Perens Pushes "Sincere Choice" for Software

jalefkowit writes "Looks like Bruce Perens has found something to keep him occupied, now that he's parted ways with HP: the Register is covering his launch of a new political platform, "Sincere Choice", which he wrote to clarify the distinctions between the values of the open-source community and the Microsoft-funded Institute for Software Choice. Sincere Choice addresses several issues in critical to open software, including interoperability, competition by merit, open standards, and copyright."

Comments

Cost down and quality up...

[bytesmythe]

Economics will drive down the cost of software and drive improvements in quality.

You can forget Microsoft ever taking part in THIS initiative...

This /. story on sincere choice by Bruce Perens

[jukal]

here - maybe we could concentrate on discussing what has changed in these 2.5 weeks instead of action replaying the whole thread :)

"Bruce Perens writes: "At the San Francisco Chronicle's SF Gate, Hal Plotkin points to Sincere Choice as the right compromise for an IT renaissance in Government including both Open Source and proprietary software. The article is extremely flattering to yours truly, but a good push in the right direction from a well-respected commentator." "

Microsoft-founded Institute for Software Choice?

[porky_pig_jr]

Hmmm ... reminds me of Tobacco Research Institute founded by guess whom? For years they've been claiming that the smoke is good for you. Expect the same level of integrity from Institute for Software Choice.

Something I'd love to see...

[liquidsin]

...but never will. I'm no Microsoft fan, but there are a few things they've done right (!) - Office and DirectX come to mind. I like Office. Sure, it's bloated, but it works pretty damn well for most people. I like DirectX because I like games, and they all seem to be coded around it. So while I may never use a Microsoft OS, I'd love to see some real software choice. I'd love to be able to run a native install of Office on Mandrake. I'd love to be able to play linux versions of more games. If MS would realize that they can sell software without selling you the whole OS I'm sure they could sell some apps for other OS's and still sell Windows. That's all I want.

Re:Something I'd love to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

DirectX was a direct response to OpenGL, which literally is an open standard. Instead of going with what was (maybe) the only all-inclusive open API, they created their own.

It's worse than that. MS didn't even create DirectX -- they purchased Rendermorphics in 1997 to acquire the technology that developed into DirectX. The entire motivating reason behind the purchase was because they were running out of time for the release of Windows 95, and they were determined to kill off OpenGL on the Windows platform by using Windows 95 as a leveraging tool.

You should recall that Windows 95 did not originally contain OpenGL support, even though Windows NT did. They only added support later because application vendors started complaining that there was no reason for it not to be supported.

So, they bought Rendermorphics and released its 3D API as Direct3D, rather than cooperate with the OpenGL consortium (as that would have meant playing on a level field with the rest of the industry).

Read all about the early 3D API wars here, and why Microsoft really is the anti-competitive player in this situation, regardless of how some try to spin it:

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html

hilarity ensues

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

From the "Institute for Software Choice" news page, they provide a link entitled "ISC response to SF Gate, Perens Article" (/. discussion of that article here).

Their link? A Microsoft Word document.

ISC: If you are an organisation claiming to promote open standards, why in the world are you releasing data in the very, very closed DOC format?

Open standards

[bytesmythe]

The issue of open standards is one that keeps coming to the forefront of any discussion regarding making both commercial AND open source software viable choices in the software arena. I see a lot of people saying "It will never happen." If all you do is keep saying that, you're right. It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If anyone has any ideas about what we can do to promote "Sincere Choice", please let me know. Complaining in Slashdot is not much of a start, especially if this is as far as it goes. So, to help get started, here are a few ideas for everyone to try:

• Try out different open source packages for various applications. Run through them and find bugs. Check the project's website and report those bugs.
• If you're proficient at programming, contribute code to an open source project.
• Encourage people to run other OSes. For the non-techies, try Lycoris or Elx.
• Find out which congresspersons are sympathetic to this issue and write to them. Find out which one's aren't and write to them, too. Find out which one's are on the fence and write to them as well.
• Contribute money, time, or both to some organization like the EFF, CDT, GNU/FSF, or by purchasing or donating to your favorite open source application and/or linux distro.
• If you are in a tech position at a company or government agency, point out the benefits of going to an open source platform for your organization.
• Put plugs on your personal websites.
• Actively boycott companies who violate these principals. (Note: This does NOT mean companies who sell software. This means companies who try to monopolize the market [Microsoft] or support the DMCA [Adobe].)
• Don't let the bastards wear you down.

Any other ideas?

format request for information

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

My own letter to the ISC, sent through their contact page. I replaced my company name with XXX to protect the innocent.

I was attempting to read some of your links on your "News" page, however, the one which looked most interesting, "ISC response to SF Gate, Perens Article", is apparently only available in Micrsoft Word format (DOC).

I would have thought that an organisation ostensibly formed to promote software choice would provide its information in a format which can be viewed by more than one vendor's software. By providing this information in a closed format (DOC), you prevent a substantial portion of your technical audience from having access to it. Solaris administrators. AIX administrators (of which I am one). We are the people making choices every day as to what software will be installed in the enterprise, and thus I would expect to be included in the audience you are trying to reach.

If you could please provide the information in an open format, such as RTF, XML, PDF, HTML, or even "plain old text", I would be very glad to read your response to the aforementioned SF Gate article.

Sincerely,
Samuel Montgomery-Blinn
Software Engineer, XXX

(note: my thoughts do not necessarily reflect those of my employer)

They claimed that they would respond to my request shortly, and I'll be sure to post an update if one should arrive.

Re:I'm sorry...

[Jonny Ringo]

That's right, they will help you out with the tough choices for todays business needs. Like should I stay with windows 2000? or move to XP? or the choice between Windows 98 and Me is always nice to have. Or when you buy a new computer they give you the choice of Windows xp home edition or Pro. Now your having trouble's decieding, aren't cha? becuase there are just too many choices.

Let's see how their websites validate

[goingware]

Because the W3C HTML Validator uses the GET method for its form submission, I can post hyperlinks that will run the validator on each of their webpages.

• Validate www.softwarechoice.org
• Validate sincerechoice.com

Well, I think it's clear who stands for open standards and interoperability.

If you'd like to know more about how to use validators to make your websites interoperable, read my article Use Validators and Load Generators to Test Your Web Applications.

Thank you for your attention.

90% of the world?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

this irony will be lost on the 90% of the world that has Word installed and can read .doc documents

not even 90% of the world even own computers, let alone computers powerful enough to run the latest versions of Word (which are incompatible with earlier versions).

as easily as .txt ones.

If I walked down the halls of the building I work in, I would pass the offices of over 500 software developers, and less than 10% would be able to read Word documents. 100% of them could read a .txt document.

If I went to the next building at my complex, and did the same thing, there would be even fewer who could read .doc (we have a bit more leeway with MS Office products in my department than most do).

If I walked through my neighborhood, less than 10% of the people even own a computer.

Most people who send me a .doc format attachment do not even warrant a reply, other than a form letter requesting that they present the information in another format, if they want me to read it.

Shrug, keep sending your .doc format. You're missing out on the input of hundreds of very, very talented SUN and other UNIX software engineers.

You've never

[Monkelectric]

You've obviously never written a large proposal (200+ pages) or a videogame :)

Word is a nightmare for any complex document. As your document gets larger it degrades -- strange lockups, images jumping around, strange inconsistencies (the document looks different on win98 then it does on win2k, oh shit, what is our publisher using?), and things that just don't work right because you cant edit the codes by hand.

Similarly, the DirectX API is a mess, which to MS's credit they are working on fixing (lots of positive changes in DX8), but it's still a mess. You also have to remember anytime you use DirectX or Word, MS has you exactly where they want you - using their products on their OS ... so they didn't really do the world a favor. Overall DirectX did some good though as modern games just wouldn't be possible without it (imagine the development costs/times for writing drivers for every 3d accelerator).

File Formats

[GrouchoMarx]

It boggles the mind why OSS/FS word processors keep developing new formats. Who cares if the format is "open" if no one uses it? MS Word .Doc files are insufficent as a standard because they're undocumented, which is why converters are still flakey in many cases.

RTF, on the other hand, does almost everything you need. It's missing OLE (99.999% of don't people need that), and it's missing VB Macros (100% of people don't need that), but it covers everything that most people are going to do. It's fully and completely documented. It's Word-compatible. It's WordPerfect-compatible. It's compatible with most OSS word processors. Heck, with the right software it's Palm OS compatible!

Yet some OSS word processors (read: KWord) still don't support it. And they all invent their own formats. How does that encourage progression away from Ubiquitous MS Word?

Re:One objection ...

[Zathrus]

Governments should be required to use only software that is amenable to public examination.

Wow am I tired of reading this red herring.

By the same twisted logic, all vehicles purchased by governments should have their blueprints, down to the VLSI layout of the controller, available freely. Because there's no other way to do "public examination".

Public examination does not mean you get to micro-manage every decision made by the government. It means that the government process should be open and accessible, and that decisions should be reviewable and accountable. California buying more licenses of Oracle than there are constituents in the state is a wonderful example of the process gone wrong. And several people got their asses fired for it, and the contract is being reviewed last I heard. That is public examination.

Otherwise the citizens will have no control over or access to their government's data

So mandate open standards in document storage format. That's all that's needed. What software creates the document is irrelevant - as long as the format is standard and available then the public can view it in a variety of methods - whether it's the same program used to create the document or not.

We can see this clearly in the new voting equipment that's being installed in parts of Florida

If by clearly you mean "there's absolutely no proof that the software was at fault or that OSS would do better" then I'll agree with you. Otherwise you're twisting reality again.

So anyone who can bribe the software vendors can control the election

Ah, so OSS will stop bribes? Are you sure I couldn't bribe someone to install stealth code on the actual field systems that would go undetected? Sure, you have the source code in front of you. That's nice. It's not what's running on the box, and the right bribes in the right places can ensure that modifications will never be noticed.

Open document formats? Hell yes. Forced Open Source? No. That's no better than being forced to use proprietary software. You're implementing artificial restrictions that will help ensure the best product doesn't get used.

Written in conjunction with Junk Bond King

[Dr. Zowie]

Interestingly enough, the M$ word rebuttal on the ISC site contains some strings that the author probably didn't intend to publish. In particular, the name of Peter Passell, archconservative economist, and the name "Milken Institute" -- home of the Junk Bond King himself -- who did time in federal prison for his own shady business practices in the 1980s.

If only he were using an open-source format for his letters....

getting somewhere

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

Since this entire argument is about computer stored files, anyone without a computer is pretty damn SOL. Maybe we should store all the data on paper. In Esperanto. After all, that's the official universal language, right?

That is exactly one of the points of the Peruvian and Argentinian arguments against proprietary software. If they are going to be running their government on-line, then every citizen must have access. Thus, every citizen must have access to a computer capable of communicating with the government software. Thus, if the government wants to run itself on-line, it has to provide these computers.

It is much, much cheaper for the Peruvian government to set out terminals running free software than running Office XP.

The point is, the Peruvian government isn't going to make 90% of its people buy Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office, and neither should the United States government. As more and more government services are offered on-line, is it fair to continue distributing those services in Microsoft Word format? Or is it more fair to ensure that the format is open, so that free software can be used?

Wow, way to take things out of context!

That is the context we are talking about. Specifically, the ISC's challenge to the governments of Peru, Columbia, Italy, and others, and the State of California requiring the use of open standards in all government computing services, and Bruce Parens' rebuke of that challenge. I guaranteee you that 90% of the people of Peru do not own computers capable of viewing .doc, and I guarantee further than not even 90% of Californians, by a great, great margin have that capability.

Thus, as I said, the state then has to provide the means to access, and it can either buy 1 million PCs running Windows XP, and Office XP, and "hope" that there are no surprses in licensing down the line, or it can run software built on open standards.

Of the personal computers in the US, the vast majority (90% or more I'd be willing to bet) are capable of reading a Word document.

Yes, technically my computer is "capable" of reading a Microsoft Word Document. I could go out and buy a copy of Office XP for $400 dollars, or whatever it costs nowadays. I could take the hours to download OpenOffice. But neither is a good solution to the problem, which is the closed format itself.

Shrug, keep your holier-than-thou attitude

Sorry if I came off that way, I am quite aware that I am a loser.

Mr. Economist doesn't buy it

[0x0d0a]

What you said would probably not make an economist agree.

If you have open standards and interoperability, you lower the barrier to changing products. That tends to *help* superior products come out on top.

RTF *not* compatible!

[aquarian]

In my experience, RTF is no more compatible than cross platform DOC filters. It works most of the time, but it's still unreliable. An RTF created by one program may not work with another, even on the same platform. Your chances are a lot better if you stick to mainstream fonts, etc., but few people know which ones those are. If you can get everyone to agree which programs, versions, and fonts to use, RTF is workable, but it's still a big pain.

I need a bit of help.

[Bruce Perens]

Please download that microsoft word file and hold on to it folks. I need you as witnesses that the hidden text in the file really was on the site. Do this before they remove or fix the file.

Run "strings" on the file. It's at the end. A few people's names.

Bruce