Massachusetts' CIO Defends Move to OpenDocument 274
Mark Brunelli writes "A public hearing concerning Massachusetts' plan to dump Microsoft for OpenDocument featured a fair share of controversy as the state's CIO tried to fight off naysayers. Linda Hamel, the general counsel for the Massachusetts Information Technology Department (ITD), suggested that groups that oppose the OpenDocument file format standard might be influenced by Microsoft." We reported on the bounce back against the OpenDocument move this past weekend.
Step in the right directions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Influenced by Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
How did they end up using MS Office? Did they get input from other agencies? Probably not. At the time, as the parent comment says, they probably thought "Word Processing IS Microsoft Word".
Influenced by Microsoft? (Score:1, Insightful)
As the last article on this noted, there are a fair number of blind and deaf state workers who could not get by using OpenOffice. Not to mention that a fiscally conservative approach would be to use MS Office on older hardware due to its lower processor and memory consumption compared to OOo. Don't forget the added initial cost of supporting a totally new office suite at a time when the state has enough budget problems.
This seems like a high price to pay to stick it to MS.
Re:OpenDoc (Score:5, Insightful)
With a lot of programs that utilize OpenDocument format, the source code is readily available and can be recompiled for whatever platform is being used as the time. Further, the precise specs for the file format is available for adaptation into whatever platform exists at the moment.
In short, propritary lock-in and/or lock-out is an important fear that Microsoft is not and will not address. Open specification is just about the only way to avoid this.
Re:OpenDoc (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. If only you had access to the document specification, then you might be able to do something to fix that problem.
Re:OpenDoc (Score:3, Insightful)
At least, being open source, you won't be without recourse. Can the same be said of Microsoft's new Word formats?
I'd work more towards .pdf in the near-term and see how these openDoc formats shake out.
PDF is fine, but not so great if you want anyone to be able to edit it down the road.
Damn Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry to break up that little run of sarcasm to point out ahead of time; Almost every reply that I would automatically get to this post about the licensing of Microsoft Office 2003 XML schema license [microsoft.com] is to a great extent FUD. There is not really a terrible patent issue, all licensees get royalty-free rights to all Microsoft patents to allow using the schema freely. Granted this is GPL-incompatible since anyone distributing the result has to accept the schema license, and also the schema license has a BSD-style advertisement clause. These are hardly the earth-shattering taking-away-our-freedom-lets-sing-with-RMS issues though.
One notable thing to point out here is that OpenDocument actually has a similar IP issue [oasis-open.org], notice how you get a royalty-free license from Sun for the IP in that format?
Overall this is making an awful lot of noise considering that people are supposedly getting "liberated" from a fairly reasonable product here, despite it being from Microsoft.
Getting priorities right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How very /. of him! (Score:5, Insightful)
It isnt about forcing people to not use MS Word - its about setting a fair, open, and public standard for the file formats used so that *everyone* can decide what tools to use. Making MS secret format the 'standard' *forces* everyone to use Word, unless MS completely and fully opens the specification for it.
People can use MS Word if they really think its the best tool for them - but they must have a way to read and produce the standard format. That can either mean MS adds native support in Word, or they use a third party plugin or convertor.
MS was recently quoted as suggested that 'customer demand' might drive their decision to support OpenDoc. Hello? MS? MA is a customer. They are demanding it.
Once MA stops buying new Word licenses, MS *will* add OpenDoc to Word, and MA can buy Word again. But MS will *only* do that if they are absolutely forced, as it sets a precedent, and once that ball starts rolling it will mean an end to MS lock-in. Word may still be popular, but no one will be forced to use it.
Yes, converting away from single-source vendor lock-in is hard. But the longer you wait, the harder it gets, and people have been blindly waiting for pretty long already. But once you finally get it over with it gets easier and less expensive in the long run, and switching software in the future (for whatever reason) is no longer a huge issue, since any choice has to support the existing standard format.
Re:OpenDoc (Score:5, Insightful)
My motto these days is that if you can't read it right now in several different tools (ala PDF) and you don't own the code; don't trust it to be there when you need it.
-WS
Re:What a stupid thing to say! (Score:4, Insightful)
This complaint would be more... moving?.... if that was all that she had said on the topic. She was at a hearing on the subject, and among other things, was asked about some complaints. Her response was that many of the groups who have complained had been funded by Microsoft.
Yes, I know, I'm still bound to run into shouts of "AD HOMINEM!!!" People just love to show off that they know the technical wordings for things. However, whether these groups are influenced by Microsoft goes to the heart of things. You see, any response that she comes up with as to why these objections are invalid/wrong, she must answer the question: well, why would they just make these things up then? What's the motivation of some group or another to claim that a file format is insufficient? Why would normal people go out of their way to spread lies and misinformation about something like a file format?
The answer being, they have a political agenda and economic incentive.
I'm assuming they (or at least Ms. Hamel) don't think things through all the time.
Yes, ok, so why does that make her wrong? AD HOMINEM!!!
NOT DUMPING MICROSOFT FOR OPENDOCUMENT! (Score:2, Insightful)
The guidelines do not ban Microsoft's Office product, they merely state that the state of Massachusetts will need to use products which support OpenDocument.
If Microsoft decides to support OpenDocument, or a third party makes a Microsoft Office to OpenDocument converter which works well, the state of Massachusetts will still be able to use Microsoft Office.
They're just expressing a very appropriate interest in non-proprietary file formats, not saying they won't use the software.
Pretty important difference.
Re:Influenced by Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is how it should be. The ideology that the documents generated by a Government Of the People, By the People and For the People should always be available TO the people, not at the whim of a corporate entity. That is what it boils down to. The people should not be required to pay a fee, license a patent or buy specific software to interact with their government or review the documentation created by said government.
Microsoft can easily add export/import filters to their existing product line and thus be compliant with the requirements and still be usable by everyone in the gov't.
-Charles
Re:What a stupid thing to say! (Score:5, Insightful)
And if this were the only argument presented, then you might have a point. However, when the specific points *are* addressed, and then in addition it is pointed out that the majority of the opponents also have a suspicious commonality, then that is no longer an ad hominem attack, is it?
I do find it interesting to note that the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science is criticizing the move and I think they offer legitimate reasons for using Microsoft products-- that is, until OpenDocument supports the same braille readers and other screen-reader programs.
You are making the same error that many of the opponents of this move seem to be making. Namely, confusing OpenDocument with OpenOffice. OpenDocument is the file format. It does not now, nor will it ever "support the same braille readers and other screen-reader programs". That is the job of the application, not the file format. Massachusetts is not mandating any particular application.
If the blind state workers are using MS products and the other state workers are using OpenDocument, I'd think that might cause some problems.
This is nothing that they won't be dealing with anyhow. They will not be able to magically switch everyone over in a day, and they will have to deal with all of the pre-existing documents in Word format. Getting the occasional Word document from a blind worker is not going alter things substantially.
Re:Influenced by Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only possible reason that Microsoft is withholding support is they can't dictate terms on what programs use ODF, and can't therefore lock out software with "IP imparing licenses" from using the same data format. This is the reason Microsoft is lobbying so hard to get OfficeML in as is - so they can retain control of who uses thier formats. This denies users of Open Source products legal use of OfficeML, unless those project change thier licenses. It's a game of chicken - but the OSS folks have a lot more to lose than Microsoft does.
Office is superior to OOo in most respects, but it comes at a price that is more than monetary. If MS would get of of thier high horse, swallow thier pride and compete solely on technical features (where there is little doubt they will win) all these issues go away.
Soko
CAGW statement (Score:5, Insightful)
I presume CAGW refers to Citizens Against Government Waste. But their statement on this doesn't jibe with the fact that most past documents in other formats would have to be converted to be compatible with newer proprietary formats as well. Also, it contains no comparison of the unnecessary costs incurred by not converting to an open format of some sort.
The BSA is another $2 mil reason (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't read much in the TCO studies about the cost/risk/liability of lawsuits from this team. Can I buy insurance for this?
BSA [bsa.org]
$2 million dollars [bsa.org]
The GPL is this organizations worst nightmare. So HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
I just got a thought, I am going to make stickers for every monitor and PC that uses only GPL software. NO BSA (circle with slash BSA in middle). It will make the others careful about what they install and give me great satisfaction as I do my Walk About. Then I'll add a line item to the budget for each machine without a sticker. I'll let accounting figure out the rest.
Of course I FULLY agree with and support about MA's responsibility not to store public records in a proprietary format. 3 Cheers MA! You are fighting the right fight.
"-/rant-"
Whew that felt good
Re:What a stupid thing to say! (Score:1, Insightful)
I would think she'd lose all claims to credibility by making statements like that. For one, she's making an ad hominem (although not against a singular person in this case) argument by arguing that the groups are wrong because they are (allegedly) supported by Microsoft.
No, in this particular case, it's a valid argument. The reason these groups are being listened to is because they are meant to represent various interest groups. If they are instead representing Microsoft's interests, then their opinion loses its value. If there are valid concerns that actually impact people worth caring about (e.g. the disability groups mentioned in TFA), then they'll get brought to the table by groups that aren't funded by Microsoft. But when the bulk of the criticisms are being made only by people with a good reason to care about Microsoft's profits, it seems insane to pay attention to them.
Re:God Damn it, Zonk! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that ODF is bad either, but the risk of confusion between OpenDoc and OpenDocument is virtually nonexistent. And ODF could also refer to
Re:How very /. of him! (Score:5, Insightful)
That is just FUD Microsoft Office 2003 XML schema license.
Is this even a coherent sentence? I assume you intended to babble some uninformed BS about how MS's new file format is open, even though it isn't, and cannot be implemented by other vendors since it stores vital information as encoded chunks of binary data within the XML.
But to address your premise, I can't find that anywhere in the state constitution or in any laws. I think that is a nice notion you have, but isn't the job of the CIO of the state.
Umm, the CIO is supposed to get the best tech at the best price. Just like everything else, he wrote a standard for what he wanted and is accepting bids. Just because the standard they decided upon is the Open Office format instead of a format only one vendor can bid on does not mean he is legislating. You might notice he chose the standard the entire European Union has also decided upon.
This is not rocket science. Just because you have been buying a special kind of patented electrical plug for years, does not mean you should not choose a new one when it comes time to renovate a building, especially when anyone can bid on the new one, while only one company can bid on the old one. It is common sense and business sense not to lock yourself into on supplier.
The CIO should be implementing the most compatible solution for the citizens.
I'm glad you said that. Who can run OpenOffice and write to that format? Anyone, the software is free and runs on all major OS's. Who can run Word and write to .doc? The subset of the population that is running Windows or Mac OS and can afford to spend $100+. I think it is clear which one is more compatible.
When you have 95% + of a market you are the standard.
Who cares if it is a de-facto standard. It locks you into one supplier which means you are screwed in purchasing negotiations. Only an idiot would go with a product available only from one vendor. If MS wants to be a supplier then they can meet the product specifications of their customer. Gee what a crazy concept, a supplier providing what the customer wants, and bidding against other suppliers. If MS does not want to bid and compete, well that is certainly there choice. So far your only argument has been, they should do what everyone else does because everyone else is doing it. What a great way to stifle all progress forever. Hopefully the legislators in MA will not be as blind as you are.
Re:Influenced by Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
That document viewer is NOT free. Yes, it doesn't cost $$ but you're missing the point. A while back Microsoft made available free fonts for the web. Where are they now? Microsoft decided to stop distributing them and while they were freely redistributable, the Word viewer is NOT. Where is the free MS Works viewer? What about a viewer that reads MS Word 4? They disappeared on a whim of a corporate entity. There is NOTHING to say Microsoft will stop distributing a free viewer anytime in the future.
1) Microsoft and third parties have acknowledged they are working on ("investigating", in Microsoft's case) plugins for importing/exporting OpenDocument formats. Are you implying that the world's largest software maker can't create a simple filter by January 2007?
2) How many of those documents are in older Office formats that even the current Office doesn't support all that well? That is the point. Unless forced, Microsoft will NEVER open up the formats and third parties will ALWAYS be locked into their product.
3) OpenDocument has nothing to do with blind & deaf users. That is a function of the software, not the format. If MS adds an import filter, then Word can be used, can't it? If not, the disabled market is a big enough one to get 3rd parties do develop software for it pretty darn fast. Job creation.
4) No, you're supporting ONE format -- OpenDocument. That is, if MS stops throwing a fit and releases a filter for it. If not, a third part will as that is money to be made. Again, servicing disabled users has nothing to do with format and everything with the software.
When would it be a good time? When Microsoft doesn't hold 90% of the market? Without large customers exerting their rights, exactly how is that going to happen?
I would be greatly surprised if the switch goes on as planned and there is not:
a) an import/export filter in MS Office for the various OpenDocument formats;
b) free "viewers" for the OpenDocument formats;
c) at least ONE good screen reader and other disabled-assisting software for OD formats
all long before January 1, 2007.
-Charles
Re:Influenced by Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can OOo open and read >90% of the current MS .doc format? Yes. Can OOo save to a MS .doc format that can be read by current MS Office products? YES.
So we have just clarified that by using OOo, anyone with OOo, OR MS Office can read our documents? YES!!! So, by moving to OOo, we not only allow our citizens the ability to use a free piece of software to communicate with us, we also can continue working just as we have been in the past? Pretty much, yes. Even with the dissabilities issues, there is no reason NOT to change to using OOo and saving a copy in OpenDocument format AND a .doc format for the time being. Interoperability software will be made if and only if there is a market for it. If no one uses OpenDoc, then no company will produce interoperibility software for the format or the software where OpenDoc is supported. BUT you can still use OOo and save the output to .doc format for the cases where this is required...
Just Contacted My Reps (Score:3, Insightful)