Slashdot Mirror
ODF Alliance, Who, What, Where (and Why?)
Andy Updegrove writes "On Friday, the new ODF Alliance was launched with much fanfare to 'educate government' about the OpenDocument Format. A flurry of brief news articles appeared the same day, based on pre-launch interviews (as well as an Op/Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by Sun's Scott McNealy), but they didn't include much information. So what's it all about, why was it formed, and will it be likely to succeed? Given that the 36 members include only one government unit (the ICT department for Vienna), the answer is clearly to establish a beachhead in the government market as a target of opportunity, and then to expand from there to meet the real goals of the members."
Speaking of witch, What exactly stops MS from incorporating a crippled version of OpenDocuments, thereby changing the standard (like they did to HTML)?
Sigs are bad for your health
Every member will have slightly different goals but one goal brings them all together. No one company (especially Microsoft) should be the gate keeper to people's own data.
For several of the members (like IBM for instance), their basic survival depends on an open file format. If Microsoft controls all the files then nobody else can compete.
Does it matter? Judging by their resistance in Mass., Microsoft thinks so.
Here is an other article on this: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060303-6313 .html
It's a few days old though. (March 3rd)
Cheers!
~Allen
If you RTFA, you'll see:
The ODF Alliance was first proposed by IBM...
If you look at the list of supporters, you'll see IBM, Sun, Novell, Red Hat, Oracle, etc. The open-document format does indeed have the backing of some big companies. The fact that MS doesn't want to support will slow adoption, but there is still a significant push for this format (as the very existence of this Alliance attests to).
March 3, 2006
COMMENTARY
DOW JONES REPRINTS
Software Hardball
By SCOTT MCNEALY
March 3, 2006; Page A10
In principle at least, there is no controversy. No one would argue that content you create belongs to anyone but you. But, in fact, it doesn't.
That's the dirty little secret behind much of the software people use today. In business, in government, in schools and in homes all around the world, we entrust our work to software applications: word processors, spreadsheets, presentation programs and all the rest. And, too often, that's where we lose control of our own words and thoughts -- simply on account of the way we save our documents. Because we tend to store information in formats that are owned and managed by a single dominant company, in a few short years we may no longer be able to access our files if the format is "upgraded." Or we may be required to buy a new expensive version of the software just to access our own thoughts. We do it without giving it a second thought. After all, what's the alternative? A typewriter? An adding machine? A quill?
Think about it: If the Constitution were being drafted today, we would likely lose free, or low cost, or even any kind of access to much of the vital background in the Framers' correspondence to one another -- all because the file format will no longer be supported sometime in the future. A letter is more or less permanent, and easily transferable to different environments. An email is not.
Software appears to give us all the control we need over our documents -- until it doesn't. The problem shows up when we decide to try something different. A new way of doing things or a different software application. Something better. Something cheaper, more reliable, easier. But we're stuck with all these files in a format that's exclusive to the company from which we bought the first software application. In business, that's called a barrier to exit. Companies that create barriers to exit figure we won't notice until it's too late when the cost of switching is too high.
In the larger scheme of things, barriers to exit are bad for the consumer. It means that in the long term we often end up paying more than we should and getting less innovation than we would on a level playing field. Companies should compete on the value their products provide, not on their ability to lock customers into a proprietary "standard." At this point, some people throw up their hands and say that's just the way of the world. Nothing we can do about it.
Not so. There is now an open, international standard for common personal productivity applications -- spreadsheet, presentation and word-processing programs -- called the OpenDocument Format (ODF). Approved by an independent standards body, ODF has the backing of a broad community of supporters including consumer groups, academic institutions, a collection of library associations including the American Library Association, and many leading high-tech companies, but no single company owns it or controls it. (A "standard" created and controlled by a single company is not a true standard.) Any company can incorporate the OpenDocument Format into its products, free of charge, and tear down the barriers to exit.
Imagine being able to open any email attachment, read it and make changes, even if you don't have the exact program it was created in. That's the kind of interoperability the OpenDocument Format is designed to foster.
If this standard is to become a reality, we must insist on it. In the U.S., Massachusetts has been leading the way with a mandate that all software purchased by the commonwealth comply with ODF. Globally, 13 nations are considering adopting it. The reason is simple. The data belongs to the people, not to the software vendor that created the file format.
If you don't think this is an issue, take a look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina. People needing emergency services information found that some government Web sites could only be accessed from a singl
That's certainly worth worrying about. I'm not 100% sure here, but I think that the ODF will be administered in such a way that if you want to claim "OpenDocument compliant" on your product, you have to implement the standard fully and properly. Improper implementations can of course be produced (since the spec is openly published), but they will not be able to state/claim "OpenDocument compliant." (This can be protected with trademark law, etc.) It should be noted, however, that the standard clearly states that there will be no fees required to use it.
The OASIS faq states that "The OpenDocument format is owned by OASIS, a non-profit consortium dedicated to the open development of public XML standards." So I think they will use legal means to protect the "OpenDocument" format name from being mis-used, while allowing free implementation of the format by anyone desiring to do it properly.
Quote from where the parent linked to, link:
"new Office XML specifications are freely available for anyone to download and Microsoft offers perpetual, royalty-free licenses to use them"
If the format is efficient and simple enough to handle, this seems good enough for me. ofcourse Microsoft is hardly an independend organisation, and i think these kinds of standards should be from such a organisation. Is the ODF more independend?
This will only validate that:
A) One should use OpenOffice.org as a conversion filter instead of relying upon Microsoft's support, and
B) Microsoft can't program worth shit.
If every company on the planet except MS has good ODF support, and people start installing OpenOffice.org as a conversion filter, expect really bad things to happen to Microsoft's Office marketshare.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
One of the key reasons that alternatives to Microsoft Office haven't made substantial headway in government and educational institutions is because many users aren't aware of the alternatives available. Or if they are, they are unable to distinguish the advantages and disadvantages between the alternatives and Microsoft Office, and haven't received any substantial training using such alternatives.
As an educator, I began using OpenOffice.org and NeoOffice/J in the classes I taught or coordinated, along with Microsoft Office, to teach the fundamental concepts of preparing documents with office suite applications. Upon completion of the training, my students had a much better grasp of the differences between office productivity suites, their advantages and disadvantages, and which application performed better at preparing certain tasks based upon features. Moreover, those students could make better educated decisions of which office productivity suite to choose based upon their needs, not based upon which application has a greater marketshare or saves files in a specific format. Because of the benefits I witnessed from the instruction provided to these students, I ended up writing the book "A Conceptual Guide to OpenOffice.org 2.0" (www.conciseconceptsinc.com) that is based upon the handouts I prepared for those classes.
My hope is that the adoption of open source formats become a success. Users shouldn't have to choose to use a software package based upon the use of a closed source format tied to a specific application. Every application has its advantages and disadvantages, and every user needs specific features from an application when creating documents. Having applications standardize on open source formats, and have them compete on features/interface/ease-of-use/ etc., is much better for users in terms of choice and the assurance that documents created today are assessable by everyone for many years into the future.
That's silly and just not the reality. Microsoft can program just fine, it's just that they choose not to program for compatibility with non-Microsoft standards.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The article is not about open source but about open standards. The two are not the same. You could use primarily only open standards but use only closed source software. For example IBM's implementation of ODF in Workplace and Sun's Staroffice are both closed source.
MS has been using the tactic with some of its more dubious FUDmongers (particularily with regard to ODF support in Mass.) of trying to deliberately confuse open standards and open source. I am not saying you are necessarily a MS FUDmonger but probably just duped by them.
What do you think this is? This is the market speaking. Notice that most of the consortium members are NOT vendors of office software. Libraries, archives, researchers and others who need to use documents produced by others want them to be in an open format. Nobody is trying to force anybody to use any particular format for their own use - the point here is that consumers of documents want to get them in a format that makes the documents useful to them. What we have here is simply advertising for the purpose of affecting the market, just like Microsoft does for its own purposes.