Trimarco Confirms Mass. ODF Support

Andy Updegrove writes "After Peter Quinn resigned, only two brief statements -- both from spokesman for Governor and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney -- were made to the press regarding whether Quinn's OpenDocument format policy would survive. Both were vague, and both spoke only of the "rules not changing", leaving ODF supporters worried that ODF would be swapped out for Microsoft's XML Reference Schema, even before its expected approval by Ecma. But today, in a private meeting with ITD General Counsel Linda Hamel, Secretary of Administration and Finance Thomas Trimarco assured her that Peter Quinn's departure "will result in no change to the Administration's position on the ODF standard." Trimarco is the public official that will supervise whoever Quinn's replacement will be until after the deadline for the new Massachusetts' policy is to become effective."

Comments

well that's good

[alienpeach]

I personally go for open standards in government. I think it makes sense that government would try and stay away from proprietary things. But when you look at the rest of the American government, that is not what you see. Take the military for example: the government hires out everything to be made proprietarily (of course there aren't really that many open options either). Then with technology, us techies critisize the government for using what many others are using and for doing what they always do.

But that's what democracy is for, for us to tell them their idiots and show them the right way to do things.

Re:well that's good

[theLOUDroom]

Take the military for example: the government hires out everything to be made proprietarily

That's probably the worst example you could have possibly picked.
The military has standards for EVERYTHING.

The have specs for connectors, components, hardware.
The have specs for environmental tests, electical tests, mechanical tests.
The military has beens pushing standards forever. The first use of interchangable parts was in the military.
There is no frickin way you're going to be able to get something like an aircraft carrier built without standards.

Yes, there's a good deal of pork out there, but think it's arguable that standardization is the best thing the military has even done and they've done it well.

There are a tons of well-written, very useful military standards out there. They're been a significant boon to other industries as well. Did you know that BNC conntector on the back of your monitor is a Bayonet Naval Connector?

The problem is corruption of the system with people like the "Dukester". If the people at the top are corrupt, it doesn't matter how many standards you have.

the government hires out everything to be made proprietarily

This isn't really true. There are many, many simple things that are mil-standard items that you can just go and buy. Screws and washers would be an example. When it comes to things like an entire radar system, they're not exactly going to publish the drawings so that anyone could make it.
It think at that level however it really comes down to holding companies responsible for fulfilling contracts and having a fair award process.

Re:well that's good

[ozmanjusri]

Did you know that BNC conntector on the back of your monitor is a Bayonet Naval Connector?

No, and I suspect Amphenol would be very surprised to hear it as well;

Developed in the late 1940's as a miniature version of the Type C connector, BNC stands for Bayonet Neill Concelman and is named after Amphenol engineer Carl Concelman.

You can read the rest here: http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/bnc.asp

Re:well that's good

[theLOUDroom]

No, and I suspect Amphenol would be very surprised to hear it as well;

Crap, looks like I've opened a can of worms.
Looking around, the sources I see that are not Amphenol seem to list both names, and sometimes a few others as well.

So I highly doubt Amphenol would be suprised to hear about this. Anyways, it does seem like Bayonet Neill Concelman is the correct name. Thanks for the correction.

Re:well that's good

[NickFortune]

I personally go for open standards in government.

Good, good. Glad to hear it.

I think it makes sense that government would try and stay away from proprietary things.

When you say "things", it's not clear whether you mean "standards" or "products", at not least in the context of the remainder of your post.

For instance:

Take the military for example: the government hires out everything to be made proprietarily (of course there aren't really that many open options either).

You see, when you talk about things being "made" that suggests products rather than standards. What we want is for things that are made to conform to open standards. Then we don't care so much if the product is "open" (whatever that means when applied to products) so long as the standard is independant, unencumbered and freely available.

Keep that distinction clearly in mind.

Then with technology, us techies critisize the government for using what many ot hers are using and for doing what they always do.

A little bit of a non-sequiteur there, perhaps? I don't see how that follows at all. Also, I'm not clear on what "us" techies are apparently criticising the government for doing; nor on what it is that many others are supposedly using; on who it is that is doing what they always do; and on what it is that is being done.

Perhaps you'd like to flesh that last bit out?

Re:well that's good

[Sydney Weidman]

What we want is for things that are made to conform to open standards. Then we don't care so much if the product is "open" (whatever that means when applied to products) so long as the standard is independant, unencumbered and freely available.

It's interesting that your statement, which is commonly taken to be the most rational and balanced view, is actually quite reactionary and dogmatic. In every age, the broad popular understanding of the technology upon which civilization is built was critical to stability and progress. Proprietary software is analogous to medieval guild system which went to great lengths to keep technical knowledge from the users of its products so that it could maintain power, pricing, and control. In the age of the automobile, almost everyone knew how to repair engines (this age has now ended since computers have invaded combustion engines). Everyone at least knew how a combustion engine works. Auto repair was taught in school. If you artificially limit the pool of available talent that can be applied to technological problems to suit the interests of the incumbent powers, you'll fail to solve those problems. Eventually that will catch up with you as a civilization and things will start to fall apart.

All this is in addition to the already well recognized fact that software represents a kind of legal constitution; where the opacity of proprietary software intersects with basic rights (voting machines, fair use, but much more too) it is dangerous and weakens democracy.

I find it strange that people accept something even as simple as a spyware detector being made as a proprietary product. What sense does it make to allow one private company to determine which other private companies' software is legitimate and which is not? Controlling the behaviour of the endpoints of a network (every standard constitutes a kind of network) means you can make the rules for the network, even if the network standards are "open".

These are just some of the reasons why I think the Free Software movement is an important civil society effort to defend democracy, not just a battle for the freedom to tinker. Democracy *means* having the freedom to tinker. To turn over whole domains of culture to opaque systems of control is a huge mistake.

Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[oirtemed]

While I know that it is unreasonable to expect companies or even individuals to actively persue open formats, I feel that it should definitely be considered in the best interest of the people for governments at all levels to make such efforts. People comparing this situation to defense contracting or the use of other closed products are making bad analogies. This is not like hiring a private contractor or purchasing a commercial product. This is more like making codes and regulations that can only be followed with the use of a certain company's product. This would be like if the electrical code said that you could only use wire from a special company or that it had to be assembled in a certain way that only said company has the information and patent for. I'm lost as to what grounds anyone could argue for closed formats anyway - any takers please fire away. There is nothing preventing MS from implementing these formats in Office - this seems to be a case where there is only one logically right option and those that try to push the closed format option look ridiculously silly.

Ummm..no..open formats are bad...because...ummm...just trust us...Office doesn't use them...and office is so popular so it must be ok!
I mean, seriously, what is the logic?

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[nicolas.kassis]

I fully agree with this but how will they convince everyone to use OpenOffice ? Seriously they will have a lot of problems with they folks who just won't use anything but Word. Word is currently the most powerfull word processor of it's kind (Meaning it will never beat emacs.) I just don't see those governement workers fully willing to relearn the tools they must use every single day. Maybe they can just write the stuff in Word and than use OpenOffice to convert it? But again this will cause a lot of wasted time when things just don't work.

Oh well I love the initiative but I am skeptical of it's lifetime. Maybe the next version of office will support ODF. Microsoft would probably not loose there Monopoly even if ODF was included. Most people use Word because it is so familliar to them.

Nic

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[Anonymous Coward]

"While I know that it is unreasonable to expect companies or even individuals to actively persue open formats"

I do have a company and I certainly want to persue it. While my word processing requirements are rather simple, they are specialized and aren't dealt with by any word processor on the market, so I want to have my own developed. But, of course, my clients must be able to read the documents and I can't ask my customers to deal with X11 etc. So, I do need word processor developing companies to support the OpenDocument format cross-platform (no, I don't turn customers away because of the platform they use). You know: the double-click and install type of software. If the word processors aren't free, I don't mind: If it is not expensive I can give it to the client. This easily makes up for the time and money I lose struggling with the bugs in Word, left alone the productivity I would gain if I had a specialized word processor of my own (with bugs getting fixed when I spot them).

Bert

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[mattwarden]

If governments start to use ODF, MS Office will certainly support the format (either natively or via importing and exporting). It will have to or it will lose revenue. However, I'm sure MS will do what it almost always does with open formats, which is fsck it up just enough to make its output incompatible just enough with other readers to keep those readers from being valid replacements for Word.

Probably the easiest way to do this is to allow importing of an ODF document into native Word DOC format, and then exporting to ODF format. In this way, people will not be restricted to using only features which ODF supports while editing the file in Word. Then, when exporting, they will get a warning message about how features will be lost if they convert this file to ODF. All of a sudden their clip art is grayscale, their title is no longer in 3d and written on a curvature, meta information like comments and 'track changes' is lost or corrupt, etc.

Just enough of a nuisance to keep the status quo and get the user to send their version of the document in Word DOC format.

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[aiken_d]

The only reasonable argument I can think of is that a new document format will be a hassle / expense for smaller companies who contract with the state. Their ancient versions of Word, etc, won't support ODF, so they'll be forced to upgrade. And that means expense, training, etc. In short, it's a major shakeup of the status quo, and companies who are not technology-centric may find it expensive and challenging.

That said, government does the same thing all the time when it changes building codes, tax codes, etc. If you work with the government, just like any other large client, you should be prepared to conform to its process. And this is definitely a case where one large, sudden pain and expense will significantly reduce the ongoing pain and expense of using and paying for MS products.

Me, I'm for the change. But I think there is a reasonable argument against it. It's just that the argument, to my mind, isn't strong enough to somehow make this A Bad Thing.

-b

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[JamesTRexx]

Most of the people who oppose changing from Word to OO.org, also complain when Word is upgraded to a new version. When we did a company wide upgrade, at first everyone was asking when they'd get the new version, after that they didn't know where to find certain features and complained that it wasn't the same like the old version.

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[mattwarden]

The scenario I suggested with import/export would allow ODF exports to validate as valid ODF yet still piss off users when their cute little BMP clip art of a guy thinking while a question mark floats above his head suddenly disappears.

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[judabuddhist]

When I heard RMS speak earlier this year he mentioned that a lawmaker's support for open standards and non-proprietary stuff in government makes a good litmus test of their integrity. It's an issue that's pretty straightfoward, since no reasonable government should be locked into proprietary formats and whatnot, but your average Joe couldn't care less, and isn't going to be basing any votes on the subject. There's so much money being thrown around by software companies, and so little political incentive to resist, that it's a wonder any polititian would be on the side of free software. This is why the whole Massachusetts thing is so important, since it's very much an exception to the rule and could raise public aweness even if it's not entirely successful.

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[ozmanjusri]

Word is currently the most powerfull word processor of it's kind

If Word is so good, why won't Microsoft compete on features instead of formats?

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[Bert64]

Well upgrading to the latest version of word will cost a lot more than upgrading to openoffice..
There are about the same level of differences between old and new versions of word, as there are between word and openoffice so any training costs would be very similar..
On the other hand, they don't need to pay for openoffice and can easily install it on as many machines as they have..
Also, the latest version of word no longer runs on older versions of windows (NT4, 9x etc) whereas openoffice does, so upgrading word may also require upgrading windows, at more cost.

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[Alex P Keaton in da]

I deal with Word files from lots of different people; and hardly any of them know how to use the "tools" it offers; I'd say less than 5% ever use anything that's not on the formatting bar (which is virtually identical to the formatting bar on dozens of other word processors). And government workers aren't given a choice of which software to use anyway. Of course some do have specialised apps, these can be left alone and eventually converted (as they would have to be the next MS upgrade anyway).
As a technical writer, I would agree wholeheartedly. Sometimes (often) when we design a document, clients request it in word, because if we use a different program (InDesign, Captivate, whatever) they don't have the software to make updates. I would much prefer InDesign for graphic heavy docs (Word doesn't handle vector graphics... I still can't believe that) People don't understand that word is not a publishing program!
I use a ton of Field Codes and Styles in Word. I have, by request of a client, created a 200 page parts catalog in word that was one giant table...
The worst experiences I have had were with Word docs designed with a ton of Field codes and styles, as when a third party updates them they ALWAYS get screwed up. That is why I prefer a program like Framemaker where I can set up a template, and have one person control the template and others only able to make content changes.
The main problem with word (in my opinion) is that people use it for things it isn't, and wasn't ever intended for...

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[deaddrunk]

If the unthinkable happens and MS do embrace open formats and standards I doubt it would make a huge dent in their sales. They have the software brand and a lot of buyers would still buy from them because of that factor. I have no problem with Microsoft being hugely successful, but a bit of competition would make them improve software quality which is still sadly lacking because they still have little to no incentive to do anything about it.

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[16K Ram Pack]

I use OOo Writer all the time because it does everything I need. I write things like system specifications with tables and embedded images. It's got numbering, it's got styles. In terms of switching, I had a little trouble with numbering, but that was a one-off investment of an hour of so learning how to do it, which is now done. Anyone who says that OOo is a massive switch cost for the average user is a shill or an idiot. I've given non-techies OOo and they get on fine with it.

I know it misses certain features, but I'm either not using them, or so rarely that I can live without.

A lot of large companies I know are still using Office 2000. It's good enough for them. Microsoft should be worried. Unless they can think up something radical to do with Office, they could lose the dominance of the document standard.

Re:Govt Is The Place It Should Start

[brw12]

New York City agreed to a proprietary, closed design for their bus/subway card, "MetroCard." Only the company that designed the card knows the information storage format (although hackers have deciphered some of the unencrypted information, like some users' social security numbers!)

The result? As the Village Voice revealed in several investigative pieces in 1997/8, The state (which administers the city's public transportation) is forced to pay an obscene $125,000 for each full-sized MetroCard vending machine they buy. They've lost millions of dollars (money which, for example, might have prevented the recent strike) just because they misunderstood the difference between "proprietary" and "secure."

Re:No change on ODF

[TubeSteak]

Not that this really relates to your comment, but OpenOffice.org doesn't have a grammar checker.

I wrote a paper in OpenOffice once... then I took it to a computer with MS Office to run the grammar check. I think the lack has a serious effect on OO's functionality and as a consequence, its usefulness.

AbiWord has one though.

Re:No change on ODF

[advocate_one]

Not that this really relates to your comment, but OpenOffice.org doesn't have a grammar checker.

I wrote a paper in OpenOffice once... then I took it to a computer with MS Office to run the grammar check. I think the lack has a serious effect on OO's functionality and as a consequence, its usefulness.

does a word processor really need a Grammar Checker? A grammar checker can't substitute for a proper grounding in your language. If you need a grammar checker, then perhaps you, yourself, are lacking somewhat.

Re:No change on ODF

[mattwarden]

A grammar checker can't substitute for a proper grounding in your language. If you need a grammar checker, then perhaps you, yourself, are lacking somewhat.

If you had RTFA, you would have realized that the topic of discussion is use of ODF by government employees.

Seriously, though, there are certain things that aren't really grammar errors in the traditional sense. True grammar errors are difficult to make on accident, when the author truly does comprehend the language but simply slips up. However, other "grammar errors", like the misuse of 'there', 'their', and 'they're' are simple verbal errors that can happen just like a spelling error or typo.

Others more in the gray area but just as easy to make are verb number agreement in comlpex sentences like one I wrote just a few minutes ago: "Meta information like comments and 'track changes' is lost or corrupt." I admit that I had to read it over again to make sure I had verb number agreeing with my subject, because it sounds almost like it should be plural rather than singular.

Writing a 50-page report, these sort of things are easy to miss. If I have to pay attention to these minor grammar details, that will slow me down (however little) and annoy me. If I can use Office, already installed on my computer, with its grammar checker and not have to worry about these things, I might.

Open Document, open meeting...

[Max Nugget]

But today, in a private meeting with ITD General Counsel Linda Hamel, Secretary of Administration and Finance Thomas Trimarco assured her that Peter Quinn's departure "will result in no change to the Administration's position on the ODF standard."

Well I'm sure Mr. Trimarco will be pleased to know that his private comments to Ms. Hamel remained private, leaving bloggers like Andy Updegrove with no choice but to resort to speculation as to the contents of said meeting, in absence of a direct quote from those inolved.

Re:No change on ODF

[75th Trombone]

For what it's worth, StarOffice does have a grammar checker; it's licensed from another company, so they can't release it with OOo.

So if someone just has to have that grammar checker, don't give up on them. StarOffice is still a good, way cheaper alternative to MS Office, and it'll get them in the ODF universe (if not quite the open source universe) all the same.

(Then, once they learn to write, they can just start using OOo and let the grammar checker die the death it deserves. ;D )

What about 'em?

[Anonymous Coward]

Macros are scripts: they manipulate data in ways the data processing application wasn't originally designed to. Macros run within the context of said program, because you, as consumer-user, are not permitted to know either the structure of the data in memory or self-similarly, the layout of the data in the output and input files. Macros are a direct result of you not being allowed to know the secret sauce of the memory structures or file format.

Not so in the case of an Open Format. Both the input and output formats are fully known and so: one can write a program outside the context of the original data processing application in whatever language one chooses. There is zero need for macros when anyone with sufficient skills can write processes to evaluate input data and transform it to useful output data.

Oh, don't be naive

[btarval]

I'm sorry, but there's nothing good to see here. If Microsoft can get Peter Quinn to resign, what makes you think for a moment that "what makes sense" is going to happen? Do you really believe that what some State Official is saying right now is going to be what really happens?

Mr. Quinn resigned because he had "become a lightning rod", and that was getting in the way of his work. Anyone who fills his shoes is going to be a similar lightning rod, and that is one thing successful bureaucrats don't like being. Far more likely is that the next person will attempt compromise in order to smooth things over. And that compromise will end up being far more (if not completely) Microsoft centric, unless people stand up and make their voices heard.

This battle is far, far from over, despite what State Officials are now saying. It kind of reminds me of the claims made by Saddams' Minister of Information in the closing days of the Iraq invasion. Personally, I'll believe what I see when this battle has ended.

And IMHO, the odds went way up that closed formats are going to end up ruling here. What was indeed needed was a lightning rod. A pity that Mr. Quinn found the presure to be too onerous.

Re:No change on ODF

[deaddrunk]

The grammar checker, at least in Word 2002, is pretty crap. I rarely trust its judgement, since it's often wrong.

its a troll thread, but this is worth mention

[cHiphead]

Portable Open Office 2.0 weighs in at 144mb (unzipped/installed), giving you the entire suite in portable, usbkey usable goodness, while MS Office 2003 Pro requires 400mb. (Email client missing from open office? Portable Thunderbird weighs in a 9mb unzipped/installed)

Portable OO 2.0 w/ODF + Portable Thunderbird = 154mb

MS Office 2k3 pro = 400mb+ (oh and its not portable and requires activation after each install/reinstall)

Cheers.

They can't step back...

[Pecisk]

Because there is too much information in the air, there is already said too much both from Microsoft ("well, we _could_ support OpenDocument, but...ohhhh, that's a nice clippy, isn't it?") and their lobbies in state institutions.

If they would step back, that would be disasterous for Microsoft's future efforts to lobby to use Microsoft Office and their "open" format. See, if someone sees that Microsoft simply forces influence, politicians will get resitant. Not only because they afraid of their outlook in voter's eyes, but also they understand the whole issue - Microsoft is desperate and getting very personal when someone wants to take away their monopoly at least for abit. So they will start to see the whole issue then. And that is what Microsoft wants to avoid, I guess.

So...yes. OpenDocument will be there and Microsoft will make export feature for goverments. And I don't think that they will embrace it or make specially with bugs or errors. They will try to fight it different way.

Re:No change on ODF

[WWWWolf]

If humans have serious trouble spotting that, how could computers, with their admitted inadequacy to process natural languages, do much better? They might easily spot one kind of errors while humans easily spot the other kind - either way, you're left with trickiest of the errors.

I don't trust grammar to algorithms that fail to understand an insect's love of fructose without some severe special-case hackery.

I say if there are cases when good language matters, I mean, really matters, we can just feed the thing through a centuries-old invention. It's called an "editor". It's some kind of an organism that almost resembles a human being, but has the capability of finding lots and lots of unspottable errors from text.

Re:No change on ODF

[iccaros]

grammer checker for OpenOffice 2.0 http://www.danielnaber.de/languagetool/