A Look At MS's MA Talking Points

tbray writes "It may not be a Halloween Document, but one of the lobby groups in the thick of the Massachusetts office-doc standardization fray passed me 'The Other Side's Talking Points', so I've published (and slightly deconstructed) them with a barnyard-animal picture." From the article: "The direction toward interoperability using XML data standards is clearly a good one. However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others. The proposed approach and process for use of XML data is quite open to multiple standards, yet the proposed standard for documents is quite narrow, preferential, and may not enable optimal use of the data-centric standards."

Gee, MS Hypocrites?

[Rick Zeman]

unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products

Somehow they never seem to object when, say, the Feds sole-source Microsoft products. Big surprise.
Let's hope someone throws that back into their faces....

narrow? preferential?

[soma_0806]

The fact is that choosing ANY file type narrows the field somewhat and whatever type is selected will give preference to someone. It makes the most sense to pick the type that does the least amount of "damage" in both fields.

Using an "open" format allows the docs to be read by users of pretty much any OS. Also, it gives preference to the open source community, not some corporation looking for nothing beyond profit. Finally, anyone that wants OpenOffice can get it, and for free. No other possiblity would be less narrow or preferential!

Re:Gee, MS Hypocrites?

[fembots]

It's not Microsoft's responsibility to complain about unfair and preferential treatment given to its own products, other vendors are welcome to voice their concern when that happens.

The problem is, most "other vendors" are unlikely to do that, and even if they do, their voice is not strong enough to do any good/harm.

Open Office

[superspaz]

So isn't MA supposed to be providing service to its residents. Let's face it, do you want to be the one who has to train all these government employees how to use OpenOffice.

Those the change may seem minor to the /. crowd, it is likely to gum up the works for some time in the state of MA. This doesn't even get into explaining to grandparents how to file/read state tax forms online. I think there are going to be a fair number of annoyed taxpayers.

I like open document types, but I think this is a bad way to try to handle things.

Whatever....

[Anonymous Coward]

However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others.

Oh please. Am I to understand that Open Office documents are blocked by things like patents, constantly changing specifications, no interoperability between versions, and licensing fees?

Oh, wait, that's MS Office! Open office standards are open? Free for all to use, if they choose?

Wow. Go figure.

All I know is I personally don't CARE what the format is, what's underneath, just friggin' well let it work with all damned Word processors!!!

RTF, HTML, XML, whatever. JUST MAKE IT WORK!!!

Re:Open Office

[JMZorko]

... but if it's going to hurt now, won't it hurt even _more_ later? These sorts of arguments don't make sense to me. If changes need to be made, better to make them _sooner_ and minimize the headaches, then make them _later_ and have to deal with even more pain. Anyone who has done software engineering knows that it's easier to refactor earlier than later.

So, congrats to MA for attempting to refactor, and boo / hiss to MS for trying to stop it.

Regards,

John

Re:narrow? preferential?

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Not only that, but Microsoft (or any vendor) are completely free (speech and beer) to implement the doctype that MA selected. MS's idea of an "open" proposal was patent encumbered and not GPL compatible.

Re:duh

[rm69990]

Not only that, but a reason MS gave for not supporting the format is that it doesn't support all of the features of the MS Office XML formats. So they won't add write or read support for OpenDocument.

I find that really strange, considering MS Office currently has read and write support for plain text and rich text documents. Are they really trying to tell us that plain text documents support more features than OpenDocument documents?

I call bullshit on that statement. It is an utterly stupid reason for them to give. No one is asking Microsoft to make OpenDocument the default format for Office, but to simply support it, just like they do RTF and TXT files.

This is simply a case of Microsoft kicking and screaming and throwing a tantrum because someone is telling them to take their lockin schemes and shove it up their ass.

Re:Open Office

[footissimo]

Its not about openoffice particularly, its about having an open document format so that organisations can choose which office suite they think best suits without being concerned about whether they'll be able to send/receive properly formatted files.

Re:Hidden costs

[RatBastard]

I've been doing Customer Support for various sized organizations through the releases of Office 97, Office 2000, Office XP (2002) and Office 2003, and every time there is a new release there are documents that break. Excel spreadsheets and Access databases (hahahahaha!) are the worst offenders, breaking with almost every release. A lot of employee time gets eaten up fixing these corrupted files every cycle. Does MS reimburse us for the time wasted? Nope. We PAY Microsoft for the priviledge of dealing with broken documents.

Moving to an open document format would stop most of this from happenning. It would also remove the only barrier keeping WordPerfect, or the Mac or Linux, out of the office environment: document interchange.

Easy to understand

[jav1231]

Simply replace "Open Document Format" with ASCII and you will see clearly how rediculous the argument is from Microsoft. I know the analogy isn't perfect. Damn close, though.

Re:narrow? preferential?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I need the job done really fast, but they have
> dialup internet. Do I download OpenOffice,
> install it on their computer (OpenOffice, what
> the heck is OpenOffice)? And then load my
>document?

Oh, quit yer bellyachin' - unzip it and edit the XML in Notepad like a real man, then. :)

Or burn yourself an OO.org CD with installers for Windows, Linux, and Mac, and keep it with you. (Yes, they'll all fit. I make copies and leave a dozen or so lying on the counter every time I visit a computer shop.) Or keep the installer for your platform of choice on a USB key.

> Besides: RTF is open and it's easily editable.

Have you ever actually opened an RTF file in a text editor?

Didn't think so.

Re:Superspaz lives up to his moniker

[superspaz]

I was going by the orginal form of the text as reported by Forbes.

The state of Massachusetts is proposing to make all its workers stop using Microsoft's Word, Excel and other desktop software applications and switch to open source software, said the Financial Times.

The report said OpenDocument, which is used in open source applications like OpenOffice, and PDF, a widely used standard for electronic documents, would be the only software permitted.

If this has changed, I am sorry. Perhaps you could link? If that is the case, then I strongly support MA's case. It is just that OpenDocument is just too unknown outside the techie world to have as the the only document format supported by a govt agency. Having *only* OpenDocument would be a bad thing but I greatly appreciate when such agencies make sure to at least some form of open standard.

A modest proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't major buyers like MA just specify that all software where file portability is an issue (documents, spreadsheets, etc) save their files in a format that is a published specification that has no licensing fees for competitors???

I don't care if MS owns the spec for my document files as long as all competing products can open/save my files like they were native to that application.

IMHO portability is the most important issue here.

Re:narrow? preferential?

[Savantissimo]

Hunting Microsoft? A poor, defensless fluffy monopoly with big, dewy eyes... for shame!

Re:narrow? preferential?

[strider44]

There are 7 programs that support OD in a stable release. OOo is not one of them. [wikipedia.org]

And no it's not a witch hunt. The only reason why they are doing this is because if Microsoft doesn't release Office anymore, suddenly their files are pretty much useless without expensive reverse engineering. Microsoft can also charge them whatever they like because after all, if the government doesn't like it and the deal's off, they can't read any of their files. Not exactly a good situation.

Re:Open Office

[iabervon]

MA isn't going to switch to OpenOffice unless Microsoft forces them to. If MA goes forward with their plans, MS will almost certainly add support to MS Office for OpenDocument. It's not like it's difficult; multiple people have already written MS/OpenDocument converters even without MS's internal documentation. They're only making it sound like MS Office can't support other formats now because they'd rather it didn't. Faced with people actually defecting, they'd change their story.

As for filing taxes online, you've never been able to read a MA tax form in a Microsoft format; it's all PDF, which MA intends to keep using. Filing forms online is done through one of a number of commercial services, which will deal with whatever format MA wants them in. Forms you can fill out on your computer, print out, and mail in are exclusively in PDF (because that makes the form part reliably identical regardless of where it gets printed out).

Re:narrow? preferential?

[hey!]

Using an "open" format allows the docs to be read by users of pretty much any OS. Also, it gives preference to the open source community, not some corporation looking for nothing beyond profit. Finally, anyone that wants OpenOffice can get it, and for free. No other possiblity would be less narrow or preferential!

Yes, well, the talking point in question is what Mr. Orwell dubbed "Doublespeak". War is peace, fredom is slavery, and a one vendor, secret file format promotes "choice". What's frightening is how often it works.

Re:Gee, MS Hypocrites?

[Spoing]

It's a vendor's perogative to complain about anything. Any company would want sole-source contracts with anybody, not just Microsoft. Is it somehow better if Oracle was the one doing it? How about the small software shop down the street?

Nobody complains about TCP/IP being vendor specific. OpenDocument falls in this category. Word DOC and Excel XLS files do not.

You have to wonder why they object...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, the OO file standard is open! Nothing is keeping MS from supporting it. Let's face it; whatever esoteric shit that they claim that the OO XML format doesn't support is probably nothing that normal users would run into anyway. Add a new import/export filter to MS Office to support the OO format. And, if MS Office is as great as they say it is, there would be way more people that would use it instead of Open Office; they would just read/save their work in something other than the native MS Office format.

Or isn't MS Office really all that great?

Re:Open Office

[Petrushka]

My point is that MA is making a political statement and that that political statement not match residents interests.

How is it not in residents' interests to know that in 2025 they will still definitely be able to access documents created now?

Re:FUD, Lies, and More FUD

[ScrewMaster]

My only concern is that Massachussetts is using the threat of going "open" just to extort better pricing from Microsoft. That's happened as often as not in the past few years. I just hope they're sincere.

Re:narrow? preferential?

[Petrushka]

Suppose I have an OpenOffice document I need to edit, but I have to use a friend's computer. They're running Windows and have never heard of OpenOffice. I need the job done really fast, but they have dialup internet. Do I download OpenOffice, install it on their computer (OpenOffice, what the heck is OpenOffice)? And then load my document?

Well, you could always download AbiWord plus plug-ins and install that. That's only about a 5 MB download.

Now, if it's a Microsoft Word v.5 for Mac document ... if you don't have Office 2003, you're probably pretty screwed (at least I've never been able to get those suckers to open in any other application).

Re:You have to wonder why they object...EEE !

[Nom du Keyboard]

Look, the OO file standard is open! Nothing is keeping MS from supporting it.

Nothing to stop them from Embrace...Extend...Extinguish either.

Re:narrow? preferential?

[Lehk228]

how could it take longer than that to copy an existing filter and obfusciate it enough that MS wouldn't be likely to get caught? or if any of the filters that already exist are BSD licensed to just include it legitimately in office

Re:narrow? preferential?

[Anonymous Coward]

...it gives preference to the open source community, not some corporation looking for nothing beyond profit.

Open formats do not discriminate against corporations attempting to make a profit. Open formats simply compell those companies to compete on the merits. Sure, that's more work than perpetually taxing customers who stuck in a web of proprietary protocols, but ultimately, it's the most capitalist solution of all. Open standards create a free market for software; proprietary solutions do not. Open standards promote real capitalism, as opposed to the "I'm a jillionare but that's not good enough" attitude that typifies the MS characature of capitalism.

And the real value of capitalism extends beyond the micro-market of software. It includes all the businesses impacted by software, and all the other associated network effects.

Reject any argument that pits F/OSS against capitalism, and portrays it's advocates as poor hippies who eschew materialism. That's just muddled thinking at best, or more likely cheap mockery on behalf of those entrenched interests most vulnerable to becoming the next victim of capitalism's creative destruction ("How can it be capitalism if it takes my job away!?").

Re:narrow? preferential?

[T-Ranger]

You keep talking about software packages. Software packages exist that are alternatives to OOo word processing. Software packages exist that export to PDF.

Thats not the point. Its not about open applications.

Its about open file formats.

With open file formats, you can use whatever software you want. In 5 years, you can change software providers, easily. If your software provider leaves the market, kills that product, or attempts to force a file format upgrade on you, you can change providers, easily.

See? The application doesnt matter if the format is open.

Re:Open Office

[ozmanjusri]

What I am saying that it is already a bit too late for MA to have an effect. It is too small and has a population already set on another format.

So you're saying we should never go anyhere because our first step isn't anywhere near our destination?

Re:Whatever....

[yuri benjamin]

Yes, but if a company refuses to support a file format then it means they are being locked out of a market.

No. If a company refuses to support a file format (which anyone is allowed to implement), then they are locking themselves out of a market.

If they are prevented from supporting a file format, then they are being locked out -- but in this case no-one is preventing Microsoft from supporting Open Document.

Why is Microsoft the crimminal?

[sexyrexy]

I don't understand why it is so "assumed" by the author and most of the readers that there is something inherently wrong with a 72% profit margin. Many industries routinely mark up their final prices more than 1000% percent over cost - and that is perfectly justified as well. It's called capitalism... charge as much as you can get away with. Where is the crime?

Re:Why is Microsoft the crimminal?

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

If a (legal and free-market) industry has enormous profits it will be swamped with new competitors, which will then lower the prices... It's called economics 101. I'd say it's quite smart to assume foul play if that doesn't happen.

Your point about pricing isn't really related to this in any way.

Re:Gee, MS Hypocrites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Much worse than hypocrites I think. This is just a bit of smoke. Next step: pay-off a few politicians (legally if possible, but whatever it takes..) to ensure the decision goes your way. Mark my words -- unless they are a truely remarkable new crop of 'politicians with integrity', Massachusetts will have a sudden 'change of heart' and completely neuter this policy before this actually becomes a precedent. In fact I'll be astonished if it doesn't.

Re:narrow? preferential?

[southpolesammy]

There's an old saying that goes something like "Perfection is achieved not when nothing else can be added but when nothing else can be taken away." With respect to the OpenDoc format, making it as simple and generic as possible allows others to use it as a baseline towards interoperability, while simultaneously allowing them to build upon it for their own proprietary formats, which seems like the best of both worlds.