Open Standards Initiative Fails in Massachusetts 236
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...'"
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 intentionally missing the point now...
Re: (Score:2)
I was making the point that it's possible to archive programs. For instance, I have archived my copies of old Office installs at home. I'm sure the state of Mass. could easily do the same. I was providing something called an example. [reference.com] I'd recommend reading the link.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What happeneds when the state gov't double in size over the next 50 years? You have n/2 licenses for the backed up software. How do you propose giving access to those documents for everyone? What happens when the citizens no longer can read the published documents? Are you saying
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 licensed to install and run it on my machine?
Somehow, I don't quite believe this.
(Note that I didn't say what sort of machine(s) I have at home, because this shouldn't matter for government docs. And I can't tell you what I'll have 10 years from now, when I
Home access isn't what matters here (Score:2)
Note that I didn't say what sort of machine(s) I have at home, because this shouldn't matter for government docs.
Of course it matters.
The important thing is that the information is freely available to the public. It is the responsibility of the government to provide reasonable access to this information, for example by providing facilities for everyone to use at their local library or City Hall.
Whether or not people running on whatever the trendy (or not-so-trendy) hardware/software of the day is at home can read the documents is really far less important. Indeed, you can make a good case that governments should
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who's to say that Windows in 20 years will run Office 97, if it still exists?
Are you telling me that we're also supposed to "archive" all the old computer systems that rely on those closed document formats, too? What happens when those documents aren't just on CD's, but on sophisticated document imaging systems? Should we archive the entire data center, including hardware, every six years?
Dum
Re: (Score:2)
It is easy to imagine virtual machine specialists who run virtual versions of old operating systems and architectures
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I see you understand why it might be undesirable to wait until your data format is obsolete. Plan for the future, so you don't incur these costs at a later time. Why invest in methods to reconstruct proprietary saved data formats when you can have an open format where the data is readable without needing emulators, old OSs, or old hardware?
Re: (Score:2)
Having the disks is a far cry from getting them the OS to install and run. I imagine getting Win 3.1 to run on a SATA only system would be difficult today and may be impossible in the future. And as for that legacy hardware, good luck with that, but hardware does not last forever, even if not used. Maybe you will be lucky, maybe not.
Your company is probably doing the right things and will not have any problems, but governmen
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:2)
Or rely on a bunch of emulators?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize it was impossible to archive the programs used to read the files as well. I'll make sure to go home and destroy my old copies of Office 4.0, Office 97, and Office 2000. Thanks for the heads up!
It is certainly possible to archive the apps along with the docs, but tell me: How easy is it to load and read a very early Word Perfect doc on a new Core Duo running Vista these days? Word Perfect was/is an abundant format, but app versions of WP earlier than 5.1 is going to be a real joy to load and run. Now let's start delving into the really obscure stuff... as time passes, hardware will slowly become incompatible. Apps in turn will rely on OSes which will become wildly incompatible (anyone try to in
Re: (Score:2)
What are you going to do when you go to install and it turns out your installation is corrupt?
Or the programs won't run on the current version of windows?
Or they don't render the same. Say some areas come out as black blobs because the rendering engine has changed.
It's no big- I think we keep too many records anyway personally.
I personally have word documents that word could not open (but open office could thankfully) and Write documents that I just had to strip the text out of and reedit for format.
A
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 standards are about being able to losslessly migrate your data from one platform to the next, not about whether or not a particular document standard supports the flavor of the month.
Given a document, and a description of the document format, you should be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that we've had discussions here in
Re: (Score:2)
What is far worse than obvious bias is obvious lying.
What I advocated was documents that are fully and openly described. This doesn't mean that old software can access them. This means that any CIS student that cares to can write something to read those documents and to convert them into the "flavor of the month" format.
Saying that manure stinks is not bias.
"FUD" vs. Corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, and there's a history of this. From at least the mid-60s, there was a saying "Nobody ever got fired for buying (or recommending) IBM." Nowadays, you mostly hear "Microsoft" substituted for "IBM", of course.
Both companies have maintained this situation by occasionally staging demos that they can, in fact, have you fired if you recommend a competitors' product. It doesn't take a lot of demos
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Being a 'chief' anywhere means you are where the buck stops. Managing by consensus is not managing. It is herding cats, and that can't be done. Someone needs to make a final decision and that is why you hire a chief. You can take all the advice around you, but someone ultimately has to make the decision. If they didn't want that, they wouldn't hire a chief.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming you are whining about Mass because you live here. But wow, do you have a really bad idea of how a state government should run itself... It sounds like you are saying.. Just because all the other states are jumping off the bridge, that means we should also...
You think, if everyone in the country started using Linux, that Washington state would suddenly get on board?
Maybe Mass is a Progressive state, and believes in d
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 deficit spending, money kept in circulation at home is
good for your local economy, they get it when it comes to local
retailers tanking due to internet shopping, but don't get it with MS.
It baffles me...put those out of work IT workers to work,
and get the ba
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 in proper english)
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)
I don't think we can call this "government corruption" although we may like to believe it because this is a very serious charge and if proven and a conviction is made then someone is looking at a serious fine or jail time. Like it or not Microsoft or any viable company has to work within the constraints of the countries laws, however a powerful company also has a "group" of lawyers on retainer who will have insight into that countries laws and can use this knowledge to benefit that company without actually breaking the law.
Corruption is entirely appropriate, because it is a moral, rather than a legal charge.
Forcing out two capable employees that stood in Microsoft's way is clear subversion of supposedly representative government.
Re: (Score:2)
M$ ROI for last ten years and rebellion. (Score:2)
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.
M$, as the US Government noticed is a coercive monopoly. They have enjoyed a 36% ROI over the last ten years, an outrageous rate that dwarfs others big dumb companies like Exxon [theregister.co.uk].
Every M$ victory is ammunition for the next fight. The methods and results are so obvious that people are indeed rebelling an [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe some mechanism that forces changes in technical positions inside a state to be approved by the legislative would help in this.
Wait..So Sitting Around Posting On Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Budget, government efficiency, consumer choice are not campaign issues? Your vote has no influence unless you let your representatives know how you will use it...and then follow through at the next election. Then after the election let the winner and loser know why you voted for/against them.
When enough people do that, real change will take place.
Re: (Score:2)
to a statistically significant percentage of the voting population, the answer appears to be "no".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a MA resident, it's useless, the vast majority of the voting public here, just like all over the US, is mostly concerned with one or two polarizing issues that really do nothing to shape how the actual government will be run here. Open formats? Hah! I doubt even 2% of the people I see in a day know about the issue, let alo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
hehe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I thought the point was to maintain the ability to comprehend documents years into the future by saving those documents in a public spec.
Not to mention that the real point of the endeavor was to codify into law the use of a document built for OO.o's feature set, lacking the ability to handle MS's feature set, thereby prohibiting government use of MS's extra features. Basically, codify into law OO.o's feature set. OO.o can't compete with MS on feat
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 cry foul. A population that lacks the will to assert its rights neither deserves nor receives them. The masses, through their own ignorance, get what peanuts they deserve. And a company, through its successful organization and exertion of will over the publ
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do they take my advice and just go to the Apple Store. Nevermind actually buying anythin
Re: (Score:2)
No, "everyone else" doesn't care because whenever their PC's implode due to the sort of crap using programs like msword causes, they just bring them over to my house so I can clean them up for free. Let's just say that among other things, we are all tired of cleaning up after other people's unwillingess to put as much thought into their Computer purchasing decisions as they might put into deciding which detergent to buy.
That's why I started charging $50/hr half a decade ago for any Windows-based tech support -- unless the machine runs Linux, OSX, or *BSD, at which point I do it gratis. I also happily take trades in labor (perfect example: if an auto mechanic friend of mine gets a busted PC, I'm getting a new clutch install in my Jeep out of the deal. He still runs Win2k, so this won't be too long of a wait... I can be patient).
I figure if enough of us do the same, we'll either be swimming in cash, spreading alternativ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dig around in there. You'll find some history about how it got approved. Would you believe that even in matters such as this, Donald Rumsfeld had something to do with it?
Some people wouldn't be surprised, but I'm still awed how so many of these sorts of stories have so many of the same players involved.... so much so that it becomes increasingly difficult not to buy into conspiracies and such.
I think I sum it up when I say... (Score:2)
Re: (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:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>processed in the same way - I stand corrected.
Then let's watch him do it. The objections to OOXML center around that fact that it's not really open, and that the significant information is buried in blobs and cruft.
IMHO the real task is to put tools out there to access and manipulate ODF data, making life easier for people. Then let the challenge become getting the equivalent done with OOXML. That's re
Re: (Score:2)
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
bah, astroturf... (Score:2)
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 original technical expert is fired by the politicians.
5) Microsoft gets his way.
What could possibly NOT be corrupt about that?
Mass. is a BIG customer with certain business requirements. The vendor (Microsoft) should be bending over backwards to do what th
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 of their formats (passenger and freight service).
2. They create a lot of jobs
3. Most government offices travel by rail (or they did), so rail travel is the best format to use since the government is already integrated with their products.
That would still
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:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you are a shill, you have fallen for the #1 piece of FUD they have produced. You seem to believe that there is some technical obstacle so that it is impossible to use ODF with a Microsoft product, that somehow it is physically impossible to use Microsoft Word without using a format designed by Microsoft.
This is
The title of the post misrepresents the facts (Score:2, Funny)
The Open Standards initiative didn't "Fail" it became more open (IMO). Including both formats and letting users choose seems quite reasonable.
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 would have to learn, adopt and support it, all of which costs money and muddies the issue.
odf is already the standard for document exchange. we don't need and shouldn't have a second one.
if you combine this with the fact that you are not free to sup
Re: (Score:2)
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 would have to learn, adopt and support it, all of which costs money and muddies the issue.
odf is already the standard for document exchange. we don't need and shouldn't have a second one.
So you support the United States in its refusal to adopt the metric sys
Re: (Score:2)
What governments want, isn't ODF, it's for the office suite that they choose to use to support a publicly specified format (so document archives are presereved).
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to misunderstand (Score:2)
In this case, the standards process was to be about government storage, retrieval, and disbursement of documents. Mr. Quinn tried to move MA to support a single open standard with guaranteed longevity. This was *not* about individual users, who are always free to choose whichever standard or product they desire.
Having two choices of document format muddies the water more than a bit. Now, different government agencies in MA can choose to
Hardly surprising (Score:2)
This is going to hurt America (Score:2)
FOSS: Just geting started. (Score:2)
Open standards initiative (Score:2)
Lol. Where (I ask again) do I buy the tinfoil franchise for Slashdot?
To put this in perspective: for all but a tiny fraction of the time there's been a computer industry, the file formats used by major applications have been proprietary and the common formats, where they exist, are "interchange formats" like ascii and comma-delimited. The industry has thrived nonetheless.
The two top word processors are Word and Wordperfect—they read and write each others' formats and provide free stand-alone readers
Proprietary DOCX is the new standard! Hail Bill! (Score:2)
And the Solaris Sunray workstations get carted off because OpenOffice.org can not open all those XLSX and DOCX files. And let's not even talk about where the handful of Macs went.
Bought off Again (Score:2)
And this is news why...?
Not really (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course gay people shall be allowed to get married if they want to, why not? The spaghetti monster will get upset of some male to male or female to female love?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft could have adapted their software to fit the business requirements.
If "play nice" constitutes a poison pill then Microsoft SHOULD be excluded from government contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact they worked so hard against ODF shows how scared they are of it, and it also shows that OOXML is not truly an open standard, or else there would be no value in pushing it rather than improving ODF.