly--I would wager that I've paid IBM far less than Microsoft and I feel that IBM has done far more for me than Microsoft.
Shut up and let the consumer decide, Microsoft. Nothing's wrong with unbiased comparisons in helping them decide but you've got a conflict of interest here so I highly doubt anyone will swallow your tripe.
Re:Allow Me to Summarize (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Allow Me to Summarize (Score:5, Funny)
The only thing "Open" about Microsoft is your wallet.
Parent
Re:Allow Me to Summarize (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
"which exist for legacy purposes only" (Score:5, Insightful)
Any conversion of such things should reasonably be done in the tool doing the file conversion, not in the file format itself.
Parent
Re:Allow Me to Summarize (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, an implementation that doesn't include these tags will not be disadvantaged in practical terms, but that doesn't mean it's not a big deal. Because what this means is that Microsoft will be able to say, quite truthfully, that only Microsoft can offer a 100%-compliant implementation of the standard. This is not how open standards should be - the whole purpose of open standards is to level the playing field and let products compete on their true merits. Being able to wrap Asian text in exactly the same way as Word 6.0 for Macintosh is not a big advantage for the average American consumer, but what average American consumer is going to understand that when Microsoft says "OpenOffice.org is not 100% compliant!", they're talking about crap like that? The sole purpose of these tags is to enable Microsoft to use misleading advertising. This is not what standards are for.
Parent
Re:Allow Me to Summarize (Score:5, Informative)
Quite easy to read and understand?
Open XML:
I wouldn't call that easy to read and understand.
Parent
Re:Allow Me to Summarize (Score:5, Informative)
Try the OpenDoc equivalent:
Of course, I omitted the declarations of text styles T1 through T4, but they're also pretty clear.
It looks like Microsoft has tried to make their tags very compact for some reason, perhaps in a mistaken effort to reduce file size. That's foolish since any XML-based format is going to result in large file sizes unless compressed, and if you're compressing anyway, more verbose and hence more self-explanatory tag names don't cost anything[*]. Personally, I find the OpenDoc version to be much clearer. I also think it's much better to apply style attributes to text spans, rather than to define tags that implement specific stylistic effects (bold, italic, etc.).
IMO, OpenDoc is not only more open, it's clearer and better-designed as well.
[*] Given a perfect compression algorithm, the cost of using more verbose tags is precisely zero, because the longer tags don't increase the entropy of the file. The reality, of course, is that compression algorithms aren't perfect, and there may be a small cost, but in practice the algorithms are good enough that the cost is negligible, particularly for large documents where it really matters.
Parent
Re:Allow Me to Summarize (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry mate, but bullshit. Yes, the DOC format was an object serialization of the in-memory format. But OOXML is no saint by any measure. Not only does it include references to Word 95, but also Word 6.0, Word 5.0, Word 97, Word 2002, and Wordperfect 6.x [slashdot.org]. It also references several Word/Office versions on the Macintosh, because heavens forbid MS make a cross-platform application that works the same on both Windows and Mac. It even references east Asian font rendering in a specific version of Word. And note I say "references", because that's all the standard does. Finding out what all those different versions of MS Office did on both Windows and Macintosh, and possibly also for different languages or regions of the world is left up to anyone trying to implement Microsoft's "Open" Office XML format. Even though the documentation for OOXML is huge compared to ODF, these details are still not included.
So please tell me, what do these few tags/attributes do?
Anyone claiming OOXML is in any way comparable to ODF is either misinformed and/or a shill. As we can see with this story, MS has a lot of money and influence to throw around for the purpose of muddying the waters and making OOXML look like a viable "standard".
Parent
Re:Allow Me to Summarize (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this statement is that Office 2007 still contains most of the code base for Office 95, and it contains the code of every Office version thereafter. So unless you know something I don't know -- there is no way to be sure that "the OpenXML format is completely open for every feature" of Office 2007.
The second problem is that during its anti-trust case, Bill Gates was on the record saying that his Office Suite wasn't tied to his Operating System, and that some kind of wall was erected between those two divisions so they couldn't talk to each other and share undocumented features, when in fact current analysis of their leaked code -- shows the exact opposite -- that their Office suite was indeed and (still is) closely intermingled with their OS at the undocumented system's calls level.
So for you to be so sure of the openness of OpenXML, you must not only know something I don't, but you must also be far more knowledgeable than Bill Gates was on this subject, since he either lied under oath about this particular topic, or was just too ignorant to know what was happening at the source code implementation level.
In either case, I'm not even sure why we're even discussing this. If you have to argue, and if I have to take your word for it, that a particular piece of closed source code, inside an "open" data format, does nothing that's needed by Office 2007, then this "open" format is not really open -- is it?
Parent
Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies (Score:5, Informative)
It is corruption? yes. Corruption is still corruption, whatever government or shareholder's company is involved. However, you will have hard time to convince those managers not to accept these presents. Because overall atmosphere and dignity in such jobs are long gone. Only if you inform heavily shareholders you maybe will do something.
Parent
Something very simple is going on (Score:5, Interesting)
Big business leaders don't know IT. For that matter, few people in IT really know IT, but that is another rant.
Someone who can run a transport company successfully and knows that only a fool would allow your company to be totally dependent on one vehicle supllier will NOT realise that the same thing applies to the computers controlling the fleet of vehicles.
Standard example, every truck fleet owner has a favorite brand, yet they always got a couple of trucks that are of a different brand. The reason, simple, it makes negotiations a bit easier. Sure out of the 500 trucks in company 490 will be say Mercedes BUT on the day the Mercedes rep comes to talk about a new order you can bet that the 10 daf trucks will be proudly parked right outside the office. Just a hint that the order does not have to go to Mercedes this time.
That is because trucking company directors understand trucking. They do not understand IT. So when the MS salesrep arrives he will have confirmed via outlook, using documents created in office and be assured of seeing nothing but windows machines as he visits the office.
Offcourse he still gives a nice discount. That is easy. Establish the true price, hike it by a couple of hundred percent, give a discount of 50% percent and you got MS record profits.
And the really odd thing is that all those directors who wouldn't trust a truck maker who reported the same kind of profits as MS think it is a good sign that MS is making such huge profits.
People do NOT understand fields that they are not experts in and this goes triple for IT.
Couple this with the old maxim, nobody has ever been fired for buying Microsoft and you got the current situation.
It is changing but you are going to have to fight a bloody struggle to get anywhere. Remember, if you introduce linux into a company and suddenly costs plummet and productivity soars you will have made an awfull lot of enemies, every single person who said that MS software was the way to go.
I was in this situation once. A company had two websites belonging to different divesions. The one I was responsible for ran a webshop and services for customers and offcourse ran on linux cheapo hardware. The intraweb was purely windows and was run by the internal IT department but it also contained some sites available to our resellers and such. My divesion was brought back in under the umbrella of the mother coorperation, our website sold more products then all other sales efforts combined, so rather then being an experiment we turned into the biggest sales channel.
Anyway, oneday a director asked the question of why the intraweb was down once again, and for some reason the question was asked NOT to the internal IT department but to the web department (probably the doofus didn't realize the difference).
So what was I supposed to do? The reason the intraweb sucked was simple, it was run on windows, with IIS (or ISS, what ever acronym stands for steaming pile of garbage, was run by windows admins, and just wasn't designed by anyone who cared.
Yet for some reason, the idea seemed to be that since the director new that we used linux and windows and that the intraweb sucked that linux was used for the intraweb. And since everyone knows I run Linux I was told to convert the site to windows to fix the troubles and get help from the internal IT department.
Can you guess how many seconds it took me to reactivate my CV on monsterboard?
It was not that the guy in question was an idiot, he knew his business. It just didn't happen to be IT. And what could I do? My department was supposed to merge with the internal IT department and since they wore suits it was pretty clear to me who would end up as whose boss.
So I arranged some job interviews, and just told them that linux sadly wasn't up to the job and that switching the external site to windows was the best way to go, but sadly I did not have the qualifications to do that so the internal IT department should handle it, and handed in
Parent
Re:Why the govt? Why not the fortune 500 companies (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if several people receive such emails, that doesn't prove it is from Microsoft. Is there any official reaction by them, or proof that it came from an official Microsoft email account?
Regardless of this matter, the push
Do they even make software anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure they buy in lots of software and rebrand it, they also copy a load of stuff and then try to bundle into their existing products. However, have they actually developed anything in the last year or two that did not suck and then disappear?
Well, of course they are... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks,
Mike
Copy of a letter (Score:5, Funny)
One of Microsoft's innovations is our ability to help millions of customers with our proprietary file formats. If large purchasers, such as your state government, wrongly conclude that an open standard is in their best interest, Microsoft's proprietary file format becomes substantially less valuable to all Americans, and indeed, the world.
So let us describe to you what will happen if this proposal becomes reality:
(1) Microsoft will need to compete with other products based on attributes other than file format. In turn, Microsoft products will rise in price by millions of dollars, leading to riots in your neighborhood.
(2) This will forever make the USA a 3rd world country. China will be willing to step in and take over Microsoft's responsibility as the engine of the American economy.
(3) An American innovator and icon will no longer be the richest man in the world. Americans will no longer be proud or patriotic; most, if not all, will end up voting against you. Microsoft will no longer be a name loved by millions of children - instead, it could be "Al Jezerra".
Please make your decision carefully. We have included a check of $50,000 to put towards your next campaign. See you at the golf tournament next week!
Keys: politeness ; personal contact ; information (Score:4, Informative)
When contacting people, please remember what is crucial:
Be polite - this will make them much more likely to listen. If you are feeling angry, take a walk outside, have a nice snack then come back when you are calmed down.
Make personal contact - fax or phone where you can; reinforce emails by calling up to check that they got them. Write your own letter, based on somebody elses template if you need, but with your own information. If they promise to look into it, call back later to find out what they found out.
State clearly your relationship to them - resident of the state / local business / supporter / floating voter etc. Always find a reason why they should take notice of you. Identify yourself clearly and let them call you back later (better to give a business phone or mobile so that they don't call you at home during election campaign time though)
Give information - links to pages about problems [grokdoc.net] - specific links to ODF sites [odfalliance.org] or the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] etc. to show alternatives. However, read through those pages yourself and pick out and explain specific points from them that you think are important.
Be efficient. Make your point early; don't drown them in extra information; Say only things which you think are important.
Be original. Give specific information about your position and how you will benefit from alternative solutions. Show that you care about it and why.
Why Microsoft is wrong and looking like Sony (Score:5, Interesting)
Gates' Long Lost Cousin? (Score:4, Funny)
No time to RTFA but lots of time to post and read replies!
Re:Personally... (Score:5, Informative)
For the public to allow vendor lock and depend on a single vendor for future access because they accepted a vendor standard is "just plain stupid".
No vendor whould be forced out, but the product the public entities buy would be standardized.
Parent
Re:Personally... (Score:5, Interesting)
The State of California is a customer and, like you, has to right to choose what it buys based on measurements of price vs. performance. If California says it requires software for its bureaus that uses neutral file formats, then the expression of that requirement is no more legislating people out of business than a requirement that paint bought for state buildings meet minimum performance and environmntal standards. As California, the great state where I reside, is spending taxpayer money, there are occasional efforts towards ensuring that the money isn't being spent in stupid ways. (I shall not be reimbursing any one for keyboards lost while reading the prior sentence.)
Something I'm really curious about: where are the Microsoft shareholders on these questions. Why do they think that when large customers start to evolve different requirements, the proper response is to spend money on publicity, lobbying, and advocacy advertising and to play chicken with the customers, rather than evolving with the market?
Parent
Re:Personally... (Score:4, Insightful)
A law that dictates that ODF is used for the state's documents does not exclude any vendor from the market. Microsoft is welcome to add ODF support to its office suite, but refuses to do so. In other words, they are excluding themselves from competing by not supporting ODF. Instead of adding support for ODF, they try to push states to standardize on their format instead.
Parent