Slashdot Mirror
Open Source In Public Sector Meeting Opposition
Open Source movements have been gaining popularity everywhere, but not everyone is happy about that. Johans wrote to mention a ZDNet Asia story discussing a controversy within the Malaysian computer industry over the government's 'Public Sector Open Source Software Masterplan. From the article: " ... the government has stated that its first choice in IT procurement are infocomm technology solutions developed on the open-source platform. It states that 'in situations where advantages and disadvantages of open-source software (OSS) and proprietary software are equal, preference shall be given to OSS' ... However, some industry consortiums have stepped out to voice their concerns over this policy." Meanwhile, Anonymous Coward wrote to mention a Fox News article entitled 'Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument', calling the attention of journalists to the 'huge mistake' that Massachusetts is making by switching to OpenDocument. From that article: "Officials in the state have proposed a new policy that mandates that every state technology system use only applications designed around OpenDocument file formats. Such a policy might seem like something that should concern only a small group of technology professionals, but in fact the implications are staggering and far-reaching. The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations."
The Fox News article is by James Pendergast, hardly a friend of open source. More of his FUD-laced Fox articles can be found here.
If you don't want to read any more of his tripe at least look at the Founding Members of his organization... ah Microsoft. He's just a shill protecting MS' monopoly.
Trolling is a art,
404 - Film at 11 not found
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Then it must be true. Except for the approximately 85% of the time when it's some kind of propaganda or outright lie.
My super-sparkly Palladium Wristwatch I got from Microsoft will get splashed and start bluescreening again!
Just like US and European based companies, Asian companies that make their money licensing proprietary software think open source is bad. Remarkable coincidence. In the meantime, Fox News publishes an opinion piece in the guise of a news story from an organization whose has a founding member named Microsoft. Guess what? The organization says OpenDocument is a very bad decision for Massachusetts. Bonkers, I would have never called that one.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Isn't that the main point of an open format document? To make it easier for the involved parties to interact!
[alk]
Does this Anonymous Coward has any studies done that show going towards Open document is a burden to tax payers? I can make a same clain without doing any studies. In the short term it may involve new costs but I think in the long term, it makes cheaper for not having to pay for commercial software licenses. This may be a benefit to the tax payers. How's that?
It's James Prendergast.. Who's he? Well, he works for Americans for Technology Leadership. And who are they? Well, last time they made the news, it was for a letter writing campaign, in support of Microsoft, in which thousands of largely identical letters were sent, including a number from dead people.
Can you say "Astroturfing"?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"We can't figure out how we can make money from this move, It must be bad for every one, and by everyone we mean us."
Of course microssoft and friends are upset, office is there big cash cow, and if Mass pulls this off and saves some money, then there is every possibility more states will follow.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
1) Switch to an open file format now and deal with the problems and cost while they're still managable.
2) Lock yourself more tightly into vendor-owned file formats and either keep paying the vendor-tax forever or make a far more troublesome and expensive switch to an open file format later.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I'm wondering if you pulled the thread through far enough starting with Fox News, then the reporter, all the way to the source of and the reason for the article warning about dangers of OSS that you would find some Microsoft shill pulling strings.
Oh wait, I just Googled James Prendergast, author of the story. Hey!, Guess what!, he's Executive Director of ATL, a virulently anti-OSS organization and web site.
Hey slashdotter's, you might want to visit that web site a few times, and make sure you always have a fresh page by hitting SHIFT-F5!
WTF Fox?!? Fair and balanced news indeed!
Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making.
Can't anyone compete on writing applications that output these formats?
"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
Officials in the state have proposed a new policy that mandates that every state technology system use only applications designed around OpenDocument file formats.
Mass. has made it abundantly clear they are not standardizing on the OpenDocument format; they are mandating open formats. They have stated that only document formats based on published specifications that are not controlled by a single company, nor encumbered by restrictive licensing, will be used.
That means most documents will probably be made available in PDF for the masses, and internal editing will occur with another standard, such as OpenDocument. If Microsoft were to hand over an unencumbered XML file format to a standards body, Mass. could quite possibly standardize on that format instead.
This is just more disinformation. Not that I'm accusing Fox of spreading disinformation, mind you. After all, they are the only Fair and Balanced out there.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Coming soon: TV anchors proclaim that Linux is a devil-worshipping cult and should be outlawed in all of New England.
FTfoxA: "Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation."
Yeah, open standards hurt innovation. You know, it's not like groups like ANSI exist to try to re-standardize fractured languages with open standards that have evolved quickly and represent what the people who are using the language want. But hey, it's not like any language with an open standard ever caught on (C, C++, LISP, Ruby, etc.)
But you know, FOX most likely says that evolution is evil too. At least, as far as the public (schools) are involved...
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
My true belief that information should be free and all formats should be open. For example the stupid argument about whether to use Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.
In the end it only hurts the pockets of individuals and companies alike, reduces productivity hides the cost of upgrading and confuses the market in general.
The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs...
Boss: How much is the software going to cost?
Tech: Um, it's free.
Boss: How about all the manpower hours?
Tech: Alright, we'll shutdown the Quake server for the time being.
Editoral^w^w^w^w^w^w Advertising space for hire!
Seriously, does anyone take fox as a news source theese days? Its like a tv version of those magazines where you get a free positive article for every ad you pay for.
HTTP/1.1 400
Hey you so called (politically) conservative geeks - here's a pretty blatant attempt by Fox news to pass of an industry slug as a journalist. Now think about Fox news doing that with the Israel/Palestine issue, covering any American Democrat, or any other international affair.
In short, wake up - Fox "news" is feeding you B.S.
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Didn't they learn the first time around how bogus this is? "All things being equal, we will give the scholarship to the black student before the white student". Which evolved into "Well, as long as the non-white student graduated high school, we'll give him the scholarship"
I'm not trying to be racist, it's just stupid to give preference to one over the other "in all situations" when someone considers them "equal". How about we just stick with "best tool for the job", and let the people who are hired to choose the best solution, do just that. It's what they get paid for. They don't get paid to pick open source software if at all possible, even if it means firing half o their staff and/or forcing them to relearn everything they already knew.
**insert linux zealot response that you have to relearn everything with new releases of closed source software anyways *cough* bs *cough*
You've just GOT to love this little gem...
The article titled "ATL's opposition to the proposed Mandate of Open Office and Portable Document Format (PDF) formats as contained in Enterprise Technical Reference Model v.3.5." links to a PDF.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The real issue here is that someone has to step to the plate (Munich, State of Mass, etc...) in order for this type of testing to take place. Opponents of open-source don't realize that an open standard is just that: a standard. A standard is something that will be updated, and in this case will probably be something that will include backwards-compatibility as an important part of further development and ratifying of the new standard. Closed standards have little of this type of accountablility. Imagine if the OpenDocument 2 standard say 3 years from now indicated that there would be no backwards compatibilty. Huge uproar woudl arise, much dicsussion and pondering would take placeand commn sense would prevail. Now imagine what Microsoft has done in the past, and will continue to do in the future. Microsoft need a revenue stream to survive and will continue to develop products aimed at replacing, rather than complementing, their predecessors, rather than building on them and allowing for higher levels of interoperability and ease of transition.
Before everybody goes crazy about the Fox News article, consider the source. American for Tech Leadership is a what it amounts to a PAC for different tech companies. Guess who is one of their major contibutors??
You guessed it, Microsoft.
http://www.techleadership.org/about/
So don't act all surprised when you see what amounts to a Microsoft spokesperson saying that Open Source formats are going to "cost too much" or "take too much effort". Fox News should be ashamed to run this "ad" as a news story; but when I come to think of it, everybody else does it too.
" The Massachusetts policy would instead direct contracts to just a few technology providers, while many would be locked out."
An interesting sentence that exemplifies the hypocrisy ripe within his arguments... we all know Open source is open and anyone can choose to support it as a 'technology provider'. Whereas Microsoft hand picks those companies it approves to have access to the information needed to be a good provider of it's technology.
This doesn't make any sense. In fact IMHO reality dictates that the situation is exactly opposite to this statement, excepting the fact that existing MS providers would have to adopt the Open format if they want to continue being a provider.. a choice they can freely make, but to say they would be 'locked out' is a flat out lie.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say. What's next, acting as a mouthpiece for government talking points/propoganda?
pudding, so they say, and this type of FUD is proof (or close enough) for the State of Mass. to know that they are doing exactly the right thing. Despite the fact that it makes me giddy to see the MS machinations squeeling like stuck pigs, I think this sort of FUD, and the resultant outcries are just the thing that will slowly turn the world to look at F/OSS. This, I believe, is due to the fact that if F/OSS wasn't worth looking at, wasn't a threat to the juggernaut that is MS, then there would not be this outlandish FUD going on.
While I feel sad that such pains must be endured, I'm glad to see the MS machine slowing down, losing some ground, and perhaps looking a bit pale in the face.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
the great thing about having an uncommon name like Ms Strzalkowski quoted in the article, is that a quick Google search for Strzalkowski and Microsoft reveals a certain Tomek Strzalkowski who appears to be friendly with the Beast. I wonder if they know each other?
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
Since when has the office software business been a free market? Its ruled by a convicted monopolist, who has been proven to use anti-competitive actions to protect the assests and investments of its stock holders. How can a civil servant be expected to put out a tender for office software, when there is no market, just one, megalithic monster? (and a couple of OSS alternatives)
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs
Hello? Microsoft office costs over $300!! And that's just for the "standard" edition.
Idiots.
Never knew AC had a website!
Don't switch our organization over to Windows 95! Windows 3.1 and WordPerfect, Lotus 123 is doing everything we need.
Just vote "No" to: big evil scary CHANGE.
Let's all stop evolving and stay where we are...nice and comfortable where everything more-or-less works and we have to reboot once a day.
http://www.techleadership.org/ which Jim is said to be executive director partners with Microsoft and looks like a company meant to lobby MS software in government in the States and abroad.
We promote free markets by encouraging anticompetitive practices, and attacking new entepenerial buisness models.
We secure free society by taking away your rights.
We create peace and foriegn support by making unnecisiarry enemies of both the world leaders and populus.
We strive for small government by spending more than any other administration in history.
The FoxNews hatchetjob on open document formats is written by the Exec Director of a Microsoft lobbyist. Anyone who gets any news from Fox needs to set their "taint" bit. As in "Fox News: 't ain't never true!".
--
make install -not war
If you look at the link to the article on the foxnews homepage underneath it says: "Opinion: Mass. endorsement of 'open' file format bad for America" doesn't seem like they're hiding anything
That may have been the most lies and misinformation that I have ever read in one place. Some choice comments:
"In other cases, the OpenDocument solution may cost more and provide less, but agencies and citizens will have to pay the price and make do."
Yup, definatley costs more, being free and all.
"It may be that an array of exceptional, low-cost OpenDocument applications will emerge in the coming years."
*Ahem*... http://www.openoffice.org/
That's about as low-cost as they come.
"Many technology writers, in fact, have cast a skeptical eye on OpenDocument and applications that support the format. George Ou, writing on ZDNet, recently compared the new Open Office Calc product to Microsoft Excel and found it lacking, writing, "[i]f someone from Open Office can explain why it takes more than 100 times longer to create and load spreadsheet documents and why it uses up several more times memory that Microsoft Excel to work with the same data, I'd love to hear it.""
So, OpenOffice Calc isn't as good as Microsoft Excel, and therefore the OpenDocument standard is no good...
One more.
"Until now, Massachusetts' citizens and government agencies have been well served by a competitive, merit-based procurement process for technology services."
And they still could be. He forgets to mention that the OpenDocument format is in fact open and therefore anyone can support it. Microsoft could make a product that competes here just as easily as anyone else (or more easily, considering the money they have to throw around).
I could go on and on. The entire article is horrid, anti-open source propaganda.
As a Malaysian, I know those who are trying to lobby the government against its OSS policy are Microsoft shills. They pretend to be "independent" but are in fact loyal Microsoft devotees, on the agenda of their corporate master. Do not be fooled.
First, claim OpenDocument costs more and then whine about the implications (my emphasis):
Don't say it is an attack, that'd make you look more stupid. Never mind that there's no logic whatsoever in the statement.How about a strawman argument about something unrelated:
And that's the fault of a document specification? Let's make a wish...but wait, there's more comedy:Eh? Are we trying to say that Microsoft products are the market leaders because their file formats are superior? That if those nasty OpenDocument apps get help from dimwitted politicians it amounts to market interference? No, it can't be! Surely Microsoft paid them off, er, made valuable campaign donations to ensure they wouldn't be swayed by a load of dirty geek hippies?
After that, the attempt at scaremongering Adobe about PDF going the same way is just hilarious. And mentioning CAGW is bad PR, James, they've already been outed.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Ozarka, Dasani, Oasis and Sparklettes have joined forces in opposition to the public water system citing anticompetitive behavior and enormous public risk of disease and terrorist threat.
It's not like translating documents from one format to another is rocket science. Does anybody really believe in a Post-Microsoft future where all the worlds documents are unreadable because the secret died with the MS borad of directors? Even PDF, which is a major pain, is crackable. What's the big deal?
Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
By James Prendergast
Did anyone else read that as "James Pederast"?
... If you dont believe me. Go to www.foxnews.com, and click on "opinion" (don't take the submenu). It will take you to this article.
Theres nothing wrong with an opinion article saying that he is against the switch to open source formats (he makes a few valid points - the exception of Adobe Acrobat products and the fact that OO Calc does truly suck).
-everphilski-
While I despise Fox News for any number of reasons, this is a misportrayal. The piece is posted in their editorial department at http://www.foxnews.com/views — as of 10:45 EST it's the lead over there. While I would certainly agree that a more responsible news organization would label such pieces more clearly and prominently on the actual article page, rather than letting the attentive figure out that the "MORE VIEWS HEADLINES" implies that this piece is yet another "Views" piece, it's not a particular breach of journalistic propriety. That is to say, it's as well (or poorly) labeled as any of the other pieces of crud from their editorial department. Fox's editors should be flogged, but not for this any more than the rest of their execrable web site.
"Fox News... we report, you decide" (that Fox is full of... something, anyway).
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I mean I expect to see stuff like this on Fox "News" but when I actually do see it it blows my mind. I love the confusion between OpenOffice and OpenDocument, not the first time we saw that argument used wonder where he got that one. I applaud my state doing this and I'm sure my uncle in Arizona would wish his state would do the same. For several years he had trouble opening the word documents that were sent to from the state (he worked on the big horn sheep project). It seems he didn't have the correct version of Microsoft Word and would need to update but his computer was too old for the current version.
this is the most important sig ever! In your face 446154!
before you blast foxnews for trying to pass this off as news, look at the homepage. Under the link to the article it states: "Opinion: Mass. endorsement of 'open' file format bad for America"
"FRAUD ALERT! Internet scams have been popping up on the Internet to exploit people's generous nature in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. CLICK HERE FOR MORE"
How can a scam be an Internet scam if it doesn't pop up on the Internet?
Strike two.
sigs, as if you care.
How difficult is it for MS to just add OpenDocument support?
The article mentions ease of interoperability, claiming that everyone should use Microsoft Office since everyone else uses Microsoft Office.
THAT'S NOT INTEROPERABILITY! That's a monopoly! Microsoft is well aware of that fact, too, which is why they DON'T want to support OpenDocument. If they did, then people would be able to choose a different office suite and still be able to maintain working relations with others. Suddenly everyone has choice, and that's a bad thing!
Maybe this is just the spark needed to light a fire under MS's ass. Either they or the state of Massachusetts is going to have to crack, and I'm betting they will. It's trivial to add OpenDocument support to MS Office. Of course, once they do, they'll open the floodgates to personal choice... so maybe they'll bite the bullet and wait out Mass.
Disclaimer: I'm not an anti-MS zealot. I merely go with what is in my opinion the best tool for the job. I run Windows XP, Firefox and OpenOffice.org.
It is an opinion story. Go straight to the base web site, www.foxnews.com, and click on opinion. BAM, you arrive at this so-called "article".
The blind leading the blind around here...
-everphilski-
The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations.
I'd ask Pendergast what these "new costs" are, and what he means with "disrupt how state agencies interact".
"Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making."
Competition!? I thought government agencies were obligued to inform the citizens, not to force them to buy products!
No where in the FOXNews.com article did James Prendergast list a specific complain against what OpenDocument doesn't have to offer. He has some quotes about how "[Open Office Calc] takes more than 100 times longer to create and load spreadsheet documents and why it uses up several more times memory that Microsoft Excel to work with the same data" and how "Microsoft keeps expanding into XML and metadata and OpenDocument may have trouble keeping up." If you read the article, you get this feeling this guy is a frothing, super-capitalist munchdog who really rates communism. Those FASCISTS!
Seriously though, my take is that "open" standards foster competition but can supress innovation when they are unable to grow and adapt. I'm not familiar enough with OpenDocument to really comment, but I do wonder how it stacks up, feature and architecture-wise against say WordOffice/PDF. Is OpenDocument really that far away from XML and metadata? Seriously...
That's not what I meant.
Would I be overstating the obvious with this:
There seems to be too much acceptance in the public of the idea that the market is more important than the commons. We accept that too much government is a bad thing, but have we entirely forgotten or ignored that exceedingly large business is even worse?
And I recognize that "too much" and "exceedingly large" are subjective terms, but I'm concerned with the balance. When news goes corporate before public good have we lost the battle for our rights? You can say that these companies don't have a political agenda, but money IS an agenda, and unfortunatly, our government revolves around money. This is were finance reform becomes and issue of your rights vs. company rights.
I'm sorry to say it, but they will win that one. The reign of government are held by the same people who have held the reigns of business, and they are hacking away at anything that will slow them down.
I'm not nieve enough to think that OSS will solve all the worlds problems, but it at least has the advantage of giving the people control (should they accept it). Letting businesses write the laws (which many lobbyists do before handing it to a congressman) is designed to keep the revenue stream flowing, the public good be damned!
*sigh* I don't think that made much sense.
</RAMBLE>
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
Say it isn't so. That... That'd be like calling the Houston Chronicle a propaganda organ for the Oil and Gas industry! ;) (If you think I'm at all exaggerating, it took them over three weeks to report anything about Enron after all the national news media outlets started covering it, and it wasn't even on the front page.)
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
... it is an OPINION piece under the "Views" section of the site. You should have noticed that in the header.
And if you don't believe me, go to www.foxnews.com and click on "Opinion". It will take you to this article.
-everphilski-
Notice how OpenOffice lags behind in technology, while Microsoft moves toward XML and meta files.
Marques Johansson
Oh God no!! Gee, I wonder what taxpayers pay every year for the government's use of M$ software? A temporary expense to provide more affordable, more open standards accross our government is a GOOD THING. And Let me tell you Open Source knows a little something about a GOOD THING(R).
Microsoft shill or not, I think this James guy has a point. I don't think anyone can really deny that openoffice is just not as advanced as the MS Office suite. Sure openoffice has several key advantages, but the local bureaucrat is not going to care that openoffice runs on multiple platforms when they're stuck on windows and suddenly can't properly load documents.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love for this to work, but I just don't see it happening. Openoffice just isn't that good yet. (Unless there is another mature office suite supporting Opendocument and importing MS Word that runs on windows). Even for my own personal use, which is a couple letters, a couple presentations, and a couple lab reports, Openoffice is a pain to use. I use it almost exclusively when I can, mostly because I don't want to pirate MS Office anymore, but I routinely run into things that are harder or impossible to do in Openoffice than in MS Office.
So yeah, good luck Massachusetts, I hope you succeed, but I wouldn't count on it.
I found this article in which Pendergast paints a positive picture of Firefox as well as Google. Why would be bash open source in one article, yet write good things about it in another?
http://techleadership.org/~techlead/news/062305.s
How about a law that punishes journalists for reporting facts based on a press release, or a companys marketing claims.
There are laws about truth in advertising, so why not laws about truth in journalisim.
the press touts that they are the guardians of truth and freedom, but more times than not they are just spinning some special intrest group or companys line. and totaly ignore the facts.
I'm for whatever saves more tax dollars. And I have a sneaking suspicion that OSS will save the most.
One of problem that I have with the open source is that how to search for the code snippets that I can reuse in my open source projects. Finally someone who developed an open source code search engine called Codease (http://www.codase.com). Play with a while, seems it understands code well and I can search for function defintions, function calls, and even the class definition, try search for "trie" and immediately give me the examples in the open source project. Hope they can cover more projects and more languages.
Megite: What's Happening Right Now
In approximately 40 responses to this article, I have seen the term "FUD" used about half a dozen times, and I have seen the author of this article attacked based on his opinions about MS in another 20 or so. Then there are the attacks on Fox news...
Not that any of it is wrong mind you, but would it be possible for some of you to actually refute the points, instead of resorting to the all too common "MS SHILL!!!!!" response.
... for good.
Perhaps we should be encouraging the government to be closed source.
After all, the last thing we want to do is make it more efficient and less costly for the government to regulate and tax us. Does anyone think for a second that if the government saves money that their tax bill will be lower, or their services will be better?
Also, free software adoption is being driven by free market forces - I would love nothing more than to see Microsoft get stuck in the "bureauocratic" and political sectors, while the rest of the free market latches onto Linux and kicks ass.
Not to mention that governments total lack of spending controll would certainly drive up costs in the marketplace for everyone else who uses Linux services.
As much as I despise them, perhaps MS is doing us a favor here?
... Such a policy might seem like something that should concern only a small group of technology professionals, but in fact the implications are staggering and far-reaching. The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations.
I'm all for giving the issue a more public profile. I was wondering on how to achieve this but now, out of panic, they will help us do just that! Wonderful!
I live in Malaysia, and have followed this debate for a while.
"Our views as represented by Pikom, are that the government should not dictate which development model--OSS or commercial--should be the preference for procurement," said Peter Moore, Microsoft's general manager for public policy, Asia-Pacific and Greater China.
As you can see from the evidence here, the voice that's being heard "through Pikom" is actually Microsoft's.
If the government chooses to move to an OSS operating system like Linux, Microsoft loses control over us. Malaysian application software developers actually have nothing to fear, because the govt is not going to lock out closed-source. It'll just have a preference for OSS programs if it fulfills the same function as a closed-sourced one. Meaning, locally developed custom apps are always going to be better-suited to the customer (the government), open or closed source. However, if Linux or FreeBSD got around to being the standard underlying operating system, Microsoft and its cronies would lose out big time, as it would lose it's control (but we would get our sovereignity, so who cares about Microsoft).
It's encumbent upon most governments to adopt standards that are readily available and open to their constituents. I suspect their might be legal principles at play that would allow suits to be launched forcing governments and their agencies to adopt Open Standards and, hopefully, Open Source.
Closed source proprietory software developers are right to fear what's happening in Mass. and elsewhere around the globe. It's the tip of the iceberg and closed source is booked on the Titanic.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
In another commentary, David Coursey, a columnist for eWeek, expressed concern about moving the state to OpenDocument formats.
"I am concerned that by requiring OpenDocument that Mr. Quinn [state CIO] may be aligning Massachusetts with what becomes a second-rate file format as Microsoft keeps expanding into XML and metadata and OpenDocument may have trouble keeping up."
I thought OpenOffice already supported XML?
George Ou, writing on ZDNet, recently compared the new Open Office Calc product to Microsoft Excel and found it lacking, writing, "[i]f someone from Open Office can explain why it takes more than 100 times longer to create and load spreadsheet documents and why it uses up several more times memory that Microsoft Excel to work with the same data, I'd love to hear it."
I've never run into this except when opening the first document. I may be wrong, but I think MS Office in some cases opens some of it's support files when it opens Windows. And I am really confused by their assertion that it uses up so much of the computer resources. I have yet to see a typical workstation that couldn't be slowed down by opening up MS Word.
The only problem I have with OpenOffice is that it doesn't share files on a file server as well as MS Office and as far as I can tell OO has no plans to improve or work on this. What I mean specifically is that multiple users can share and open a document at the same time and make changes in MS Office. For medium and small offices this has become almost essential because of their dependence on it since Office 2000. We've also run into problems where an OpenOffice user has a file open and this prevents a MS Office user from opening the same file. ( I haven't tested any of this in the last 3 months but we tried it in May to determine whether we could avoid buying MS Office on a set of workstations which were being purchased, since we couldn't get past these issues we had to shell our $300 extra for each workstation).
From FoxNews: "Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making." How choosing open format "OpenDocument" over close format "Microsoft .doc" will hurt competition? Standardize on Microsoft format hurted/hurt/will hurt competition MORE than standardize on OpenDocument...
I would like to inform everyone that these people are confirmed Microsoft Shills, the opposers of the OSS Masterplan that is. They hijacked the event and took the mike and podium to themselves and spread their Software Architecture and anti-oss mantra. These badly brainwashed people call themselves
http://www.isac-m.org/Default.aspx?tabid=60
These people self-appoint themselves to represent Malaysia's software architects (shameless bunch) and their organisation is CLEARLY FUNDED by MICROSOFT.
Microsoft was gloating while their shills did the hijacking at the government initiated OSS masterplan dialogue event.
They are a shameless bunch of wannabes who're pandering to Microsoft and shamelessly appoint themselves to represent the masses of Malaysian software developers/architects.
They call themselves the The Independent Software Architects Council of Malaysia.
They're not so Independent after all, as we can confirm at least 4 of them work for microsoft and the rest of them are MS Shills.
Microsoft needs to stop planting their brainwashed shills and troops and telling lies to the public that these are the industry representative of the entire software developer population.
Spreading lies in the media and public will bring very bad reputation to Malaysian software developers. These people listed at the website are not qualified to represent us Malaysians. They serve the interest of Microsoft, not Malaysians.
Apparently Open Document formats are going to pose a threat to those with disabilities. (See the Massachusetts article...) That's right- Open Source is going to kick you out of your wheelchair!
Contrary to the "OMFG FAUX NEWS" attitude displayed by the submitter, parent, and 90% of the posts in this thread, this is NOT A NEWS ARTICLE. It is an OPINION, only reflecting the ideas of the person that wrote it, not the organization that published it. The author's affiliation with ATL is clearly noted at the bottom of the piece.
From http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=America ns_for_Technology_Leadership
r /archives/000421.shtml)s /tanks.html
... imploring him to go easy on Microsoft Corp. for its conduct as a monopoly."
<SNIP>
Americans for Technology Leadership was founded by Jonathan Zuck in 1999 as a "grassroots" organisations for concerned consumers who want less regulation in the technology sector. It also campaigns on general tech issues such as spam.
It has been frequently described as a Microsoft front group. [1] (http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmo
[2] (http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010823.html)
[3] http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/blog/computer
In August 2001 the Los Angeles Times reported that a ATL was behind a "carefully orchestrated nationwide campaign to create the impression of a surging grass-roots movement" behind Microsoft. "The campaign, orchestrated by a group partly funded by Microsoft, goes to great lengths so that the letters appear to be spontaneous expressions from ordinary citizens. Letters sent in the last month are printed on personalized stationery using different wording, color and typefaces--details that distinguish those efforts from common lobbying tactics that go on in politics every day. Experts said there's little precedent for such an effort supported by a company defending itself against government accusations of illegal behavior."
According to the Times, the campaign was discovered when Utah's Attorney General at the time Mark Shurtleff received letters "purportedly written by at least two dead people
Eighteen state's attorneys general were joining with the Justice Department in its anti-trust suit against Microsoft. Iowa's Attorney General Tom Miller reported receiving more than 50 letters in support of Microsoft during the summer of 2001. "No two letters are identical, but the giveaway lies in the phrasing," the Times wrote. "Four Iowa letters included this sentence: 'Strong competition and innovation have been the twin hallmarks of the technology industry.' Three others use exactly these words: "If the future is going to be as successful as the recent past, the technology sector must remain free from excess regulation."
Dewey Square Group and DCI Group sibling firm DCI/New Media are credited with assisting Microsoft with its "grass-roots" campaign, according to the Times.
</SNIP>
I wrote an e-mail to Foxnews using my gmail account. Besides answering some of Pendergast's claims, I quoted sourcewatch and said a couple of things to them. Let's see how they answer.
Also got to love this little snippet form a press release on the ATL propaganda site:
"American companies doing business across the globe should not have to face a higher standard of regulation in the European Union than they do here"
Seems they're against 'higher-standards' too.
http://www.techleadership.org/press/092605.shtml
So then we have an organization whose founding members include Microsoft, two Microsoft fronts, and at least two outfits that sell Microsoft software. Nice. And it proceeds to act like a Microsoft front itself. Real big surprise there...
We are paying government employees to deliver services at (supposedly) controlled cost. This does not need to involve over formatted "pretty" documents. The truth is, there are probably very few document needs that could not be carried out with sufficient efficiency using WordPad (or Kate,say), few reporting needs that cannot be carried out using simple SQL statements, and few presentation requirements that could not be met efficiently with hand drawn pictures and a scanner.
If people cannot supply government with simply and efficiently formatted documents, they should not be in business. The whole concept that you need to be a skilled typesetter and graphic designer in order to produce a simple office document is actually Microsoft's greatest marketing success.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
He's not praising Firefox at all. He's implying that the MS monopoly isn't anything to be worried about because "oh look Firefox is doing just fine and so is Google." I think you're trolling here.
If you ever take the time to read the agreement between you and M$ when one might use Office, one would find out that YOU DON"T EVEN OWN YOUR OWN DOCUMENT. Maybe someone is Mass. read the darn thing and decided it was unacceptable. Meanwhile...this pendergrass dude is uninformed also. PDF is open. You can make it in open office, not that that is how I qualify it as being open.
Surely people here have figured out the madness that is FOX ph3W$. Why are we even talking about this. "WOW, something Bill O'Reily said is wrong . . . surely not!" This is what happens when we start listening to false news reports given to us from political morons. "Open what?! . . . I don't know, sounds like a damn communist to me." Idiots.
"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." --leonstryker
and a lot of bad ones. I am in total support of the free market, but have a government agency standardize on a technology is not limiting free markets, it's simply an organizational decision. Governments have done this for quite some time. They standardize on PCs, or Ethernet, or SQL or any number of other technologies. Mandating that a product do X is ok and doesn't inappropriately limit the market. Arguably this policy decision is being driven by polital and not technical factors, but that is still acceptable.
The author is 100% right on when he raises the concerns of increased costs, major implemention headaches, a reduction in the quality of the products. This is part of a major shift in technology. It's not abnormal. Mass. is gambling on the fact that they're political objectives and strategy to reduce a single vendor tie-in will payoff in the long run with increased competition, and better tools. Gambling is the right word here because they are going to have to pay serious premium to build new tools, integrate those tools, support those tools, and train their people on the new tools without any gaurantee that the market will respond in a significant way to justify the expense. I think in 18 to 24 months we will be hearing about major reductions in the scope of this initiative or a complete abandonment of the policy. The costs are gauranteeed, I don't think the politicians have the stomach to actually run that much risk for that much time for something that most people could care less about (even if there is real value).
I'm a Massachusetts taxpayer, and I am quite pleased to see my tax dollars going to fund something which will be quite useful down the road. The cost is trivial compared to what was lost through the Big Dig cronyism. Priorities, people!
The key sentence:
d =8966&news_iv_ctrl=1037
Jim Prendergast is executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership.
Americans for Technology Leadership Founding members
* Association for Competitive Technology
* Citizens Against Government Waste
* Cityscape Filmworks
* Clarity Consulting
* CompTIA
* CompUSA
* Microsoft Corporation
* 60Plus Association
* Small Business Survival Committee
* Staples, Inc.
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&i
itizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today urged Congress to eliminate the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which funds private sector research and development
These are the other tech programs CAGW doesn't like.
http://www.atp.nist.gov/gems/listgems.htm
Who is Association for Competitive Technology?
http://www.actonline.org/aboutus.htm
While ACT members include some household names like eBay, Orbitz and Microsoft, our members are primarily small and mid-size companies. Smaller, entrepreneurial technology firms like Sax Software,
http://www.actonline.org/principles.htm
ACT and its members believe that the best way to achieve a healthy Tech Environment and a thriving technology industry is to apply free-market principles that promote innovation, investment and competition. ACT is committed to core free-market principles including:
1. Consumers, not governments, should pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
2. Small tech businesses thrive on innovation, not regulation and litigation.
3. The law of regulation includes the corollary of unintended consequences.
60 Plus has set ending the federal estate tax and saving Social Security for the young as its top priorities. Why should they be against this? It would save money in the long term.
The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) works to influence legislation and policies that help to create a favorable and productive environment for small businesses and entrepreneurship. By educating policymakers, elected officials, the media and the public about the critical role that small businesses play in our economy--and how government actions can positively or negatively affect the small business community.
I don't know about you, but I'd want a refund from the SBE Council if they are supporting not going to an open document standard. A standard means that every small business could work and bid on any part of the project. Odds are most of the work would be done locally and not outsourced overseas. This is a great move for small business. (It is a bad move for those small businesses that store everything in their own little data format that only they know about. Which is exactly what this effort is trying to get rid of in the government realm.)
Why did you bother Googling for him? If you look at the end of the article, it expressly states that he works for ATL. Now, howling about googling them and finding what flavor bastard is implied might be worthwhile, but don't make it seem like they were hiding something that they came right out and said themselves.
WTF Fox?!? Fair and balanced news indeed!
It's over in Fox's "Views" Department (note exact URL before clicking), making it an editorial-- or more exactly an "opinion" piece. (Editorials are written by on-staff editors. Opinions are written by anyone who wants to vent... much like Slashdot, actually.) Traditionally, Editorials and Opinion columnists are allowed much more latitude from the ideal of the neutral journalistic voice. Of course, traditionally editorial and opinion pieces are labeled much more clearly than Fox News does with theirs, so better to distinguish them from the more factual and less subjective elements of the news.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Rather than asking "Is it a good idea to use an open file format not supported by our current software (Microsoft)?" they should be asking "Why don't Microsoft programs support an open file format?"
You know...you do "preventative maintenance" on cars so that instead of having to pay $5000 to fix a problem every two years, you pay $300 every one year.
This is the same thing, you move along with the times - in this case go towards an open document format, so that you have the choice to use a number of different software applications or operating systems. In fact, by not allowing something like this to happen it will cost a greater amount of money in the long run.
Too bad 90% of organizations seem to have only short term profit goals instilled in their minds, closing themselves to greater opportunities.
Facinating how much detail gets presented in the news
articles revolving around the switch to open source, however,
conclusions always magically turn their focus to the
COST of switching to OSS. (TCO and ROI)
How quickly we all forget about the financial investment our
companies and organizations have made in order to switch over
to MS Office(however many years ago). Don't you dare forget
about these financial numbers, because Microsoft already has;
their comparisons don't account for your past software
investment with MS.
Take a moment to calculate the total accumulated $$$ dollars
spent for the initial installation and training for Microsoft
suites back in the day, and then add the accumulated cost
of license renewals over the years that your company has
had MS Office software.
Once you have your accumulated costs tabulated, then we can
compare apples to apples.
The average person quickly forgets that their companies computer
budgets have been spent in supporting MS Office for the
workplace("number of licenses" x "years installed"), and this shows
that the MS Office TCO is not free.
Most news reports always compare the ROI and TCO of MS products based
on "already installed MS Office installations" against future
migration to a different(O.S.S.) product.
This is so far wrong, and it also isn't fair. Get the facts
straight for once!
For them to say that it will cost more money is a flat out lie, and that it would lock out providers is a lie too. For one thing ITS OPEN SOURCE, AND FREE! Anybody can get it and use it, so if providers are locked out its because they choose to be. And its not going to cost them anymore money to switch over or support it, in fact it would be cheaper because it is OPENSOURCE and there is a lot of free support out there for that stuff. Comeone, we all know how much Micro$oft likes to make money, and we know that they have there fingers in just about every cookie jar, they are just trying to persuade them to keep using M$ expensive proprietary software.
He's got a two page letter to legislators here.
http://www.techleadership.org/news/atl_ma.pdf
It really doesn't matter that the ideas stated in this letter are the opposite of the truth. What matters is, that those who advocate Pendergast's position have boatloads of money to keep saying this more prominently than open source advocates can state their position. If you just keep repeating it loudly and often enough, the public will believe. The public includes elected officials.
But we still have a chance, thanks to the high ethical standards at Fox News. Fox is "fair and balanced", "the no-spin zone". I'm sure they will give the other side of this story equal time.
Their. Not there or they're.
Lets see, companies that thrive off 'lock-in' are upset about a large customer going to an open environment. So they pay off an official to lobby for them before the concept spreads. Who would have thought.
Sure, its 'news', and we all need to know about it so it an be fought against, but its expected.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...then 99 out of 100 americans are going to believe it. And what that means is that with FOX solidly opposing it, the adoption of Open Source and Free Software is doomed in America. Time to get your visas, folks.
I beg to differ. This makes complete sense if you're on the right wing of American politics. Just say the opposite of reality until your political base believes you:
Keep in mind that the two people in Massachusetts pulling the strings on the whole deal are Mitt Romney and Eric Kriss, both firmly planted on the Republican side of the house.
Never let facts stand in the way of an argument
Sourcewatch has some pretty good information on ATL and the very right-winged netblock owner for Pendergast's website.
By reading the Article I was surprised by their argument. Not only is it flimsy, it just doesn't add up.
a ns_for_Technology_Leadership
Now I know why....
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americ
We need to get in contact with Fox News and see that this stops here.
foxnewsonline@foxnews.com
The most important thing to know about a state government in the Southern US is that each agency is autonomous to a degree. There is no one Central IT.
I have to say that in the small state agency that I work for is a whole MS shop except for the VM server which hosts MS operating systems. After seeing the new Office 12 I would really, really hate to go to something else. I cannot really see a benefit to trying to re-do something that is really not that broken. I have a friend who is a research scientist and when ever I give him one of my crazy ideas for a better future he is always saying "what are you trying to do?" That is the first question.
If Maylasia is trying to produce government in a way they can - really can - I mean if you have open source stuff but nobody who knows how to use it that knows "the system" - then you are producing confusion and cost savings. If you do it the easiest way - you get government. Right now doing things in a strange and haphazard way while funding the local economy of Redmond and the rest of Washington State is the easiest way to do government.
I wince at MA - I just know things are going to be very screwed for a while for a lot of poor it helpdesk people all over the world - things will settle out but not without some loss of choice and usability and some shops and most users along with venders will rebel, especially small shops with no IT.
I know that MS provides quality software with some of the best technical support and genuine cool factor when it comes to office suites. I also predict that the cobbled together pile of underwear that is OpenDocument will only be worn on the butt of jokes months from now. I know that laptops will always have MS office on them that is a certainty. Trying to make people do things is the surest way to get them to resent.
Added Pressly: "Oh, and by the way, milk is nothing but liquid meat."
What follows is a parody of the article Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument by James Prendergast .
The broader media usually take little interest in public policy debates about technology, but they're missing a big story in Massachusetts.
The technology trades, blogs and industry are buzzing about a monumental policy shift in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Officials in the state have proposed a new policy that mandates that every state technology system use only applications designed around Microsoft Office Open XML file formats.
Such a policy might seem like something that should concern only a small group of technology professionals, but in fact the implications are staggering and far-reaching. The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations.
Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making.
Until now, Massachusetts' citizens and government agencies have been well served by a competitive, merit-based procurement process for technology services. Agencies can turn to the marketplace--often to small state-based systems integrators--and receive bids for the best solutions at the best price to meet specific needs. The proposed policy throws out this system, and instead makes the blind pre-determined selection of applications using the largely immature, rarely deployed Microsoft Office Open XML technology.
For many needs, such applications do not exist and will have to be built from the ground up. In other cases, the Office Open XML solution may cost more and provide less, but agencies and citizens will have to pay the price and make do.
Many technology writers, in fact, have cast a skeptical eye on Office Open XML and applications that support the format. George Ou, writing on ZDNet, recently compared the new Microsoft Office Open XML product to Microsoft Excel and found it lacking, writing, "[i]f someone from Microsoft can explain why it takes more than 100 times longer to create and load spreadsheet documents and why it uses up several more times memory that Microsoft Excel to work with the same data, I'd love to hear it."
He added that he hoped the government of Massachusetts knows what it's in for with its proposed new policy.
In another commentary, David Coursey, a columnist for eWeek, expressed concern about moving the state to Office Open XML formats.
"I am concerned that by requiring Office Open XML that Mr. Quinn [state CIO] may be aligning Massachusetts with what becomes a second-rate file format as Microsoft keeps expanding into XML and metadata and Office Open XML may have trouble keeping up."
It may be that an array of exceptional, low-cost Office Open XML applications will emerge in the coming years. Such innovation would be welcome by anyone, but these applications should have to compete on merit and cost. They should not be given an arbitrary leg up that shuts out other vendors and forces government agencies to settle on under-performing technologies.
But for now, the policy simply promises enormous and unnecessary migration costs to Massachusetts' taxpayers. The mandate forces the entire state government to acquire new technologies, train personnel, and contract for new services and support.
In many cases, new technologies will have to be purchased even when current systems are fully functional. In other words, taxpayers will be paying duplicative costs.
The burden, however, reaches well beyond simple taxpayer costs. Businesses, organizations and citizens who interact with the state will also be forced to support Massachusetts' mandated technologies. Law firms that file electronically, businesses that regularly share information with agencies via electronic files, even citizens who want to take advantage of online services will potenti
It's time to call a spade a spade. Microsoft keeps painting this picture as OSS or even Open standards people a bunch of communists, but, the truth is, it's Microsoft that relies on government intervention to subsidize.
I think open source people need to rally around the concept that opposing DMCA and other excessive copyright controls are in fact a form of subsidy. You need to state, over and over again, that it is Microsoft that is receiving government subsidies at the consumer expense.
If Microsoft wants to compete for real, then certainly, it should not need the government to protect it. What OSS people are asking for is DE-REGULATION of the electronic world, not, additional regulation like Microsoft is.
Microsoft is the one that is advocating a form of socialism, not the OSS community.
This is my sig.
I have contracted for various Massachusetts government agencies. Few, if any, organizations are as poorly implemented as any given department in MA government. Moving to open formats is going to be miserable for them. But, you know, the fanboys run the game here at /.
Let's play True or False:
* Converting every town and state office to use something other than Word will be quick and easy.
(False. The absolute truth here is that most town agencies (in MA anyways) are run by people old enough to be our grandparents. Most of these people are fearful of computers, and more fearful of change.)
* There is cheap help available for the conversion to OSS.
(False. Massachussetts is a small state, and even we have to deal with a hundred or so townships, each with their own departments. Most of these towns barely scrape by with the budget they have - a good number of these towns don't even HAVE a budget for IT (effectively.). Now, the OSS argument will undoubtedly be "But, what they save on software they can use towards support!" Incorrect. These towns use software for over five years before they consider buying new upgrades they don't need. $300 for a copy of office that they -know- how to use is a hell of a lot cheaper than a support contract.)
* Businesses will have an easier / acceptable cost / time using open - documents.
(False. MA is a LONG way from getting off paper, and don't kid yourself into thinking your state isn't. Whether we use open docs or closed formats, we're (no exaggeration here) 10-15 years away from accepting ANY digital format for most data. Further, what's more likely - accepting data from a business as OpenDoc or Word (no)? Or accepting data as a database dump in XML or CSV (yes)? Let's face facts; businesses are not going to like investing in new software just because taxes are expected in a format that nothing they have supports, and no major software packages work with.)
While I'm skeptical by any link to foxnews myself, I think this guy is correct in his assertion, and if you think he's not, you should ask how much your town spent on IT this year, and on what.
The guy who wrote the article for foxnews, James Pendergrast, works for:
Americans for Technology Leadership
Read all about the pro-Microsoft jobs they do:
here
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
...but I think I see Pendergast's point (kinda). In general, when management forces the use of a technology, regardless of the requirements/use model of each department, it's a bad thing. Now, I'm not aware of any reason the OpenDocument spec wouldn't provide all the needed functionality, but one may exist. In that case, it would be nice if they could choose to use another format. I just hate to dictate what technology other people must use. I prefer the approach that our Malaysian friends are taking, where if all other things are equal the OSS product wins.
-ds
"The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations."
What about all of the costs that some of us have to deal with to keep closed source Microsoft products on our computers? Having an open source standard available would allow people to use whatever programs they wanted. I'm more productive in OpenOffice than in MS Word, because the latter keeps insisting on doing things for me.
Ah, someone who can't see the hook for the worm... I thought someone would take a nibble, rather than consider that closely.
Yes, "more responsible like the NY Times". On the one hand, when they finally caught on to Blair's antics, they publicly apologized, decided to fire his ass (although he pulled a Nixon first), and still have a web page listing what he wrote and asking "Readers with information about these or other articles by Mr. Blair that may be false wholly or in part" to email the Times. They fucked up; they responded to their own fuckup after acquiring a clue.
And on the other hand, I didn't say they were really responsible. I just said they were more responsible. This may be like comparing a teenaged slacker to an ADHD five year old on pink pixie stix, but damning with such faint praise is the best the Old Gray Lady deserves after that incident.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Americans for Technology Leadership was founded by Jonathan Zuck in 1999 as a "grassroots" organisations for concerned consumers who want less regulation in the technology sector. It also campaigns on general tech issues such as spam.
r /archives/000421.shtml) [2] (http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010823.html) [3] (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/blog/computer s/tanks.html)
... imploring him to go easy on Microsoft Corp. for its conduct as a monopoly."
It has been frequently described as a Microsoft front group. [1] (http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmo
ATL's domain name, techleadership.org, is registered to the Association for Competitive Technology. The site is hosted by Thomas E. Stock and Thomas J. Synhorst's LLC, TSE Enterprises. Synhorst is a founding member of the DCI Group, a Washington DC-based strategic consulting and lobbying firm which has counted Microsoft as a prime client for a number of years.
Joshua Micah Marshall reports in the July 17, 2000 American Prospect: "[W]hile Microsoft did confirm that Synhorst's DCI had been retained as a consultant, it insisted that another DCI employee, Tim Hyde, and not Synhorst, was handling the company's account. In any event, the web of connections among DCI, ATL, and Microsoft is striking. While working for Microsoft, DCI has also provided consulting services to ATL. And Josh Mathis, the man [ACT president Jonathan] Zuck installed as ATL's executive director, is also an employee of DCI, who still works out of the same Washington, D.C., office as Synhorst and Hyde."
[edit]
Pro-Microsoft letter campaign discovered
In August 2001 the Los Angeles Times reported that a ATL was behind a "carefully orchestrated nationwide campaign to create the impression of a surging grass-roots movement" behind Microsoft. "The campaign, orchestrated by a group partly funded by Microsoft, goes to great lengths so that the letters appear to be spontaneous expressions from ordinary citizens. Letters sent in the last month are printed on personalized stationery using different wording, color and typefaces--details that distinguish those efforts from common lobbying tactics that go on in politics every day. Experts said there's little precedent for such an effort supported by a company defending itself against government accusations of illegal behavior."
According to the Times, the campaign was discovered when Utah's Attorney General at the time Mark Shurtleff received letters "purportedly written by at least two dead people
Eighteen state's attorneys general were joining with the Justice Department in its anti-trust suit against Microsoft. Iowa's Attorney General Tom Miller reported receiving more than 50 letters in support of Microsoft during the summer of 2001. "No two letters are identical, but the giveaway lies in the phrasing," the Times wrote. "Four Iowa letters included this sentence: 'Strong competition and innovation have been the twin hallmarks of the technology industry.' Three others use exactly these words: "If the future is going to be as successful as the recent past, the technology sector must remain free from excess regulation."
Dewey Square Group and DCI Group sibling firm DCI/New Media are credited with assisting Microsoft with its "grass-roots" campaign, according to the Times.
[edit]
Not quite. It's to make it easier to insure that they can continue to do so, regardless of any future idiocy by any one vendor. Naming no names, of course....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Don't take them seriesly. Didn't they link OSS to WMD at some point of time.
They'll probably ignore it, like they did back in 2003.
For crying out loud, it's Fox News. What did you people expect, Fair and Balanced news? Most of their reporting is corporate bought or politically biased. It's just that for once you know enough to be able to discern the lies and they go against your prejudices instead of support them.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled grass field. Baaaah!
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
If you ask me, this is one of the great failings of the much vaunted "information age" - pundits warned about it, but they had no idea of the impact of uncalled falsehoods on the Information Free Marketplace of Ideas.
There have been famous cases to decide the legal status of these kinds of underhanded propaganda campaigns. . (Most famously, Nike's "right to lie" case), but to my knowledge, nobody has addressed the impact such commercial propaganda has on the general consuming public, or consumer goods markets. It's ultimately a sticky free-speech issue.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That OpenDocument is NOT OpenOffice.
Sure, OO writes out to that format- but OpenDocument is an open specification that not only all the main FOSS office suites either already support it or are in the final stages of supporting it- and the other Office Suites of mention other than MS Office are in the same situation. MS is the only one that's not on the same page.
Furthermore, for most people's Office suite needs, they do not need MS Office's functionalities. It might be a cherished notion that you need MS Office- but for the large part, most people aren't making dynamic documents, those very documents have absolutely no business whatsoever in Government in the first place, and the very issues that make MS Office documents very problematic in the first place are due to those "advanced features".
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This is more then poorly laying out a website. The goal is to mix view points and news. They put the opinion piece in the views section, but they purposely label it a story.
It's been pointed out how these people spread lies but are still within the letter of the law to do so. The big one is the "some say" argument. In this article it is:
It's the "Open documents are even against the law" argument. Who said that? A group of people have said that, or maybe even a single person named Some.
There is deffinately an effort here to misguide the reader into believing lies. That is what makes Fox News evil.
Although, some say that the main course meal at Fox News corporate lunches is human fresh fetuses forcabely removed from pregnant women, followed down by a tall glass of freshly squeezed starving third world child blood.
But I didn't say that, some did.
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
How can they even look at themselves in the mirror and take themselves seriously when they make claims like "we're fair and balanced"?
I actually wrote my local Fox station to complain about some of these things. Their response? It's not our fault, it's the main Fox company that makes us do it. Well.... isn't that fun. You'd think that the local station could at LEAST run messages like that up the wire to Rupert Murdoch and let him know he's losing market share. You'd think that might matter.
On the other hand, it's not as though Murdoch has ever been a bastion of true reporting.
"As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue." ~A. Einstein
Fox news on the other hand only shows one side of the argument, distorts the truth, and trys to make up the viewers mind for them. That is a very far from being fair and balanced, and is quite EVIL. Any other news outlet that does something similar is also being evil.
Why is this concept so difficult for people to get?
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
Most bottled water is just filtered city tap water. They'd be shutting off their supply if the public water system was shut down.
Aren't these the same guys who displayed a remarkable level of creativity when reporting state-by-state predictions during last years elections? I still don't understand why it is you lot give anything up about an election before the polling booths close... but then again you're living in a land of fatally flawed voting machines too so it's no wonder really.
...they just don't want to go there.
It means that they lose the lock-in and monopoly position on that space.
I've always had the position that MS has absolutely NO place in government as it's proprietary and fits only on one systems platform. Electronic document access needs to be pretty much universal and consistent across decades of time. MS Office is unable to provide this- because it runs counter to MS' business plans. They have to keep people locked in and forced to upgrade periodically to keep their profits going. This means constantly changing and closed details formats- the exact opposite of what needs to be in place. It'd be different if the format was 100% open and they were the best tool for the job- but that's very definitely not the case.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Pandergast says that the move to OpenDocument means an attack on market-based competition. Can someone remind me why we have the Sherman Act again (an act Microsoft has been found guilty of violating wrt its Windows monopoly, and Novell is now suing them under the same statute regarding their office monopoly)?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Sharon Strzalkowski of Worcester Mass., if her emails are to be believed, (and I think they are), is blind. (Ref: google search)
She has a clear and definite need for assistance technology like screen readers in order to be able to use her computer.
However, her perception that Openoffice does not allow the use of screen reader software or a braille terminal may be misinformed. I see no reason why any assistive software that works with MS office will not work with OpenOffice as well. Perhaps She is simply not aware that OpenOffice (and much Open source software) runs on windows as well as other platforms.
So, IOW, the author thinks Massachusetts shouldn't be locked into Microsoft Office formats, yet goes on to say:
We've seen government operate at its most efficient when it promotes competition. The Massachusetts policy would instead direct contracts to just a few technology providers, while many would be locked out.But apparently embracing only one, proprietary, patent-protected format won't lock anybody out. Instead, everyone is free to compete, as long as Microsoft gives them permission, right?
Oh, I get it: we're not locking anybody out of the market, we're just locking Massachusetts in to Microsoft... Every one is free to use this wonderful standard, as long as only Microsoft gets paid.
Could you be more hippocritical?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Dear God! Over 200 comments all saying the exact same thing! Are all of you people just mindless drones? Or are you all just a handful of really pathetic and mentally ill individuals posting under dozens of aliases?
"American companies doing business across the globe should not have to face a higher standard of regulation in the European Union than they do here"
Of course the obvious way to fix this is to adopt the EU's higher standards
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Is OSS free? Sure. Is OSS free to implement? No it's not. How many people here make a living off of running Linux for a corporation? Are you paid for your work? Sure you are. To implement such broad sweeping changes is going to cost a lot of money. Money that as a citizen I would rather not have my tax dollars diverted to when more than likely what they have will work. He makes a lot of valid points if you get your head out of the sand and stop trying to see it as an attack on FOSS. Americans with Disabilities Act....a friend of mine is legally blind. He can see a little but not enough to drive a car. If the company he works for couldn't provide a way for him to do his job equally well with all of the other "sighted" people he'd have a major lawsuit. Face it, most FOSS isn't mature enough. It's built to do things the "programmer's way".
The emphasis in Malaysia is the FREE part, not the open source part.
There is an organisation here called MAMPU who 'advocates' open source software and trains other government agencies, but they don't seem to be able to distinguish between Free as in Freedom and Free as in Free Beer..
This was demonstrated well by the spokesperson for MAMPU in a recent talk on Software Freedom in Malaysia by Richard Stallman.
There is an active open source community in Malaysia, one of the main problems is the prevalence of copied proprietary software, and the ease of it's availablility. Plus the schools are not yet educating the children on non proprietary software or operating systems.
Other places of interest:
OSSIG - http://www.mncc.com.my/ossig/
MyOpenSource - http://www.my-opensource.org/
MyOSS - http://myoss.bytebot.net/
Share your Knowlege - Kung-Fu Geekery
I really love that they are supporting this measure at the government level. It seems to me (and I haven't seen anything really covering this angle) that it is a very smart thing to do - it forces commercial software to compete at being better than anything else available for the task, rather than just being what is known. By having a mandate of looking to OSS first, it raises awareness that it is even an option.
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
(The Beatles)
I work for a gov't contractor and I want to use whatever software is best for the project I'm working on.
I don't want to have to fill out forms. I don't want people who need an assistant to process email telling me the tools I am allowed to use. And I certainly don't want to have to explain to some clueless bureaucrat why I 'need' a new version of Solaris when Linux would work 'just fine'.
If I have a statutory obligation to use it, is it really still free software?
"The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations." -- James Prendergast
How terrible!
But what about the poor taxpayers who have paid so much tax that they can't afford to buy the latest version of Microsoft office?
Is mr Prendergast suggesting that an IT Dark Ages is the way forward?
"Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making." -- James Prendergast
Competition?
Microsoft has always killed off that and, now that something new has struggled to get its head above the water, Mr Prendergast would like to see new competition killed off?
Innovation?
If it wasn't for the competition that Microsoft faces there would be no innovation - such as the bleak times of Windows 98 (that great and innovative successor of Windows 95).
If Microsoft was to add Open Document support to Microsoft Office there would be no problem. The question is: is Microsoft going to support this or is Microsoft going to attempt to maintain its anti-competitive monopoly?
If it costs so much for people to switch to an alternative there shall never be any competition in the Office Suite area; everybody would be forced to stick with Microsoft's proprietary formats. Is this fair?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
What's being discussed is Microsoft's new XML formats, which will be used in Office 12. Microsoft has patents on them, so it is ILLEGAL to read them except under the terms that Microsoft permits. For example, there's universal agreement that it's illegal to write a GPL program that reads them, by those terms. So KOffice and Gnumeric, for example, cannot use them.
Groklaw has posted a lengthy legal analysis by Marbux, a retired lawyer (updated April 1, 2005). His detailed analysis found that Microsofts specification excluded competition, in contrast with Microsofts public claims. Competitors are... effectively precluded from bidding against Microsoft or its suppliers for any... contract specifying use of Microsofts software file formats.”
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
"The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations"
One hardly can make an omelette withour breaking some eggs (and doing some cooking). This is so obvious and yet so many people fall into this old trap...
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
I am not sure that going straight for OpenDocument is such a good idea. For any government.
The reason being that, and here I give Microsoft some credit to their critizism, the format is still immature in supporting spreadsheets and media-rich documents. Further, the software ecosystem around OpenDocument is very limited, and is likely to be so for quite a while.
OpenOffice for instance does little for Mac users and StarOffice does nothing, and you are in essence making it even more difficult for the second largest desktop to compete in a business environment. There is no way Apple can openly support OpenDocument right now -- Microsoft would kill Office:mac spot on.
This debate is going on in Norway too right now, but the effects will be even more profound than the Massachusetts case, because the government wants to mandate a format that will be used in any communication between the public sector, businesses and citizens.
What I think is needed, and what I have proposed to the Norwegian Government, is that the government, together with the EU, hold a public competition where anyone can submit their contributions to an open document format. This also gives Microsoft an option to contribute. However, the stakes are also very high for Microsoft, because the winning format will be made mandatory for use throughout the public sector of the EU.
I have written many articles on this in my blog under the Agenda subsection. Here one can also find the public hearing documents for the Norwegian government case.
The future is in beta
I know how MS can make money from the MA decission. Support the OpenDocument standard in MS Office and then sell MSO to the state. It's so obvious that nobody can see it!
There is a difference between software, e.g. OpenOffice, and interfaces, e.g. OpenDocument. It is true that this move by Massachussetts closes down the market on interfaces used to publish electronically. Honestly, I find that a bad thing on its own, and would prefer if Massachussetts had made a broader definition of "open formats". Anyway, the interface design is a small fraction of the overall intellectual work involved. The market for the much larger portion of intellectual work on software is left wide open by this move.
In particular, MICROSOFT CAN SUPPORT OPENDOCUMENT if they wish. This move does not rule out Microsoft from use in Massachussetts; it simply insists that they behave in a congenial way if they are to be used by government offices. Whether MS supports OpenDocument or not, I am a happy camper -- I like commercial software companies in general, and I simply dislike tactics such as proprietary file formats.
It's analagous to picking an official language for a government. Instead of having each office pick its own language locally, every US public office is required to publish in English. Similarly, now Massachussetts offices must electronic-publish in OpenDocument and PDF.
A debate moderator on Fox News opens his show:
Welcome to Fox News, your voice for evil.
I forgot to be anonymous.
We all knew FoxNews was crap, I'll just stick with America's Finest.
Build it, and they will come.
OS-neutrality is NOT a good argument to stick with MS formats.
Really. Seriously.
Also:
What I think is needed, and what I have proposed to the Norwegian Government, is that the government, together with the EU, hold a public competition where anyone can submit their contributions to an open document format. This also gives Microsoft an option to contribute. However, the stakes are also very high for Microsoft, because the winning format will be made mandatory for use throughout the public sector of the EU.
This has already been done. Microsoft is a member of OASIS. The EU has specifically encouraged MS to contribute whatever they would like to see in a document format to OASIS. Furthermore, the OASIS format is an open format.
I don't know about the format being that immature for spreadsheets-- OpenOffice.org Calc is not so bad.
And, how can you compare that to WordML and ExcelML? They have 0 real world testing.
If governments adopt open formats, app writers will support them. If the EU specifics OpenDocument, iWork will follow soon.
It's painful, but sticking with MS proprietary stuff is NOT the answer to platform neutrality.
You might be happier if the new Office XML formats become the standard. But that excludes us Linux users indefinitly. We don't get MS Office for Linux.
Better to make a switch to a *real* open standard, and fix the problem of no standards based apps for the Mac platform, than stick with the monopoly supported vendor standard.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Right, ...encouragement is not enough.
...and because government has selected these formats as mandatory, they will become widespread very fast because everyone has to communicate with government. That will grow the ecosystem very fast and basically all developers will benefit from it.
I think that radical measures should be used, and an open competition by the EU is one means of facilitating that. The outcome would be an open format spesification that anyone could implement regardless of operating system. A format -- or rather a set of formats being able to handle media, spreadsheets, drawings, presentations and so on.
I also think we have to remember that for any open format selected, it will be dead easy for Microsoft to write filters or plug-ins that read and write the open formats.
The future is in beta
Not just FUD, high-quality journalism: The Submarine by Paul Graham.
Why isn't open document considered part of the market-based competition? They're so highly competitive that they've found a way to offer their product at little or no cost.
In a truely unrestricted market, it seems that anything other than labor should be free.
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
I suppose these people would like to turn back time, big surprise there, and not allow non-clergy to READ! We could re-write all books in a secret language and allow only a select few to learn the 'new' language.
I would also mention that I seem to recall XML started at OOF?
Fox doesn't know he's a shill. At least it's unlikely. Tell 'em. Eamil these guys and tell them why they just gave a lot of free advertising to MS, and who they have in their barn.
Tell them we now know how little they understand what they print.
comments@foxnews.com
Flood 'em. Let's lose this guy his job. Lord knows he'll have another in a second, but at least it'll be a little clearer to everyone that he's only working for them part-time, and will always have his main employer's interests at heart -- that is, Microsoft's.
I for one, tend to think that if Mass sticks to its guns, a lot of things will sort themselves out by the end of the 2nd fiscal year.
By then, those that want to do business with the state will have made the required investment in updated, possibly free, opensource programs to facilitate their doing business. And by then, hopefully some of the 'growing pains' will have subsided.
The potential fallout into the private sector will domino throughout the area as folks discover that they now have a newfound ability to do business from business to business without the chain of phone calls from the other guy saying he can't open the bid quote.
Now, really NOW, is the time for the opensource folks to get their acts together and make sure that abiword can read an OOo file and render it exactly both on-screen and on paper, and vice versa, as well as a file from any other source that claims compliance with this standard. And yes, I do expect there will be a bit of shakeout and possibly some name calling here and there in the open source camp while things are being sorted.
And yes, if m$ wants to play, all they have to do is write their code for 100% compliance, doing it absolutely without any so-called enhancements we all know are intended to lock the user into the m$ camp. If Office-12 doesn't do that, then its up to m$ to issue a free service pack to fix it. If they don't want to play by those rules, well, I for one can't say its been nice to know them, because it personally hasn't. But lets be plain, if they want to play by those rules, doing it nicely (something m$ isn't exactly famous for) then they are as welcome to play as the rest who do abide by the standard.
My $.02 worth. Adjust for inflation since 1934 please.
--
Cheers, Gene
Essentially their criticism makes a reasonable source of inquiry, but it's very hypocritical.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Shut up troll
I just emailed this to comments@foxnews.com -- send somethign like it, but do better than me.
---
You just published (Wednesday, September 28, 2005) an absurd piece by Jim Prendergast.
The guy's paid by Microsoft. His article is absurd to anyone who is slightly technical. If you have a technology desk editor, he or she should be embarrassed that this made it into the paper. Unless Microsoft paid you to publish it.
Prendergast starts off by misstating the situation. "every state technology system use only applications designed around OpenDocument file formats" -- This is untrue. Using it as a premise allows him to imply that Microsoft products cannot be used.
Massachusetts has only said that all documents need to be in the format. That means that Microsoft need only add the ability to save in this format. Word saves in many formats already. A simple upgrade keeps them in the game.
But MS doesn't want to do that upgrade, because they want to keep a monopoly. This file format would let anyone read their files and use them, so they're fighting this.
Prendergast goes on with "Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making." Since this change allows Massachusetts to use several programs, instead of just Word, and since anyone who wants to play in Massachusetts need only add this file format, this is complete double-speak. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, etc.
I could rebut many more points in the article, but the reality is that there is very little here which is not simple distortion.
Here's my real point:
The fact that you published this means that YOU have no editorial judgment. It means you're either badly educated with respect to technology to the point of complete incompetence or in someone's pay. It means that since you don't hire competent editors, your other bureaus are suspect as well. Which means I cannot trust anything I read in your on-line news.
Over here - Fox has a low reputation as an un biased new source. Its held up as an example of a BIG Business front that warps information in amazing ways. Our news industry are amazed its survives its so blatantly unreliable.
If you look at the Fox News sight, the article is no longer listed under the opinions. I can't find it using Google, either. Either its the Slashdot effect, or else Fox News decided it had made a mistake publishing such a piece of garbage.
... by Joseph Goebbels [Wikipedia link]. He'd be very proud of the masterful progress made atop his work by Murdoch's little propaganda machine.
Fox is the company that won a lawsuit on the grounds that they had the right to tell outright lies in their news broadcasts. I don't think you will be seeing a meaningful or worthwhile response from them.
Fox is the company that won a lawsuit on the grounds that they had the right to tell outright lies in their news broadcasts. I don't think you will be seeing a meaningful or worthwhile response from them.
I know, but in case they commit the sligtest mistake, i'll post it here MWAHAHAHAHAHAH! *evil grin*
I'm on a Linux box. I buy no software. How am I to veiw government documents? The Open Standard will have (if it doesn't already) have ways to read it on all platforms currently in use. Yes, OpenOffice can open even Word 95 documents, but it's a reverse engineered peice of code that isn't as flawless as it should be. Even MS word has trouble opening older versions that it does support, because of changes in their document formats.
Open standards are what makes the web work. Evil propreitary formats leaking in, and non-standard compliant browsers are what cause certian sites to be "IE only." Publically distributed documents should be in standard formats that are free (and open), so that every platform can develop a standards compliant reader -- else the document isn't really public.
A free Market is where individuals/companies are allowed to compete. Mass. gave a minimal requirement that THEY (the buyer) wants in each of their products. That is, they want an open format so that any closed or open apps can compete. Then multiple producers can compete against each other.
Having a requirement is no different than a car buyer insisting that a car be capable of traversing down paved roads. It may be able to do more (such as go off-road), but they will not generally buy a tank as it can not legally traverse paved roads.
Now, when the seller of a product can dictate terms (such as via a patent or a closed format), that is NOT a free market. That is a monopoly. In fact, patents used to be defined as short-term monopolies. Now, they are defined as business as usual. Sadly, that also applies to MS.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I've been wanting to share this experience with the slashcrowd for a while now:
In mid-2003 I worked for this smallish tech outfit in Guatemala City, which especialized in Linux and free SW stuff. Well, the people in charge at the time of the Ministerio de Educación's (Ministry of Education) IT dept. decided it would be a good idea to switch *all* of the Ministry's computers from whatever pirated version of Windows they were running, to Linux.
And we won the contract to do just that. Needless to say, we were very excited, not only because we had landed a (semi) major gig, but also because it was a great chance to put linux on the newspapers. The project was certainly large: we had to switch maybe 800 computers across many sites scattered all over the country. No sweat, we said, we can pull it off.
At first things started out fairly well, if a little rocky because of the expected user resistance. However, we soon ran into problems because most of the machines were seriously old hardware. The Ministry had allocated a certain amount of cash for buying upgrades, like RAM and hard drives, but the machines were so old that you couldn't find RAM for them. That meant many machines that happily ran win9x absolutely refused to run a full X session.
Plus, we ran into sabotage. Once the few (un)lucky users whose machines we had already switched caught wind of our technical problems, they decided to kick us while we were down by loudly complaining of their new OS. Some even went so far as to (we imagine) smashing random keys about until they got something to freeze. This, combined with the fact that the Ministry soon discovered that the project would quickly run way over budget (because of the necessary HW upgrades), meant that the project was on the brink of cancellation.
Then came the final nail on the coffin: once the Guatemalan Microsoft branch caught wind of the defection attempt they jumped on the chance to do what they're now famous for, which was offer a *HUGE* discount so the Ministry could legalize its situation. That was it. We were told thankyou, received a small check for the time we had invested, and were sent on our way home.
In hindsight we realize that we should have never trusted the word of the Ministry's IT goons that their hardware was already linux-ready; had we realized their poor HW situation, we certainly would have never jumped in the water. However, it would have been quite impractical and expensive for us to have conducted our own inventory prior to The Switch, but at least a very important lesson was taught: never take a client's word at face value. Especially if it could affect your bottom line.
Soon after I left that shop for greener pastures. Last year I read in the news that the current administration of the Ministry signed a deal (!) with MS for the purveyance of software for the current "computer in every classroom" project.
I try not to read the papers anymore.
Once Microsoft has embraced the Open Document format by adding it to Microsoft Office they will have secured their place on the gravy train for years to come. All they have to do is continue to make Office (default) to their latest format but leave the option for Open Document in the Save As... dialog.
Govt. employees will be forced to save documents using the Open Document format. End users (constituents) will receive the documents at home, add smiley faces and doodads to them, save them using MS OFFICE DOCs and email them to their friends.
Microsoft will NEVER default to Open Document. People will never live without smiley faces and 3D cutie things.
People just don't get it. Until they CARE they won't get it.
MFG: "The system supports both the LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) and WIMP (Windows, IIS, MySQL, PHP) platforms."
And how much does a copy of Windows to use the "free" viewers cost? Are they giving that away, too? Nor does everyone wish to use Windows. Speaking only for myself, not using MS products is a moral choice. Period. Forcing everone to use MS stuff to interact with their government is as totalitarian as forcing us to belong to one political party or one religion, or none. Nice if its your party or your religion, opressive for others. If it is OK for Massachutsetts to require MS products to access government records, why wouldn't it be right to require everone to use a new Lexus (or whatever) to be on a state road? At the very least, the whole MS tax complex is state-sponsored,state-enforced corporate welfare. Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and the rest of the MS crew & shills, welfare queens. Funny, that.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Actually, it looks like the final verdict is that "You were Right, I was Wrong" (How often do you see that on Slashdot?); Fox didn't adequately fulfill their obligation... and even admits it. From a followup article over at FoxNews:
It looks like the Fox News editorial board has standards and/or pretensions to serious journalistic ethics. I think I need to go lie down....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.