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...'"
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday August 03 2007, @06:58AM (#20099365)
All I can hope for is that in {enter date of choice here} years time that all the docs in MA that were arcdhived in OOXML format become unreadable and totally useless as OOXML V25 (or whatver) drops support for V1. 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
What you were providing was a bad example that is completely missing the point. Yes, you can back-up software. Wow, that's amazingly insightful of you to point out, but it is irrelevent to the reasons of having open formats.
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
Corporate/government copies of Office don't go through activation.
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
The important thing is that the information is freely available to the public.
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 $500,000 fine and five years in a federal prison. And Microsoft's XML encodings are being patented. If it were legal for me to decode and read any document that anyone sent me, I wouldn't be worried. Most proprietary formats get cracked soon after they're released. But with the law imposing such a draconian punishment for merely attempting to read a document that a government agency sends me, I'd feel a lot better if they were required to protect me from prosecution for decoding and reading such documents. Probably the cheapest way would be to require that they pay for my Windows box.
Ummmm, you obviously are over simplifying the issue. Mass needs to make these documents available to more than one person, potentially sending them out to outside people and organizations. Does this mean that M$ will be giving them open licenses so they can send the appropriate version of Office out along with the documents?
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).
What precisely about the old versions of HTML make data stored on those formats inaccessable? 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
Given a document, and a description of the document format, you should be able to retrieve all information stored in that document...
Note that we've had discussions here in/. over the fact that Microsoft has applied for patents for some of their XML encodings. One of the implications of such patents is that anyone attempting to decode their contents may find themselves in violation of MS's patents. In the US, such decoding can be a crime that can get you a $500,000 fine and five years in a federal prison
This can hardly be called FUD. They destroyed at least one man's career in government -- probably two mens'. Who knows what else they did to get this through, and head off a pan-american shift away from MS products.
The state governments should start a cross state Co-op, and let each state manage 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
I guess the good news is how long it took Microsoft to kill it. They are not as good as they used to be with the FUD.
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)
MSFT never used FUD alone in these, they always used some type of bribe. Bribes like reduced cost for a site license and other tactics that convince the key people that they need to re evaluate their position.
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.
...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.
Ya gotta love government corruption! The bottom line here, folks, is that we're getting a view of exactly how ugly politics and business are here in the United States. Because the tech journals have been covering this topic under a microscope, we see what the true stripes of government look like, from our own geek perspectives.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Well, there are good tax cuts and bad tax cuts. Sometimes goverments accumulate bloat and spending cuts are in order, but sometimes governments spend relatively wisely, and more importantly, in a publicly visible manner. Before you can say that the citizen's hard-earned money has been wasted, you need to have a look at what it is used for. Essentially all the services that a government proposes need to be paid for somehow. If the state does not fund schools or hospitals anymore, then people need to pay for
if you read TFA it says that they are including both ODF and Open XML as acceptable document formats.
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.
I thought the point was to guarantee access to documents without them being held for ransom by the company that owns the format...
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.
Comeon man, your ruin peoples perceptions, which i am pretty sure go a little something like this:
The Microsoft guy strolls into the interimOs office with a wad of cash, waves his hand in the jedi mind trick motion, and says 'You will not reject OOXML' to which the response was 'I will not reject OOXML'.
Oh wait, i was supposed to compare Microsoft to Darth Vader or something. So the Microsoft guy strolls into the office 'I find your lack of faith disturbing' then goes all Force Choke on him.
Then it means open standards initiative has failed, so the summary and title are right, two standards is the most stupid thing ever done, congratulations Massachusetts!
...if it's rejected as an ISO standard, there is plenty of room for rejecting the present acceptance.
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.
I'd like to hear from Microsoft apologists why they think this is an ethical and acceptable way to do business.
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
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. Do they take my advice and just go to the Apple Store. Nevermind actually buying anythin
Money, money, money 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.
... is that, this scrape has raised the profile and visibility of the importance of document formats and vendor lock. Many people in power are now more aware of these issues.
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.
You make very good points about how the adoption of ODF might take place, the problem is your model assumes MS's position and influence remains static during all those steps, which it won't. We've seen that MS will lobby, lie, bribe, etc to get what it wants. At every step of your theoretical adoption chain MS will find ways to disrupt it further. Like you said, it's often about price for companies, but I don't doubt that if it came down to it MS would cannibalize some of its Office profits to keep its mon
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday August 03 2007, @07:39AM (#20099653)
Just yesterday I was sitting in the relevant meeting of SNV/UK14 (http://www.snv.ch/), that decides how Switzerland will vote. The chairman (Hans-Rudolf Thomann) explained the following rules: - 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,...) vote against the best interest of their customers and theirself!
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...
OK, so they allow the use of either ODF or Open XML - at least simple programs can extract text and style data form both formats. I blogged recently about how I prefer ODF, and included a little Ruby program to process ODF files:
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.
It's sad so many people instantly think "corruption" when the government makes a decision they don't agree with. Isn't it possible Microsoft made a better case for their standard? A decision like this is like a civil court case, the person with the best argument wins.
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.
Considering that the basic sequence here was.... 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
That's why the majority of people in the US still travel by rail and use AT&T phone service, right? 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 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.
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.
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.
Well, it's not really a massive failure, nor is it a massive success. The article says that Massachusetts has now approved both MS Open XML and OASIS OpenDocument (ODF). Hence, ODF is not dead in Massachusetts. But the issue is that they initially were resisting Open XML (in Aug. 2005), but have now caved in.
hello? we're talking about standards here. choice is the wrong things. choice is bad. let me explain why.
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
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.
Parent
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: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
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.
Parent
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).
Parent
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
"FUD" vs. Corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Parent
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)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, i was supposed to compare Microsoft to Darth Vader or something. So the Microsoft guy strolls into the office 'I find your lack of faith disturbing' then goes all Force Choke on him.
Star wars
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
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 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.
Parent
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
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 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