The Massachusetts Office Party
Quattro Vezina writes "The Inquirer reports that the state of Massachusetts has performed a modern-day Boston Tea Party, by dumping Microsoft Office in the proverbial ocean. According to the article, 'every state document must be in PDF or using Open Office formats' starting in 2007." Forbes has the story as well. More from the article: "The switch to open formats such as these was needed to ensure that the state could guarantee that citizens could open and read electronic documents in the future, according to Massachusetts - something that was not possible using closed formats. The proposal, which is open for comment until the end of next week before it takes effect, would represent a big boost for open source software such as Open Office, which is created by volunteer programmers and made available free of charge."
And anyway, why wasn't I invited to this party?
I don't get it.
Maybe if the documents were better designed structurally, things like "Export to text" and "Export to HTML" would be enough.
...
Of course, HTML Export is not exactly Word's crowning achievement
...how long will it last? Any bets that Microsoft will be there, trying to get this reversed?
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
...Hopefully they did it all while wearing festive penguin suits, or for the politically correct Bostonians, Spheniscidae American suits.
Yup...
PDF
;)
and
Open Office XML
Strangely, both say you need Adobe reader to read them
liqbase
[1] Yes, I know it can with third party products, some of which are Free.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Why? Everybody can view a PDF-file, only those who pay for MS-office can read their files (if you have the correct version)!
At least the file format has been publicly released:t /sdk/index.html
And you can use it reliably on more than just devices that can handle office formats.3 .shtml
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/acroba
http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Utilities/Xpdf-415
I don't get it.
I hardly see how Open Office and PDF formats "guarantee" citizens will be able to view electronic documents in the future any more so than MS Office formats. For all anybody knows, in 5 years, all of these formats could be dead as new formats emerge. And guess, what--When that happens, there will be conversion tools for the next mainstream formats, too.
I understand that Microsoft wants to keep the files that Office creates in a closed format. But, in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening, why not offer an open format as an option in the "Save As" dialog box? That way, users such as the Massachusetts government could be satisfied and still use Office, and everyone else could continue using the closed format. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I really think 99% of the users would still just click the save button as usual, because I doubt the average Office user is aware or even cares that they are not saving in an open format.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
This was also covered on groklaw, yesterday.
For years I used WordPerfect and liked it a whole lot. However, I didn't like the price of it, the upgrades (I know, I didn't HAVE to upgrade), and the fact that the Linux version sucked while the Mac version was discontinued. So I switched to OpenOffice.
Only when 2.0 comes out will I have easy access to all those WP documents.
I use OpenOffice for a lot of reasons, one of which is that I think I have a good chance of being able to open my documents for a long time.
That said, I think that this is all a PR thing to get MS to lower their price. I don't believe that a government bureaucracy will make this step for real. Next thing you'll tell me that they've decided to run Linux.
There needs to be a new name for this sort of thing where groups say "I'm switching!" in order to get the real price from MS. Let's call it the Boy Who Cried Linux or BWCL for short.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
"The proposal, which is open for comment until the end of next week before it takes effect, would represent a big boost for open source software such as Open Office, which is created by volunteer programmers and made available free of charge.""
It's also a "boost" for PDF too. But let's not draw too much attention to that fact. Seriously "open formats" aren't the exclusive province of Open Source.
The delicious irony of this is that the original Boston Tea Party was to protest against imported cheap tea and supported the right of American tea companies to charge higher prices. Now, which side would an 18th century Microsoft have been on?
PK ä'/á¥19 mimetypeapplication/vnd.sun.xml.writerPK ä'/Ogä$ $ layout-cache p P 0 P ^ P S PK ä'/ :|-- ùi eÏ WwÏCl"P--g ] Ò`oeo"jÅèGâ Ý3
content.xmlí [wÚ8ú}...-½oep f/íl"!Í¥"(TM)Ü&$íÓ aÐ`Kl0~?Ù F HÛi^ÒXúîwÉnýø èrvP2z
æqYAéîLsJ? íÝßO®ï>Ýoe"íRìûÜKBÂbÍã,ÑÍýû
ócTÒjë!a×)X^vrwç" >ÚéU
2zU?öKï- YYí "úq...ÈÁcò BK)0î Bäà¾À£Bh6Ïá|
= #+...4\×ý}Q;ã"ÄSY Ê KáÓÝ "%abIpOEYÙ%zè-"z ða*×ÇØ~)Ä"E,...E,? eûK tj--(TM)¼x2Y
K©~z ÃbÉ3R ý^£è "ÅÃdíYMC9CMY ÑsO¼
(TM)LÐe{zÎñGÿy ---Ðí!=ý P Ð+8Oä[&÷&"iH"tEFè (±e*½ [ Q õ #z%''+-À"%oeÄ@!¦z-'z6ýùL... cÊf"ó
Ü xØÏ7`AV¾ôAËÚ1f> @N` Ä)è 6ðxÀ!£ÿÑíBêÏôXa Û)# Ö Ìz îÁ ɾÝ-s_Ìdôi4
AéîLsJ?
In terms of platform support it is!
Windows: Adobe Acrobat
Apple: Preview, Adobe Acrobat,
X11 (Basically everything else): xpdf and myriad other applications
AmigaOS: apdf
The big news isn't that it is PDF however, but that it will be also be OpenOffice.org's file format (presumably the 1.2 OpenDocument format, to be specific). PDF will allow slower migrations for some departments that don't want to jump onto OO.o so soon. Nice that OO.o just happens to support PDF output too.
Well, the format specification is here. If you don't like their implementation then write your own. There are no license constraints on the format - you are free to do whatever you want with the specification.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Loading the PDF viewer is SLOW. I am constantly reminded that I need to 'update' something. In fact, the viewer on two of my computers is stuck in an update loop- where it thinks I need to update something that has already been updated.
.doc files without any additional software.
.doc by a slight margin- because they take less time to load, they don't bog my computer down, and they are more easily edited.
Once a large PDF is loaded, it is still SLOW to scroll pages. And when I hit a page with some pictures, I need to wait a few seconds for them to load.
PDF files are more difficult for me to modify.
All around, PDF is a poor choice for me.
Anyone with IE on Windows can view
Personally, I hate either file, especially on the web. But I actually prefer
No reason to lie.
Nah, Microsoft Office was "dumped in the proverbial ocean" because Teddy was driving.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
How funny that the site once used to protest a 3% tax is now a tax nightmare.
Maybe these people should be protesting the high income tax, or property tax, or sales tax, or high usage fees, or excessive regulation.
Microsoft is the least of their worries.
Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
OOo can read Word documents with a varying degree of success. It'll be interesting to see how 1.2's support has progressed.
Oh but you can get it for free!!! Very good, asuming that a)The person wants to give up their paid for/bundled MS Office app that works as they want and has worldwide compatilibility or b) They have the know how to download a file, unzip the contents to a folder, find the setup executable and run it, or c) They're on dialup so it takes them 2 days to download an application to open a single document.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
that when the space aliens land in 2008 they won't have to wait for Microsoft to release Office IG (inter-galactic). All they have to do is learn our primitive language and they can at least view the documents in XML. Seriously though, any citizen could read the docs to some extent because the open formats don't use a binary encoding. Sure they'd have to wade through a lot of formatting, but atleast they could do it in notepad.
You only use 2% of your DNA
What version have you been using? Adobe 7 is very quick (even the professional version) in opening up PDFs. Heck, I don't even notice sometimes that my PDF is already open, it's so fast. Even with 6, you could move the plugins to a different folder so that Adobe wouldn't load them all up at the same time.
Did I miss your point? I don't know how else you could mean what you said.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Adobe Acrobat is not the only program that can open PDF. At least on Linux there is vast choice of PDF readers, all of them are much faster than Acrobat, I guess it applies to Windows too.
Quite possibly the government doesn't want you editing their stuff!
.doc stops me viewing it?
PDF is really quick for me however. Then again, I'm on a Mac. I don't have Office, and therefore Word would be an absolutely terrible choice for me.
Notice how PDF is a minor irritant for you but will still work, whereas
I paid a lot less taxes in NH than I do in MA, and despite this development, I'm not optimistic that it will result in any significant changes from my perspective.
Are there any non-Adobe PDF readers for Windows? I can't stand Acrobat.
God, I wish I could think of a sig!
It's bloatware, and they're setting aside one evil format and taking up another (PDF). I'm all for open software, but it's a mistake to use Adobe's format. At the company I work for, we use it, and it's a terrible piece of software in both its feature set and its software footprint on each system. Add to that the fact that if anyone wants to generate content, they have to either get Acrobat (a $400 license), use Adobe Distiller (a $5000 server product!) or some third-party tool to convert to PDF.
Personally, I'd wait for the MS Word XML format to become a reality.
I think it would be about time to have a world map colored green and red wherever governments/officials have respectively adopted or not adopted open document formats.
...
Who is in? I thought China, some states in the US and some Scandinavian countries, parts of Germany
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
Actually, it was created by a bunch of paid programmers in Germany. It has been maintained, enhanced, and extended by volunteer programmers.
And I love it!
This is amusing.
.sxw extension to .zip & throw it into whatever unzipper you wish to.
However, less-astute readers should remember that the OO.o formats are well-documented & any other program can easily write an implementation to spec.
They are also XML files, which can be understandable in plaintext. This means many people don't even have to bother looking at the spec to extract useful information.
So why the gobblygook? Look at that "PK" at the beginning of the string. That indicates that it is zipped. Rename the
Check it out: Microsoft Office Open XML Formats:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/fileoverv
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Opens_O
I applaud the move as I file documents in the commonwealth from time to time. A benefit of Open Office files is that they are generally smaller files that MS files. And, more importantly, being able to file .pdfs helps eliminate one of the great threats inherent in .doc files. That is the hidden parts of the document. The stuff that was once part of the document, but was removed in editing.
I have opened many a .doc file in a simple text or hex editor and found some very interesting revisions or other information. One file mysteriously had a persons application for benefits in it. This included SS#. It is hard to be certain that you've eliminated these dregs when using Word.
Hopefully this will lead to a more secure America.
Another benefit of the .pdf is What You Sent Is What They Get. WYSIWTG. You can never be sure that all your pretty formatting will survive when your .doc file is opened on the other side.
Ummm, anyone has been able to open office documents for free for a long time now. Microsoft has had viewers available for most of their office formats, free to download, for years.
a milyID=95e24c87-8732-48d5-8689-ab826e7b8fdf&Displa yLang=en
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
Hell the viewer is faster than opening acrobat by a long shot too.
MS Office formats are incompatible even between different versions of MS Office. The Microsoft competitive model is to lock out competition using undocumented binary file formats.
In the past, they gain a foothold with one or two in an organization using a "new" Office format, and this forces dozens of upgrades. And also ensures that competitor's compatibility features can't keep up with Microsoft.
These same anti-competitive tactics also make it difficult for different government agencies to communicate. Or even read their own archived documents.
Loading the PDF viewer is SLOW. I am constantly reminded that I need to 'update' something. In fact, the viewer on two of my computers is stuck in an update loop- where it thinks I need to update something that has already been updated.
Once a large PDF is loaded, it is still SLOW to scroll pages. And when I hit a page with some pictures, I need to wait a few seconds for them to load.
If your pdf viewer is slow, I would guess that you are still using Acrobat reader version 5.x or 6.x. Acrobat reader 7.x is much faster, at least for me either on Solaris or Mac OS X.
Also, the pdf file format is an open one. If you don't like Adobe's pdf reader or creator, there are others available, both commercial or FOSS.
Know why? Adobe Reader 7 (and I'd guess Acrobat 7 too) start a speed launch app at system startup... of course, the downside is slower system startup and a couple of megs of lost RAM. Which isn't all that much if you consider that Logitech's latest mouse drivers take up to ten...
Has no one noticed that MS themselves have recognised that open file formats are the way forward? Office 12, currently in Alpha, switches the default file format for Word, Powerpoint and Excel to a royalty free published XML format. Let the flamewar begin...
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php
http://www.planetpdf.com/
I've only used Adobe's reader.
I have used a free pdf maker, and it worked fine.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
If you use Adobe's reader, you can hold onto either shift or control (I forget, so I just press both) and the reader opens up in a second with no plugins.
The format isn't made for heavy editing of files, it is meant to be an archival format for finished documents. The big thing now in the business world are these high speed, networked scanner/copier/printers that can save the scans in PDF. In fact, "PDF" is quickly becoming a verb.
To navigate through the document faster, just use the thumbnail mode...it's just like using a microfilm reader, without the film.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
On my mac, I am totally dependent on pdfs to help me deal with the research literature wot I have got. I use Adobe Acrobat to do detailed annotations of documents, take notes and link to my bibliographic database. Sometimes this gets slow as molasses due to poor software engineering by either parties hand.
On the other hand, when I want to have a quick squizz at a pdf to see if there's anything relevant there, I use the super fast and efficient Preview application. If Preview had better annotatin facilities [hint hint], I wou'dn't use Acrobat at all.
Earlier today, I needed a powerpoint thingamy transferred from a windows machine to machine to a mac (without office). It would have been a lot less painful if W$$do$s had native PDF support.
Microsoft made their monopoly and their money by taking the personal computer, removing value from it, and then selling that removed value back to the consumer at high cost. I wish more people understood this.
"...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003
There's a damn good reason for doing things that way! From Apple to Linux to even BEOS, I have yet to see a platform or operating system that -doesn't- support PDF documents.
.txt format for you to read, which is available to Microsoft, and a .pdf format, which is available to everyone else, as well as supplemental packages for specific operating systems [in .zips, .rars, etc.]'
.PDF government files are now .DOCs! Gr
Another good thing about PDFs: They're write only unless you can figure out a way to decrypt and hack into the file itself [which, to hackers credit, is -still- easy to do].
Personally, I see society as a whole moving towards PDFs one of these days. It's already starting. Just look around at eBooks: what format would they be in if they had graphics? PDF.
Lastly, PDFs are the only broad-based solution that I know of right now that -doesn't- change format when you switch the document from computer to computer [operating system to operating system]
That's a -big- headache to things like government documents [because you know people like official documents to be easy-to-read and professional] because, currently, in order to cater to the outlying operating systems [besides hiring people that even -know- some of the outlyers so that formatting goodness could be ensured] you would have to save the file in [i think] four to nine different types of format, that statistic being a gradation of common file formats to insured readability and compatability.
The only drawback I see at the moment is publishing a PDF with a version of Acrobat that was just released. I don't like upgrading Adobe too often and I'm sure many othere geeks don't [it's a waste of time if you ask me]. Therefore, users who do not have access to the newest version of Adobe would be cut out of the loop. [Honestly, would you -dare- reading a PDF made by one of the military branches? Every seperate part of the document would require a new version of Adobe ]
Additionally, for those that simply cannot install Adobe, for whatever reason: Think of the US Constitution. The 'ultimately public document [tm]' right? What if the Constitution was a PDF? If the Constitution were a PDF I could bet you a hundred bucks that unless you had Adobe Acrobat or an Adobe Acrobat plug-in of some sort in another program, you wouldn't be able to view the constitution. Some nutcase would get pissed, call it a conspiracy, and make a loud voice on Capital Hill yell back.
Not that it's necessarily a bad switch, I endorse it, but, [just for shits and giggles] compare the following:
'We published this document in a
To
'This document was created in Adobe Acrobat. In order for you to read this document, 'The US Constitution,' you must first install Adobe Acrobat or an Adobe Acrobat plug-in. Otherwise, you will be unable to read this PDF document.'
The second sounds kinda 'communist russia' doesn't it? Well, that's my point in a nutshell. The switch might make a few people uneasy and wondering as to the purpose behind that switch.
Lastly, what -about- Microsoft? I believe that this news is going to slam into their offices this morning and piss off some of the higher staffs. [piss off being the equivalent of saying 'oh, by the way, your car sucks and the government has declared it suck and then announced to the US that your car sucks.'] And, though I think this -could- get off the ground, let's be honest to ourselves and our congressmen, judges, and whatnot:
Microsoft is the biggest lobbiest ever. They have more money than any other lobbiest, period. They can blackmail whomever they like and get away with it. Period. Finally, they could spend a billion dollars on creating a counter to this statement and shrug it off.
This switch is a good thing, yes. However, whoever said that life was fair and that the average citizen will say, "Hey! I'm outraged that my
It's good that stupidities like this make it to the news, so that we can be sure that no matter what software they use, they're always gonna remain stupid, lazy ass, money wasting bozos that they've always been.
/.? While sensational, it is technically idiotic approach which as such only deserves trashing.
1) MS Office can produce PDF docs
Yes, they need either a commercial or free (doc2pdf.sourceforge.net) add on, but that's trivial to implement (and even buy) compared to the useless overhaul proposed.
2) MS Office docs can be viewed and printed using the free Microsoft Viewer software.
And OpenOffice can read Microsoft Office docs, can't it?
3) Probably the simplest solution is to Save As... RTF.
All in all, yet another stupid government move that makes me sick.
Even more puzzling is why did this make it to
This is nice for our bottom line, since all of the money our government pisses away is OUR money. However, I'd be willing to pay EVEN MORE than Microsoft charges to have open formats. And although I am supportive of both commercial and open source software initiatives, and have contributed to the open source community as a programmer, I honestly don't give a crap what our government thinks about it. This is a move in the right direction. I suspect it's motivated by money, however, and not a benevolent government desiring to increase the freedom of information.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Giving up one proprietary format for another is stupid - the end of this will be lots of licences bought in Adobe Acrobat software, with little or no effect for open source.
Just because PDF can be read by virtually everyone, it is not an "open" file format. In fact, PDF is "protected" by several patents and some options are a well-kept secret of Adobe.
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
Hmm, an executable? Will it work on any of the unices out there?
Cross platform and unencumbered? No.
Open sauce? Damn, guy. Next time read the results after you spellcheck ;)
Microsoft is clearly worried. A lot of people live in Massachusetts and that is a big thumbs up for open sauce.
The Inquirer needs a proof reader. Or at least an in-house chef.
It's possible to get a free viewer for all the MSOffice apps from Microsoft's web site, just like what Acrobat provides for their PDF files.
"Anyone with IE on Windows can view .doc files without any additional software."
Well, that's the definition of vendor lock-in now, isn't it? Even MS fanboys can usually see that this is a bad thing. MS can abandon its old formats... and they will, eventually.
I think xPDF is available for Windows for free. It opens in about one second on Linux.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Hmmm, the parent is not totally trolling here. I don't mind PDF but you have to keep in mind that it is generally a read-only format. Sure, you can edit it with the right tools but those tools are mostly proprietary or don't work very well in the case of the free tools.
Even the tools that can edit PDF are not usually very powerful. They're just for touchup type work. Most of your formatting and layout still needs to be done in a real editor and those output PDF OK, they don't read PDF.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
...I imagined going to the beach and finding an Office CD washed up on shore.
I'd put it on a spare machine, at least...
The MS response would be to IMPORT OpenOffice.org documents but not export. This way users can just click on the document and have it open in Word and when they save it, it will end up in .doc format. All without any effort on the part of the user. This follows the traditional MS way of interoperation - we'll read your stuff but not write it. This causes documents to naturally migrate to MS formats.
KDE now has a very nice and efficient implementation (kpdf), which will be available for all major platforms eventually.
I am trolling
As other readers noted, 7 isn't that bad & 5 & pre-5 version on windows weren't that bad (acroread on Linux was garbage until 7). If you don't like the application, you do have choices. No reason to complain about the format
I still use xpdf (open source) on my desktop.
You can also carry Foxit (free, as in beer, for win32) on a USB flash drive so you don't have to put up with the slowness on other people's machines.
MS will offer the state some discounts on Microsoft Office. If they're desperate they'll push RTF as a document format instead.
As we've seen far too many times in the past, government bodies tend to use moves like this as a way to force a better deal out of the existing vendor.
This isn't about using Open Source to build a better solution. It's about leveraging Open Source to get a better deal on the existing solution
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Loading the PDF viewer is SLOW.
Have you tried evince?
I do not understand why there seems to be so much complaining in the discussion?
Is this not what we want? Just getting such a thing in the spotlight for a week in the US should be considered a milestone!
It has to start somewhere.
I would rather see people complain about the politics when their own state switches to OO standards. I live in Boston, and I pay more in rent than most people pay for their mortgage! There is certainly a lot to complain about, but perhaps this would be an opportunity to appreciate the efforts of a lot of socially conscious people (probably not Ted Kennedy).
*Just trying to look on the bright side*
~tim
That's just plain idiotic and counter to what is needed.
First and foremost is that these documents must not be lost when their format is abandoned. Open specs ensure that won't happen.
Second, many computers don't come with MS Office, such as all Macs and most cheaper brand PCs, including many Dells and HPs.
Third, Acrobat Reader is not the only nor the best PDF reader on the market. xPDF is another free one and it's very fast.
Fourth, a PDF can be created from nearly any program through a PDF printer (many free ones available). Just because docs may be common doesn't mean that all documents are going to be word processor documents. What about maps? Blueprints? Flyers? Magazines? Spreadsheets? Presentations? I see at least three non-doc formats there that can easily be exported to PDFs.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
On the other hand, I think returning at least one potential employer's PDF file with my changes in it got me an interview recently. I'm pretty sure they switched over to PDF to slow the flood of IT applicants somewhat, but by using the techniques described in this article I simply filled out their PDF and e-mailed it back to their recruiter a few minutes later. It was an awkward process, but it worked.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yeah, because supporting an Open Format really killed Winzip. They haven't been heard from in AGES.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Loading the PDF viewer is SLOW.
"the" PDF viewer? I don't know what you're referring to, PDFs load very quickly for me when I open into "the" PDF viewer on my Mac, or in "the" PDF viewer on Linux.
There are dozens of PDF viewers, even on Windows. Tthere is no such thing as "the" PDF viewer.
Looks open to me. See Foxit, xpdf, ghostscript, KOffice, and others for examples of 3rd party applications which can read them. MANY more can write to it too.
Yes and no.
It's the "best" way because, as you point out, it happens to "just work" for a majority users.
It's a horrible way to distribute documents for a whole bunch of reasons:
- The documents are modifiable by the reader, which means anyone can content and re-distribute it. (Yes, there are ways to prevent or inhibit this, but we're talking about the casual-use case.)
- In most cases, the reader sees the clutter of red and green markup where Microsoft disapproves of the spelling (usually of correctly spelled proper names) or grammar of the author.
- Across different OS's, versions of the OS, versions of Word, and installed font sets, Word often re-formats the document in subtle ways that have non-subtle effects, mangling a document that looks fine on the author's machine, or on similarly configured machines in the author's workgroup. (This effect is even more pronounced when a non-savvy user uses "incorrect", but depressingly common, formatting techniques, like using space characters to position text.)
For all of its very real problems, PDF avoids these pitfalls.What is really needed is an intuitive way for users of applications to differentiate between documents-for-authoring and document-for-distribution-and-consumption. (In the old days, these were the disk-file and printed product, respectively.) Apple takes a small step in the right direction with its ubiquitous print-to-PDF, but that still requires extra steps and user management of separate representations of the same document. Better application and system support is needed; this is an opportunity for someone (OOo?) to step forward and innovate and differentiate, rather than chase Microsoft's shadow.
Giving up one proprietary format for another is stupid - the end of this will be lots of licences bought in Adobe Acrobat software, with little or no effect for open source.
d ex_reference.html
Just because PDF can be read by virtually everyone, it is not an "open" file format. In fact, PDF is "protected" by several patents and some options are a well-kept secret of Adobe.
While you are correct that Adobe controls the PDF spec and it is not open in that sense, it is free as in beer, and anybody can use/implement the specification without Adobe's permission. They give their explicit permission to do so in the PDF references: http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/in
As for some options being "well-kept secrets", please clarify what you're talking about, as the PDF spec is offical, given out by Adobe themselves, and pretty damned comprehensive.
The OpenOffice format is definitely open source, so I assume you were not referring to it in any way.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
It's worth pointing out that Microsoft has always made free viewers available for their Office products:
Word 2003 Viewer
Excel 2003 Viewer
"Microsoft Office Converters and Viewers" homepage
So, you don't have to own Office in order to read documents produced by it.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
A: Hi im trying to read these documents but they wont open on my computer?
B: Well sir you see we here at the Massachusetts IT office have been leading the way to ensure that your tax dollars go to open formats as opposed to restrictive and expensive formats such as those offered by Microsoft.
A: Right... well im using a Windows PC, can I open these?
B: Yes of course, being open and well supported formats you can read them on almost any platform, unlike closed formats that are owned and maintained by companies who will not release tools to view them on alternative systems such as Linux.
A: Ok.. so.. how do I do that?
B: Let me refer you to this website where you can download OpenOffice entirely free of charge sir.
A: Erm right, I really just wanted to open and print these, is this going to take long?
B: Not at all, as long as you have a broadband connection you can download OpenOffice in a few minutes.
A: Isn't there an easier way? Is there no way to open them in Office Vista 2006?
B: Im not sure you are quite following me - these documents are in an open format, they don't work with Microsoft products, you could always download our PDF versions.
A: PDF?
B: Or even our plain-text files, those are missing some tables and diagrams however.
A: Erm I need the tables and diagrams, Is there no way you could 'make' some Office format versions if you have lots of versions anyway?
B: Absolutely not sir, the state of Massachusetts has a strict policy regarding the use of closed-source software and formats.
A: Hm maybe i'll move to Texas..
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Microsoft is already blowing their bloghorn about this as well:
/ 31/458879.aspx
a 11011)
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/08
(and that reactions has been resyndicated by the Scobelizer himself already:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2005/09/01.html#
From the post:
"I'm a bit stunned by the overall proposal that was brought forward to the State though as it seems to be a bit short sighted and unnecessarily exclusive."
"unnecessarily exclusive"? Someone at Microsoft is claiming that someone else's decision to use an open alternative is unnecessarily exclusive? That does seem like grasping for the last straw doesn't it...
Check it out...note the comment that points to this EWeek article that says the license for the new formats is incompatible with the GPL...
umm. for linux ? or is there a requirement to buy windows ?
Rich
You can try this out ** BEWARE ** Page causes Deer Park 2 to crash so maybe you want to use something else to open it http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11041 I keep only the EH32.api and Search.api, all the rest is shoved out. Acrobat loads in a snap after that.
Well, the differences between good PDF generators (which I'll assume Acrobat is, though it's not my personal choice) and bad ones (like many print-to-PDF hacks) include:
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Are they to also insist that those who wish to communicate (read do business) with Massachusetts also do it in Open formats? How will this be handled?
yes, but this support for .doc is reverse engineered. it is not a normal situation.
;)
with 1.2 you probably meant 2.0 (as there will be no 1.2) - actually, you can test that for yourself
just a couple of days ago a new developers build was released (1.9m125, aka beta2), so you can easily download that and test on documents that you have.
from my experience, compatibility has improved further, though there are also a couple of small regressions
Rich
For Linux? Actual Microsoft viewers, from Microsoft?
Nothing to add, other than this subject line is IN the article. Some jokes write themselves.
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
i read a lot of comments on how microsoft should implement pdf/open office format... do you really want that?
look at the great job they did with html, another open standard... why don't sites look the same on IE compared to other browsers? what's going to stop microsoft from pulling the same tricks all over again?
*sigh* how well do any of the folks who contribute to open office live? What does anyone in the developer industry gain by provider their trade for free. I sure how Mass. tax payers see a BIG break because of this transition other wise someone else pockets got fatter for the quasi-noble reason of an open document platform.
yep, so that's where opendocument steps in (even though in articles it is refferred to as "open office format", i believe it will be od) - so you get pdfs for read-only stuff (reports, laws and other things citizens would not neet to edit normally ;) ) and odt/ods etc for things that could be edited (some forms that must be filled and other things like that)
Rich
Eh, just get the federal Governmnet to pay for it like the Big Dig
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Well, isn't it obvious? It's the language your VCR programming OSD menu is set to.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Seriously... How the hell does he keep getting elected?
--- Nebulous
Since the change is going to be ~ 2007, I'd expect the OpenDocument format (XML based) is what they are choosing - and why they are choosing it.
Could anyone explain what kind of agreement has to be made so that MS Word can read Wordperfect files and vice versa, but OO.org cannot?
This event has been long in the making. Massachusetts established an "Open Source Public Trough" over a year ago, and many of its more prominent regional web sites had been using and/or advocating open source since before then (see this recommendation or Guide to Free Software for just a couple of examples from my home town) and of course Massachusetts was the only state not to cave in regarding the court case against Microsoft.
For locals, this isn't surprising. What's more surprising is that it took so long.
BS. What Adobe really offers is the documentation on how the format works. Microsoft doesn't do that for their formats.
MA GOV Cries LINUX. MS discounts expected ASAP.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
In the posts here I see a lot of back-and-forth with some holding fast to the notion staying with MS Office is the prudent thing to do for various reasons including:
(bullets borrowed from Donny Smith(567043))
From personal experience I think the most important factor is getting out of MS' talons and whimsical changes to their own formats. I've posted about this before.
I've actually been in business meetings which couldn't not get started on time because attendees had to sort out getting copies of the agenda or memos which they'd actually received beforehand but were in formats incompatible with their version of MS Office! This, ostensibly at one company using tools to help conduct business. Were this a one-time anecdote would be one thing, but I encountered this scenario many times. (There are grooves in my eye-sockets from so many eyerolls waiting for business to proceed.)
OpenOffice may not offer the perfect solution, but any move away from unpredictable and untouchable formats brings hope to eventually working with technology that improves our productivity. (I shudder to mention the car analogy, but it's so fun: can you imagine a car industry with such an approach (or maybe it's the highway infrastructure)? Every year or so you find out some cars can't be driven on the highways because of some change it their design, blah, blah, blah.)
The irony is that my Apple fanboyishness led me to this PDF printer driver in the quest for "My Mac does it, why can't my soggy Windows work laptop do it?"
Works pretty decently and the only "cost" is a popup ad.
Not as nice as OS X's integrated PDF output (nor is there as remotely elegant a PDF reader on Windows as Preview.app on OS X), but does the job quite well from any Windows app.
I also believe Office intends to save to a compressed XML format natively, based on whatever press releases they have put out recently.
Strangely relevant is that I'm currently (finally) reading The Cathedral & the Bazaar which, as many readers of this site are probably aware (no really, not trying to karma-whore here!), has a lot of things to say about the consequences of keeping your code and standards private.
I really don't get why Microsoft even bothered to keep their file format closed to begin with. There could have been a whole cottage industry set up by now to manipulate the data in those difficult-to-decipher closed binary file formats... the economy of which surely would have (ultimately) added to MS's bottom line, because they would have (in theory) produced the best tools.
How foolish of me... I linked to a dead-tree copy of the book instead of the online free version. My bad!
The EWeek article is talking about Microsoft Office xml formats, not OpenOffice.org xml formats. This, even though the first sentence confusingly uses the term "Office Open XML Formats". Someone would have you believe that the EWeek article is talking about OpenOffice.org's Open Document format.
The MSDN Blog article, merely extols the virtues of Microsoft's open XML format for MS-Office. It says how great it would be for everyone to have a royalty-free open standard for office documents. What the blog, written by the MS Office program manager, ignores is that royalty-free is not good enough. The license for the format needs to be not only royalty-free, but must be able to be sub-licensed by anyone to anyone. That is, if I write a GPL program that reads/writes Monopoly Open XML Office formats, then YOU should not have to execute a "royalty-free" license with Microsoft before you can use my GPL software.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
You can freely download Word Viewer from Microsoft's web site:
a milyID=95e24c87-8732-48d5-8689-ab826e7b8fdf&Displa yLang=en
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
Sure. I'll take that bet, IF I can bet on Microsoft being there to get this reversed. I'd even bet on Microsoft being successful, by giving the State a huge discount on their Office products, along with intense bribes (excuse me, lobbying) to the local politicians.
You know, the Standard Operating Procedure these days.
Followed by a huge Press Release saying that the State is dropping OSS in favor of Microsoft. Which in turn will alert even more states that they can get MS software for a huge discount just by issuing a Press Release.
Now, if the State was REALLY smart, they'd include a clause that any Word documents which couldn't be read via the current Word technology 5-10 years in the future would require Microsoft to pay a fine of, say, $100 per document. To cover the States' cost in converting it so that it could be read again.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
It doesn't say anything about WHAT format - just that it has to be open. You don't honestly think that MSFT will just say "Word Format or the highway?" do you? They can easily have a "save as" format that complies with the standard. 2007 is a long time from now.
Have you tried Foxit Reader, by chance?
" , due to Foxit's speed.
I no longer cringe at "http://somesite.com/reallyinterestingarticle.pdf
This looks like a step in the right direction towards increasing the use of Linux workstations in the workplace?
Expert Java EE Consulting
Microsoft will simply allow people to open OO.org formats but then silently save the documents as their own proprietary XML. In this respect, users won't know that they are screwing themselves over (as they never do), and everyone will still require Microsoft Office.
More
Bill, we already knew that.
Okay, I do have a level of respect for the opinions expressed here. I generally read over the ones that most stand out, sample a few trolls and extrapolate a kind of mean of the opinions and balance that against my own thoughts as well.
What I have read the most of is that people are skeptical as to the sincerity of this directive. People are saying that they are only doing this to get a healthy Microsoft discount. I'd like to know, if anyone cares to respond, how people can make the determination between pulling a stunt for discounts and a sincere effort to move into open formats?
While it has been shown that some businesses and government bodies have backed down on their intent to migrate to open standards or open source, some have not. So the threat is very real, in this respect. But how can we tell the difference, if in fact, some of these threats are really just a ruse to get substantial discounts from Microsoft?
And if it is a ruse, I hope Microsoft calls the bluff a fwe times -- I'd be interested to see what would happen. (I have a guess and I strong hope)
There are others with bad implementations of XML, so that even though they don't obfuscate or patent-encumber them, interoperability is painful.
But OO.o XML is fine.
It say it's a proposal and it's open for public comment. But neither TFA nor the Financial Times article gives the address to which the public can send comments.
Anyone have it?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Thank you. Now please show me a link to the source code, in order that I can subject it to independent scrutiny before compiling it for one of my own machines; or at the very least, show me a suitable bootstrap loader which I can burn, along with Word documents I wish to view, to a CD-RW and be able to launch the application on one of my AMD-based machines {it should be safe to run unaudited software with no hard disk and no network connection}.
Screenshots would be nice too.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
But the best thing to come otu of this will most likely by that MS Office will finally support a real open format.
Like the PDF reader -- it could already exist for Windows (haven't checked SourceForge lately). In fact, I know some of the PDF readers for Linux can already read the OASIS format.
Who says that a small downloadable app couldn't be developed for Windows as well?
Like everyone's been saying, having an open format leaves your options open. You don't need to download an entire application, and even if you did, you'd have a choice of which application.
--- Dan
Plenty of time for Microsoft to add any number of open formats to the MSOffice suite (not like there aren't already some in there... pure text, for example, or csv, etc.)
However, I agree that all public government documents should be stored in open formats, regardless of the software used to generate the them.
In the long run it should save a lot of money and, more importantly, resource.
Yeah, well, the Windows version is not as much of an improvement. And although acrobat reader is a slow loader, the REAL chore is when you make the mistake of clicking on a PDF on a web-page and its trying to display through your browser--ug. Just agonizing. Painfully slow. I almost always just kill the process, go back, and save the file to my desktop.
Who did what now?
... you know that any official/legal notice will be sent by US mail, certified mail, or delivered by hand.
I can't recall the first or last time any government agency gave me an official document ONLY in an electronic format.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
this was the spur, as proposed in the comments then.
For the same reason they didn't offer open formats in the first place.
How do they prevent it from happening? Strongarm or shady business practices. Just like always.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Given Microsoft's stance of how many pirated copies of Office are floating out in the world, will any of those home users actually be able to open and read the OO.o formats?
.sxw extension and may not even realize that's how they could view the file anyway (all this assuming they do not have OO.o already).
Yes, they'll be able to read the PDF files fine, but most home users will not want to have to deal with having to unzip an
I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek. Nerds make more money.
I was thinking more along of the lines of someone using MS Office then outputting it to PDF in order to be compliant (maybe this comes from an out-of-state agency like the federal government). So although they would be compliant, no one could edit or otherwise revise that document in the future without MS Office.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Now it's time to replace all government suppliers with people who would work for free! Why pay money for stop signs and lines on the roads? Just give high school students a paintbrush and a can of paint! They can paint their own lines and make signs.
And why waste money paying policemen? Find a local militia group that would be happy to control your town, free of charge?
And schoolteachers are so expensive and whine a lot about being underpaid! Fire them all, and get volunteers to teach the kids, or better yet, tell everyone to homeschool.
Best Buy can have you arrested
The majority of PC users use Windows, those who don't have the ability to read most MS Office documents, and MS Office products have had the ability to save in earlier well documented formats not to mention RTF, CSV, etc. forever now.
If there's a semi-mythical complaint in desktop support for me, it has to be that "I can't open this proprietary document format" complaint. In over ten years I haven't gotten that once. The last time was a WordPerfect file in 1994 and the file was generated four years earlier.
Next thing you know, we'll hear whining and moaning aimed at Adobe for any nonstandard tchotchkes put into their PDF files. Why does it have to be up to the software vendors to correct the mistakes of those saving the files when they screw up by not saving in the most widely compatible format in the first place which they should have known to do since their very first PC using position?!
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
PDF suppots fillable forms... But it would be lousy for internal documents that need to be changed, so I agree with you.
Any idea if "OpenOffice Formats" relates to the OpenOffice (.sxw, etc) filetype used in the 1.x series, or if they'll be using the OpenDocument standard that becomes OpenOffice's default format in the 2.x series?
"Joy is contagious," he said, peering into the microscope.
Of course, until 2007 is more than enough time for MS to add OpenDocument support if they'd risk losing too much.
that would be pretty stupid :)
i assume that od explicitly would be used for cases when user is supposed to edit the document afterwards.
overall, if such a decision stands, it would be really good precedent. given the importance of information today, it is saddening that this is not a common practice.
Rich
I wonder if they'll do something similar to my local library. It has a CD-ROM with OpenOffice on that you can borrow (for free) and install on your home computer - presumably for people without broadband.
If Preview had better annotatin facilities
Not knowing exactly what you mean by "better", but preview in 10.4 now allows you to add "stickies" to a pdf, as well as to circle selections in red. Both persist through a save/open.
I haven't used Acrobat's annotate tools enough to know how they're better--I'm sure they are, but perhaps Preview's are now sufficient. It's much faster, and I think has a faster search too.
--
$tar -xvf
Dunking the boss in old beer is starting to get a little stale.
This reminds me of when I took a unix course in college. The teacher put all the course materials in openoffice format, which was great.. except anyone wanting to read them had to download an 80meg file installer first.
So why wasn't the school bookstore distributing copies of OOo on CD-R for $10 a piece?
Why is this State wasting so much taxpayers' money by investing in the cost to change systems? Granted, they'll save about $200 per station by not buying an Office license, but that's hardly offset by the cost of training their staff on new software and the temporary drop of productivity.
Instead, why not just pick any of the following options:
1) Use HTML as a standard, and use the tools they've already paid for to create HTML documents (Word, FrontPage) which require no new learning. You may say Word/FP suck, but we're not talking any fancy documents here.
2) Use XML as a standard, which like #1 is already supported fully but Office 2003 (Word, Excel, and the others can read/write XML just fine).
3) Use RTF as a standard. It may not be pretty, but it's open and cheap and darned quick.
4) If all else fails, buy the $20 add-on program so you can save your Office documents as a PDF file.
The State of California publishes everything in HTML or PDF format, and I don't hear anyone complaining about inabilities to open documents.
-David
I know you're being sarcastic, but Sun deserves the flak it gets from the OSS community. Scott McNealy has spoken out against OSS on numerous occasions, which is weird for a company that supports OSS in several different ways.
Maybe it means *gasp* that he actually has a brain and critical thinking skills, and intelligently discusses the pros/cons of OSS as opposed to drinking the kool-aid and spouting propaganda?
As a BSD user, I had to wipe my aunts computer due to virus's. After hours of scanning the computer wouldnt boot up.
Now each of her Works Documents have to be opened in the free "Word Viewer" copied and pasted into OpenOffice because she does not have the original software.
In response to PDF's being "closed", they may be owned by adobe, but at LEAST there is more than one way to view them, and they can be viewed and printed from any computer on a number of different applications. Also Adobe does offer Acrobat reader in some form or another for most systems.
Put it this way: a pdf or a wps of unknown version made in works?
No, Try HTML or Plain old ASCII text if you truly want compatability.
If they do this, their software will meet the Massachusetts requirement, and everyone can be happy.
That is, unless Microsoft uses legal and/or technical means to "region code" the OOo compatible version of Microsoft Office to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Most corporations like having someone they can go to for support. If open office crashes and burns on you, all you can do is post a bug repot and hope someone fixes it soon.
Right now it's an "open-format" vs. "accountability" tradeoff. If MS supported open formats, that would change in favor of MS, for most companies.
If it was not done by one of the most liberal states in the nation. I saw this coming years ago and once Arnold leaves Cali, it will probably happen there too.
lot of people live in Massachusetts and that is a big thumbs up for open sauce.
Does this mean that Heinz and Kraft are giving away their secret recipes?
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Specifically, here:d ex_reference.html
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/in
if they are worried about the public being able to read the documents OO doesnt seem like the right choice? are there viewer applications for OO without having to download/install the whole program? There are free viewer applications for all office 2003 products. chances of someone having OO installed vs microsoft office are slim (not to mention recognizing some crazy file extension vs .doc). Quite a few people I know have asked me how to open certain files they have received and they have turned out to be OO docs. Are there import filters for microsoft office? Can you view them in wordpad? Yes I realize that there are PDF readers everywhere, but that's only half of the solution.
At least, I didn't have it until I installed a licensed copy of Adobe Acrobat Standard.
The Adobe PDF printer you're seeing was added by a third party application, probably some flavor of Adobe Acrobat Standard or Professional. I don't know what other Adobe products also add a PDF printer driver. Photoshop might, and I'm pretty sure Illustrator does as well.
No, it's not part of Windows XP, and the only way to (legally) get it is to buy the necessary software from Adobe.
Some demo versions of Adobe software may have a bug that results in the PDF Printer remaining behind after an uninstall, or after the demo expires. That could be another way you got the option.
But no, the rank and file Windows XP users do not have a PDF Printer available by default in either the Home or Professional editions.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
"Real" "Butter" (TM)
Dude, that wasn't a movie.
They sell that stuff at the local supermarket.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Since when is Adobe's PDF an "Open standard" that can be read by all of the people? Mass. has no true indication that Adobe will allow its reader to be free for all and forever...
hrmppphh....grandstanding you might say.
Mad, adj : Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence. Ambrose Bierce - The Deveil's Dictionsary
... that the state of Massachusetts bottom line is not just cost. They are arguing that open file formats = democracy and closed file formats don't which makes sense to me. A citizen should not be forced to invest money in proprietary software because that is the only way he/she can read official documentation. The current situation of publishing official electronic documentation in *.doc, *.xls or some other closed file format is akin to making law books publically available for free or at worst a small nominal fee but printing them in such a way that you must buy special glasses that can only be purchased from company X in order to read them. People take it for granted that laws and other such documents are publically available to anybody at minimal cost when the medium is paper and ink, why should any citizen have to shell out several hundred dollars for a MS Office suite in order to read the exact same material on his computer?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
avalys didn't argue that the government should provide less services. He stated that the government providing those services more cheaply saves the taxpayers' money. Surely we can all agree that regardless of what level of service we think they should handle, we want them doing it as efficiently as possible, right?
You started defending against an attack that was never made. Re-read what he said and I think you'd have to agree with his conclusion.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Generating simple PDFs has been possible for a while now (even before OS X had it on every print dialog!), but Acrobat isn't going anywhere yet.
Making PDFs with embedded forms is a pretty common requirement; I think you need Acrobat to make those forms. There's also stuff with digitally signing documents, password protection, preventing/enabling printing, editing, highlighting, commenting, etc..
In theory (afaik) because PDF is an open format, other developers could implement the Acrobat featureset... but maybe Adobe has that locked down. Maybe you have to make an agreement with them if you use the PDF format... I'm sure they're pretty darn careful about what they give away -- Acrobat is a cash cow for them.
Only problem now is that OpenOffice.org doesn't yet have a native version for the Smackintosh (you can't copy and paste between the Web and OO.o), and Appleworks SUCKS.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
This is great news and one which I'll be sure to pass on to my local and state IT officials. After all, how many politicians like to be first at anything.
This might be the proverbial "barn door" opener we've been working towards.
Be sure of one thing though, Microsoft will not take this sitting down. No matter how long they've already been working on this.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Is PDF "open"? Except for the fact Adobe distributes PDF Reader for free, how is it different from .doc format?
Since when did Word and Frontpage start producing HTML? (Or even ASCII?)
Exactly. This is another "Give us a better price or we switch to open source!" move that will turn at the last minute when Microsoft offers them a deal.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
It's very easy to generate pdfs from Office using the free tool pdf995. This will not require that MA moves away from Office at all.
No, I will not work for your startup
Why would you, as a member of the public need to edit a published document?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
To see the draft of the "data format" standard, and to send comments to the Massachusetts government agency, go to this url and follow the links:
http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/
Save money by making a public statement on how your state is dropping Microsoft solutions all together by 2007 or so, then wait until Microsoft gives you a nice and VERY cheap solution...
No training costs, just saving costs. Tax payers and formats have no weight in the decision. They are the lure.
The govt web site is not well organized. Here is a separate url that briefly describes the proposed standard.
m l
http://www.mass.gov/eoaf/open_formats_comments.ht
due to being republican controlled. They are afraid of Bill Gates. See what happened in Colorado. It is the reply that was most telling. I wrote that to one of the California Gov. Candidates in hope that they would persue the idea.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Exactly right, Microsoft will probably be generating Metro files, not PDF.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When I first encountered a PDF file on the web I wondered why it was not a plain text file which anyone could read regardless of OS. It was three times larger than any other file format and I had to go hunting for a program to install and view the file. I've hated Adobe PDF format ever since.
Sure you may need a program to read pdf files but pdf files look the same in Acrobat Reader on all platforms and the fact is is to read any document on a computer you have to have softwear to open it in. What I don't like is that all too often Acrobat Reader crashs or freezes on my computer.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I didn't see SuSE 9.2 in the list of supported platforms.
Acrobat performs poorly (7 is better than before but still quite slow) and xpdf is less friendly to use. I don't know about evince. I mention it because it's a recent rewrite and the best pdf viewer I've seen.
I am trolling
stupid is relative...bring your C++, XML, and open source down to the farm (you know, the place where your food comes from) and see how far that'll take you.
Back when Microsoft was being pursued by the government my grandpa came up to me with the local newspaper and said "Who's this Microsoft and why is the government after them?". My grandpa never touched a computer, VCR, MP3 player, DVD, cell phone (he once accidentally hit the OnStar button in his truck and couldn't figure out where the voices were coming from) or even a tape player. He did however run a very successful 1000 acre farm and dairy and he lived a very long and happy life. He was 85 when he died a couple months ago and I still could never explain what I do beyond "I work with computers".
I'd give up all of this technology to live the life my grandpa had (as I build my second home file server/media pc). stupid is relative
At best, the reality is that this will force a shift to Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Professional at $449/copy or even worse, one of Adobe's creative packages that run in the $1100 range but at least offer more than just a publisher and is thus closer to being an office competitor. A very small percentage may shift to OpenOffice, but most government users want a packaged commercial product that dominates the market (if it doesn't, its not the mainstream choice that fits their comfort zone), and that they can order preinstalled on their PC.
As is typical in Massachusetts, this is just another idealistic excuse to increase costs so that they can increase taxes.
...is open, it was postscript that was license encumbered (IIRC). There exists a multitude of programs that can read and write PDF's.
OpenOffice.org can export to PDF. Evince, gpdf etc. can read them. There are also third-party libraries that output PDF documents (some written in pure PHP, such as FPDF, which wouldn't be as probable without specs.
I am NaN
Techworld did a followup on this story here almost a year ago, and mentioned the impact it had on MS*. Is this from the archives?
*(MS is the same thing as M$, for those of you who never read anything but slashdot commments.)
Why make every state agency save documents in Open Office formats? If they want the documents accessible to the public, they could distribute the documents in PDF format and store them internally in whatever format they want to. It's just like Open Source zealots to force people to use their product, whether they like it or not. They have now become what they hate, contributors to a lack of choice (at least within the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.)
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Umm... didn't they invent the orgy? :o)
that's one of the great things Romans left us.
FalconShould there be a Law?
At my company the IT department went about replacing 100 MS Office installs with OpenOffice. We had gotten audited by MS and apparently we had a few unlicensed copies running around and we were due for an update anyway. That all came crashing down when a Word document from an exec got sent out. In MS Word it looked fine to him, but the document had changes tracked that were hidden. When employees opened it up they found some quite embarassing comments that the exec had 'deleted'.
As a linux desktop user, I have far more trouble with proprietary multi-media files than anything else. It seems they change the formats all the time. And I can't see where the formats are changed for any reason other than to force users to use proprietary players.
There are a lot of web-sites that simply do not work with any OSS browser, tons of content that will only work with proprietary players.
Public schools are not so great in terms of quality, but they are DEFINATELY neccesery, ESPECIALLY in areas where people are less wealthy.
If schools aren't "so great" then shouldn't parents be able to send their child(ren) to better schools? My one concern with private schools is that they may teach one religion only or if they teach more than one then they make it seem as though one is better than another. But with the right teachers this isn't a problem. In college the profs I had for both philosophy and "Understanding Relious Man" you couldn't tell by taking their classes what religion if any they were a member of. My philosophy prof always played devil's advocate while the other prof always seemed to be from the religion we were studying at the tyme. When we studied Hinduism it seemed he was Hindu, when we were working on Buddhism, Buddhist. The same with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. We studied 7 religions and students went away not knowing what he believed, well other than that a test in his class was a "celebration" ie you celebrated how much knowledge you had of the religion.
I'm not totally for or against privatizing education but I believe parents should have the choice of where their children go to school.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why PDF? It is a print-only format - you cannot open all PDF files in an editor and then edit the texts in it and save it.
;)
OpenOffice OASIS format is in the right direction, since it uses human-readable markups - if used properly, it is potentially as powerful as LaTeX.
This brings up the question: Why don't we just use LaTeX?
Biggest problem no one seems to be addressing is that the OpenOffice format is not guaranteed to be the most innovative, nor is it truly the lowest common denominator (like .rtf).
Wax cylinders were a 'format' for music, but we don't want the government locking out the use of CDs or DVDs just because the people with wax cylinder readers can't use them.
Backwards compatibility is important, but you certainly want to preserve the option to take technology that may innovate, even in the document format space, and provide better services to your constituents.
Here's a good example: early iterations of WordPerfect certainly didn't allow the complex tables and embedded images we have in current formats - heck, early HTML was barely functional for presenting text and pictures. What if we were only allowed to presever content in original WP formats, or HTML 1.0?
Governments should pick winners and losers by the quality of the technology, not ideology.
Build backwards compatibility into your contracts agreements with your vendors, and use the format that gives you the best technology.
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
The circle the text paradigm in preview doesn't work that well compared to the highlighter pen paradigm in Acrobat unfortunately. I use highlighting to make it easier to scan complex text (scientific reports mainly).
I wish preview did cut it, because it's so much faster.
"...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003
It was kind of obvious to me that microsoft was about removing value from their os when after using apple 2s and sinclair spectrums for a while, I got hold of a DOS computer, as a 13 year old or so. "What can I do with this then?". Answer: Not much. They haven't changed much since then, apart from adding the underhand tricks to promote lock-in.
"...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003
Disclaimer: I am not an MS lover and if anything more on the side of a MS-basher.
That being said, they will support open formats AND PDF formats. Isn't a PDF format a closed-source format where most users require Acrobat (a closed-source package) to create their PDFs. Yes, I'm aware that there are freely available PDF creation add-ons but they don't offer the ability that Acrobat does. Not only this but isn't the PDF format itself closed-source and even the reader is a closed-source but freely available program.
Where am I going with this you ask? Well, anyone can go to MS's website and download freely available DOC, XLS, etc - viewers. Isn't this exactly what Adobe is doing? How is allowing PDF and disallowing MS (with viewers) fair?
I'm from MA and I support them but they should have constraints from using ANY closed-source software, period, if they are claiming open-source requirements.
Disclaimer: I am not an MS lover and if anything more on the side of a MS-basher.
That being said, they will support open formats AND PDF formats. Isn't a PDF format a closed-source format where most users require Acrobat (a closed-source package) to create their PDFs. Yes, I'm aware that there are freely available PDF creation add-ons but they don't offer the ability that Acrobat does. Not only this but isn't the PDF format itself closed-source and even the reader is a closed-source but freely available program.
Where am I going with this you ask? Well, anyone can go to MS's website and download freely available DOC, XLS, etc - viewers. Isn't this exactly what Adobe is doing? How is allowing PDF and disallowing MS (with viewers) fair?
I'm from MA and I support them but they should have constraints from using ANY closed-source software, period, if they are claiming open-source requirements.
I'm sure this won't be modded as insightful or it will get modded down as it comes off as a MS lover when in fact it is the only fair argument that I've seen posted and I'm SHOCKED that I'm the only one that has seen this hypocrisy.
yep, but when i think of forms available, i prefer editable format - in some cases fields are too small or too big, so changing their size i can make a document thak looks a lot better and is more readable. of course, this approach would not work for forms that are processed by scanning & automatically recognizing choices, but there are very few if any of them here.
and now when i think of this, i even prefer laws in editable format - not to edit them as such, but to reduce font size, increase margins etc for printing if intend to read it. this way i can approximately 2 times reduce pages needed, which is hard to do with pdf (printing two pages on one side is less readable than customized document).
overall opendocument should be the ultimate goal for every document. pdf isn't impossible to edit, so there is no argument that it would be impossible to edit some text and pass it as the real thing (you could copy from it and then adjust the result, for example).
opendocument supports signatures, so these documents also would be relatively easy to secure where needed.
one case where pdf might be better is exact output - it is possible that opendocument looks slightly different on another machine if a font is missing, but you can embed fonts in pdfs. though how many documents like that are in government published docs ?
Rich
The problem is that the file linked to is pre-compiled for a Windows system -- which is something I haven't got and should not need to have. This means I really need the source code -- so I can compile it for one of my boxes. Every Unix-like system {Linux, BSD, Solaris and some others I'm not running on any of my boxes} includes a C compiler. If the source code is properly presented, and if you're supplying source code the last thing you want is people making nasty comments about it, the compilation process is usually as simple as typing "make install".
As a matter of general principle I insist to inspect, or have someone else inspect, the source code of every piece of software I run, to make sure that it will not do anything I would rather it did not. In the light of what happens when people run untrusted software to run on their machines, I do not believe that this measure is in the slightest unreasonable.
If, however, I cannot obtain the source code, I believe the least unsafe way to run untrusted code might be to do so in a totally quarantined environment -- i.e., a machine with no connection to the outside world {network card} and no persistent storage {hard disk drive}. But this will still require a bootstrap loader with a minimal Windows environment.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"was needed to ensure that the state could guarantee that citizens could open and read electronic documents in the future,"
h /c01083005_03.txt
So what's that chance that anything that exists today (open or not) will be readable in 20 years? Tried to read your msdos 5 1/4" floppies lately? Still have any computer capable of running Electric Pencil?
Now of course, those are not "open" examples.
Been to a gopher site recently?
By the way, The Well is up for sale if anyone has a few million in cash sitting around idle:
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2005/08/30/healt
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
I think its great they have made this shift away from Microsoft. Our Government needs its own operating systems. I hope this catches on in other states.
MSFT's On-line Validation, and MSFT's Update Program. MSFT routinely revises their EULA, to which you must agree in order for service or security patches to install. While a number of states (or nation states) allow the end-user to wiggle out of modified EULAs, the time lost in the courtroom could lead to financial disaster and collapse of the business.
Just because a software OEM has you by the short hairs regarding software licensing & key validation does not mean that they will use this as a means of extortion in the future. But it does mean that they have that capability. And there are no guarantees that their "profit centers" will not shift at some point in the future to make such extortion a reality.
I am glad to see at least one state, the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, resist the siren song of proprietary file formats. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth of Virginia has taken the exact opposite tact. In fact, VA was one of the leading forces in adoption of software OEM rights over consumer rights, years ahead of the passage of the DMCA at the Federal level.
If you have to use Adobe Reader for its unique functionalities I guess it's better, I won't argue.
The only thing I want to do with PDFs is to read them and eventually print them. I can perfectly manage to do that with xPDF/gPDF. They load in 1 second on my computer, compare that to about 10 seconds (maybe I exaggerate) in Adobe Reader. Rendering is probably better in original but I have yet to see badly rendered PDF in readers I use.
Just a side note to anyone relying on OS X to output proper PDF files. It does not allow embedded fonts. This small oversight makes it *very* difficult to send output to print bureau. If your print contractor has different fonts or is missing fonts, you are SOL. :(
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
The pretext of the BTP was to protest the reduction of import taxes on tea imported through the East India Company (undercutting the existing taxed trade).
I think PDF support in Office is unlikely. While it'd be ideal - and since MS could license the Adobe PDF library, it'd be pretty quick for them - they're more likely to implement "Metro" support instead. That's the MS PDF-like format that they're talking about pushing with Vista.
Microsoft does not strike me as the sort of company that'd give Adobe free market exposure by shipping the Adobe Reader with the system, and licensing their PDF library. They could do as Apple have done and implement it themselves, but I think they'll want a format they control.
When it comes to OpenDocument, I suspect they're going to fight that for some time. Interoperability is a threat to the barrier to entry/exit around Office that lets them maintain inflated prices.
That's essentially what MA have done. They set some requirements for document formats, evaluated the market offerings according to those criteria, and selected suitable current offerings for use. My understanding is that MS is *quite* welcome to support OpenDocument in order to re-enter the state suppliers list. Alternately, they should be able to adjust their new XML format license (or hand it off to a standards body) in order to qualify, too.
It looks to me like the state is saying "we require at least from our formats" and microsoft is saying "we don't want to give you that". It's much like a vendor refusing to sign a contract while it requires backward compatibility - it sends a warning signal sky high.
The majority of the OO.o developers work for Sun. Others are with Red Hat, Novell, SuSE, etc. There's a fair bit of unpaid community involvement too as far as I know, but from what I've seen it's quite heavily business oriented.
/do/ work on Scribus (http://www.scribus.net/) in my spare time. I do this for learning, a challenge, and because its fun. I don't make my living off it, nor do I expect to, though I'm not adverse to making some money off it if the opportunity arises. Not everything is motivated purely by personal profit.
So why are all these businesses putting in money for a free product? Because they all want to use it to drive sales of their money-making products. In Sun's case, that'll be for their thin client and desktop offerings (JDS, Sun Ray, etc).
There are certainly issues with this, but I don't think starving programmers will be one of those issues.
Lest you say I don't know what I'm talking about, while I'm not involved with the development of OO.o I
> anyone and their family pet can create and/or render PDF. e.g. GhostScript.
That would be xpdf, gpdf, pdftex, pdflatex or pdfcreator.
GhostScript renders PostScript (ps, not pdf), which is an "open format" as well.