Slashdot Mirror
Challenge to Transfer IT Power in MA
Andy Updegrove writes "Linda Hamel, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts department that is struggling to establish ODF for state use, has prepared a challenge to those in the State Senate that would strip State CIO Peter Quinn of his power to set IT policy. Her analysis graphically describes why a task force of political appointees has no business telling more than 2000 IT professionals what to do."
Her analysis graphically describes why a task force of political appointees has no business telling more than 2000 IT professionals what to do.
I'm glad that somebody has a clue. Micromanagement is obviously the job of your Pointy Haired Boss.
I sense those in the state senate have shiny new Swiss bank accounts. Its funny how much Senators care when they are paid shills.
So the ODF opponents couldn't win their arguments to stick with MS formats, so instead they try restructuring the Government of MA??? This is just plum sick!
This is a case of a monopoly trying to close off competition to a competitor who does it free of charge. THAT is what the case comes down to.
That is what our federal government is. Drug companies support the FDA for quasimonopoly power. Radio conglomerates support the FCC. Teacher's unions support th DOEd.
Where do we differ?
I asked the office of the secretary of state if there was an alternative format since I could not edit the document for electronic submittal. I was told (actual quote) "Our only suggestion would be to locate a typewriter; most likely at your local public library."
The rest of us have to contend with IT management that have little to no IT experience, skill or qualification, why should the MA state IT dept be any different?
All available data suggest that regardless of any of this, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
that no matter what decision is made in Mass., it *WILL* affect similar decisions around the globe. Even if the 'govermment' of Mass. decides to do things in a completely hair-brined way, others will see it for what it is. Not every state has a setup where the position of state CIO is in question, or could be.
The simple fact that this is becoming a 3-ring circus of zealous charicatures means that it will continue to be an issue around the globe for longer than it takes Mass. to cash the checks from Microsoft. More likely than not, if MS wins the 'contract' battle, another virus will put paid to the value of that decision. Even if ODF is not firmly established in the Mass. IT arena, it is gaining ground elsewhere, and this circus just gives more publicity to the reasons for having ODF in the first place.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/korn/LargePrintWe blog/20051113
I'm not fat, just big boned...
While its obviously not the whole story, this move does have all the classic fingerprints of a sourcing effort shooting for savings through leveraged negotiations with vendors. With control of all the
"(1) procurement policies by commonwealth agencies, constitutional offices, and other government entities concerning computer hardware and software, cellular telephones, personal data accessories, and other information technology devices"
the single office in charge of contracting can force standardization and negotate discounted contracts. Combine that with implied savings from standardization of technologies and resulting reduction in support costs and you get a nice presentation at the end of the year that you can show all your bosses showing you saved the state $X million. With that level of spending the $X is going to be a mighty big number.
If its not something like that then somebody better make very sure any contract signed is arms length - the next most obvious rationale would be lining one's pockets.
EVERY SINGLE COMMENT 'dada21' makes appears to be anarcho-capitalist in some way, for good, for bad.
The 'free market' --in this case, everyone stuck on Microsoft proprietary formats--IS NOT FREE IN ANY WAY.
If it was up to dada21 the USA would abandon all of its social programs. Does he understand that this is not the state governments telling companies what to do, it is their own damn internal policy?
"Taxachusetts"? Ever been to Europe, buddy? Alabama (failing schools, shitty roads, ridiculous poverty) is not the centre of the universe.
Nice troll.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
Regardless of your opinion on the subjects, there is the war in Iraq, Social Security, Health Care, Education, the Economy and about a dozen other topics that deserve some attention before anyone should be cusading for a new document format.
I'm not exactly sure what the state of MA IT Director has to do with any of these topics, but choosing a standardized document format would be right up his alley. Unless of course MA's Head IT Guy has a Super-Gov-MegaBot which can cure everyone, end wars, fix SS, Education and the Economy in one fell swoop...
I only need the Preview button when I haven't used the Preview button.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Am I the only one who can't follow this article? It has no introduction... so I have no way of knowing what it's trying to say.
microsoft was found to be a monopoly in court. This pretty much means they are acording to legal definition.
There is no hope in saying it isn't so, the sky is blue only when you can see blue.
Your analogies aren't quite applicable. The difference is that this is for the IT department of the state. That is, this is policy affecting only the government, not the governed. It's a support department.
The FDA, for example, approves drugs for general use by all people and companies in the US. On the other hand, this CIO approves (for example) operating systems for use by the government itself.
For these to be comparable, it would have to be more like "FDA approves drugs for everyone, and this CIO decides what OS every computer in MA (owned by the government or in your basement) will use".
These are not the same thing. When the government builds a bridge, the choice of whether to use concrete or plastic or chicken femurs IS left to the professionals. That's more on par with what we're dealing with here.
And if we focous all our attention on the "more important" things, after we are done with this round of "the war in $country, Social Security, Health Care, Education, the Economy and about a dozen other topics that deserve some attention", we will discover that all the little things have broken while we were crusading. Just because something isnt THE issue of the day doesnt mean it doesn't need to be taken care of.
Therefore Microsoft is not a monopoly? Ooh, I know this one. A-prioristic Randroid "reasoning." Your syllogism is missing a middle term.
And your epidermis is showing. ;-)
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
The last time I was in an IT position as a developer/data analyst at a fortune 100 company, myself and the other memebers of the team kept saying, "Hey ******, things are technilogically bad here, and the IT department agrees, we really need to step things up and make the following 5 changes: ", (then we listed 5 boring, but neccessary changes).
So after that, ****** decided to hire a team of IBM consultants to determine what the real problem was. They promptly had a meeting with us, where we shared our 5 changes that needed to be made, and were told a week later that IBM came up with 5 amazing outside-the-box changes to turn the company around.
A year and a half later, I'm at a different job where I make the decisions, and ****** is in the same position they were before, with more and more money being poured into consultants while the IT professionals remain unheard.
And, just another warning about IT professionals: I had a boss once that refused to allow me to install a Linux-based webserver, and instead poured over $800 into software simply to run IIS. It took a few weeks to get the software in, another week to get it configured, and yet another week to lock it down tight and get the file permissions to run properly. (keep in mind IIS kindly ignores windows file permissions on a fairly random basis, at least from my experience.) Now that that IT Professional has left to do ASP development elsewhere, I spent 3 days learning how to set up a linux webserver and lock it down, and 1 day actually carrying out what I learned. It has thus far cost us nothing, and we have yet to get a virus.
IT professionals are the #1 target it seems for Microsoft donations, so its no wonder most are drooling over Microsoft Office software. Most individuals I've worked with (even the Microsoft Certified Developers) have chosen Open Source solutions this past year because of how much they've developed, and how easy they are to work with. Maybe we need a bureaucratic geek to make the decisions anyway, since the self proclaimed IT Professionals either aren't doing such a hot job, or don't have the power to make these decisions anyway.
One last bit of info: forcing the use of non-proprietary software for developing publically available documents should be federal law by now, IMO, and using proprietary software should be considered obstructing access to the public domain. Why not tear down the wheelchair ramps while we're at it? And if Microsoft is truly non-proprietary in their new XML format, then let's use that too, but don't side with a single vendor when a globally available standard is sitting there, free of charge, easy to implement, waiting to be taken advantage of.
Most for-profit vendors have always been just that, For Profit. Most Open Source solutions and free-domain solutions set forth by not-for-profit organizations have been just that, Not For Profit. If something isn't for profit, and isn't for political gain, then odds are it is strictly being developed for the betterment of society. I guess the honest question now, when confronted with accepting the logically obvious decision, is "Why start now?", to which I say, "To make up for lost times."
"Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." -C.S. Lewis
So basically, from the featured article, an "amendment" to an economic bill can result in rather severe changes to how the various parts of the MA government can operate? Somehow this seems familiar, we've seen these things happen before in the EU and elsewhere in the US when certain big mono- and oligopolists wants something which is not quite within scope of the currently proposed legislation, something that would be more obviously suspect if proposed as a separate bill.
Perhaps it is time for general ban "riders" and "amendments" that change the overall meaning of some proposed regulation, unless their consequences have been evaluated, or perhaps just an overall ban: if a bill is to be changed or augmented, it has to be cancelled and reintroduced from scratch. Something needs to be done about rampant law-making in general, this part of governments have been allowed to run riot and overwhelm the judicial processes. In MA as elsewhere.
Of course, this would just be another law, adding to the mess...
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
You do not understand basic economics. A monopoly can certainly occur without force due to, for example, economies of scale.
A good example of a natural monopoly is the market for electricity and water. A monopoly can most efficiently deliver these services, so a free market will result in a monopoly. No government involvement is needed for the monopoly to occur.
Government regulation _is_ needed, however, if electricity and water to be priced at economically efficient levels. A private monopoly will price electricity and water at the profit-maximizing level, which because of monopoly power is higher than the price should be from a social standpoint.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
"There is no hope in saying it isn't so, the screen is blue only when you can see blue." Fixed your spelling error.
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
While it's true that Microsoft does not meet the textbook definition of a monopoly (being the sole seller), no one questions that they dominate the market to the point where they distort it. Adam Smith himself was very concerned about any firm that controlled more than 40% of the market, because it could use its weight to control prices unfairly. So, not being a monopoly in the strict sense hardly means that Microsoft is just another player in a free market.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
Microsoft is NOT a monopoly? Who locks vendors into their software? Who tried to block other media players on their OS? Who committed numerous acts of perjury at their antitrust trial?
Locking vendors into your software isn't a monopolistic practice, it is common every day business practice and has been since time immemorial. You propose instead what? That Microsoft create and give to the world standards that anyone can write to for any platform? That's like telling Hardinge to create and give to the world a universal spindle standard. Standards are adopted by force of market, not idiotic movements.
Microsoft has every right to do with their OS whatever the Hell they wish and it is their job to respond to market forces or go out of business. If you want Linux to be adopted, make it as easy to use for the common user as Windows XP. It isn't, and won't be, because it is dominated by "hard is beautiful because it lets me show off because I have insecurity issues" geeks. XP isn't. My mother-in-law can maneuver through Windows XP Pro and Office XP like a speed demon. Ten years of training would be needed for her figure out how to find xorg.conf to change her monitor resolution and not fark it up. Most of the people thinking Linux is on par with Windows are either seriously delusional or too young to remember the lack of productivity in offices on DOS prior to Windows. It's MS' OS and they've cornered the market simply by putting out a better OS that at its worst is still better than Linux when it is slightly cranky. A truly farked Linux box is masochism delight.
They lied at an antitrust trial? Who farking doesn't? Since when does that create a monopoly?
Dada is right. It takes force and coercion to create a monopoly, only government can do it, and our government doesn't put a gun to anyone's head to make them buy Windows. They just want an OS that doesn't suck and Windows doesn't suck. Again, a committed Fedora Core user who can build apps from source and fix dependency Hell in his sleep is telling you this. But then, I happen to be a former programmer from back when we knew to write apps for real people to use and not whatever we bloody well felt like and screw the useability or common sense. Linux has "screw the common user" written all over it. Of course, it would given that it descends from Unix, arguably the dumbest thing ever conceived this side of OS/2. That no one is trying to make Linux into a monopoly doesn't make it better than Windows which only has the share that it does because it doesn't suck in comparison.
Why is this so hard to understand for the geeks of today? If we ran things years ago like you're trying to have them now, there'd be none of the nifty engineering and technological marvels there are because we'd have built whatever we felt like instead what the CORPORATIONS and the END USERS PAYING THEM wanted. And you'd not have PCs, the Internet, or anything else you use while taking them for granted to write your socialistic twaddle non-sequitr missives on Slashdot.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
The only thing worse than pure, unfettered bureaucracy is pure, unfettered capitalism.
Both are essential to keep each in check.
This is a boring sig
The fifth amendment protects a person under oath from incriminating himself, i.e. a right to remain silent. Microsoft didn't do anything of the kind; they lied in a court of law by presenting "evidence" of how much slower a IE-less Windows ran, and the prosecution proved and forced them to admit that the video was doctored. Self-incrimiation and trying to lie under oath are two very different things.
Also, I reject your fallacy of trying to redefine what I say as some sort of land analogy. I said nothing of the kind. See my reply in the cousin thread.
Most companies, people who have called the IT department because they could not figure out how to turn on their computers will set IT policy or will mandate technology shifts because they got sold by someone that sounded good. Meanwhile, the IT people who actually know about the stuff are forced to impliment bad decisions knowing it will usually cost more and mean more work for them.
> 20/20's John Stossel discovered that privatized water and electricity is safer, cheaper and more abundant.
:)
What do you mean by "privatized"? The providers weren't regulated at all? I didn't say the government had to _provide_ water and electricity - it probably would be best if they didn't - I said they had to _regulate_ it. I'm pretty sure all drinking water in the U.S. is regulated by the FDA or EPA anyway, so there can be no such thing as "privatized" water. Furthermore, what do you mean by "more abundant"? That makes no sense unless you don't have running water or you're suffering brownouts all the time. And I'll agree that California set the price too low for a while
> If MS sold strictly direct-to-consumers, I'd be concerned.
Why? Retailers are in a different market. If one company were selling bananas it wouldn't matter if we could buy the bananas from Walmart, Kroger, or Tom Thumb.
> They don't. 12,000 retail companies are not forced to sell Windows/Office. They're asked to by their customers.
This is irrelevant. Microsoft is a big monopoly, and a lot of retailers sell their products to a lot of people who want to buy them. So?
Monopolies are inefficient partially because they charge too much for their products. $450 or however much it costs for Office is a lot more than it costs to copy the disk. Same with $200 for Windows. If people who would be willing to pay for the cost of making the physical CD do not have the products because they aren't willing to pay what Microsoft charges, there is inefficiency in the market.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Then again, there's the commerce clause which states:Clearly, if the states adopt incompatible document standards, there would be a problem. Ostensibly, Congress dealt with this issue when it created the National Bureau of Standards and left standardization issues to them. However, in this case, there's clearly a set of deep pockets wandering around trying to influence Congress to take a special oversite interest in this particular standard.
How to counteract somebody handing out millions of dollars? Talk to your congressperson.
Back when Clinton was pushing the Clipper chip, I put together a group of technologists and setup a meeting with my local congressman. We told him why Clipper was a bad idea and why people needed strong encryption. Once he understood that banking and trade could be adversely affected if people couldn't be sure their purchases were secure, he agreed to vote against the proposal.
There were lots of geeks doing the same thing across the country and the Clipper died as a result. It can happen again.
You are so off the mark I hardly know where to begin. The CIO is appointed, get over it. There are lots and lots of people hired by state government to carry out the business of the state. It would be a disaster if a state CIO had to raise funds and campaign for office.
The decision to adopt ODF was not an arbitrary CIO decision. A process was followed to identify the needs of the Commonwealth. Then there was a panel composed of industry representatives, (Microsoft, Sun, Novell, Redhat and others were all there.) PDF and ODF were determined to be the best fit for document formats that meet the needs of the Commonwealth. Being open formats, they are well documented, they will be readable generations from now, and their openness ensures that Massachusetts can accept bids from a variety of vendors. There's also a big piece about converting data from legacy systems.
As for the elected officials being concerned with the document format --- consider if the IT department does nothing. Within a few years everyone will be creating MSXML formatted documents, with no input from elected officials, and what's more to the point, with absolutely no examination of the implications of that format change.
"If the ELECTED officials want to form a task force of qualified industry specialists to analyze a change in THEIR state that will affect the people they represent they are not only entitled to do so, but should." -- Did you read the article? The task force consists of 8 people, possibly 3 of whom will know anything about technology. Of those 3, two will be representatives from industry -- one in IT, one in telecom. The remaining 5 people all have other full time duties. The point of the fine article is that the CIO is being strongly supported by the General Counsel to the department that will be affected by the ODF document policy. (In case you didn't realize it, the move to ODF was a policy decision within the Executive Branch, the response is coming in the form of an amendment being considered by the Legislative Branch-- an amendment which, according to general counsel, will effectively paralyze the Commonwealth.
So getting back on track here, keep the following points in mind. (1) Mass. ITD did something well within their mandate, and they did it in a public and proper way. (2) A member of the Mass. legislature became upset or fearful, perhaps due to influence from a large corporation's lobbyists (3) In response, an amendment with far-reaching effects on the commonwealth's ability to conduct business was attached to an unrelated bill. (4) A department whose job is to point out the implications of government decisions has weighed in against the amendment.
In summary, this is a good thing. Whether you are for or against vendors actually meeting the stated needs of their customers, you must agree that an ill-considered amendment to an unrelated bill is not the best way for a legislator to deal with his fear of change.
Locking vendors into your software isn't a monopolistic practice, it is common every day business practice and has been since time immemorial. You propose instead what? That Microsoft create and give to the world standards that anyone can write to for any platform? That's like telling Hardinge to create and give to the world a universal spindle standard. Standards are adopted by force of market, not idiotic movements.
Microsoft has every right to do with their OS whatever the Hell they wish and it is their job to respond to market forces or go out of business. If you want Linux to be adopted, make it as easy to use for the common user as Windows XP. It isn't, and won't be, because it is dominated by "hard is beautiful because it lets me show off because I have insecurity issues" geeks. XP isn't. My mother-in-law can maneuver through Windows XP Pro and Office XP like a speed demon. Ten years of training would be needed for her figure out how to find xorg.conf to change her monitor resolution and not fark it up. Most of the people thinking Linux is on par with Windows are either seriously delusional or too young to remember the lack of productivity in offices on DOS prior to Windows. It's MS' OS and they've cornered the market simply by putting out a better OS that at its worst is still better than Linux when it is slightly cranky. A truly farked Linux box is masochism delight.
Your post and extreme libertarian viewpoint (and that of the more ultra extreme version, the political anarchist), has a decidedly machavelian ring to it.
Let me preface by stating that I tend to agree with the core fundamental values of libertarianism; I believe a society is generally better off if the reach of the powerful, what it takes the form of restricting the lives of others, is as limited as possible. But, as many wiser than myself have noted throughout history: "All things in moderation"
The notion that any entity, individual or corporation, has some untennable right to use any and all means available in the quest for profit is based on a world-view that doesn't quite mesh with reality. Now, I don't believe you are saying something so extreme, right? I mean, presumably, you would be opposed to allowing a corporation to commit bodily harm as part of their "domination strategy." Assuming your viewpoint is at least that reasoned, what about less direct forms of manipulation (coercion)? Should a company, if capable, be permitted to "blacklist" employees of the competition; e.g. sully their names such that they find future employement difficult if their current employer becomes insolvent?
The point is that there must be a line drawn somewhere , if only because certain members of humanity have a weakness for exploiting others to the detriment of society. It is an overly-simplistic view which considers force to only exist at the end of a gun barrel; that's simply the most direct and final form of it.
If a company or individual has primary control over an essential supply chain, they have the ability to force distributors into exclusively using their product; simply by virtue of the fact that by severing the chain the distibutor will suffer economic disadvantage to the point of being unable to continue operations. This is exactly why we have anti-trust regulation. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with being a monopoly (depending on how you got that way), but the moment you start leverging that as a tool of force to combat existing or new competition, rather than competing on the merits of product alone, you have stepped over the line into societal antagonism.
Got a little unresolved anger there, don't you? It takes force and coercion to create a monopoly, only government can do it, and our government doesn't put a gun to anyone's head to make them buy Windows. It doesn't necessarily take force or coercion to create a monopoly, but it's illegal to use monopoly power to maintain market dominance. If a company gets into the business first, or buys out its competitors, or corners the supply of a necessary raw material, or makes the best widget, it may naturally monopolize the market. IIRC, monopolies aren't even illegal in and of themselves. It is the abuse of monopoly power to control the market (and hence, to maintain the monopoly) that is illegal.
I think it's entertaining how you go on about the end users paying corporations for what they want. Isn't the state of Massachussetts a customer? Don't they have a need that can not be met with an encumbered document format? Mass is a big customer. Anybody but Microsoft would be falling all over themselves to ensure that Massachusetts gets an open format.
And your last paragraph just makes me laugh. The PC propogated in large measure because IBM's competitors could make inexpensive clones. It's the opposite of monopoly power. The internet exists because a number of different ideas came together in a useful way -- among them, US defense department and university researchers needing a communications protocol (TCP/IP) and Tim Berners-Lee being interested in document sharing. And yeah, Al Gore was actually responsible for some of the legislation that changed the web from a defense research network into what it is today.
But hey, none of this really matters very much. In fifty years, we'll either be huddling around post-apocalyptic trash fires to keep warm, or computing will be a ubiquitous utility.
In Massachussetts, what percentage of the people are using Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF, and what percentage of them are using software that support ODF?
So what you're saying is that because we use a closed format today we should use it tomorrow. And because we use it tomorrow we should use it the next day? And so on ad infinitum?
Sometimes you need to make a short term investment for long term gain. This is one of those times.
The same applies to any organisation with vendor lockin, on an upgrade train or lacking needed transparency.
---
Paid marketers are the worst zealots.
my 2 yen ...
excuse me, but Microsoft wasn't convicted for "monopoly". monopoly could be legal. they were convicted for defending their monopolistic position with illegal means. you can read more here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
and i thought everyone knew that ...
Think about it. Every medium size to large office with PCs is going to need IT people. I'm surprised they can handle a whole state with just 2000 people. You got DMVs and all those systems, State Troopers with laptops, state tax people, heath care services, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and all their people, Attorney General, the lottery people, weights and measures. I could go on. Think about all the services that the state provides. Its huge. Needless to say its a lot of computers, networks, and people who probably are not too good at using them. This day in age where the most savy people are not using Microsoft, its important everyone can exchange information.
Think of how much it must have cost MS to "influence" all the people needed so that restructuring a state legislature isn't dismissed out of hand. To say nothing of the PR groups, the pay-for-pay reporting (mentioning no names, Boston Globe) and all the rest of it.
Anything Quinn might have wanted - it would have been cheaper to just give it to him. The fact that this wrangle is still going on suggests that this isn't about negotiated discounts or personal profit. Especially since Microsoft's preserving their highly lucrative office software monopoly with its 75% profit margins remains a far more plausible explanation.
Oh, and speaking of the Boston Globe, did you know they printed complete retraction of the smear job they did on Qinn? Right in the back where no-one would see it, but printed nevertheless. With all the current attempts to smear Quinn, I think any genuine dirt would have surfaced by now.
Lacking any actual wrongdoing, the best they can manage is cheap innuendo
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Why on Earth are you wasting your time posting on
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
graphically: ...
2 usually graphic a : marked by clear lifelike or vividly realistic description b : vividly or plainly shown or described
Funny thing about language... some words obtain non-literal meanings (also known as metaphors) over time. Go figure...
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Sorry, but I need to pick a nit. It seems that the nudge-n-wink was directed to the legislature, in an effort to deprive the executive branch of their IT autonomy. I know people here are eager to dump on "this administration", whomever that may be at the time, but this time, "this administration" are our heroes.
Um MA did do all that. They wrote specifications, and told MSFT that there format doesn't fit the mold. PDF is also supported. Since Adobe allows third parties to build readers and writers for PDF they are considered open enough to be allowed. MSFT's license doesn't allow for GPL, or basically any other open source developer to write a compatible program and then distribute it. It specifically denies re-distribution of the source ode used to create such program. If MSFT's license was as open as Adobe's PDF's then this would be a non issue. As such MSFT is playing i want it my way only and your way is unacceptable to me. This alone should preclude them from ever doing business again. It's not up to the contractor to tell the people who hired them how to do it.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
how the government can be bought - IT professionals chose a solution based on an open standard and not on a vendor's product so it's CITIZENS can have access to their documents without having to buy a certain software product. What a concept.
But now they get restructured and told what to do because microsoft has some politicians in it's pockets.
Sure makes our forefathers proud doesn't it? Glad my dad fought in WWWII so these greedy politicians can sit on their fat arses and tell people how to do their jobs when they have no clue on how to do it themselves.
Anybody that doesn't think microsoft is running the government here in this instance is a fool and should wake up and smell the coffee. It pisses me off that more people aren't pissed off about this and let this happen.
If you're a resident of MA- please take the time to write your Senator and Representative to express your support for Mr. Quinn and the ODF. You can look up your representatives here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/citytown.htm
Here's what I've sent to my Senator. The letter to my Rep added that as one of the few Republicans in the House he might want to take this opportunity to distinquish himself....
Hon Steven Panagiotakos
Room 218
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Senator,
I am writing to express my support for the recent efforts of the Massachusetts CIO, Peter Quinn in his drive to ensure accessibility for the citizens of Massachusetts. I'm very disappointed the Senate would consider ignoring or altering the recommendations of Mr. Quinn and his staff. The citizens of Massachusetts deserve to have unfettered access to the electronic records of the state. Our state has an opportunity to step out and obtain widespread recognition for leadership; we should not succumb to backroom deals or crooked politics- it is vital we follow the recommendations of Mr. Quinn and adopt the Open Document Format for all documents and publications. I value our freedom to choose and do not wish to be subject to the whims of a monopoly. The adoption of the Open Document Format is an important step in taking back the information paid for by our tax dollars. What is paid for by all should be accessible to all and no alternative is acceptable.
Respectfully,
As an OS/2 programmer, let me respond to some of your comments: Of course, it would given that it descends from Unix, arguably the dumbest thing ever conceived this side of OS/2. Back when OS/2 was in it's 1.3 version (15 years ago), it was being used to control store systems (IBM's 4600 series registers) and end user banking systems (4700 teller terminals and ATM's). When MS-Dos 4.1 came out, when installed or re-installed on a PC with OS/2 installed, it would report "You have OS/2 installed. There may not be enough room to install DOS. Would you like to remove OS/2?". This when installing a single floppy image on a FAT partition with 2+GB free. Together, MS-Dos and Windows 3.1 required less than 5MB to install and run. In addition, I had created a transaction processing system which utilized 3 processes, each running 8 threads, to run an automated dispatch system. One process received dispatch requests and communicated status on an ongoing basis to requestors connected through a VAX. The second opened calls an monitored status on an IBM Mainframe, connected via 3270 controllers. The third kept status updated on DB/2 SQL based databases in 3 locations nationwide. Meanwhile, the company had a NT3.51 testbed which would bluescreen while sitting idle. Which O/S was more capable? I also had occasion to create an assymetric multiprocessor complex for doing massively paraless processing. One processor (the control processor) controlled up to 64 others which would each receive a packet for processing through a neural network. This system ran successfully on OS/2 and *nix* systems (not only Linux, but also Solaris on E4K to E10K systems). Which O/S was more capable? If IBM's sales force had not totally neglected OS/2 (and followed the NEXT model of pricing operating system software) the system would probably still be around. Of course, since you were going to pay for windows on a new PC whether or not you were going to use it, IBM's pricing model priced it out of the end-user market. Keep in mind that, 15 years later, the primary way of repairing a broken windows install is to wipe and reinstall. The Windows model of placing any and all software in system directories, along with leaving write permission open in same, allows and promotes software which can seriously compromise system operation with no safeguards. The extension of this model (the System Registry) makes removing misbehaving software extremely difficult. The fact that a program which needs to be able to open up a TCP/IP port above 1023 requires system level privileges indicates extremely poor programming practice suited only to a non mission critical system that only one person should use. This describes ALL VERSIONS of Windows to a "T".
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
This is clearly a case of state Seantors attempting to alter the executive branch's good faith efforts to run IT in the interests of the citizens. So mod this up, the grandparent post was wrong to blame the executive branch.
Think global, act loco
People joke that Louisiana is the northernmost bananna republic. I hope not to have to welcome Mass to the club, but turnabout is fair play.
The more I think about it, the more Microsoft looks like the United Fruit Company. The only differences are that the United Fruit Company actually built real infrastructure, like railroads, and you can only grow a bananna in the tropics. It looks like you can farm PCs and treat their users like peons at any latitude.
Let's see if a great US state with some of the best IT staff and best universities for IT in the world can resist bribery and persue excellence. If they can't, no one can. That's what this is all about. The world is watching and M$ is desperate to "demonstrate" that IT experts want M$ junk.
What's funny is that their demonstration proves only that M$ is used only because it's forced on people by idiots.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Untrue, because the stage of the process where a vendor is selected hasn't even started yet. They had a process they used to decide on which document format would fit thier standards, and they chose OpenDocument. The hoopla now is over that, and is only incidentlly about which vendor will actually be used for deployment - which, of course, is only an issue because Microsoft won't support OpenDoc and there's a massive vested interest and borderline political corruption in keeping Microsoft as the office software vendor for MA. This is a *perfectly normal* and common way of managing a bid process, and makes total sense when you consider that the goal is a standardized *document* policy, rather than standardized desktop software. Incidently, you saw some of the same sort of things happen as IP got big. Someone would want to standardize on an IP network and the vendors would bitch and whine that they shouldn't be defining the protocol, just requirments for the protocol, and why don't you keep our big fat IPX/Appletalk hybrid network you pay us so much to make for you?
Just what the people in our government should be worrying about right now is passing a law to create a new level of beurocracy to strip routine operational and efficency decisions away from the appropriate department heads and experts. Regardless of your opinion on the subjects, there is the war in Iraq, Social Security, Health Care, Education, the Economy and about a dozen other topics that deserve some attention before anyone should be cusading for a new document format. I mean seriously, there are so many other more important issues on the table...
It is obscene that some representatives in the Massechusettes legislature are trying to wage some battle to prevent departments from using the best and most appropriate document formats.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.