Slashdot Log In
Open Standards Initiative Fails in Massachusetts
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Aug 03, 2007 06:18 AM
from the after-much-ado dept.
from the after-much-ado dept.
walterbyrd writes "Massachusetts has decided to use Microsoft's Open-XML standard. This decison: 'stands in sharp contrast to the positions taken by predecessor CIOs Peter Quinn and Louis Gutierrez, backed by then governor (and now-presidential hopeful) Mitt Romney. Both Quinn and Gutierrez insisted on including only "open standards" in the ETRM, and withstood significant pressure from Microsoft to give ground and accept OOXML...'"
Related Stories
[+]
Microsoft Announces OOXML-UOF Project with China 106 comments
Andy Updegrove writes "Today, Microsoft announced its own interoperability project to bridge the gap between China's domestically developed Uniform Office Format (UOF) and Microsoft's OOXML. In the continuing tit for tat battle between ODF and OOXML, this announcement tracks the intent of an already-existing 'harmonization' committee, hosted by OASIS, that is exploring interoperability options between ODF and UOF. Like the OOXML-ODF translator project announced by Microsoft last year, the new effort will be an open source project hosted by SourceForge. The announcement is, in one sense, no surprise. Microsoft has been waging a nation-by-nation battle for the hearts and minds of ISO/IEC JTC1 National Bodies, in an effort to win adoption of OOXML (now Ecma 376) as a global standard with equal status to ODF (now ISO 26300). In order to do so, it needs to offset the argument that one document format standard is not only enough, but preferable. With UOF representing a third entrant in the format race, easy translation of documents would obviously be key to lessen the burden on customers of products based upon one format or the other."
[+]
OOXML Denied INCITS V1 Approval 159 comments
Xenographic writes "INCITS V1, the US group responsible for the US vote over whether or not ANSI will grant fast-track approval to Microsoft's OOXML format, failed to reach the 2/3 consensus required to recommend OOXML to ANSI. What makes this vote interesting is the graph in the article, showing all the new Microsoft business partners who joined INCITS just this year to vote for OOXML. The INCITS Executive Board will now deliberate further, until they can come to some agreement on what to recommend to ANSI, but it's pretty clear that Microsoft is pushing OOXML as hard as it can."
[+]
What Happens Next on the US Vote on OOXML 82 comments
Andy Updegrove writes "As you may know, V1, the INCITS Technical Committee that had charge of the US vote on Microsoft's OOXML, failed to reach consensus on either approving or disapproving the specification. As expected, Microsoft has turned to the full INCITS Executive Board in an effort to salvage the situation. Between now and Labor Day, a complicated series of fall-back ballots and meetings has been scheduled to see whether the Executive Board can agree to approve or disapprove OOXML, in either case "with comments." A vote to approve would mean that addressing the comments would not be required for the US vote to stand, while a vote to disapprove would hold the possibility of US approval if the comments are satisfactorily addressed. The bottom line is that a vote to approve (either in the US or in many other nations around the world) does not appear likely, due to the sheer number of technical issues that have been raised with OOXML, and the expedited schedule upon which Microsoft has insisted throughout the process."
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.
Well, it took time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well, it took time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile those that were archived with other open (as well as properly documented) formats are still available to the masses.
Any organisation going for OOXML are just asking to get stuffed in the future. Microsoft could enforce DRM and other nasties on the users and then start charging for every access to the document even though the content might be your copyright, they hold the strings over the format.
Just like the Monks in the Middle Ages did paper books. Knowelege is POWER. Control of the access to the Knowelege is ABSOLUTE POWER
Just my warped $0.02 worth on this dark day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many people are using corporate gov't copies of office at home? Good luck reading public archived gov't documents.
I think you are inten
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What happeneds when the stat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you mean that, when a government agency sends me a doc and I can't read it on my machine, they'll happily send me a copy of an appropriate release MS Office and I'll be automatically lic
Re:Home access isn't what matters here (Score:4, Insightful)
This is clearly not important to the government of Massachusetts, nor to most other US states.
This could be an interesting precedent. The important point is that there are government documents that citizens are legally required to understand and obey. In the past, the most "encoding" of such documents was in microfilm, which is just an image that can be viewed or printed with cheap, commodity hardware. Government agencies would generally do this for you, often without even asking.
But now we're seeing a lot of government agencies move online, with extra charges if you want readable hard copy. For example, there are a number of states that charge less for things like licenses if you renew online. But this decision takes this change a step farther: It holds the prospect that, to read the document that you are legally required to read and obey, you must pay a specific corporation (Microsoft) for the software to read it. Alternatively, you will have to pay the surcharge for hard copy, which already an established practice. Also, without licensed Microsoft software, you may not be able to reply electronically, and again you'll have to pay a surcharge to someone who has such software. The safest would be to take time off from work and visit the government agency to handle whatever is in the document.
It's basically a surcharge on poor people, of course. To us middle-class and geek types, it's mostly an annoyance, that we have to keep a Windows box on hand and up to date, to prove that we have the legal right to read any OOXML doc that the government tosses our way.
What I think would be interesting would be not to challenge the use of such proprietary encodings, but rather to ask the courts to make the government refund to us the price of the machine and software we must buy to read such documents.
Remember that in the US, under current law, unauthorized decoding of protected (via patent or copyright) documents is a $500,000 fine and five years in a federal prison. And Microsoft's XML encodings are being patented. If it were legal for me to decode and read any document that anyone sent me, I wouldn't be worried. Most proprietary formats get cracked soon after they're released. But with the law imposing such a draconian punishment for merely attempting to read a document that a government agency sends me, I'd feel a lot better if they were required to protect me from prosecution for decoding and reading such documents. Probably the cheapest way would be to require that they pay for my Windows box.
Re:Well, it took time... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of using standards is so that whatever software is being used in 10-20 years should still be able to read the documents from today. Yes standards will evolve, but the really good ones still find (and were designed originally) a way to maintain compatibility.
It is kind of pathetic that you feel its acceptable to keep old copies of all that software? Please tell me you are also keeping machines/windows versions around that will still run the software. I would chuckle when you found out that Vista no longer runs Office 3.0 that you have so carefully kept (but not windows 95).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a considerable difference between being cool or being "the lastest and greatest" and being able to recover your data or convert it into new formats. Open s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that we've had discussions here in
"FUD" vs. Corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
a few open source apps support implementations, and then help each other out
respectively and end the MS money train.
Sending money out of your state is bad Mmm'kay.
It is like d
Re: (Score:2)
Great! It will take a lot less time next time. They'll just say: 'Look at how deliberated Massachusetts decided to go for OOXML!' (probably
Re:Well, it took time... (Score:5, Informative)
I have seen it locally, Microsoft "donated" a site license to their entire suite of software including the Visual studio products to my daughters school to squash the linux+Open Office conversion. They eliminated the cost savings that the board was able to understand the most. and that was it. Project killed completely, not even a handful of linux boxes were allowed in the lab per an agreement.
Just goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that undoubtedly business and politics are tangled together in a bed of money.
Does this really come as a surprise that a change in regime would change the direction of a major initiative? I think we've seen this many times before, not the least of which being the Microsoft antitrust trial. When the old boss moves out, the new boss moves in, waves his hands, and changes the playing field yet again.
*sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant "...waves his new puppet's hands..."
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think it's just Microsoft, you're sadly mistaken. Most big corporations participate in this sort of shenanigans, and it plays into every law that gets passed and every candidate that gets elected.
Not to worry too much, though. The revolution will come soon enough. (No, it won't be me starting it, nor do I know who it will be, so back off Carnivore/Echelon/whatever)
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:4, Interesting)
It may surprise many but many high level managers actually like and respect Microsoft and actually think they are doing the right thing to recommend Microsoft products. Most managers rarely look at the moral aspect of a company although in a twist many managers think that their company must be "a paragon of virtue" and employees are encouraged (well maybe told) to take "Standards of Business Conduct" courses within the organisation. I am quite sure that Microsoft insists their employees do this as well but when it comes to sales then as long as the law is not actually broken then to them this is "normal business practice" and "morals and integrity" fly out the window.
I would hazard a guess that while Microsoft is worried about the adoption of Open Source around the world it would be pulling out all stops without actually breaking the law to prevent any US state or council from taking up Open Source. So it is not surprising to me that Massachusetts now has the "right" people pushing for a Microsoft "proprietry" Standard under the guise of being open. After all the people pushing for this may genuinely believe (cough!) they are doing the right thing.
Corruption (Score:3, Insightful)
Forcing out two capable employees that stood in Microsoft's way is clear subversion of supposedly representative government.
Wait..So Sitting Around Posting On Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
So while the original intention to only include really open formats is regrettably given up (curiously by an interim CIO, why does he decide that if he is only a temporary hire?), it is not like ODF got dumped for the Microsoft format.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
By including a non-open format they are locked in to MS products. Not being locked in was the point of the entire endeavor.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, Microsoft has a free reader, but they don't give away the platform you need to run it... Plus you can save documents in a way that is OOXML compliant, but can't be rendered using the information from the spec alone. That means, neither of the reasons that either of us gave are filled by Microsoft's format.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could all still change... (Score:5, Interesting)
But that said, I am admittedly ignorant of any appeals or reapplication processes that Microsoft would undoubtedly pay... err, uh attempt.
Nutrasweet was rejected multiple time until the company that makes it put someone into the FDA office that would approve it. ("No, we reject it because it's poison... we reject it because it's poison... oh okay, we no longer 'feel' it's poison...") OOXML was rejected by two or three parties in a position to do so (depending on how you count them) until finally, Microsoft got someone in office that they could bend to their will.
This is "competition in the market place?!" This is "innovation!?"
I'd like to hear from Microsoft apologists why they think this is an ethical and acceptable way to do business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no MS apologist, but some might argue that this is "ethical" because the populace is too weak, uneducated, and disorganized to stand up and c
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I sum it up when I say... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What can I say? (Score:2, Interesting)
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world.
Lobbying: Providing the best government money can pay.
Small consolation and the silver lining ... (Score:5, Interesting)
How much can MSFT charge for MS-Office? It can price it just a shade under what it would cost you to switch to an alternative. Your switching cost determines the money you need to pay to MSFT. If a company wants to lower the money it pays, it has to lower the switching costs. Slowly ODF will gain acceptance.
Also the ODF proponents should realize that the total money collected by MSFT is just 40 billion dollars. I say just because, for the amount of money corporate America is spending, it is not much. For most companies their core operation is transportation or retail or selling insurance or whatever. Compared to the health insurance, labour costs, office building maintenance and rent, advertising expenses, the amount they spend on Office software is a pittance. As long as MSFT keeps prices that low, it is difficult for ODF to gain traction.
The switch will be very very gradual initially. First companies for whom office software costs is a significant portion of their operating expenses. Then slowly it will spread to other companies. We should not expect any quick victories. Then once the alternative formats have gained enough critical mass, and the backward compatibility issues have become less of an issue, there would be quick upsurge for ODF. But still MSFT will have a significant market share in office software for a long time to come.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Report from Switzerland (Meeting of SNV/UK14) (Score:5, Interesting)
- we are here to create standards, not to reject them
- if we reach consensus (>=75%) to vote for Microsoft, we will vote for Microsoft
- if we only reach a majority (>=50%) to vote for Microsoft, we will vote for Microsoft
- if we reach a majority to vote against Microsoft, we will vote for Microsoft
- if we reach consensus to vote against Microsoft, we will abstain
The present spin doctors of Microsoft and ECMA managed to convince Mr. Thomann to reject every serious technical and general concern we had regarding OOMXL by pointing to compatibility reasons. At the end we had a majority _against_ Microsoft but which (giving the unfair rules) results in a Swiss vote _for_ Microsoft. Mr. Thomann was fretting and fuming at the end of the meeting how it can be that successful international companies (we had representatives from IBM, Google,
Yes, this is how the democratic system at SNV / ISO works. After the meeting I could not eat as much as I wanted to puke...
Posted as AC for obvious reasons
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think this sort of thing needs to be brought into the bright spotlight and the corruption exposed.
Not a terrible outcome (Score:4, Interesting)
http://markwatson.com/blog/2007/05/why-odf-is-bet
and one of my readers pointed out that by changing a line or two of my code, that Open XML could be processed in the same way - I stand corrected.
Still, I am a member of the ODF Foundation, and don't like Microsoft's heavy handed actions. I sold all of my Microsoft stock a few years ago specifically because I did not like their proprietary file format lockins. I use both Open Source and proprietary software - I have no problem with people (including myself) buying Microsoft products except for their use of proprietary formats: hurts users and could cause expensive data loss now and in the future.
If Microsoft perfectly supported ODF in their release of Mac Office next year, I would buy a copy - but slap on plugins don't count here: I would require perfect native support.
Not Quite So Cut And Dry (Score:5, Funny)
Of the top of my head, I can think of a few reasons lawmakers (from their perspective) might want to use Microsoft's standard before any others:
1. Microsoft is a very large, very well known company. They will be around for a very long time to support any of their formats.
2. Microsoft creates a lot of jobs.
3. Most government offices use Microsoft Office on Microsoft Windows for word processing, so Microsoft is the best format to use since the government is already integrated with their products.
This is probably what the politicians were thinking about, and from that perspective, Microsoft looks like the right choice. Most decisions in government are not bought and sold, they are negotiated based on the better argument.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This must be the single funniest thing ever posted on /. What a wonderful utopia it evokes!
TWW
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The technical expert in Mass makes a technical desicsion based on business requirements.
2) Microsoft complains because it's not in their interests.
3) Politicians start to meddle on Microsoft's behalf
4) The
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repe (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The Pennsylvania Railroad (or insert your favorite) is a very large, very well known company. They will be around for a very long time to support any
Re:Not Quite So Cut And Dry (Score:4, Insightful)
That is true. Anti-virus companies, marketing people, help desk, lots of system admins. But on the other hand, you can also create a lot of jobs by simply throwing rocks at windows and breaking them. Manufacturing new windows, transporting it and installing it will create a lot of jobs. Yet people seem to think that breaking windows is not a good thing. The reason for this is, that if the people wouldn't have to repair the broken windows, they could do some other work, that might help the society more.
It is the same with Microsoft products. Sure it will generate a lot of jobs, but the same job could be done with less manpower by using the free alternatives. These resources could then be used for something else.
In other words: We could use the money now spent on marketing by the Microsoft, into making better software.
> 3. Most government offices use Microsoft Office on Microsoft Windows for word processing, so Microsoft is the best format to use since the
> government is already integrated with their products.
In other words: They are locked in to Microsoft products. And they can keep it that way. Or suffer now and be free in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you are a shill, you have fallen for the #1 piece of FUD
Not really (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what happens if a large company suggests that we don't just measure capacitance in farrad but also in #madeUpNameOfNewUnit? what's the point? people