Slashdot Mirror
A Look At MS's MA Talking Points
tbray writes "It may not be a Halloween Document, but one of the lobby groups in the thick of the Massachusetts office-doc standardization fray passed me 'The Other Side's Talking Points', so I've published (and slightly deconstructed) them with a barnyard-animal picture." From the article: "The direction toward interoperability using XML data standards is clearly a good one. However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others. The proposed approach and process for use of XML data is quite open to multiple standards, yet the proposed standard for documents is quite narrow, preferential, and may not enable optimal use of the data-centric standards."
what up? yo
The direction toward interoperability using XML data standards is clearly a good one. However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others. The same thing would happen if it were a microsoft product being chosen -- gov't has a responsibility to choose the lowest-cost solution if it is viable -- and that's what MA is doing.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
sorry no hurricane relief for you! maybe a in a few days when i get back to the office. toodles!
luv,
the prez
unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products
Somehow they never seem to object when, say, the Feds sole-source Microsoft products. Big surprise.
Let's hope someone throws that back into their faces....
Grr
There are less costly, less limiting, non-preferential policy options to achieve the same goals.
However, Microsoft is as unsure as you what these options are; they certainly aren't their products.
Any chance Timmy could check with his daddy, Roland, and tell us what he thinks?
The fact is that choosing ANY file type narrows the field somewhat and whatever type is selected will give preference to someone. It makes the most sense to pick the type that does the least amount of "damage" in both fields.
Using an "open" format allows the docs to be read by users of pretty much any OS. Also, it gives preference to the open source community, not some corporation looking for nothing beyond profit. Finally, anyone that wants OpenOffice can get it, and for free. No other possiblity would be less narrow or preferential!
Microsoft Employees themselves are saying that open office formats (at least partially, or for old versions) are a good thing. Others are saying they want to quit soon. Note that this open revolt against their management is being spearheaded by the mysterious Mini-Microsoft.
Will these attitudes finally change MSFT from the bottom up, or just get these guys fired? I suspect the latter, but hey, we live in interesting times...
"limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others."
prohibits others? i know this is obvious to everyone here, but the fact that the oasis format is open and fully documented invalidates this argument. there is absolutely no reason why any vendor cant implement the oasis format.
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
Wow, this guys name is: Daiske! sweet!
For those of you wondering who Tim Bray is or why you should read somebody's weblog, Tim Bray co-created XML. If anybody's fit to speak authoritatively on the subject of XML formats, then it's him.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
First, the format is called Open Document, not Open Office. Open Office is the program. Second, Massachusetts is not specifying any particular software, only that any software must read/write Open Document format. Everything, and I mean everything, that Microsoft claims in their so-called talking points is self-serving rubbish. Remember that reaching a compromise with Microsoft is like reaching a compromise with cannibals that they will only eat your right arm.
So isn't MA supposed to be providing service to its residents. Let's face it, do you want to be the one who has to train all these government employees how to use OpenOffice.
/. crowd, it is likely to gum up the works for some time in the state of MA. This doesn't even get into explaining to grandparents how to file/read state tax forms online. I think there are going to be a fair number of annoyed taxpayers.
Those the change may seem minor to the
I like open document types, but I think this is a bad way to try to handle things.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Massachusetts isn't using OpenOffice's format, it's using OpenDocument. This is an open format that OOo just happens to use as well. I understand OOo had a hand in creating it, but it's not "their" format. Here's the wiki link explaining it a little further
From Groklaw's article on the subject:
"Some may contend that the decision is unfairly dictating a software preference. This is entirely wrong; the guidelines make it clear that any applications need only support an open, unencumbered document format. Your guidelines do not limit any vendor's ability to compete for state business because the required open formats are available equally to all, and participation in their development is equally open to all."
However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others.
Oh please. Am I to understand that Open Office documents are blocked by things like patents, constantly changing specifications, no interoperability between versions, and licensing fees?
Oh, wait, that's MS Office! Open office standards are open? Free for all to use, if they choose?
Wow. Go figure.
All I know is I personally don't CARE what the format is, what's underneath, just friggin' well let it work with all damned Word processors!!!
RTF, HTML, XML, whatever. JUST MAKE IT WORK!!!
From TFA:
This is probably not the best example. Yes, the average government worker could probably download NeoOffice/J free of charge as well and then convert all their documents to a newer format, but there is a cost here and it is in man hours - they aren't working for free.
This cost probably occurs every time Microsoft updates Office, though, so would likley be much the same whether they stuck with MS-Office or migrated to anything like OpenOffice.
Tim Bray is also an employee of Sun, the company who started OO.o. I agree with what he says & am quite sympathetic to the cause, but this is like Scoble saying MA should standardize on MS word format.
Openoffice comes with a wizard to do mass conversions. It can recursively sweep through a file structure, creating a .sxw file every time a .doc file is encountered (keeping the same name).
So this strengthens the point made by the author of the article:
.sxw files for every .doc file, why not give give it a test on some smaller portion of your folder tree.
"Unless the cost of conversion right now is awfully damn high, this sounds like a good investment."
To find this insanely under-hyped feature:
File -> AutoPilot -> Document Converter
If your file server has enough room for a bunch of new
Then you can all easily see how good OpenOffice is in it's conversions on your existing data RIGHT NOW, and everyone can learn firsthand how realistic a switch to OpenOffice REALLY is.
Aren't you dying to know first hand if it's actually just that easy and we can all quit theorizing about how viable this whole thing is?
I don't see why the fact that he co-created XML would make him any more fit to speak about what needs to be done. It's just a simple fallacy.
cheers
Massachusetts has been going down this road a long time; it's not just something that appeared out of nowhere and they've already done some work weighing the various options. I don't think MS is going to be able to change things with FUD this late in the game.
It's worth noting that parts of Massachusetts have already changed over. Saugus started going this route some years ago; you can see Saugus' official response to the state's announcement or my entry in the Saugus blog discussing the same.
Saugus has been pushing free and open software since the mid to late '90s. Massachusetts developed an "open source trough" for use by all state departments a couple of years back. Switching to open formats is just a natural step along the path that Massachusetts has been heading for quite some time now.
Actually the new rules say that Open Formats should be provided in addition to whatever other format of choice is used. But have no fear, the representatives of my state are likely to comply with the wishes of M$ and people like you. Those corrupt bastards are just looking for some backstratching from M$
Simply replace "Open Document Format" with ASCII and you will see clearly how rediculous the argument is from Microsoft. I know the analogy isn't perfect. Damn close, though.
It's been 21 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Ballmer: Just tell me it's not Open Office. It's not Open Office, is it?
Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Yes.
(chair flies through air) CRASH....
Ballmer: I WILL KILL MOTHERFUCING OPEN OFFICE! WordPerfect tried to get me, but I fucked them one good. I will fucking kill Open Office.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
A Microsoftie mentioning Mel's story?
Wow! I mean really WOW!
Amazing!
Somebody at one of those associations knows somebody who's on a mailing list with me and thus I got these talking points; I can't say for sure who wrote them, but I can guess. Let's give them a look, then walk through point by point.
.
Yep, nothing like first-hand information. So now, I've read this from a guy who posted an article based on information he got from a guy on a mailing list who knows a guy... I'm confused already.
I see that Microsoft reported 7.915 billion profit on $11.013 billion in revenues for "Information Worker" products (i.e. Office).
. .
But (see previous discussion) there will also be some pay-offs; you take the pain now or you support a 72% profit margin forever.
This is rather trivial, but I should point out that profit margin is calculated as profit/cost (cost to the producer, not the consumer). The cost to the producer (Microsoft) would be their $10.013 billion in revenues, minus their $7.915 billion profit.
This makes for a profit margin of 255%. In other words, they're getting back more than 2-1/2x what their paying in. Not a bad return on investment, if you ask me.
Sent from my computer.
Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
MA was there 100 years ago and most likely will be around 100 years from now. What about Microsoft?
I don't care if MS owns the spec for my document files as long as all competing products can open/save my files like they were native to that application.
IMHO portability is the most important issue here.
Markup is profit/cost.
ex. $1 items sells for $1.50. Margin is 0.50/1.50, or 33%. Markup is 0.50/1.00, or 50%. One cannot have a margin of more than 100%.
The original statement, that MS had a 72% margin, is correct.
This is high school business stuff.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Did someone say barnyard animal pictures?
IT WAS front-page news this week when Newsweek retracted a report claiming that a US interrogator in Guantanamo had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. Everywhere it was noted that Newsweek's story had sparked widespread Muslim rioting, in which at least 17 people were killed. But there was no mention of deadly protests triggered in recent years by comparable acts of desecration against other religions.
No one recalled, for example, that American Catholics lashed out in violent rampages in 1989, after photographer Andres Serrano's ''Piss Christ" -- a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine -- was included in an exhibition subsidized by the National Endowment for the Arts. Or that they rioted in 1992 when singer Sinead O'Connor, appearing on ''Saturday Night Live," ripped up a photograph of Pope John Paul II.
There was no reminder that Jewish communities erupted in lethal violence in 2000, after Arabs demolished Joseph's Tomb, torching the ancient shrine and murdering a young rabbi who tried to save a Torah. And nobody noted that Buddhists went on a killing spree in 2001 in response to the destruction of two priceless, 1,500-year-old statues of Buddha by the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Of course, there was a good reason all these bloody protests went unremembered in the coverage of the Newsweek affair: They never occurred.
Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted. They don't call for holy war and riot in the streets. It would be unthinkable for a mainstream priest, rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain. But when Reuters reported what Mohammad Hanif, the imam of a Muslim seminary in Pakistan, said about the alleged Koran-flushers -- ''They should be hung. They should be killed in public so that no one can dare to insult Islam and its sacred symbols" -- was any reader surprised?
The Muslim riots should have been met by outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17 innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek.
From the White House down, the magazine was slammed -- for running an item it should have known might prove incendiary, for relying on a shaky source, for its animus toward the military and the war. Over and over, Newsweek was blamed for the riots' death toll. Conservative pundits in particular piled on. ''Newsweek lied, people died" was the headline on Michelle Malkin's popular website. At NationalReview.com, Paul Marshall of Freedom House fumed: ''What planet do these [Newsweek] people live on? . . . Anybody with a little knowledge could have told them it was likely that people would die as a result of the article." All of Marshall's choler was reserved for Newsweek; he had no criticism at all for the marauders in the Muslim street.
Then there was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced at a Senate hearing that she had a message for ''Muslims in America and throughout the world." And what was that message? That decent people do not resort to murder just because someone has offended their religious sensibilities? That the primitive bloodlust raging in Afghanistan and Pakistan was evidence of the Muslim world's dysfunctional political culture?
No: Her message was that ''disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States."
Granted, Rice spoke while the rioting was still taking place and her goal was to reduce the anti-American fever. But what ''Muslims in America and throughout the world" most need to hear is not pandering sweet-talk. What they need is a blunt reminder that the real desecration of Islam is not what some interrogator in Guantanamo might have done to the Koran. It is what totalitarian Muslim zealots have been doing to innocent human beings in t
David Wheeler on why opendoc won: link
"i was to lazy to verify the information given to me [despite the link] before i offered an opinion about it."
;P
that's not a very good excuse
sum.zero
Hey--I drink the kool-aid. I've given money for the development of OO.o and Abiword. (You should to--see my URL.) But I know self-interest when I see it.They were well-represented at OASIS & They have had it in beta for a long time.
"limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others."
I think they mean that it prohibits other formats. That is, of course, what a good specification does.
Even this generous interpretation is an exaggeration that reeks of M$'s characteristic dishonesty. Specifying a format for document exchange and archival will not keep anyone from using their favorite editor. They will simply have to copy that document into an editor that will save in the correct format. M$, of course, wants the more clueless lawmakers to arrive at your conclusion - that somehow this is giving a Sun an exclusive fromat franchise. As you pointed out, the standard is free for the taking, so M$ can quickly tack on the format translator and stick it into a Windoze update. Because the standard was developed in the open, M$ has only M$ to blame for their lack of product today.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Look, the OO file standard is open! Nothing is keeping MS from supporting it. Let's face it; whatever esoteric shit that they claim that the OO XML format doesn't support is probably nothing that normal users would run into anyway. Add a new import/export filter to MS Office to support the OO format. And, if MS Office is as great as they say it is, there would be way more people that would use it instead of Open Office; they would just read/save their work in something other than the native MS Office format.
Or isn't MS Office really all that great?
the subject says it all. ive been using it for a long time and never felt the need ms office. the only area where one may have problems is in business. but if one is a home user, save urself the $400 and use it.
Nothing to stop them from Embrace...Extend...Extinguish either.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"The direction toward interoperability using XML data standards is clearly a good one. However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others. The proposed approach and process for use of XML data is quite open to multiple standards, yet the proposed standard for documents is quite narrow, preferential, and may not enable optimal use of the data-centric standards."
I had to re-read that line twice. I thought they were talking about Microsoft being preferential, narrow, etc, etc... not OpenOffice.
Can someone actually Orwellian-like bend their mind so that 2+2=5 for me, and explain the logic behind that statement where choosing an open standard over a closed-patented-licensed-EULA'd-sign with blood-give up your first born is a bad choice?
Or is this just what I think it is, one of Microsoft's "A Few Good Men" speeches:
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very OS that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a keyboard and start writing code. Either way, I don't give a damn what open standards you think you are entitled to."
I8-D
For a second, I picture Bill Gates as the evil, wealthy fat man with hat and moustache, selling equipment to farmers.
The farmers say: "We're tired of your lies. We're tired of you forcing us to pay fees for using your equipment. We want to use our own equipment."
"Hah, you must be joking... I have good relations with the industry, you couldn't even pass a quality test!" (curls moustache while talking and grinning)
Is it just me, or has anybody thought of this image, too?
I don't understand why it is so "assumed" by the author and most of the readers that there is something inherently wrong with a 72% profit margin. Many industries routinely mark up their final prices more than 1000% percent over cost - and that is perfectly justified as well. It's called capitalism... charge as much as you can get away with. Where is the crime?
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Every time you post an article like this, Ballmer kills a chair.
Please, think of the chairs!
No they didn't. Only Sun Microsystems, IBM and Adobe Systems however did. Sponsoring OASIS is very different from sponsoring a certain TC. Why do I have repeat this every single time a new article about the OpenDocument comes along?
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
Are you confused? So am I. The tacit assumption in TFA is that it's bad to switch away from Microsoft because they'd be locking themselves into a proprietary format... which is nothing at all like Microsoft .doc, .xls, .ppt, or any other Microsoft format. They're wiiiiiiide open, aren't they?
Are they joking? OpenOffice uses a (surprise surprise) open format. Microsoft is free to develop their own converters if they like. The format is freely available for their use. That also means that any other vendor that wants to support OpenOffice file formats can do so with equal ease. An open file format is really the antithesis of a proprietary format.
And let's not forget the very attractive price of OpenOffice.org itself: $0. Now, before you remind me that it costs money to install and maintain, I'll tell you that I already know that. But it's no harder to install or maintain than Office, works on a variety of platforms, and for 99% of the people who will use it, it does exactly what they need it to do. Why spend that much taxpayer money on Office if a free product can do the same thing?
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Notepad.
It doesn't get any more interoperable, does it? Well, except that CR+LF issue, but that's all Unix's fault! ;)
Contrary to the headlines, this article offers no new insight into Microsoft's points of contention. I am not a Micro$oft lover by any stretch of the imagination, (see? I spelled it with a '$'!), but I must admit that their points are valid, albeit a bit redundant or overestimated. But even so, the article's author mainly retorts to each point with simple-minded, vacuous comments that do nothing to enlightened nor explain, while showing his bias in full force.
The article could be summed up as such:
--------
1. We think MA made the wrong decision.
Bullshit. It is not the wrong decision, because it is the Right One.
2. We think it'll cost more to convert to the new format than they really expect.
Wrong. I'm sure they already took into consideration all the costs of conversion, so it won't be more than expected.
3. We think that choosing OpenDocument 1.0 gives preferential treatment to one vendor over another.
Bullshit. Choosing MS Office will give preference to one vendor.
4. We think giving preferential treatment to one vendor will hinder innovation.
Wrong. Choosing OpenDocument will not hinder innovation, because... it just won't.
5. There are alternatives that are cheaper and less limiting, that will not lock you into one single vendor's format.
This comment is bullshit, but since I couldn't really think of a reason, I'd say its because it makes no sense.
. In conclusion, we think that MA is doing a disservice to its citizens by choosing a format that is less functional and more restrictive than what they currently have. We can work with them to achieve all their goals while they continue giving us money.
This conclusion is all bullshit, because all they want is more money, when in fact the format Massachussets chose is the best one, although I won't say why; it just is. And since the original document was written by Microsoft it must be wrong!
--------
Final conclusion about the article: Just another "blogger" tootin' his own horn and [writing|talking] just to hear himself [type|speak].
Nothing to see here, move along.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
it is completely wrong. MS was noticably absent from the OpenDocument technical committee.
http://business.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=406
The Massachusetts state administration actually wanted to migrate to open source, not just open document formats. The concept and its economic justification were in place. However, Massachusetts' Republican governor Matt Romney is rumored to have personally intervened in order to get that plan substantially diluted. I heard that from someone in Massachusetts who saw the state government's original plan.
Romney is close to Bush, and the Bush administration is close to Microsoft. More importantly, Romney has ambitions to run for president in three years, and he may have decided that he needs to be on good terms with Microsoft since Microsoft's "Corporate Political Action Committees" are among the largest political donors in the US. In last year's primaries, Microsoft supported a variety of would-be Democratic candidates.
So to summarize,
Microsoft claiming that their propriatary standard is open, that any deviation from that would be too costly, and that Mas has no common sense is a load of Bullshit.
Can't say I dissagree.
But here at slashdot, pieces like this are kind of preaching to the quire... don't you think?
Send my love to El Presidente.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
The OpenOffice / OpenDocument format specification is missing some functionality alright -- but not a piece of functionality that any legitimate user or developer is ever likely to notice.
Closed document formats are how the likes of Microsoft introduce built-in obsolescence into a market where there is none. You can design a physical machine with moving parts, such as a VCR, car, printer, air conditioner, washing machine, hi-fi, gas boiler, garden strimmer or fridge to fail after a certain amount of time; and as long as it worked reasonably well up till then and you allowed a fair price per year of service, there is still a better-than-reasonable chance that the customer will buy another one off you. But you can't plant a time bomb in software: once a user has bought {or, even worse, pirated} it from you, then it will just work forever.
The only new feature in any version of Word since '97 {which was the last version I really used} seems to have been a new and incompatible document format. Sure there probably are one or two power user functions. But most people -- and I'm talking the kind who use spaces for doing page layout -- aren't going to notice any of them. All this kind of user will ever see is that they can't open files saved with their friends' newest versions of Word which came with their spanky new PCs, in their old version of Word. That's the only way in which Word 97 is "not good enough" for the overwhelming majority of users.
But the concept of an open and extensible document format, with graceful degradation, totally and unequivocally blows this plan out of the water. There is no way to hold customers' data to ransom if the format is open; and extensibility combined with graceful degradation makes the file format future-proof. Anyone could write an extension to an earlier version OpenOffice.org to support functionality introduced in a later version, or initially implemented in a closed-source derivative.
It's no wonder Microsoft don't like this. They must feel like someone who has managed to steal everything they needed to live on, since time immemorial; but then suddenly got caught and now has to pay for everything.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Just think of all the wasted energy that could have been diverted elsewhere if we had standardized on TeX, Postscript, or ??? many years ago. :-(
Sounds like Craig Mundie slinging DoMB FUD again.
That is truly unbelievable when most retail concerns are lucky if they can post 10-20% profits.
But MS is scared. They're losing their grip on the server side, particularly in the web server, database server areas. LAMP to the rescue.
Disruptive technologies are the bane of established companies. MS is in for a rude awakening.
I didn't click on any of the links, but I am amazed at how many there are.
This much work all about one slashdot poster must be fueled by strong emotions. My guess is that this is one of those crushes like 7-year-olds get where the admirer is mean to the admired in order to attract attention.
It might even be cute, if a pair of slashdotters in typing away in their moms' basements could ever be cute.
I understand this for uncompressed xml files: you can look at the XML text and if some has become garbage you can try to repair it with a text editor by omitting the garbage and matching up the missing element tags.
However, OpenDocument files are compressed Zip files.
Damaged zip files can become undecompressable, or the damage may decompress thoughout the file.
Doesn't that make OpenDocument files an unrecoverable binary format with respect to damage and repair?
(For archive purposes, governments will use other means to protect against damage and to perform repair, such as keeping multiple copies on separate media. I suspect repair is needed more for recent documents not yet archived. )
Why is Microsoft obsessed with XML? Massachussetts is choosing the OpenOffice format because it's open. The fact that it's based on XML is just one point in its favor.
It would be equally silly if Microsoft were to say that because their file format uses "binary ones and zeroes" which all computers can read, therefore it's open.
No, I don't want to explore the Recycle Bin.
Please note that OpenOffice.org had to change their file format to Open Document. This is the reason that OOo 2.0 had a different format than OOo 1.x. It is also the reason that a 1.1.5 update will be released to add Open Document compatibility for OOo 1.x users.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Sorry for the bitterness, but this is simply a Proposal, and the fact that Forbes quotes FT (which is a london-based publication) appears to be lazy, sensationalistic reporting. It seems likely to me that it will be PDF, which is already widely used in MA gov, and not OpenDocument, that will be seriously considered. I'd provide a link, but you just have to look at the language this article uses: "proposal," "report said," etc. This is simply political positioning (or posing, really) and not serious legislation. There was a similar proposal to switch to Open Office in a specific MA government office (I forgot which) earlier this year, and it fell on its face. (I beleive M$ offered them a steep discount)
...which is exactly what their "open" Office 12 formats are intended to do. Identical concept (XML and media files in a .zip file) to the actually-open OASIS OpenDocument formats, but of course with Microsoft's own special "we have to do this for Office97 documents" incompatibilities and the "GPL-Forbidden" terms for their "patent" licenses.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend