Massachusetts Finalizes OpenDocument Standard Plan

wellington map writes "The state of Massachusetts has finalized a proposed move to an open, nonproprietary format for office documents, a plan that involves phasing out versions of Microsoft's Office productivity suite deployed in the state's executive branch agencies. Massachusetts expects its agencies to develop phased migration plans away from productivity suites that do not support OpenDocument, with a target implementation date of January 1, 2007. Looks like it's finally cemented after some heated discussions."

Comments

lately...

[rd4tech]

... governments are getting geekier.

Re:lately...

[Kaihaku]

I don't know about geekier, I'd say just less tolerent of poorly supported software. It did my heart good when the military started switching to Apple. In any case, it just goes to show that the future is open source...

Re:lately...

[MyLongNickName]

No, they aren't. They are looking for ways to meet budgets. Not that this is a bad thing. They see their annual expenditure on IT and look for a way to cut costs. Open Source has been big news the past couple years (outside of geek circles). PHB thinks "hmmm this might be a good idea" In this case, PHB is right.

I also have seen the quality of tech support in several local gov't situation. Usually below industry pay rate (but nice benefits). And the hiring process favors women, minorities, those with prior civil service experience and military background. Some of the dumbest folks you ever want to meet are working for your local gov't. I had one "sys admin" forward me an e-mail about a dangerous file on my system that I had to delete... turned out to be a critical windows file.

So point is, this decision wasn't made based upon tech savvy. It was made based upon cost.

Re:lately...

[Atzanteol]

It's not actually a budget thing (though lord knows MA needs to do something about it's spending). It's about "sovereignty" and the availability of documents long after archive and to the general public.

You can listen to a recent meeting of the Mass Technology Leadership Council here:
http://www.softwaregarden.com/cgi-bin/oss-sig/wiki .pl?OpenFormatMeetingSept2005

It's long, but they say time and time again they're only concerned with the document format and it's "openness." And they do a *great* job of shooting down Microsoft on this point.

Re:lately...

[aussie_a]

Do they mention why openness is a good thing? Or are they simply supporting it because it's the latest fad? Last I checked, Microsoft documents were accessible on all modern OSes, so it can't be because Microsoft documents wouldn't be accessible to the general public.

Re:lately...

[rheotaxis]

In the best tradition of Mr. Ben Franklin, free-thinker, give the people freedom, and they will innovate. A 100 years from now, the 30 year history of Microsoft will look like some kind of facist take-over attempt of the illuminati. Thank's to Zeus we put and end to that already.

Re:lately...

[Atzanteol]

They stated three things they wanted in a format (the things they used to define as open):

1. No single vendor controlling the format
2. A spec that is available to anybody who wants it (purchase in a store, download from site
3. No cost to implement the spec to anybody and no patents encombering the spec.

They were very smart IMHO. It's not trend-following. In fact they sort of appologize for not getting to this earlier (talking about how government tends to actually trail behind the private sector). Their reasoning is that they never want to need to worry in the future about being able to read old documents (MS can't make this guarantee - remember that state documents live for hundreds of years!). This was the big sticking point mostly. They also don't like one vendor controlling what they can do with their documents and didn't want to require the public to purchase expensive software to view these documents.

This is one of the few times I'm glad to be from Massachusetts. They had very well thought-out reasons behind this. The Microsoft representative couldn't even argue with them (though it sounds like he'd just gotten off a flight so he was probably pretty tired).

They stated that they don't require Open Office, just software that implements the OASIS spec. Microsoft is free to do so and then they will consider Office. It was the most complete spec that they found that offers all of the above points. I highly suggest listening to that recording. It's long, but not terribly boring (mostly techies in the room - few lawyers).

Re:lately...

[MyLongNickName]

Do you really take open-source word processing vs closed-source this seriously? Or are you trying to be over-the top sarcastic funny? I have a hard time telling some times.

Re:lately...

[jkrise]

Better late than never. Or rather, better earlier than other govts. at any rate - govts like India, China and Peru have already decided against proprietary formats. A shame the Fed govt is still locked up in MS formats. Let's see is Mass. decision leads to a Mass movement for Open-ness in protocols, formats and standards.

Re:lately...

[BasilBrush]

I'll give you an example of the most basic reason.

I have a database in Access 1.0 format. It is entirely unreadable/convertable by current versions of Access, and there is no free software available that will convert it. Essentially the data is lost forever, unless I seach for a garage sale copy of Access 1.0 or 2.0 - and there is no guarantee that such software would work on Windows XP anyway.

Now as it happens I don't need that data. But local governments should not be put in a position where their achives of data become unreadable, purely because it's locked in a proprietary format that the vendor has moved on from.

Re:lately...

[Atzanteol]

I don't think you realize just how important this decision is. Do you know for how long government documents last? With more and more documents being done in a purely electronic form the state is thinking long term. Companies come and go, but Massachusetts has been around for over 200 years and will likely be around much longer.

As one gentleman in the meeting put it. The law books from the early 1800s in the Harvard library are still readable. So should any documents stored elecronically in 200 years.

Re:lately...

[jkrise]

So point is, this decision wasn't made based upon tech savvy. It was made based upon cost.

I call Bullshit. Supporting different versions of MS products is indeed more technically challenging and daunting - worse, in many cases it's near impossible - you actually refer to the stupid advice to delete a patch! Considering non-MS agencies know and care more about MS formats and support them in their packages, this is both a cost-effective AND wise decision.

Re:lately...

[MyLongNickName]

If you will note in another message in this thread, I support going open-source. I do not disagree with your reasoning. However, the gp's comparing it to the liberation of people in the revolutionary war, and closed-source as fascism is taking it a bit far. Some folks need perspective.

Re:lately...

[MyLongNickName]

Please re-read my post. I never said it wasn't a smart choice. I only said the smartness wasn't the reason they made the choice. In my experience, the decisions are made by folks who only understand "if I don't have to pay for 5000 licenses @ $200/year, I save $1,000,000 per year". That's how IT decisions are made by most large companies, for better or for worse.

Re:lately...

[iggy_mon]

And the hiring process favors women, minorities, those with prior civil service experience and military background. Some of the dumbest folks you ever want to meet are working for your local gov't.
this comment is extremely 1960's. I KNOW there are very smart women in tech. I KNOW there are very smart minorities in tech and i KNOW there are very smart people in the military. In fact, i know one BLACK gentleman personally who was a Colonel in the MILITARY who would join me in taking exception to this very backwards set of comments.
i wish people would put a little thought in what they are trying to say and DOUBLE-CHECK they are actually saying it. Instead, we have to be subjected to this pile of ...

Re:lately...

[MyLongNickName]

Please tell me why Person A who has a better aptitude and skill set for something should be beat out by Person B because of race? It is racism plain and simple.

And yes, there are qualified black and female IT professionals. But they are a small percentage of the entire IT workforce. When you limit youself to a small percentage of the workforce, you will get a smaller percentage of qualified personnel.

The fact is the civil service is sexist and racist. If I reversed the scoring procedures (add points for male, and white) you would have numerous lawsuits filed.

My point isn't that there aren't qualified black and female candidates. It is that the hiring process is NOT based on best candidate. You can't argue that it is.

Re:lately...

[puetzc]

The plan does not require the use of Open Source software or OSes. It does require that the information be saved in a format that can always be read by anyone with a strong enough desire to read it. This distinction is often misunderstood, or misrepresented. Openness of the information that I create should not be a fad, it should be common sense. The last time I checked, I sometimes got garbled and misformatted output if the document if I tried to open was heavily formatted and used certain "features" from Microsoft Word. I should not have to own commercial products to communicate with my government.

Re:lately...

[swillden]

I suspect the problem you describe is primarily due to the age of the data file and not some much with the data file being in a proprietary format. As the open file format evolves it's likely you will encounter the same issue.

No, not the same issue. If Access 1.0 had used an open format, even if I couldn't acquire a copy of a sufficiently old version of Access, I could always read the specification and implement a translator that converts to a newer format which modern software can read. Now, whether or not that's worth the effort depends on the circumstances, but it would be orders of magnitude easier than reverse-engineering the format, or finding some way to acquire the ancient software and the infrastructure needed to run it.

And, odds are, given an open format someone else will have already written the translator and published it as open source. Especially if the format in question was widely used.

Re:lately...

[rheotaxis]

I'm a literalist. Look at a definiton of Fascism: "tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control." (Merriam-Webster Online, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fascist ) Now consider the effect of closed-source, proprietary formats, e.g. Micrsoft says it has unilaterally decided how its products will be developed and marketed, and how your content will be formatted in order for you to access it. Open standards are an expression of free-thinking people asserting their indpendance from such autocratic and dictorial control imposed by a single corporation.

Re:lately...

[swillden]

"Microsoft will publish the new Office Open XML Format specifications with the Open and Royalty-free license that we first made available for the Office 2003 XML file formats.

But Microsoft's license is not available to Free Software projects. Such a license fulfills most of the Massachussets goals, but unnecessarily limits what programs can implement support for the formats.

You mean something along the lines of what a myraid of programs, such as Open Office, already do for MS Office file formats?

Sort of. Those programs don't do a complete job. Reverse-engineering of formats is necessarily a series of successive approximations. For sufficiently complex formats, it's likely the series will never converge to a full implementation.

You don't have an Access 1.0 conversion program because no one's interested in writing one.

But why is that? Two reasons: (1) It's obscure, and (2) reverse-engineering the format is hard. Odds are that if either of those weren't true, there would be a converter. It's also likely that if it were a popular closed format, the available converters would still be incomplete, just as those for modern closed formats are.

Re:lately...

[ScrewMaster]

The law books from the early 1800s in the Harvard library are still readable. So should any documents stored elecronically in 200 years.

Yes, and why is that? It is because paper books are a common, reliable (albeit comparatively low density) non-volatile data storage medium which has changed very little in all that time. And even though the medium has remained stable, the truth is that the nature of the languages used (i.e., the file format) most certainly has changed, often to the point where the information content is unintelligible unless you happen to know how to read it.

While I applaud transparency in government and I approve of Massachussetts efforts to store documents in an open form, I also accept that the situation is not equivalent to paper documents. Properly handled, paper has a useful life meaured in centuries. This is not some estimated operating life ... it's a fact. We know this because we have functional documents that are that old.

Conversely, we have no such confidence in digital storage. Data retention of digital systems is measured in decades at best, not centuries. And we are already having, a mere thirty years into the computer revolution, a huge problem keeping older digital archives alive because the technology used to create them is obsolete and unavailable. So, I'm glad that government is moving away from proprietary document solutions but, long-term the file format will less of an obstacle to maintaining an effective archive as the storage technology itself. Fact is, file formats can always be reverse engineered (just like obsolete dialects can be rediscovered) but a document whose storage system failed is lost forever.

Re:lately...

[Atzanteol]

You make a good point, but one step at a time here. Get the file-format open, then deal with the archival quality of digital media.

Fact is, file formats can always be reverse engineered

Ahhh, but will it be *legal* to do so? That is part of the dilemma being faced lately, and part of the reason Massachusetts doesn't want file formats encumbered by patents and such.

Re:lately...

[Stephen Ma]

Again I repeat: The problem that you've outlined in your example is more likely due to the age of the format in question and not so much that it's proprietary. You don't have an Access 1.0 conversion program because no one's interested in writing one.

Not so. If the Access 1.0 format were open, BasilBrush could have written a converter himself, regardless of how old the format was. But the format is closed, so he is f*cked.

Massachusetts does not want to be stranded like Basil. Will Microsoft still be around 200 years from now? Who knows. Massachusetts does not want to take the risk of having gigantic amounts of their data becoming unreadable in the future.

Re:lately...

[swillden]

It meets their goals. Whether it's available to free software projects is irrelavent.

It meets *most* of their goals. One of their goals is that the format must be implementable by anyone. Free Software projects cannot use Microsoft's format, ergo it does not meet all of the requirements.

A non-issue as the format is being published by Microsoft.

Perhaps. Their Office 2003 XML formats include significant features that, while documented, are inextricably tied to other Windows components which are not documented. Open Document is significantly better in that respect.

Odds are that it's obscure. It's likely that there aren't very many people looking to convert.

But if it's easy to implement, it only takes one person with a spare weekend and basic development skills. If it requires reverse engineering, the pool of people who have both the time and the skill required is much smaller. The odds that someone has both the interest and the ability are therefore much smaller. I think you're being deliberately obtuse.

They've either already done it or don't care. Let me ask you this: Why do you still have data in Access 1.0 format?

I don't, actually. That was another poster. I do happen to have some stuff in Nutshell Database files, though. I haven't quite mustered the courage to look into reverse engineering the format yet, although I think it's a flat file database, so it's probably not too difficult. Why do I have them? Because at the time I had access to the software to convert them I (a) was a newbie who gave no thought to whether or not I'd be able to use tham later and (b) they weren't worth the effort. Then. They're actually worth more to me now than they were then, though only for their nostalgia value. States, on the other hand, are quite likely to have documents that sit in an archive for 50 years, ignored, and then need to be read.

Massachussets is demonstrating a great deal of intelligence and foresight here.

Re:lately...

[tolkienfan]

Actually the original proposal allowed for Microsoft Office file formats. They were termed an "defacto standard".

It was only after a rather lot of pressure from the public (mostly geeks, I assume) that they released the updated version. Public outcry made them realize that encumbered file formats were not a good idea for government files.

So, whilst your reasoning is sound, it is factually incorrect.

Re:lately...

[Eric Damron]

"It meets their goals. Whether it's available to free software projects is irrelavent."

No, it does NOT meet their goals and they stated so very clearly if you would bother to listen to the meeting.

The public records belong to the public and should not be encoded in a proprietary format. EVERY citizen has a right to public records and should not be forced to purchase software from one vendor in order to access those records.

Microsoft is free to support any open standard that they wish. This in no way locks Microsoft out. Microsoft on the other had wants to lock out everyone else and force citezens to use their software to access public records. That isn't right and thankfuly that won't happen.

Good on 'Em, mate! :-)

[mfh]

Seriously, I like it. I like the fact that govs are looking at the bottom line and trying to streamline operations. Phasing out Microsoft? That would have been unheard of ----- last year.

I am happy to hear the Chew'setts have the brass tacks to pull something like this off and I can't wait to see Microsoft shoot themselves in the foot on this one.

Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-)

[pallmall1]

This is good news. When I heard Mass. had made its policy final, I immediately went to OpenOffice.org and downloaded OpenOffice.org 2 beta and installed it on my Debian system. I created a new text document, and when I saved it, the default format was OpenDocument! And it worked great. It's fitting that Mass. is leading the way. This is like the Boston Tea party.

Here's to the Boston Office party!

Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I wouldn't say they are phasing out Microsoft. If you listened to the mp3 that was made available. They made it very clear their up most concerns about document retention. They also made it very clear how vendors can comply with their requirements. Since the Microsoft representative had a hard time understanding their requirements, MA itemized what Microsoft needed to do. And still Microsoft took the position the customer does not have the right to define their own requirements and must use what ever Microsoft deems they should.

Of all the company representatives present during that meeting, I did not hear one objecting to the goals MA has in mind, except one. And some of those companies present are not from the backwoods.

If anyone is phasing anyone one out, it is Microsoft doing it to themselves.

Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-)

[MightyMartian]

I think it's pretty clear that at some point someone is simply going to write an Office plugin that opens and saves in the format, so this whole debate over what MS will or will not do will be moot. But I think that MS's behavior in this instance demonstrates that it is still the monopolist it was convicted of being. I hope Massachussets has the clout to carry this out, but I'm still a little dubious.

Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-)

[Wieland]

I think it's pretty clear that at some point someone is simply going to write an Office plugin that opens and saves in the format

And what if that happens? I don't care a bit if people insist on using MS Office for reading or editing documents in an open, non-proprietary format, although I'd think they're wasting their money. At least they would no longer be forcing me to buy MS Office before we can exchange documents.

Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-)

[tonyr60]

What a good idea - a third party plugin for Office. Two wee problems. First you would have to reverse engineer it as there is no API so you could not guarantee full compatibility. Second, what happens at the next Office upgrade?

So why does MA want an open standard format?????

Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-)

[timeOday]

at some point someone is simply going to write an Office plugin that opens and saves in the format, so this whole debate over what MS will or will not do will be moot.

Complex document format translation - does it ever work? I say it will always be a band-aid. To handle a format correctly, there will aways have to be tweaks buried here and there in the code, as much as we would wish otherwise.

Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-)

[0b11111010101]

Have the clout to carry it out?? You are talking about Massachusetts, home of the Revolution and gay marriage. They do whatever the hell they want there... If anyone in the US is going to kick out Microsoft it will be there.

MS Will Come Around Eventually

[blueZhift]

While it will take more than days, I think that Microsoft will eventually come around and support OpenDocument. There's no technical reason that they cannot and Microsoft can't afford to let big customers get away. Once large companies and governments realize that they can get along just fine without Microsoft products, it will be even harder to get them back on the crack, so to speak. So I wouldn't be surprised if there are already betas running in Microsoft somewhere that support OpenDocument and they run on the Microsoft Linux Distro too!

Anyway, in the end, the customer is always right. So Microsoft will come around if OpenDocument gets any kind of real traction.

Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually

[aled]

Make the formats open and they will come...

Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually

[bogaboga]

While it will take more than days, I think that Microsoft will eventually come around and support OpenDocument...

...then, a security patch will be released to take care of M$'s unfinished business. That is, to make MS-Office create extensions on each document it touches. Then we'll be back to square 1! Only time will tell.

Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually

[jkrise]

Likewise Open LDAP, Open HTML :-)... Open Groupware instead of locked down Exchange bloatware formats and MTAs and protocls.... Open FS instead of WinFS.. Open Database - okay that's there with ODBC... hmm. Interesting times ahead.

Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually

[richg74]

... a plan that involves phasing out versions of Microsoft's Office productivity suite deployed in the state's executive branch agencies

Actually, the plan does not necessarily involve phasing out anything. As the parent post suggests, Microsoft can continue to be a contender by modifying Office to support open document formats.

Once large companies and governments realize that they can get along just fine without Microsoft products, it will be even harder to get them back on the crack, so to speak.

This is why Microsoft is fighting this tooth and nail. (I've always said if you want an explanation of their marketing strategy, ask the crack man.) They are mortally afraid of people discovering that they do have choices. I agree with the parent that MS will probably come around eventually, but I think they'll be dragged into the future kicjing and screaming.

Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually

[ZombieWomble]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they do introduce support for Open formats soon... and also pop up a nice friendly help box any time anyone opens a document in that format warning of reduced flexibility or what have you, and suggesting the document be converted to a nice reliable .doc...

Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually

[TheRealMindChild]

I am not sure if of technical abilities of OpenDocument... one of the thing MS LOVES to do, especially with their office documents, is use OLE storage. This way, they can use their documents and contained objects more like persistant classes. This is the main reason that a lot of MS technology never finds its way out of Windows.

Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually

[deaddrunk]

Not sure I understand what you're getting at here. OLE is about putting one object like an Excel spreadsheet inside for example a Word doc. I'd be very surprised if OO can't do this sort of thing even on non-Windows platforms.

Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually

[TheRealMindChild]

Google for "OLE Storage"

Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually

[bani]

No, I don't think so.

What I expect will happen is that microsoft will continue their criminal behavior and make Massachusetts an "offer they can't refuse". And Massachusetts will quietly drop their opendocument requirement without any announcement and without any debate.

Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

My father died in the vietnam war. By accepting unpatriotic "open" standards, you are pissing on his grave.

Re:Sad

[rheotaxis]

That was the Vietnam war. By not using the capital 'V', you belittle the service of your father in that war, may he rest in peace. Shameful disrepect, but I forgive you anyway. I'm sure it was just a typo, right?

Re:Sad

[trygstad]

You certainly are a "sad anonymous coward". My dad died as a result of his military service--he served with the Marines in China, Korea and Vietnam--and he would be SO delighted to see a state government selecting Open Source Software. I really fail to see how not selecting Microsoft could possibly be pissing on you Dad's grave. Contrary to what they what have you believe, Microsoft is not America, and Open Source is neither un-American nor un-patriotic. I think you've been sold a bill of goods by the richest man in the world. (By the way, I did my 21 years of military service, too--how about you?)

Re:Sad

[hunterx11]

I'm sure that you're well trained to identify hostile military threats. The same cannot be said of you and irony.

Re:Sad

[trygstad]

OK, that's a fair shot. It probably was intended that way. The poster just pushed one of my buttons; some of us are a bit touchy about our dead Dads.

In Related News...

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the guys behind KOffice has just posted an open letter refuting a few aspects Alan Yates/Microsoft's criticism of open doc.

Re:In Related News...

[abigor]

The first comment posted there made me laugh:

"I am sure that Mr. Yates will be greatly reassured and uplifted by your letter. Hopefully, this will assuage the horrible anxiety Microsoft has suffered and continues to suffer, in the wake of this OpenDocument announcement, for it's good friend... the honorable State of Massachusetts."

Re:In Related News...

[ssj_195]

You have to unzip it first :). "Zip" files are well-understood and have a wealth of (portable) open-source implementations available. The extracted directories contain files that are either human-readable (the document text, plus styles and formatting) or files that were embedded in the document, kept in their original format (e.g. embed a PNG in your documents, and you can unzip your document and grab your PNG image back with nothing more than an unzipping utility!).

Re:In Related News...

[arose]

Try to unzip it, you might be surprised.

Re:In Related News...

[Homology]

You have to unzip it first :). "Zip" files are well-understood and have a wealth of (portable) open-source implementations available. The extracted directories contain files that are either human-readable (the document text, plus styles and formatting) or files that were embedded in the document, kept in their original format (e.g. embed a PNG in your documents, and you can unzip your document and grab your PNG image back with nothing more than an unzipping utility!).

I whish the format would be more easily versioned in something like Subversion, except as a binary file. This would make it easier to have several persons working on the same document.

Why?

[aussie_a]

I RTFA and it doesn't say one simple question "Why is Massachusetts doing this?" Now I can think of numerous reasons, but did OASIS? Or is OASIS simply justifying it's existence (however brief it might have been/will be) by creating an expensive (sorry, but migration IS expensive) procedure that will have to take place over a year? Beauraucrats love making policies, is this simply another example of that, without regard to the advantages and disadvantages?

The slashdot articles are also fairly free of any real reason. One cites some vague legal concerns (that frankly seemed devoid of any real information) while the other makes mention of a non-Microsoft format (called Voleware). If whatever they were using Voleware for wasn't meeting their needs, fine. But why this big policy change state-government wide? Why change all of the formats (when most of them CAN be opened under all modern operating systems)? Were the costs and disadvantages discussed along with the advantages? I can't see any indication of that. Does anyone that know more about this want to shed some light?

Re:Why?

[Atzanteol]

See my post here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163269&cid=136 37741

There is a recording of the Mass Technology Leadership Council discussing their reasons here: http://www.softwaregarden.com/cgi-bin/oss-sig/wiki .pl?OpenFormatMeetingSept2005

Basically they're very afraid of proprietary document formats (and rightly so). Especially when they consider archival purposes. 20 years from now do you want to find a copy of Word '98 to be able to read old state documents? Right now I can go to the basement of Harvard and read law books from the 1800's!

They're also concerned about requiring the public to purchase expensive software from a single vendor in order to view "public" documents. They state time and time again what their requirements for a doc format are, and that if Microsoft were to offer one they would consider it. MS, unsurprisingly, does not offer one...

Re:Why?

[standards]

Simply read the other articles and the source documents offered by both Massachusetts and Microsoft (linked by the prior) - they address all of your questions if you read them: short and long term costs, legal concerns, document retention concerns, and solutions.

Re:Why?

[Naviztirf]

Well, I can think of an easy answer: to begin to get out of the financial box MS has put most US governments. I can only speak about my own experience working in IT for Multnomah County in Portland, OR, but I know that they were spending millions each year on MS licensing fees, both for OS and Office applications. Sure, it can be expensive to switch IT standards, but it seems to me the more governments rely on open standards and open source software the less they have to spend keeping expensive proprietary software around. As a side note, Oregon at one point was considering a bill that would force local government IT to consider open source when making technology decisions. A move that had MS down there in a jiffy with a team of FUD spreading lawyers who quickly squashed it. As a partial result, Multnomah county is now 100% MS, no NetWare, no Linux, no alternatives allowed. They even fired or demoted those who refused to switch....

Re:Why?

[Eustace Tilley]

Do not by deliberate policy require taxpayers to purchase upgrades to operating systems deprecated as insufficiently modern by entities with a commercial interest in selling said upgrades. Policy must be to assure that documents created at taxpayer expense will never become unreadable because an entity with a commercial interest in the sale of novel document software issues an end of life statement. Use of a secret storage format whose details are known only to a vendor and whose details may not lawfully be reverse engineered is grossly irresponsible.

Re:Why?

[Jason Earl]

Massachussets stated reason for switching to the OpenDocument format is that it allows them to guarantee access to important state documents. However, my guess is that this is just a fancy sugar coating over the real reason for switching, and that reason is the cost of migrating to Office 12. There is a very interesting exchange in the MP3 of the recent meeting that the state officers had with various software companies in which, after nearly an hour of saying that the state didn't want to talk about procurement, one of the Mass. officers let the Microsoft team have it right between the eyes. Basically he laid out the costs that Massachussetts would incur in a switch to MS Office 12, and it was clear that the costs were much higher than a switch to OO.org.

Massachussets is going to have to switch document formats no matter what they do. The new version of MS Office 12 is going to have a completely new set of document formats that won't be backwards compatible. Yes, Microsoft has promised plugins for some of the older versions of MS Office that will read and write these new formats, and yes Microsoft has tools that allow for batch conversion of documents, but OpenOffice.org has this as well. The state of Massachussetts has an estimated 50,000 desktops, primarily running Windows 2000. In order to use MS Office 12 Massachussetts would have to upgrade the operating system on all of these boxes, and in many cases it would need to purchase new hardware to boot. Not only that, but Office 12 also has an entirely redesigned user interface which would require additional user training.

Do you see where this is going? Massachussetts estimates (using past knowlegde of similar Microsoft updates) that a move to Office 12 would cost $50 million dollars. A move to OpenOffice.org is estimated to cost an order of magnitude less ($5 million dollars). Heck, if Microsoft is going to force their customers to a new set of file formats, with a new UI, and a new operating system then its almost certain that OO.org on their existing operating system and using existing hardware will be less expensive. OO.org also forces you to use a new file format and it will require training, but Massachussetts won't have to throw an OS upgrade into the mix.

The reason that Massachussetts can get away with the switch is that they are big enough that they can simply mandate a file format and expect people that deal with them to make the switch. You don't argue with the bureaucrats. If they want their documents in OpenDocument formats then you simply find a way to send them OpenDocument formats. The fact that the software necessary to deal with the state government is going to be a free download is just a bonus. If Massachussetts required MS Office 12, or WordPerfect, or even LaTeX that's what people would send them.

One thing is certain, a lot of businesses and individuals in Massachussetts are going to find it necessary to download and install OpenOffice.org, and many of them are going to like what they find. It's almost certainly going to become much more difficult to sell new versions of MS Office in Massachussetts. After all, unless you are some sort of MS Office power user you are not even likely to be able to tell the difference between the two programs, and OO.org is going to be required for dealing with the government.

Re:Why?

[fermion]

Others have mentioned the reasons for the MA decision, and other articles on /. have tracked the progress, but at the base the reason is portability.

I, and anyone else who have creating word documents for the past decade or so, know how fustrating it is to go back and try to edit old work. Now, if one is using word as a toy, i.e. school papers or memos that no one really reads, then it doesn't matter how the work is saved, because the computer is just a fnacy typewriter, and no one will care about the document the day after tommorow. But when using Word to edit documents that will need to be revised for years to come, or that others will have to interact with, it is really a waste of time to have to fight to read in those docs when MS chooses to change the formats.

And it really is between MS closed format and something not so insane. The current state of the world is that most things are in MS format, and MS format is really a problem. I like MS Word 97, so, until a few years ago, that is what I used. I could use the latest version, as it would cost me very little to upgrade, but the money would buy me nothing but file compatibility with other users. The biggest prolem with word '97 is that the current MS word has difficulty reading the files. So I can upgrade to the current format, or I can find another solution. It shouldn't be hard for MS to provide the solution, as it is a MS product, in the form of backwards compatibility, but the choose not to. MS instead chooses to screw it's customers. Like 10 years ago when i had to reinstall and mess with filter to get the then current version of word to read files that were a year old.

Which is really what I think this is about. It is not so much that we want an open format. Many are happy using PDF files because PDF files have seldom let us down. What we don't want is a format that is so insanely closed that not even the company that controls it can keep up with from version to version. Everyone hates insecurity, and what MS has shown us since MS Word the first is that we cannot count on the security of reading our old files. This is why I use OO.org, and why it is not worth it to save anything important in any MS format.

At this point people usually reply that I am lying. But I was perfectly happy with MS Word until i woke up one morning and realized that nothing was going to change and i was putting all my writing in a black hole. MS Office is good, it is not overpriced, but in terms of file security, it is a very bad value.

Re:Why?

[deaddrunk]

Hmmm. I'm an audio typist for the UK government and I use a lot of Word features. I wonder if I can persuade my boss to let me trial it for a month and see if Writer is a drop-in replacement for Word. I have a feeling that I wouldn't notice a great deal of difference.

Re:Why?

[Jason Earl]

Of all of the OpenOffice.org family Writer is far and away the best piece of software. In fact, due to the fact that it makes it much easier to use styles in your document than MS Word I actually like Writer better than Word. The real problem with OO.org has always been file format compatibility with MS Office. I know that I have kept around a copy of MS Office for years now simply to test documents before sending them to MS Office users. For the most part OO.org has worked well, but sometimes there have been issues.

That's why government deals with OO.org are so important. They essentially represent Microsoft's worst nightmare because it puts the whole file format compatibility issue on the other foot. The government is big enough that it can mandate changes. Everyone deals with the government to some extent, and now dealing with the state of Massachussetts requires that you have OO.org installed (or something compatible). I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see OO.org usage grow to the point in Massachussetts where the OpenDocument formats become ubiquitous. Despite what Microsoft says most people don't really want to pay hundreds of dollars for MS Office, they just considered that a cost of doing business. If people can share documents without paying for MS Software then that's precisely what will happen.

Re:Why?

[Eustace Tilley]

Many are happy using PDF files because PDF files have seldom let us down.

One reason I am happy using PDF is the PDF Specification is published.

Microsoft just trying to stop Massachusetts...

[Zweideutig]

from choose somehting truely open. I am suer this OpenDocument format will not leave Microsoft's doors without a license that says you won't use it with GNU-licensed software (or maybe even MIT and BSD.) They don't want people having Office interoperability with non-Microsoft products anymore than they want people replacing Office (namely Word and Excel) entirely. Of course, if they do allow things like OOo and abiword to open and edit their OpenDocument-formatted documents, at least Massachusetts won't be as angry and they will probably still get plenty of customers buying Office. However, now it will be more difficult to force upgrades. Institutions are already fed up with Office costs and many (like the local school system) are using OpenOffice.org instead. I predict that Office will become much less profitable if everyone starts using OpenDocument format.

Re:Microsoft just trying to stop Massachusetts...

[aled]

Opendocument is a format backed from OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards), previously named SGML Group. It's not of Microsoft and it can be viewed as an open alternative to propietary MS Office format. Openoffice 2 implements this format as it's default format. Microsoft have no ownership on OpenDocument and it's wary that its widespread use will downplay the need to use MS Office and open the door to alternative packages, usually open source.
Note: while MS Office documents can be open in abiword and openoffice, it's kind of a closed format that can never be 100 percent documented, so compability can't be perfect. Only MS Office use fully the format so there's a dependency on Microsoft by using its format.

Re:And the results of this:

[rheotaxis]

Just how are government employees going to use .doc without using MS Office? Oh, yeah Open Office will be used to save the standard document as some format of MS Word. At least the tax payers won't be required to pay for MS Word if they don't want to. Freedom of Choice wins.

This will be M$'s strategy...

[bogaboga]

I am speculating that M$'s next strategy will be to get a mandate from the next high authority. This time, it will be the Federal government. I understand that in the union, the Federal government can overrule a state's authority.

By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send them back?

Suppose M$ suddenly decides to support OpenDocument, gets the state's business and then issues a "security patch", that introduces proprietary extensions as has been in the past?

Re:This will be M$'s strategy...

[jkrise]

By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send them back?

Open Office or all packages that support OpenDoc can read the MS word format without any problem. Likewise, the reply docs can be saved in word doc versions and still be read by the Fed systems running MS Office. I don't see any problems here.... except for locked down formats like Microsoft's.

Re:This will be M$'s strategy...

[John Hasler]

> I understand that in the union, the Federal government can overrule
> a state's authority.

You do not understand correctly.

> By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends
> documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send
> them back?

The state will read them with OpenOffice, of course. What do you think?

> Suppose M$ suddenly decides to support OpenDocument, gets the
> state's business and then issues a "security patch", that
> introduces proprietary extensions as has been in the past?

Either the "extensions" will be turned off or Microsoft will lose the state's business again, and perhaps find itself in court for breach of contract.

Re:This will be M$'s strategy...

[Zordak]

I understand that in the union, the Federal government can overrule a state's authority.

Only in cases that deal wih the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. As of yet, there is no federal law that says that the all documents within the United States must be in Word format. Even if Congress tried to pass one (which would be silly), the current Supreme Court would probably strike it down for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the Rhenquist Court was pretty good about telling Congress to stop using the Commerce Clause to wipe its collective butt -- I imagine Roberts will be similar). Yes, even today, the Federal government has limited jurisdiction in the United States.

By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send them back?

If it wants to. The states have a fair degree of autonomy, and most of them love telling the Federal Government where they can stick it when they get the chance.

Re:This will be M$'s strategy...

[WhiteWolf666]

By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send them back?
My guess?

Massachusetts will open it in OpenOffice.org (or IBM's upcoming thin-client ODP solution), and file a complaint with the federal government "We've received XXX.doc, please be aware that it is against the policy of the State of Massachusetts to work with documents not in the ODP ISO-standard format. Your document has been converted to an ODP format document-- the State of Massachusetts cannot be held liable for any errors in conversion to this format. Any such material errors must be corrected by the document submitter. Attached is the ODP version of your document, please review it for any errors in the automatic conversion process. Please view http://xxx.xxx.ma.us/ODP for more information regarding this policy."

Actually, I think they'll do that with anyone submitting word documents. The real kicker---

What will the Federal Government do when the State of Massachusetts only submits ISO-standard ODP (OASIS) documents back to the feds?

My guess? Use OpenOffice.org as a conversion filter. Then, various fed employees (IT people) will start wondering _why_ they should be paying for MS Office when they *already* use a similar office suite as a _conversion_ filter.

In the long run, moves like this will force the Federal government to consider an 'integrated, intelligent' IT policy similar to the one that Massachusetts implements. Especially if Massachusetts is successful in their migration. The interdepartmental integration benefits are amazing.

You know all that rhetoric we here coming from the current administration about 'information sharing' among various departments? Universal OASIS ODP XML will help in that process.

My guess? Sun & IBM are preparing to storm the office market through a 3-way split.

1. OpenOffice.org for the masses. Free, full featured, supported. Perfect for home users and small companies. Also perfect for companies with large linux staffs
2. StarOffice. Full featured, Sun support. Perfect for OEMs, home users that want someone to blame, small companies, and large companies looking for a traditional office solution. Almost a drop-in MS office replacement, and a drop-in replacement for 80% of users.
3. IBM's Workplace. A new type of enterprise document creation/management. Blows MS Office out of the water in terms of features, yet you can easily exchange documents with anyone using the above two platforms.

Neat, eh?

A free platform for the masses. A supported platform for those desiring corporate support. A ground-breaking enterprise solution, straight from Big Blue, who *loves* to eat up government contracts.

And they all interoperate with each other, and they all interoperate with most of the alternatives (KOffice, Abiword, and whoever decides to resurrect Wordperfect).
None of these entities alone can challenge MS. However, Big Blue easily has the capability to challenge MS, and easily dominates MS in terms of server-client solutions (That's what IBM's Workplace is). Sun's 'StarOffice' isn't enterprise ready-->But it doesn't matter, StarOffice readily interoperates with Workplace. And the rest of us can get a similar system for free.

Quite frankly, unless MS decides to *immediately* support OASIS document formats, we're going to have a genuine war in the Office area. I suspect government contracts will play a huge role in this war, and I suspect that IBM plus ISO-standard compliant formats will blindside the MS enterprise salesforce.

Re:This will be M$'s strategy...

[spauldo]

> > I understand that in the union, the Federal government can overrule
> > a state's authority.

> You do not understand correctly.

If only that were true...

The feds have multiple ways of overriding a state's authority. Foremost, the vague clause in the constitution that gives the feds the power over anything (article I, section 8, clause 18) tends to be abused quite a bit.

This used to be a major difference in the parties - traditionally, one party supported use of clause 18 while the other opposed it. That's no longer the case - pretty much both parties are gung-ho in their support of large central government. It's a shame, since we lose a lot of the benefits of running under a federal system. Since the tenth amendment says "all other powers are reserved...", the feds can use that clause to undermine the states since it's not an "other" power.

Note this allows some beneficial agencies that could not be foreseen - the FCC, FDA, etc. So it's not a bad clause, it's just prone to abuse.

The feds have also been known to use such things as highway funds to force the states into passing laws (notice that the drinking age is 21 in _all_ states? That's why. Louisiana was the last holdout.). There are no checks on this sort of power. It would have been nice if the states had had the balls enough to take this to the supreme court.

As far as the extensions comment goes, more than likely Massachusetts would just let it slide. Someone with enough power to make it an issue would have to care, and personally I'm surprised this has gone as far as it has. Personally, by not "embracing and extending" the standard, Microsoft is making a big mistake, IMO. Basic human nature and a little political play would have let them succeed. I wouldn't be surprised if this is their next tactic.

Re:This will be M$'s strategy...

[Stephen Ma]

As far as the extensions comment goes, more than likely Massachusetts would just let it slide. Someone with enough power to make it an issue would have to care, and personally I'm surprised this has gone as far as it has. Personally, by not "embracing and extending" the standard, Microsoft is making a big mistake, IMO. Basic human nature and a little political play would have let them succeed. I wouldn't be surprised if this is their next tactic.

It wouldn't slide if total compatibility with OpenDocument were written into the contract between Microsoft and Massachusetts, with hefty penalties for noncompliance. If the state could make a ton of $$$ by suing MS for breach of contract, do you think they would let it slide?

Re:This will be M$'s strategy...

[spauldo]

> If the state could make a ton of $$$ by suing MS for breach of contract, do you think they would let it slide?

Yes. A few words with some key political people and the general apathy and ignorance of politicians goes a long way.

This is a fairly big issue right now, but Microsoft is used to dealing with the government and understands how to manipulate them. It really boils down to how stubborn the politicians want to be.

great reply!

[mabhatter654]

the whole point of the thing is that OpenDocument IS the future!!! the only mainline office programs that DON'T have current support or plans for support are WordPerfect and MS office... just about all the OSS solutions are moving that way eventually.

Great way to fight the FUD!!!

Re:And the results of this:

[DrXym]

Even if MS Office supported opendocument (and it could), Microsoft could ensure that it was not the defacto format fairly easily by either not installing it by default, only shipping it with certain versions of MS Office, or even making it an additional download that the user has to go off and get. Which basically means that 95-99% of users never bother.

On top of that, I'm also sure they'd identify weaknesses in the specification and ensure that their .odt files are laced with extra namespaces & markup which made documents look terrible or broken unless you happened to be using MS Office to load and save them.

Other fun things they could do? Scary warnings before saving in .odt about "not everything can be saved if you use this format", half assed implementations of opendoc that don't support more esoteric features, and more besides.

Why aren't big companies doing this?

[HangingChad]

You have to wonder why more big companies aren't setting an open file format standard? It would ensure that 10 years from now you could still access archived data.

Whenever I bring it up to any of my clients, government or private side, they give me that deer in the headlights look. Even if you can dig out an old backup tape and demonstrate the files aren't conveniently recoverable it still doesn't seem to sink in.

The same with database storage. I'm amazed how many companies don't even have a freakin data dictionary. If you have to ask why you need one of those, then you need one. Maybe you just really like transposing fields and data types on the fly between every application you build. People must find that pleasurable because there's sure enough of them doing it.

Re:Why aren't big companies doing this?

[Richthofen80]

Well, its hard to say why someone hasn't stepped up. I think its because up until recently Standards boards have always been a step or two behind the developers and users. A great antecdotal example of this is the Javascript DOM model. When IE 4 and 5 were released, they had support for Event Model attachment using Microsoft specific methods and event handlers. There was a need to be able to dynamically affix javascript events, often more than one event to a certain user action on the page. Microsoft implemented a solution that worked pretty good. There were flaws, though, like being able to flag whether those events 'bubbled'. So when the Standards board wrote or rewrote the Javascript standards, they added the proper flags. To someone just getting into the game, it seems like Microsoft's approach is non-standards compliant and inferior. They're right, but its all they had at one point, and to say that people should hold off on new features until someone else writes a standard for them usually means you're not first-to-market with a solution.

Now don't get me wrong, I support standards so that people can use the same data across different platforms. But its hard to wait for standards to be written. Its also harder from a business standpoint to say that you're surrendering software development decisions to a body of people that might not have your business's interests in mind.

Re:Why aren't big companies doing this?

[ScrewMaster]

Of course, you're surrendering control either way. To a standards body, or to Microsoft's board of directors. Take your pick.

Re:Why aren't big companies doing this?

[Stephen Ma]

A standards body like ANSI or ISO has some power, but that power is minimal compared to what Microsoft would have over us if we allowed the corporation to impose their secret document standards on us. A truly open standard will be universally readable and legally unencumbered -- and that is a huge advantage for us.

long overdue

[Anonymous Coward]

This move was long overdue and hopefully the other states will follow soon. There are better uses of our tax dollars than filling the pockets of Microsoft folks. Afterall, OpenOffice and XML are pretty much standard nowadays.

Re:long overdue

[idamaybrown]

"OpenOffice and XML are pretty much standard nowadays"

Is this true? Are most users running Open Office? Is it 5%?, 10%?, 50%??? It is A standard, but is it THE standard?

Re:long overdue

[bluGill]

Seem the "on linux" qualifier was omitted. Most linux users are using open office.org. There is a significant koffice crowd (much better IMHO), and abiword and LaTeX both have their fans. Might even be a word perfect user or two left, not to mention those who have bought crossover to run Microsoft Word. For most Linux users though OOo is the office suite.

The family and friends of most of those linux users is also using Open office.org. I know that I install it for all the home users I know stuck on Microsoft Windows. Sure they could buy something else, but OOo is free, and good enough for their needs.

The Massachusetts decision will help things along.

Of course Open office is not number one. It may never be (did I mention that I think koffice is better?), but it is popular enough that you cannot ignore it.

Re:And the results of this:

[mw13068]

They have been doing all of these things for years now. And still OpenOffice.org is gaining in numbers and mind-share because some people occasionally are able to see through the MS BS.

If there is a *policy* in place that tells folks that they must save in the ODF, then those folks will naturally ask their IT staff to make it easier to do, whether it's with a MS product add-on or OpenOffice or KOffice, or whatever.

Well done, Massachusetts.

Re:And the results of this:

[Pichu0102]

I'd think Microsoft would be intelligent enough to fully support OpenDocument if they ever got around to it. Think about it. If Microsoft didn't fully support a document everyone else in a certain workplace used (OpenDocument), then it's likely that the person would switch from Microsoft Office, causing more lost people. The only way to keep people for them would be to fully support it, and not try to irritate users that already are thinking of switching.

Re:And the results of this:

[GrungyLotG]

This sounds very similar to what Microsoft is doing with HTML/CSS/JS. Before they release a new browser, they state how CSS2 is "flawed," and therefore we wont support it (And I'm betting that they will add propritary functions that do a similar thing). The same thing happened with the half-assed support of pretty much any standards in HTML/JS...yes, they might have one or two parts that follow standards, but the rest is either proprietary, or a horrible "improved" take on the standards.

I'm sure MS will attempt to do the same thing to ODT files. They will make some fairly basic functions in Office stored in a "enhanced" form, which, ofcourse, only works in MS Office. Judging from past experiance, the "standard" files genorated by Office would be a horrible mash of invalid markup, useless elements, and namespaces that server no purpose; except to break compatibility with any other program. In their usual style, they will probally hide a series of options hidden under 12 dialog windows which are the only way to genorate an actual standard document. Not only this, those options would probally pop up a "scary sounding" warning when disabled, to stop the non-techies among us from changing them.

Just to back this up, look at the XML Word genorates for a document that only contains "Hello world!" (No, I'm not joking, check for yourself).

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<?mso-application progid="Word.Document"?>
<w:wordDocument xmlns:w="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/ 2003/wordml" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:sl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/schemaLibra ry/2003/core" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/c ore" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word /2003/auxHint" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C1488 2" w:macrosPresent="no" w:embeddedObjPresent="no" w:ocxPresent="no" xml:space="preserve"><o:DocumentProperties><o:Titl e>Hello World</o:Title><o:Author>Mike Koval</o:Author><o:LastAuthor>zzz</o:LastAuthor><o :Revision>1</o:Revision><o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTim e><o:Created>2005-09-24T15:20:00Z</o:Created><o:La stSaved>2005-09-24T15:20:00Z</o:LastSaved><o:Pages >1</o:Pages><o:Words>1</o:Words><o:Characters>12</ o:Characters><o:Lines>1</o:Lines><o:Paragraphs>1</ o:Paragraphs><o:CharactersWithSpaces>12</o:Charact ersWithSpaces><o:Version>11.5604</o:Version></o:Do cumentProperties><w:fonts><w:defaultFonts w:ascii="Times New Roman" w:fareast="Times New Roman" w:h-ansi="Times New Roman" w:cs="Times New Roman"/></w:fonts><w:styles><w:versionOfBuiltInSty lenames w:val="4"/><w:latentStyles w:defLockedState="off" w:latentStyleCount="156"/><w:style w:type="paragraph" w:default="on" w:styleId="Normal"><w:name w:val="Normal"/><w:rPr><wx:font wx:val="Times New Roman"/><w:sz w:val="24"/><w:sz-cs w:val="24"/><w:lang w:val="EN-US" w:fareast="EN-US" w:bidi="AR-SA"/></w:rPr></w:style><w:style w:type="character" w:default="on" w:styleId="DefaultParagraphFont"><w:name w:val="Default Paragraph Font"/><w:semiHidden/></w:style><w:style w:type="table" w:default="on" w:styleId="TableNormal"><w:name w:val="Normal Table"/><wx:uiName wx:val="Table Normal"/><w:semiHidden/><w:rPr><wx:font wx:val="Times New Roman"/></w:rPr><w:tblPr><w:t

Quite concrete problem

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

I have some old papers I wrote, back in the MS-Word/DOS days. Yeah, I know I'm old :-) (and didn't know better yet, in the late 1980s); but there are people and documents that matter which are even older. I'd genuinely like to make them available along with various other writing of mine. Unfortunately, absolutely nothing appears able to read these old formats, especially not anything made by Microsoft.

On the other hand, when I wrote papers in WordPerfect 4.2 or so, not much later, those formats are still happily read by recent WordPerfect versions. Not to say WP is a perfectly open format either, but at least it's not quite so breaky as MS formats are.

Fortunately for me, the old Word/DOS format is like all those wordprocessor formats of the 1980s: mostly ASCII text, with a smattering of control codes in it. Ultimately, with a little bit more work than should be needeed, I can extract the text and reformat the document. Had this been Word97 or something, I'd just have a steaming blob of undocumented binary data. Which exactly what all MS formats will be 20 years from now. I'm not so happy that WordPerfect moved to a more binary-ish format around WP6/7; they were also quite discernable using 'less' in the WP5.1/2 timeframe. They've retained better compatibility (even filters for the older versions to read the newer thing). But "readable in 'less'" is an important quality.

Luckily OpenOffice format is now, and will always remain "readable in less". XML is like that. Not that it's quite effortlessly readable; but I don't see XML parsers as going away, so extracting data will still be quite reasonable in 50 years, even if the format itself is no longer implemented in current products. Not effortless, but not outrageously difficult.

Re:Quite concrete problem

[WhiteWolf666]

Even beyond that, by having the OASIS OpenDocument format being a published, (and soon) ISO-approved format means that:

A)It'll be supported for a *long, long* time, and
B)100 years from now writing a parser to extract all that old data will be trivial.

It's not that the data is easier to understand (though it is). It's that everyone has equal access to the instructions to build such a parser.

Also, I suspect that if it does become an ISO standard, OASIS OpenDocument will remain as a subset of any future document standard. There's really no reason *not* to. Given that the implementation is readily avaliable, very little work will be required.

Re:Quite concrete problem

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

I should have written "OpenDocument" to be more exact. But the idea is the same. Quite possibly, 100 years from now only OpenDocument v.17+ will be supported in widespread existing tools. Version 1 isn't necessarily the end point, and it may be the features become incompatible over a number of versions. But WhiteWorlf666 is exactly correct that since the v.1 *standard* will still be available, there's nothing stopping future programmers from writing an import filter for current tools (which may be really easy by then, using some kind of high-level XML interface that might exist then).

Re:Quite concrete problem

[man_of_mr_e]

not to be off topic, but there are several options for reading, and converting those old documents. For example, a program like QuickView Plus (used to be included with Windows 95 years ago) can still read those old documents. This is only a viewer, but you can copy and paste into somethign else.

Re:Quite concrete problem

[WhiteWolf666]

Honestly, I believe they won't introduce that kind of incompatibility.

They may introduce new extensions to the format, but I really doubt that anything will take the place of an existing framework. At worst, there will be a new doctype, and older doctypes will remain as a subset of a much greater superset of possible future doctypes.

There's a HUGE difference between an MS standard and a government (read ISO) standard. Government standards, although they aren't immortal, tend to last a long long time. Things like backwards compatibility, even at the expense of efficency, are prevalent through government standards.

I guess I could see someone creating an Office Suite in the future that did not support the oldest OpenDocument schema, but again, I find it unlikely---> As long as computer hardware continues to grow ever greater and greater there really isn't a reason to implement older schema as subsets of new ones.

Think of the same relationship between IPv4 and IPv6. Every IPv4 address fits into the IPv6 address space. Every Open Document 1.0 format should fit somewhere into the barrage of formats that is Open Document v99.0 Think of standardization the way we have standardized, say, ASCII, and now, Unicode.

Of course, all this depends on the standards body. But the nice thing about well defined markup languages is there they generally have fantastic backwards compatibility--> new tags don't replace existing ones.

Obviously, nothing is future proof. OpenDocument may have to be scrapped and rewritten at some point in the future. But given the elegant design that has gone into it so far, I'm guessing OpenDocument has the potential to last *a lot* longer than DOC did.

Re:Quite concrete problem

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

100 years is a LONG time! I'm sure OASIS won't introduce something really incompatible in 2010; and many tools will almost certainly support OpenDocument v.1 in 2010. But 2105 is... well, what were autos, trains, electrical outlets, light bulbs, telephones, sound recordings, typewriters, etc. like in 1905? You can recognize all those things over the century, but a lot of details have changed.

Re:Quite concrete problem

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

Ummm... where can I get QuickView Plus and Windows 95, exactly? :-) (actually, I think I *tried* QV+ about 5 years ago, and it didn't support that old format, even that far back). Of course, if you're volunteering, email me.

Re:Quite concrete problem

[man_of_mr_e]

No, there's still a commercial version of QVP available, Quick View Plus 8

Here's a list of supported document formats:

http://www.avantstar.com/stellent/groups/public/do cuments/word_files/quickviewplus8formats.pdf

Re:Quite concrete problem

[innocent_white_lamb]

You can recognize all those things over the century, but a lot of details have changed.
 
And many things haven't.
 
I read an article some time ago about how difficult it was to specify a standard thread and size for the base of an incandescent lightbulb so you can screw a standard lightbulb into a standard socket.
 
Look around you and see how many other things you have and rely on daily depend on "open standards". What about the screws that hold your chair together? The gasoline in your car?

Just the beginning

[BeanThere]

A few reasons:

(1) For some odd reason, nobody had every really put forth a major, viable, industry-backed and powerful open specification for Office formats ...OpenDocument is pretty new. It will take some time for industry to wake up to this, and for support for it to ramp up towards "critical mass", but it will happen - industry *is* tired of being extorted exorbitant rates every few years to be able to continue reading their own files.

(2) Compatibility with existing documents. Most large corps have many existing documents stuck in .doc. This compels them to continue along the MS Office path even if there are open formats/software available. (Also short-term thinking is endemic in all human endeavours: The higher up-front migration cost is usually foregone in favour of lower short-term but higher long-term expenditure.)

(3) Document interchange: All businesses have to exchange documents with other businesses, organisations and/or individuals. This also compels everyone to continue along the MS Office path even if there are open formats/software available. Hence the crucial thing for OpenDocument is to gain *critical mass* ... there is a kind of 'magic' point where enough people have adopted it and know about it that it becomes considered OK to send people documents in OpenDocument format. Massachusetts is an 'early adopter' (e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm).

So all this will take time, but it's exciting that it's finally happening --- the industry has been stagnating for so long, this is long overdue.

Re:Just the beginning

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked (Oh, a couple of hours ago when I last ran it) OpenOffice.org comes with a spreadsheet. Also, I vaguely recall a presentation app called Impress, which can open PowerPoint presentations, and even a *gasp* database application called Base which can work much like Access, with forms, VB, and everything. OMG, amazing what you learn when you don't make up "facts" on the fly.

(I take it you've never checked out OOo 2.x yet. It's great. It comes with everything you need in an office suite except group email/scheduling, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's coming in 3.x)

Re:Just the beginning

[T-Ranger]

OpenDocument covers spreadsheets, presentations and database documents, and a bunch more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#File_typ es

Re:Just the beginning

[spauldo]

Yeah, it has a spreadsheet. Woo hoo. Everyone has a spreadsheet. That's not what I was talking about.

You ever worked on an extremely complex spreadsheet? The type that has twenty worksheets and is full of calculations, has pivot tables, and does your entire payroll?

Are you going to trust converting it to an openoffice format via a filter? Running it as an excel document under openoffice?

I wouldn't.

Spreadsheets get used all the time for stuff that you should really be using databases for. These become part of the mission critical infastructure, and they're not easily replacable. I've seen tons of them. They're hacks, but companies aren't going to give them up, and they're not going to trust them in anything but excel.

So try thinking a little bit deeper before you just go blurting out, "oh, it's got a spreadsheet". Compatability is the issue, not functionality.

Re:Just the beginning

[bburton]

You just gave a pretty good example of vendor lock-in. Too bad that company went with the proprietary MS Excel format...

The whole point of the Massachusetts decision is avoid this type of situation by using open, standard file-formats. At the heart, this isn't about OpenOffice vs MS Office, or any product vs another. It's about the file format. Microsoft or any other vendor is free to add support for the open format to their product (and not their own competing "open" format which they have IP rights over).

If I was in charge of a company in the situation you just outlined, I would develop a new system and migrate the data. The new system would not be based on another proprietary format. That's just me though; I like to keep my options open. Apparently the state of Massachusetts is thinking along the same line.

MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding

[dodongo]

That the format isn't supported in all office suites isn't anyone else's fault but Microsoft's. If MS was quick about this, they could easily incorporate the OD standard into an upcoming release of their Office suite. In fact, I believe they have one coming up, as luck would have it. Hell, include a patch to backport that feature to whatever Office (12-1) was called.

In this way, they could show governments that they *can* move to open standards, while still maintaining their (for MS) lucrative relationship. Instead, as per usual, we get stonewalling out of Redmond.

Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding

[cowscows]

Well, from MS's point of view, it almost makes sense what they're doing. Office does just about everything anyone could ever need already. There's just not many more features worth adding. And even worse, the FOSS alternatives are getting pretty close to catching up in terms of features. So basically, in the near future you'll have two (or more) versions of the same thing, only one costs hundreds of dollars and the others are free.

The only thing that MS can use to differentiate their software is its native support of the .doc format. Once they lose that, then the only thing that will make their office suite different is the big price tag. And that's not the sort of thing that excites consumers. As sad as it is, it's really in MS' best interest to postpone open formats as much as is possible. If they give in now, they might get to keep a few contracts short term, but once the FOSS alternatives catch up feature-wise, the party's over. Office is a huge HUGE cash cow for MS, the company really depends on that income. Now realistically, I don't think MS can hold off the standards movement for much longer. They're failing on most other fronts, because the internet is making people more aware of what's at stake. But maybe the execs there think they can. Or maybe they're just trying to postpone the inevitable so they can make more money in the meantime. But they won't accept open standards until the market absolutely forces them to, and they'll complain about it the whole way.

Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding

[Darkling-MHCN]

You really don't know what you're talking about... See my comment .... How this gets rated as +5 when it's completely factually incorrect I have no idea. I guess we shouldn't let facts get in the road of bashing Microsoft.

Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding

[dodongo]

The reason I got modded up is becuase I had a reasonable idea for how MS can embrace the open file format.

The MS XML Office doc format is still proprietary in nature. As one article or another noted, it's not just the XML-ness of the OASIS formats that's important, it's the fact that there is a shared, open, and agreed-upon parser for these documents. The semantics of the XML have to be identical in order for everything to work properly. Microsoft is not, to the best of my knowledge, releasing all associated information involving their XML specs to the public. Thus, the fact that they're using XML is really beside the point.

Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding

[dodongo]

That's a fair point, and I get what you're saying. And of course, in the paradigm of Major Corporation, it makes perfect sense that they would protect systems which encourage end-user lock-in.

However, it's also clear that by refusing to support an open system such as OASIS, they're entirely losing their user base in the MA government. If this continues and becomes a trend, by not supporting the OASIS formats, Microsoft is actually locking themselves out of the market, instead of locking themselves in, as their original intentions were.

Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding

[WhiteWolf666]

Don't mod parent up. Mod grand parent up.

You *really* don't know what you are talking about.

Repeat after me, "XML is not a document format" "XML is not a document format"

XML is a general purpose markup language you can use to define document formats.

Grandparent is correct. MS Office 12 will NOT save in the soon to be ISO approved, OASIS OpenDocument format. Period.

Office Open XML != OpenDocument XML

Just because they both have XML in the name doesn't mean that they are the same thing. There might be a possibility to use a custom XML schema in MS Office 12 that *might* be able to read and write OASIS ODP format XML. You'll probably have to write your own schema, though-- no way MS is going to ship it out of box, not will all their current bellyaching.

I'm also guessing that there will be limitations in it to prevent it from accurately creating OASIS ODP XML. It'll be broken for some reason-- have you _ever_ known MS to implement anything platform-neutral correctly?

Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding

[cowscows]

Oh definitely, it's a gamble for them. And I think it's one that they're going to end up losing in the long run either way. Open formats are going to take hold, and they're going to lose a whole lot of their power over the market. If they embrace the change, they'll probably just accelerate the process, although they'll continue to make some money along the way. If they fight it, their FUD might slow down the transition so that they can keep make some money the old fashioned way, at the risk of missing out completely in the long term. Maybe they think they'll make more money that way, or maybe it's less about money and more about being control freaks.

Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding

[Jane_Dozey]

I have a feeling it's more about control than money. As things stand at the moment Microsofts control over the market *is* making it a lot of money, but it's this issue with control that may well end up loosing them market share. It seems that as more people get annoyed with the whole vender lock-in thing more people are going to be looking for alternatives. It's a shame that Microsoft are having such a hard time letting go of an aging business scheme. They *could* be looking for ways to get ahead of the game (supporting some open standards) and let it help them continue to grow. If they gave support for the OpenDocument format I'd be willing to bet Mass would keep MS Office around AND Joe Public wouldn't be tipped off that they can use a free alternative (such as OO). Fighting OD is going to give it a whole lot of publicity that it wouldn't otherwise get.

Re:And the results of this:

[statusbar]

Did you just violate Microsoft's Intellectual Property? I didn't sign any microsoft agreement and now I know how to make a simple document with their patented XML schema....

Jeff

Oh no!

[joelthelion]

How are massachusetts administration going to embed their innovative Voice-Over-IP content in their text documents now?

Re:Oh no!

[WhiteWolf666]

Seriously!

They'll be restricted to cross-platform embedded Java VOIP apps in their wordprocessors, instead of using Windows-only ActiveX VOP apps in their wordprocessors.

Oh Noes!

Strangely, though, my VOIP java-app doesn't work properly. No matter what printer I print my document out on, and no matter how hard I ink out the 'Send' button, I don't hear any voice from my letter. Maybe the ActiveX version would work?

*shrug*

8*)

MS Office already uses open formats

[Darkling-MHCN]

Uses of the current version of Office already have the option of saving in XML data formats. However it's currently not the default but it is very simple to configure office applications to save in these formats by default. The next version Office 12 will save in xml by default
Don't be surprised if this ends up being a boon for Microsoft with governments upgrading to Office 2003 and/or Office 12.

Re:MS Office already uses open formats

[WhiteWolf666]

XML != open.

Wikipedia defines XML: "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a W3C-recommended general-purpose markup language for creating special-purpose markup languages. It is a simplified subset of SGML, capable of describing many different kinds of data. Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of data across different systems, particularly systems connected via the Internet. Languages based on XML (for example, RDF, RSS, MathML, XHTML, SVG, and cXML) are defined in a formal way, allowing programs to modify and validate documents in these languages without prior knowledge of their form.

One uses XML to 'define' a document format. The problem is that one could easily define a format (schema), permit royalty free-licensing, but 'patent' the schema/format.

Remember GIF?

MS XML formats have this problem. One, there are a couple licensing requirements. Two, the royalty-free license does *not* grant the licensee rights to use any MS patents that the document format may utilize. Even if one interprets some as the text as granting a right to the patents for certain implementations of MS XML, there's no reason to believe you have a perpetual right to those patents.

MS has some control over who can implement these formats, and for instruments of public policy, that is simply not acceptable.

MS is free to implement OASIS formats, because everyone is free to implement them. Governments are having to upgrade anyways--> DOC is being phased out. It's either switch to OASIS (ISO-approved), with multi-vendor support, and shipping software that supports it; or switch to MS Office Open XML, which hasn't been released yet, which *no* software on the market currently supports, which is not vendor neutral in implementation, and is not any kind of 'official' standard.

People use DOC over all the other formats because it has marketshare. MS Office Open XML has 0 marketshare right now. It has to compete on its merits alone, and a such, is failing.

Read here for more information:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/why-opendocument-wo n.html

Re:MS Office already uses open formats

[Darkling-MHCN]

OK so there's a license agreement for using MS Office XML schema's.

The terms of this agreement basically say you have the right to distribute use these schema's in any software system to READ AND WRITE Office documents ROYALTY FREE, so long as you give Microsoft credit and the real clincher is... you don't extend it.

Let's quit the emotional BS and talk tin tacs... how much input do you think the guys at OpenOffice have on the OASIS standards when it comes to the evolution of the OpenDocument format ?

A) 10%
B) 20%
C) 90%
or
D) Complete Control

Considering OpenOffice is really the only software with any footprint at all in the market place using this schema, I'm betting right now and for the immediate future it's bound to be C or but really probably D. I also think you have to be completely naive to think the OpenDocument schema comes with no strings attached, it also comes with license agreements that you have to adhere to so basically what we have really is two groups competing with each other. There's nothing wrong with that.

Microsoft invented the embrace, extend, extinguish doctrine, they're not about to let anyone use their own tactics against them. Allowing someone to extend their own schema would create a one way flow from MS Office to a competing product, documents written by competitors software in the extended MS Office schema would be incomplete when viewed in an MS Office application. I think it's reasonable for them to insist that documents based on their schema's be readable (in their entirety) by MS Office.

I personally haven't encountered an enterprise using OpenOffice, I don't know what its market share is but I'll guess and say not much, until it has a reasonable market share I don't blame Microsoft for not supporting it, that costs time, money and comprimises their OWN vision for their OWN product. The schema's Microsoft have provided give complete transparity to Office XML documents, they are clear, very well documented, any software product should easily be able to support them, allowing that software to freely manipulate and rewrite that data into any schema it likes.

Re:MS Office already uses open formats

[WhiteWolf666]

Err... I think you are quite mistaken

1. OpenOffice.org (read, Sun's Proxy) is one of the forces behind OASIS, but by no means the main force. There are quite a few heavyweights, both vendors and customers. Here's a list:
Vendors:
Adobe (Framemaker, Distiller)
Arbortext (Arbortext Enterprise Publishing System)
Corel (Word Perfect)
IBM (Lotus 1-2-3, Workplace)
KDE (Koffice)
SpeedLegal (SmartPrecedent enterprise document assembly system); both product and company later changed names to Exari.
Sun Microsystems / OpenOffice.org (StarOffice/OpenOffice.org)
Customers:
Boeing (complex, large documents)
National Archive of Australia (retrieve documents long after development)
New York State Office of the Attorney General (both)
Society of Biblical Literature (large, multilingual documents)

IBM really is planning to make a big play for the enterprise office market. This is not an OpenOffice.org product---this is IBM's Workplace product. If anything, IBM is a MUCH, MUCH bigger dog than Sun.

Furthermore, I believe OASIS gave the EU two opportunites for input. You are seriously misrepresenting things if you believe OASIS=OpenOffice.org

More information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument

2. The OpenDocument restrictions are simple. 1. You can't patent any aspects of the specification. 2. Anything you contribute to the standard must be offered Royalty-free, with no other stipulations. 3. Any copyrights you hold on *anything* you want included in the specification must be licensed to OASIS under a perpetual, transferrable, sub-licensible, royalty-free license.

Did you even _read_ the license agreement you linked to me? Do you realize that the only thing prohibited by that license is trying to prevent companies other than your own from using the format?

This is quite a contrast to the MS Office Open XML license. When I think of MS XML's license, I think of GIF. As far as I'm concerned, until MS gives up their patents on the MS XML schemas, they are a patent poison pill.

3. Furthermore, the MS XML schema excludes GPL licensed products. That's a big problem--- OASIS formats, and a truly 'free' format, would do not such thing.

Re:MS Office already uses open formats

[listen]

You have actually just set the new low standard for MS-fanboyism. For slashdot, that is an achievement. Is that the smell of astroturf?

By your logic, a reason for not choosing Microsoft can never be valid, because every reason is just an excuse to "bash". Please learn the difference between copyrights and patents before attempting to equate licences based on these rights. Hint: copyright only affects distribution, patents affect use. Also, it is very strange to attempt to use the deleterious effects of Microsofts monopoly ("obscure packages with even less market presence") to justify its continuation.

In short, you are either an idiot or a paid troll.

Re:MS Office already uses open formats

[juhaz]

Microsoft has made numerous statements about the Office XML schema license agreements and patents and have publicly assured people it is in their belief the license is open enough to be used within the majority of GPL projects.

Microsoft can make all the "statements" they want, but that doesn't change the fact that their actual license text says otherwise.

In other words, those statements are marketing fluff, smokescreens, and outright lies that you apparently fell for, badly.

Re:MS Office already uses open formats

[Darkling-MHCN]

The license and the patents are designed to stop people from coming along taking Microsoft's schema's for office, saying thanks, and using it as a base for their own development, it in no way stops OpenOffice or any other piece of software from using them to create functionality to read and write or convert MS Office documents. So I really don't see how they limit or affect anyone's freedom of choice other than the actual vendors of office software.

Further more, my argument was never about choosing Microsoft or not, it was about an enterprise that has ALREADY chosen Microsoft, is licensed to use MS Office, been given advice that is in my mind based on a completely ficticious notion such as "Openess" to warrant a very expensive process of switching over to another vendor.

I still haven't heard a single explanation that has any merit that would give me real PRACTICAL reasons for thinking Microsoft's Office XML format is in any PRACTICAL and real way less open than OpenDocument. In actuality Office XML 2003 is more likely to have support in more packages than OpenDocument ever will.

Can't you see the irony here ?

Why so many replies with M$ FUD?

[rheotaxis]

Is M$ flooding /. with all the FUD in here? I'm always amazed how many people don't understand M$ only wants money, while open-source is about freedom. These are two very different things. I'd rather be free and give my money to charity.

Re:Why so many replies with M$ FUD?

[LaughingCoder]

Oh please! Open source isn't about freedom, it's about getting stuff free. And where I grew up I learned (many times) that you get what you pay for. Regarding this topic: Place your bets, which document file will you still be able to read ... a Word Document or "Open Document". I know which one I would bet on.

Re:Why so many replies with M$ FUD?

[unapersson]

"Oh please! Open source isn't about freedom, it's about getting stuff free. And where I grew up I learned (many times) that you get what you pay for."

Yup, the scientists have had it all wrong for years. Newton should have charged a license fee for access to his research, E=mc^2 should be a secret unless you're a paid up member of the Einstein corporation. Free software is far closer to the concepts of freely shared scientific information than any concept of getting crappy freebies.

It's that free sharing of code that allows the development of these quality applications, as the people doing the sharing are programmers. A lot of non-programmers benefit, but it's that free sharing of code that allows programmers to collaborate without any unnecessary artificial barriers.

Re:Why so many replies with M$ FUD?

[LaughingCoder]

You and I both know that the overwhelming majority of people who use OSS simply download and install the binaries. They really could care less whether the source is available. They like the fact that it's free. And if free sharing of code is what you are after you must be a big Microsoft fan. They share large quantities of code in their freely available SDKs to help developers build applications. They also freely supply immense amounts of documentation, and they provide reasonably priced, best in class tools. They do this because they recognize that apps developers are crucial to their success. In this respect they are anything but a closed shop, and their amazing success attests to this approach. That said, I do believe that the OSS model is a good model for software development. However, I do not subscribe to the notion that it is hands-down better than the "closed source" approach. I think both models have strengths and weaknesses. Frankly, I am glad for the competition that the OSS community brings - I believe that all competition is good.

Re:Why so many replies with M$ FUD?

[WilliamSChips]

Getting stuff free may be a major boon of Open Source, but it isn't the main goal. The main goal is freedom. And for your next question:
Which will I still be able to read in 50 years? Most certainly the latter, because the spec will always be here, and even if it isn't, we'll still have the source for the code which, although probably not as good as a real spec, could possibly be some sort of good documentation. Where's the open spec for Word Documents? Here's what I'd imagine for reading a modern Word Document in 50 years:
"You want to open a Word 2000 document? Sorry, support for that was removed in Word 2025. And good luck finding any emulator that can run any old versions of Word!"

Re:Why so many replies with M$ FUD?

[LaughingCoder]

Trying to understand C++ code in 50 years would be like trying to interpret the tube diagrams from the eniacs of the 1950s. I don't think that is a very strong argument. More likely the computers will be so sophisticated in 50 years, if you tell them the binary file is a document containing formatted English, they will probably be able to figure it out without human "help".

Re:Why so many replies with M$ FUD?

[rheotaxis]

A resonable curious teen-ager can learn to read circuit diagams in less than a week. They are meant to be simple. In fact, my father explained how tubes worked before I was 10, and he added why some English speaking people called them 'valves.' A technical and social lesson in under 5 minutes. There is value in this communication. He didn't charge me money for that information, but there was economic benefit to society because he shared this information. This is the secret success of open-source, open for all to understand, increasing the social wealth by replicating open information among those who take the time to know it.

Re:Why so many replies with M$ FUD?

[rheotaxis]

Money isn't the only currency in the world. Sometimes you invest your time with a group of people, and yes you benefit from sharing your time with others sharing their time with you, and you get a better software product. And, you can determine its better, because you can see the source and test it yourself. On the other hand, if you want to buy closed-source software, how will you know you're getting your money's worth? Is it always true that you get what you pay for? You might not get anything at all, even when you pay for it. In other words, I agree that quality has a price, no matter if its money and/or time. I feel more confident that quality of open-source is better way to spend my time, and I can denote my money to charity.

Re:Why so many replies with M$ FUD?

[LaughingCoder]

I wish it were really as you portray it. I wish I could go to the grocery store and offer to teach the cashier how to find memory leaks in exchange for a cart full of food. I wish I could convince the electric company, and the gas companies, and the banks, and, yes, the taxman, to allow me to modify their sourcecode, or explain digital signal processing to them in trade for their products and services. Instead we use this proxy called money. Each of us does what we do in exchange for money, which we use to purchase the neccessities we need to survive. As it so happens, society values some of our services/skills more than others ... so be it ... I find the OSS crowd to be quite disingenuous in this regard. We both know that a large percentage of OSS work is subsidized by those nasty capitalist companies you all so despise. People work "their day jobs" writing code, some of which is based on OSS. They convince their managers to allow them to contribute their changes to the open community. There is nothing wrong with any of this. However, if those companies could not then turn around and sell their products (pay-for software - the horror), they could not then pay their engineers, who could not then afford to give away their services because they would be busy trying to put food on the table. It's all connected. It is very honorable of you to prefer open source products so that you can give more to charity. I would never criticize such a noble attitude. I just wish people would lay off bashing business, the closed source community, and, in general, capitalism. Enough already with the superior attitude. Capitalism is the engine that allows all these other things to exist, even thrive. Can't we all just get along?

Re:Why so many replies with M$ FUD?

[kaligraphic]

e=mc^2 came from Einstein, you insensitive clod!

Since you asked...

[xeno-cat]

The reason minorities and women are given preference in our current society is to undo hundreds of years of social and economic repression (please finish reading even if your knee just jerked). Racism against non-whites and sexism against women is still very much alive in America. The disenfranchisement of black Americans goes back to slavery, about as bleak a start as you can get. We just had the civil rights amendment in our own lifetimes. Do you think everyone in America who opposed desegregation and the women's movement simply gave up? There is a strong anti-non-white sentiment in America that manifests itself as complacency and an underlying acceptance of "white" being "normal" and "safe".

      Affirmative action programs are not racist, they are anti-racist, as in, undoing the historical damage of racism. To give just one example, after WWII, white GI's were able to get affordable loans for homes and education, minorities were not. This allowed whites to accumulate home equity as well as knowledge which has disproportionally dispensed the nations wealth into their hands. Children of minority families today still feel the economic repercussions of racism and they would even if today's society was completely devoid of racism, which it is not. I norder for things to get better they are going to have to get a little harder for white poeple. This is because white people already have to much material wealth and control and so only stand to loose. Thankfully, we also stand to gain in our humanity so it should all balance out in the end.

      I used to think about racism in similar ways to you I suspect. But then I actually did some research and discovered how little I actually understood racism and its effects.

White people do not notice the doors that are not closed to them.

Kind Regards

Re:Since you asked...

[MyLongNickName]

First, thanks for the reply. It was well thought out, clear, and flamebait free :)

The problem I have with this logic is this: Not all white folks are necessarilly the beneficiaries of past racist policies. I live in a semi-ghetto area. About half white, half-black. Very high unemployment. I won't go into my reasons for living here.

About half of the folks are unemployed. Most come from families where education is not stressed and drug use is high. Affirmative action might help a young black person who wants to move up. Great. It won't do anything for the white kid. In fact, it will make it that much harder. The young white kid is lumped in with the Kennedy's and Bush's who's families have benefited the most, and face no real threat from affirmative action.

Successful black families get a hand up, unsuccessful black families have a better chance, successful while families (like mine) don't have much of a threat. But if you are white, and come from a less than stellar family background... you have less opportunities available.

And any time a black person gets a chance over a white? Whether it is true or not, the white guy is thinking "affirmative action screwed me". How is this bringing reconcilliation between the races? And as to it "not being racist"... sorry... look up the definition of the word. With all due respect, your rationalization is highly dependent on your political viewpoint, not an objective definition. Not saying your political goals are wrong... in many ways they are admirable. But if you have to research the state of the black community to undertand it, then you don't see the whole less-fortunate class up close every day. It is more of a "green" versus "not green" class, not as much black v white.

Want to know the biggest thing holding down folks? A welfare system that rewards not working. I don't want to see welfare go away... but I would like to see more Clinton-era type reforms to the system. Problem is, the Democrats would rather be the party of "hand out more money to more people", and the Republicans want everyone "to pull themselves up by their bootstraps", ignoring the physical impossibility of the statement.

Raise my taxes to provide better schools in the inner city. I would not mind. Help them at a younger age (I was working with one 5 year old neighborhood kid... teaching him to count to 10... really freaking sad). Hold parents accountable when their kids aren't going to school... or are out at midnight. But don't make it a race thing.

In my mind, affirmative action is racist. Also, in my mind, affirmative action is driving a deeper wedge between black and white... not helping it.

Re:Since you asked...

[radarsat1]

I agree, I've always thought there was something a little odd and way oversimplified about afirmative action. You don't stop something by doing it backwards. You stop something by STOPPING. In other words, to stop racism, don't start promoting people based on race, just stop considering race, period.

It irks me every time I fill out some kind of government form and have to skip over the "visible minority" checkbox..

For the record, I happen to know it also equally irks my girlfriend who happens to be a visible minority.

So in conclusion, afirmative action pisses everyone off. Let's please stop doing it.

Re:Since you asked...

[Fred_A]

For us non US people, what's a "visible minority" ? Are there invisible minorities ?

This might be something that came into use through some kind of PC push but it's very puzzling...

Re:Since you asked...

[derfel]

I grew up as a white kid in a poor, predominately minority neighborhood. I hold no bitterness, but I was singled out and beaten because of my race. I was ridiculed because of my skin and hair color. I missed out on scholarship opportunities because of race. My job opportunities in the area were diminished because I was not bilingual.

My ancestors had no part in slavery, and in fact, were persecuted, killed, and driven from place to place because of their religion. My great grandfather and two of his brothers died broke and in debt from black lung developed from working in coal mines. My grandparents were the white poor who would not have been able to feed their families had they not farmed their small plot of land in their time away from work.

We can not undo the past, but we can insure that the present is as fair and equitable as possible. I will not ask for reparations for the land and property lost by my ancestors. I will not ask for recompense for the early death of my grand dad. I will not insist on punishing those who beat me in my youth. What I can do is everything in my power to insure that I treat noone unfairly. I can stand up for the weak, no matter what gender or race. You can too, and should.

This idea of making up for mistakes of the past by taking from one "race" and giving to another is as unfair as it is wrong. The government should make sure that noone today is discriminated against because of race. It should help the poor and protect the weak, regardless of their skin color or genetic tone. Because it did not do so in the past doesn't mean that it shouldn't, or can't, do so now. Look to the future, not the past.

Re:Since you asked...

[killjoe]

Since racism has not stopped then what? Do we do nothing?

Re:Since you asked...

[xeno-cat]

I also grew up in a poor section of town and was harassed for being white. Please don't think I'm some rich white guy who just wants to do good and "make a difference". No policy is going to help everyone equally. Some policies are going to hurt some while helping others. Having no policy on racist hiring practices or a "why can't we all just get along policy" definitely is not going to work because racism exists. If white people think it's hard getting a job because of Affirmative action they should try getting a job while being Black. I'm not saying that it is fair. It's not meant to be fair, it's meant to undo real damage that persists and will continue to persist if it is not directly addressed. It's also not a problem most white people perceive as white people do not see the doors that are open to them (and closed to minorities).

      Affirmative action is not perfect but it is closer to perfect than any proposal I have seen and having no proposal is not an option because racism exists.

      You can't lump all the problems of society together in order to bleach out the racism problem. Class in America is a huge problem and the working poor need better opportunities to educate themselves and other wise prepare to take a larger slice of the American Pie. But class and race, while often played against each other, are two separate issues that require different remedies. Believe me when I tell you that people engaging in anti-racism work understand the class problem that effects all people and are also fighting on that front too. If you can just accept that racism is a real problem that needs specific remedies then you will find yourself in good company on all these other issues as well.

Kind Regards

Re:Since you asked...

[xeno-cat]

" First, thanks for the reply."

Heh, I was cringing when I opened your reply ;)

I'm not going to argue with you that things are hard all over. And all things being equal we really need to be focused on the issues you raise, education, working poor, etc. But all things are not equal and they have not been equal for hundreds of years. I'm sure white people who did not directly benefit from slavery were upset when a freed slave suddenly took their coal mining job. It's not easy undoing Great Injustice and unfortunately the remedy can hurt people who were not directly involved, like me for example. Affirmative action is doing nothing for me if all I care about is whether or not I get the job. But I'm not an island and I live in a society that is filled with people from all sorts of backgrounds. It just so happens that the people with my color set up a system that benefited whites. White people benefit from that system everyday even though they don't see it. If we could just erase racism from every ones collective minds then we would not need Affirmative Action type policies. But we can not and racism persists and Affirmative Action sucks because racism sucks. But we /are/ curing society and it is working because things are slowly getting better. We have come a long way from slavery to today. Nobody really likes Affirmative Action, whites and minorities alike. But minorities dislike racism more, and frankly, so do I.

You can't eliminate the issue of racism by lumping it in with a bunch of other issues, like class. It is distinct and requires specific effort to undo. The wrongs being commited against whites in the name of AA pale in comparison to what Black people had to endure in the form of slavery and overt racism for so long and to this day. It's also telling that white people are so upset about AA as it highlights their sense of entitlement, which they may not even recognise they have.

As for who is doing what with regards to racism or poverty, Republican or Democrat, I personally can't tell one fat-cat whitey from another.

Kind Regards

Re:Since you asked...

[bluGill]

I'm not upset about AA because I'm racist, I'm upset because it has negatively affected me. When an incompetent black women cannot be fired and I have to cover for her, I get upset. (The company eventually did fire her, but first they had to find an excuse to transfer her into a department run by a competent women)

I have no problem work with competent people on any race. AA is too often used to give the less competent person a job. This is wrong, not only does it take away the job from someone who could do it, but it also takes money from a company to pay that person, so prices have to go up to pay for the guy covering, and last that person doesn't learn that they are required to work hard.

I'll admit that slavery was bad. However slavery ended over 100 years ago. Raceism was (is?) bad in the south for many years. Where I live slavery was never allowed, and the people at the time objected enough to bring the Dread Scott case to court. (Not to mention help on the underground railroad) My people did what they could about the issue, it isn't fair to punish us.

Sure slavery (which was not limited to blacks, slaves where of all races, but there was an easy source from Africa so most slaves where black - nearly all in the last 100 years of it) was wrong. However you cannot right that wrong anymore - all the slaves are dead. Efforts like AA backfire for those who are not racists - they force someone who otherwise would not consider race to consider it.

Some wrongs just cannot be righted. You need to stop committing them and let time heal the wounds.

Re:Since you asked...

[xeno-cat]

AA does not need to be liked, especialy by white people. It is making things harder for them. What AA is about is economic redistribution of wealth and opportunity. You will always be able to find some corner case where someone got something they did not deserve because of any policy, including AA. Hell, I know plenty of white people who got jobs they have no clue how to perform even without the benefit of AA. However, AA and policies like AA are breaking the next bastion of racism in America which is access to opportunity. Time does not heal anything. It's people who are dedicated and make sacrifices in the name of what is right that bring the healing.

      Racism is real and it is hurting America. We will all be much better off when we face the challange of defeating it within ourselves and within society. It is not something you can simply sit back and wait for.

Kind Regards

Re:Since you asked...

[MullerMn]

I agree with you, but here's one thing to consider when condemning the fact that governments ask you for your race when they deal with you - stopping discrimination is not the same thing as stopping thinking about race. What about situations where action is required to bring circumstances into a race-neutral situation?

For example, possibly your local government is responsible for things like public Christmas decorations (I don't know if this is the case in the US, but it is in the UK). Does the same government also provide decoration of appropriate places at times that are significant to other races? In this example, simply not making any changes does nothing to make things equal.

The government would need to know what race its populations are in order to know how many resources to devote to satisfying each request, otherwise a request for decorations appropriate to Hannukah (if there are any?) would have to be treated with equal importance to decorations for Flying Spaghetti Monster day.

Andy

Re:Since you asked...

[innocent_white_lamb]

For us non US people, what's a "visible minority" ?
 
I'm not a US person either, but a "visible minority" is generally defined as someone who can be immediately seen to be non-Caucasian.
 
  Are there invisible minorities ?
 
Yes indeed there are. An invisible minority might be someone who belongs to a particular religious cult, for example. If he doesn't carry a sign saying "I believe in the power and glory of Frabnatz", you probably won't know immediately upon meeting him that he's a Frabnatzian. Contrast this with if he's black; you'll know immediately.

Re:Since you asked...

[Fred_A]

Ah, yes. It all makes sense now, thanks for clarifying things.

Re:Since you asked...

[derfel]

Racism does need a specific remedy - no preferential treatment for anyone. Racism is a real problem, but racism can't be solved with racism. We'll never get where we need to be unless we recognize one thing, that people should be judged by a finite number of criteria, and those criteria can't include gender, race, religion, etc. When an earnest, hard-working, intelligent person wants to go to college, he/she needs to be able to go. The most qualified person who applies for a job should get the job. A person accused of a crime should be judged by facts, not skin color. If society becomes color-blind, we can better address poverty and injustice. If we focus on race, someone will always gets left behind.

Re:Since you asked...

[xeno-cat]

When society is not racist we will no longer need anti-racist policies like AA. Until then it is not right to expect people who are being discriminated against to suffer until the racist elite see the light.

Kind Regards

Re:Since you asked...

[xeno-cat]

The problem is getting racist people to stop being racist, which is giving them to much power and you'll likely be waiting a very long time. AA is an anti-racist force in a racist society. It is helping people who have real obsitcles put in fron of them because of the color of their skin. It is a balancing factor against very real racist attitudes. As for the complaining white people, you can find someone to complain about anything. White people are not disproportionaly disadvantaged versus black people though. AA is tipping the scale back to a more balanced position until racism is no longer a factor in employment and opportunity, in other words, until your dream comes true.

Kind Regards

Software As A Commodity

[AeroIllini]

This is just one step in the eventual commoditization of major software products. Eventually, because of open formats, the interconnected nature of the internet, and tightening IT budgets, there will be nothing Microsoft (or any other private company for that matter) can offer in a word processor to justify the price difference from Open Source alternatives. The same will be true for other types of software, such as spreadsheets, browsers, even operating systems. As a result, these types of "ninty-percenter" software will become commodities; each brand will be basically the same as every other brand, including OpenSource. And no one can compete with free.

Once this happens (and it already is, slowly), the software companies will have to make their money by creating "ten-percenter" software: highly specialized software contracted and built specifically for another company, or a niche market. To use an analogy, the "ninety-percenter" software market right now is like tract housing. Companies build products that they think people will like, and then sell them when the product is finished. The future of software design is much more like contract housing; people contact a company, tell them what they want in their product, and the company builds it for a contract fee, specifically for that customer. Both types of software development co-exist now, but soon the tract style will not be maintainable as a business model since groups of people are giving away tract houses for free.

Microsoft is struggling right now with the future of their products. Microsoft Office will soon be obsolete if MS continues their current business model, since there will be nothing to justify its high price. Right now, Microsoft maintains their pricepoint with vendor lock-in; but as soon as every major company and government is using open standards, MS Office will be just one choice out of several. I can see Microsoft Office being quite profitable in a commodity market, but Microsoft will have to add more than just office-suite productivity to their software. They have to offer more value than the next guy: in the form of tech support, or service contracts, or collaboration/version tracking software, or any of a number of things that would add value to the commodity. The commodity alone will not be enough.

This is a very good move by Massachusetts; in the long run, it will protect valuable data from vendor lock-in, and eventually foster competition in the office suite marketplace. Competition is always a Good Thing(tm).

Re:And the results of this:

[Stephen Ma]

Massachusetts could simply refuse to buy any version of MS Office that was crippled with respect to the OpenDocument format.

Re:And the results of this:

[WhiteWolf666]

No. Their IT policy *requires* that all documents be kept in an Open format.

That's the meat of the new policy. The documents *must* be kept in an Open format. Right now, that means OASIS OpenDocument. Period.

MA document sovernty

[codepunk]

If you don't understand what a open and useable document format I urge you to
listen to the MA open format meeting. This is about nothing more than storage of
a document is a fashion that allows everyone equal access. MS can choose to implement the standard or they can choose not to. It is about preserving the sovernty of data owned and created by the MA govt.

http://www.softwaregarden.com/cgi-bin/oss-sig/wiki .pl?OpenFormatMeetingSept2005

I highly doubt MS is going to support this document format as it will not only
undermine their proprietary lock in advantage but accellerate it's demise.

The audio transcript is outstanding and shows that MA fully understands the
implications of their decision.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[skids]

Having worked for UMASS and had contact with many state agencies in that capacity, I saw absolutely zero motion when MA supposedly recommended using Linux. There are just too many asshats that control the buying and tech departments for that to happen. They'll buy whatever their sales reps shovel at them. They have absolutely no clue, and probably will not even ever hear about this. (Not to get down on state employees... the rank and file are only 50% asshats.)

Hate to be a downer, but I am sure if you asked my former CIO in a year if he "got the memo" on this, he'd be bewildered and have no idea what you were talking about.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it.

[flacco]

Hate to be a downer, but I am sure if you asked my former CIO in a year if he "got the memo" on this, he'd be bewildered and have no idea what you were talking about.

i'm willing to bet CIO's will be looking to limit their personal risk when this directive becomes state law.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it.

[jpowers]

I had the same experience. If the Commonwealth posts everything in OpenDocument and says "anyone submitting documents, resumes, etc. will do so in OpenDocument format" then there'll be a trickle-down effect as companies who work with state agencies start adopting OOo, or at least start lobbying MS for an easy converter. (Yeah, I know OOo reads Word Docs, sometimes better than Word does, but that's no guarantee anyone in state govt knows it.)

In more substantial news, the NCI is pushing organizations who use clinical trials to develop those trial protocols in DocuMart, which is a Java app built around OpenOffice 1. We did a thorough test and you can run both DocuMart and OOo2 on the same computer without problems, but I asked them to explore moving the next version to OOo2 because the interoperability with other apps and databases is better.

Now if only we could get the pyUNO project back on track...

Re:And the results of this:

[ianezz]

look at the XML Word genorates for a document that only contains "Hello world!"

When properly indented, it seems quite reasonable. What really scaries me is the <w:validateAgainstSchema/> <w:saveInvalidXML w:val="off"/> bits...

Mod Parent UP Please

[Burz]

"What will the Federal Government do when the State of Massachusetts only submits ISO-standard ODP (OASIS) documents back to the feds?

My guess? Use OpenOffice.org as a conversion filter. Then, various fed employees (IT people) will start wondering _why_ they should be paying for MS Office when they *already* use a similar office suite as a _conversion_ filter."

You took the words right out of my mouth. :-)

Different Requirements

[cthrall]

Big companies need to communicate with their customers to stay in business. There's a good chance their customers will send them Word docs. Companies need to keep customers happy. There's a tipping point there, of course, but I don't see it changing for the next year or two.

The state needs to communicate with the public and companies that are paid to do things for the state. It's in the public's interest not to require expensive proprietary software to read state documentation, and the state can specify what document formats it uses to companies that provide services to the state.

Re:This does NOT exclude MS Office

[HermanAB]

Easy - all you need is a Word macro that launches OpenOffice.

The do tell why it's a good thing...

[Eric Damron]

The fact that Microsoft's word processor is widely available is irrelevant. The fact that some people have reversed engineered (to some degree) the older Word formats is also irrelevant. This is not about a particular program. What MUST be available is the document format. It must be freely available to the public so that records that are encoded in that format will always belong to the public. This means that it must be unencumbered by patents or restrictive licenses.

Pretty damn good reason if you ask me.

Nope...

[Eric Damron]

"So point is, this decision wasn't made based upon tech savvy. It was made based upon cost."

Hopefully moderators will mod your post down as WAY over rated. If you had listened to the mp3 they say straight out that cost is NOT a factor. If Microsoft supports the open standard it is likely that their products will still be used. The issue here is that public records belong to the public. I don't use Windows or Word but I am still entitled to any public record and should not be forced into buying a particular product to view those public records.

Another point is that those public records should be available to the public forever. With an open format, the encoding method is public so years from now if I really wanted to I or anyone else could write software to convert/view those public documents.

TeX anyone?

[andreyw]

Why not just grok and use TeX (LaTeX fine too). Do something like LyX.

Re:TeX anyone?

[rbannon]

Yea, I agree, but I can tell you that my own use of LaTeX (I work at a public community college) is met with much hostility. Typically a response like, "why don't you just use Word!"

Re:TeX anyone?

[andreyw]

My reasons:

1) I can edit the file anywhere - from my palm, to my pocketpc, to my windows, linux and os x boxes, to an old 286 box in the closet, to the quantum computer I'll be using in 50 years.
2) I can also view the source anywhere.
3) The end result looks professional because it was designed as a typesetting system and actually used as one by real book writers/printers.
4) My typesetting was designed by world-renowned Computer Scientist Donald Knuth. How about yours?

I don't want to think formatting when I want to think content. This is why Word sucks. Ever had to reformat someone's 100+ page document? Then you know what I am talking about.

maybe standards should be more simple

[hooykaas]

I don't know anything about OpenDocument Format, but the examples do look pretty complex. That might not be due to the standard itself, but due to the implementation. However if a standard makes it this easy to generate application specific complex or proprietary stuff (all the microsoft namespaces) it will hamper interoperability.

Many succesful standards are often pretty simple, for example:

• SMTP (for Simple MTP)
• LDAP (for Lightweight DAP)
• XML (as a simplified SGML)

Most of these standards produce pretty easy to understand documents or line protocols (HTTP springs to mind).

Of course most of these standards provide extension mechanisms (I know SMTP, HTTP and XML do), which can be very useful but should be used sparingly. I think that that is the problem with XML. Every application defines their own "extensions" (as DTD's, schema's, namespaces). Although OpenDocument should work as one such standardised "extension", the examples show that each application further extends on that.

Re:This does NOT exclude MS Office

[WhiteWolf666]

Some could write such a plugin.

The amount of work would be quite a lot, especially if they wished to make said plug-in proprietary.

Also, I imagine that MS would try to break this plug-in quite a bit.

It's much more likely that someone would make a separate go-in between filter program.

If you are going to use a separate program, however, you might as well run OpenOffice.org to do you conversion. You could have an OpenOffice.org java/macro program that did exactly that. Drop the file on your openoffice.org converter, have openoffice.org launch MS office with that file.

Easy to build, quick to implement, and free, except for the developer's time (maybe an hour or two) to put it together.

At that point, however, you'll probably have people using MS office for basic tasks just start using OpenOffice.org. "I'm already opening in it in OpenOffice, and I'm only changing a few words-- I'll just save it in here. I'll save MS Office for the big jobs."

Also, with the coming of Office 12, I imagine that many users will actually prefer OpenOffice.org. Compare the OpenOffice interface to the Office 12 interface, then compare it to Office 2003/XP/2000/97/95.

Which one is closer? Which one appeals to you as the 'natural' upgrade path.

Worse, you'll have to run add-in software for converting DOC files to WordML (OfficeML) files. MS says they'll be releasing converters for that purpose. But that begs the question: Use MS filters for DOC files, and OpenOffice.org for ODT files, and MS Office 12 for the actual work?

Or just switch to OpenOffice.org for everything?

Small departments/individuals will use OpenOffice.org.
Medium department/organizations can use either OpenOffice.org or StarOffice (with pro support)
Enterprises can use IBM's Workplace enterprise document management solution.

The OpenDocument 'platform' is much better positioned to take over the government market that Office 12. It's really not even funny, and with Sun & IBM working together, theres a ridiculous amount of lobbying power.

MS versus OpenOffice.org foundation? MS wins in terms of procurment trickery.

MS versus OpenOffice.org, Sun AND IBM? Magic 8-ball says, "Outlook not so good".

Re:And the results of this:

[listen]

You won't get sued for implementing a reader of the open document format, and you can have input on improvements to the format rather than it being controlled by a single vendor. That is the difference.

No API?

[tepples]

First you would have to reverse engineer it as there is no API so you could not guarantee full compatibility.

Do you have a link confirming that there is no public API for input filters in Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint?

You're mistaken.

[bani]

microsoft will never let it happen.

Re:You're mistaken.

[Jason Earl]

It would appear that Microsoft has already let this happen. As of the 22nd the OpenDocument formats are the official formats of the State of Massachussetts, and by the end of next year all office software used by state employees will need to save (by default) in the new format. As I stated in my post a good part of the reason that Massachussetts is switching undoubtedly revolves around cost. The cost difference between a migration to OO.org and a migration to Office 12 was estimated at about $45 million dollars.

How exactly do you suppose Microsoft is going to be able to sweeten their deal to that extent and still stay out of trouble with the Department of Justice?

MS Office really is Microsoft's weak point. Switching to Linux is difficult and expensive, and since it's still difficult to get computers without Windows you aren't even really saving any money. However, switching to OO.org on Windows is pretty straightforward--especially if you are the State of Massachussetts and can simply force people to use whatever document formats you happen to adopt.

Microsoft's next move will undoubtedly be to try its hardest to discredit the decision makers in Massachussetts, and to make the switch seem expensive and troublesome. If Massachussetts can pull the switch off without too much of a hitch then Microsoft is in serious trouble. You see, Microsoft might make a lot of money, but Microsoft employees still have a great deal of their wealth tied up in MSFT stock. Bill Gates, for example, would happily flush Microsoft's entire cash horde down the crapper if it kept MSFT's stock price up. MSFT has been flat for years, but it still has a relatively high P/E ratio, that means that investors expect Microsoft to grow, and not at the measly 8% that it grew last year. Unless Microsoft execs can coax out some growth the stock price has nowhere to go but down. Huge defections to OO.org and Linux like the State of Massachussetts are going to put downward pressure on MSFT's price.

Re:You're mistaken.

[bani]

They can always pull a "software audit" on Massachussetts.

All they have to do is ensure the cost of an audit will cost more than it would to force massachussetts to buy microsoft products.

They've done it before and they will do it again. It's the ultimate weapon, and it's very effective.

And since when has microsoft cared about the law anyway? They got off easily by ordering the bush administration to pull the plug on the antitrust trial.

Re:You're mistaken.

[Jason Earl]

They can always pull a "software audit" on Massachussetts. All they have to do is ensure the cost of an audit will cost more than it would to force massachussetts to buy microsoft products. They've done it before and they will do it again. It's the ultimate weapon, and it's very effective.

That's a tactic that I hadn't thought of, and it would certainly be a way of putting pressure on Massachussetts. However, it would have to be one heck of an audit to cost the state more than an upgrade to Office 12 (estimated cost $50 million for 50,000 desktops). My guess is that such an audit would actually be detrimental to Microsoft's cause, in the same way that an audit of Ernie Ball Inc. prompted a mass migration to Free Software. Massachussetts is already planning on phasing out Microsoft Office. If Microsoft pushes too hard against Massachussetts it could very well decide to switch operating systems as well. I am sure Novell (now headquarted in Massachussetts) would be willing to help Massachussetts make the switch. More importantly, Microsoft knows that it has to sell Windows Vista and Office 12 to 49 other states. If it puts too much pressure on Massachussetts then other states could very well rethink their reliance on Microsoft. No one wants to be in a position where their vendor can dictate terms. Part of the reason that Microsoft was able to garner the marketshare they currently have is that they have been pretty customer oriented. Generally speaking Microsoft solutions have always been a pretty good deal.

And since when has microsoft cared about the law anyway? They got off easily by ordering the bush administration to pull the plug on the antitrust trial.

There is a difference, my friend, between what's legal and what makes economic sense. There's lots of people that have problems with the government interfering in the software industry. I have been an advocate of Free Software forever, and have used Linux as my desktop both at work and at home since 1995. I think that eventually Linux is going to win out for purely economic reasons. However, even being the huge Free Software bigot that I am I still had a problem with the government deciding what could and what could not be bundled with an operating system. Microsoft was able to "pull the plug" on the antitrust trial because there were lots and lots of people that had a fundamental problem with punishing Microsoft simply because it had been successful.

If Massachussetts' move to OpenDocument formats was entirely politically motivated then a software audit would perhaps be successful in getting it to change its mind. However, at least this time it would appear that Microsoft is getting the boot at least in part because its competition is "good enough" at a lower price, and that's very hard to maneuver against. Massachussetts officials can always point out that the switch is a cost savings measure and use that to bash opponents over the head.

Re:You're mistaken.

[bani]

Microsoft was able to "pull the plug" on the antitrust trial because there were lots and lots of people that had a fundamental problem with punishing Microsoft simply because it had been successful.

If you think the sole reason the trial existed is to punish microsoft for being successful, you are mistaken. It's not the fact they are successful but the methods they used.

It's the same as the mafia being prosecuted not because they make lots of money, but because they break people's legs and shoot them in the head.

Microsoft is the mafia of the software industry. It's left a trail of broken legs and dead bodies to the moon and back.

The reason microsoft got the plug pulled is because of their political monetary contributions, the case took a 180 degree turn in attitude after bush got into office. It's as if the federal government was prosecuting mobsters, then suddenly dropped the case the very minute a new president got into office.

The case being dropped has emboldened microsoft -- they now have total confirmation they can get away with anything they want and there will be zero consequences.

"Slide documents"

[tepples]

What you're not seeing is a standard for the other parts of the office suites - spreadsheets and slide documents tend to get passed around quite a bit.

Why can't "slide documents" be passed around as SVG or PDF or some other format that can handle paged vector drawings? Is it that things need to "slide" around on screen?

Microsoft XML support only Win-deep

[Been on TV]

In the response letter from Microsoft written by General Manager Alan Yates to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decision to standardize on the OASIS OpenDocument format in addition to PDF, Microsoft are making claims both to the openness of the company's own Office XML formats, and that they are becoming widely adopted in Microsoft's products, and therefore argues that Microsoft Office qualifies as a product supporting open standards.

This "openness" goes only Win-deep in that Microsoft is not even willing to extend its XML support to the company's own Mac product line, where Office:mac 2004 only has fragments of the XML support found in Office 2003. The company also cites lacking XML support in OS X Panther (10.3) as the reason why Office 12 on the Mac will be released significantly later than Office 12 on Windows.

This information is missing entirely in the response from Microsoft to the state of Massachusetts, and is another in a series of misinformation and not representing the full extent of Microsoft's support, or rather lack thereof, for standards and openness. The full story goes here