Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts' CIO Defends Move to OpenDocument
Mark Brunelli writes "A public hearing concerning Massachusetts' plan to dump Microsoft for OpenDocument featured a fair share of controversy as the state's CIO tried to fight off naysayers. Linda Hamel, the general counsel for the Massachusetts Information Technology Department (ITD), suggested that groups that oppose the OpenDocument file format standard might be influenced by Microsoft." We reported on the bounce back against the OpenDocument move this past weekend.
"Bottom line: OpenDocument is bloated. Just like we like things in government."
Most likly they think Word Processing IS Microsoft Word.
The early audio recording of the two hour meeting between the CIO's office and various members of the vendor population including the idiot... I mean, the representative of Microsoft, is really amazing. If you haven't heard it, I suggest you do a little digging and find it.
The CIO did make one very interesting statement about money. $50M in order to get Office-12, because of license fees, OS and hardware upgrades, for something that cannot even be tested at this time.
In comparison, to roll out OpenOffice to every state employee, including training (which never seems to be in the pro-Microsoft column), $5M. Mostly because there is no hardware or OS upgrade requirement since OpenOffice runs on everything. Today. Now. Including using the document specification they really want, which Microsoft says they have no plans on supporting.
Fascinating. Foot, rifle, Microsoft pulls trigger.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
We reported on the bounce back against the OpenDoc move this past weekend.
OpenDoc is not the same thing as OpenDocument. If you need to shorten it, you can say ODF.
Here's the thing though -- It's conceivable that Microsoft, as a means of encouraging people to upgrade would cut off support for older document formats and never release the souce code for the programs that generated the original file format. And in this conceivable future, we would not be able to run the old binaries conveniently or at all. It's a problem.
With a lot of programs that utilize OpenDocument format, the source code is readily available and can be recompiled for whatever platform is being used as the time. Further, the precise specs for the file format is available for adaptation into whatever platform exists at the moment.
In short, propritary lock-in and/or lock-out is an important fear that Microsoft is not and will not address. Open specification is just about the only way to avoid this.
FSF have a lengthy and interesting report from yesterdays meeting
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
You're missing the point. The Mass. move isn't to OpenOffice, it's to OpenDocument. What they choose to run is a different story. OOo and Wordperfect, for example, plan to support. Microsoft only plans to import it, I believe, and that only recently. Microsoft if fighting the standard. The idea that this state government is moving to OOo is an extension of the MS PR machine. Get everyone worried about losing Office and an outcry will ensue. Nevermind the fact that they're locking themselves into perpetual licensing fees and a proprietary format. Hey, the vendor's benevolent so what's the harm, right?
More people, more companies, and more governments need to really stand on MS's neck on this and get them to support standard formats. MS doesn't want to because then they have to TRULY compete with other software. Now if Office is so great, why not just support the format? Why not say, "okay, we'll support it and beat you on equal footing!" The mark of a champion is that he will beat you at your best. MS wants to take out your quarterback's legs, get rid of the instant replay and challenge system, AND make you play on their home field before they'll even join the game.
When are people going to realize they are the software industry equivilents to rapists and pedophiles.
You, sir, are either grossly misled, or are an intentionall MS shill.
It isnt about forcing people to not use MS Word - its about setting a fair, open, and public standard for the file formats used so that *everyone* can decide what tools to use. Making MS secret format the 'standard' *forces* everyone to use Word, unless MS completely and fully opens the specification for it.
People can use MS Word if they really think its the best tool for them - but they must have a way to read and produce the standard format. That can either mean MS adds native support in Word, or they use a third party plugin or convertor.
MS was recently quoted as suggested that 'customer demand' might drive their decision to support OpenDoc. Hello? MS? MA is a customer. They are demanding it.
Once MA stops buying new Word licenses, MS *will* add OpenDoc to Word, and MA can buy Word again. But MS will *only* do that if they are absolutely forced, as it sets a precedent, and once that ball starts rolling it will mean an end to MS lock-in. Word may still be popular, but no one will be forced to use it.
Yes, converting away from single-source vendor lock-in is hard. But the longer you wait, the harder it gets, and people have been blindly waiting for pretty long already. But once you finally get it over with it gets easier and less expensive in the long run, and switching software in the future (for whatever reason) is no longer a huge issue, since any choice has to support the existing standard format.
And if this were the only argument presented, then you might have a point. However, when the specific points *are* addressed, and then in addition it is pointed out that the majority of the opponents also have a suspicious commonality, then that is no longer an ad hominem attack, is it?
I do find it interesting to note that the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science is criticizing the move and I think they offer legitimate reasons for using Microsoft products-- that is, until OpenDocument supports the same braille readers and other screen-reader programs.
You are making the same error that many of the opponents of this move seem to be making. Namely, confusing OpenDocument with OpenOffice. OpenDocument is the file format. It does not now, nor will it ever "support the same braille readers and other screen-reader programs". That is the job of the application, not the file format. Massachusetts is not mandating any particular application.
If the blind state workers are using MS products and the other state workers are using OpenDocument, I'd think that might cause some problems.
This is nothing that they won't be dealing with anyhow. They will not be able to magically switch everyone over in a day, and they will have to deal with all of the pre-existing documents in Word format. Getting the occasional Word document from a blind worker is not going alter things substantially.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. -- Winston Churchill
FTA: "CAGW has issued a statement that said the move to OpenDocument would incur unnecessary costs as the state government would be forced to convert 'more than one million current files to the new [OpenDocument] format.'"
I presume CAGW refers to Citizens Against Government Waste. But their statement on this doesn't jibe with the fact that most past documents in other formats would have to be converted to be compatible with newer proprietary formats as well. Also, it contains no comparison of the unnecessary costs incurred by not converting to an open format of some sort.
That is just FUD Microsoft Office 2003 XML schema license.
Is this even a coherent sentence? I assume you intended to babble some uninformed BS about how MS's new file format is open, even though it isn't, and cannot be implemented by other vendors since it stores vital information as encoded chunks of binary data within the XML.
But to address your premise, I can't find that anywhere in the state constitution or in any laws. I think that is a nice notion you have, but isn't the job of the CIO of the state.
Umm, the CIO is supposed to get the best tech at the best price. Just like everything else, he wrote a standard for what he wanted and is accepting bids. Just because the standard they decided upon is the Open Office format instead of a format only one vendor can bid on does not mean he is legislating. You might notice he chose the standard the entire European Union has also decided upon.
This is not rocket science. Just because you have been buying a special kind of patented electrical plug for years, does not mean you should not choose a new one when it comes time to renovate a building, especially when anyone can bid on the new one, while only one company can bid on the old one. It is common sense and business sense not to lock yourself into on supplier.
The CIO should be implementing the most compatible solution for the citizens.
I'm glad you said that. Who can run OpenOffice and write to that format? Anyone, the software is free and runs on all major OS's. Who can run Word and write to .doc? The subset of the population that is running Windows or Mac OS and can afford to spend $100+. I think it is clear which one is more compatible.
When you have 95% + of a market you are the standard.
Who cares if it is a de-facto standard. It locks you into one supplier which means you are screwed in purchasing negotiations. Only an idiot would go with a product available only from one vendor. If MS wants to be a supplier then they can meet the product specifications of their customer. Gee what a crazy concept, a supplier providing what the customer wants, and bidding against other suppliers. If MS does not want to bid and compete, well that is certainly there choice. So far your only argument has been, they should do what everyone else does because everyone else is doing it. What a great way to stifle all progress forever. Hopefully the legislators in MA will not be as blind as you are.