Slashdot Mirror


A Set of RFI Responses for Sherlock Holmes

Andy Updegrove writes "In early May, Massachusetts issued a 'Request for Information' on plugins that could help ease the transition from a Microsoft Office based environment to one relying on ODF compliant software. Now the seven responses received have been posted by the ITD: six from vendors large and small — and one from Microsoft that purports to be informational, but in fact gives no information beyond what is already publicly available. Like everything else in the ODF saga, many of the responses are as much political as technical, with some delivering off-topic messages, one (from the ODF Foundation, strangely) refusing to disclose much at all, and several contradicting each other on the technical challenge of working with Office absent further code disclosures by Microsoft. All in all, they make for an intriguing read on multiple levels — offering more of an Easter egg hunt than informative offering. It will be interesting to see which, if any, of these offerings the Mass. ITD decides to utilize."

57 comments

  1. Slashdot editors... by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I understand how things like "levels &mdash offering" get left in comments, but aren't the stories notionally "edited" by an "editor"?

    1. Re:Slashdot editors... by gowen · · Score: 1

      Of course they are. But the emphasis is on notionally

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:Slashdot editors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      &#78 &#111 &#46

    3. Re:Slashdot editors... by rcamans · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I know this is a stupid question, but I am curious...
      Are you referring to someone like commander Taco or whatever as an editor?
      HAH HAHHAH HAH HAH HAHHAH CHOKE CHOKE GASP...

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
  2. Wow. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Funny

    After reading all that, I suddenly have a new appreciation for our mod point system. Maybe Massachusetts should have submitted their request to "Ask Slashdot."

    1. Re:Wow. by MrSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Mod Microsoft down:
      50% Overrated
      50% Redundant

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
    2. Re:Wow. by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 3, Funny
      Maybe Massachusetts should have submitted their request to "Ask Slashdot."
      Only if they wanted to get this as a response...
  3. Open? by neonprimetime · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Then there is the ODF Foundation's response, which somewhat surprisingly (to me, at least) begins awith the following Q& A:

    1. What is the present state of efforts to create ODF plug-ins or converters for Microsoft Office, whether undertaken by respondent or others through projects with which the respondent is familiar?

    This information is available under the terms of a confidentiality agreement.


    I guess in the land of Microsoft, an open door and a closed door are the same thing.

    1. Re:Open? by Ruie · · Score: 4, Funny
      I guess in the land of Microsoft, an open door and a closed door are the same thing.

      That's because people enter through the windows.

    2. Re:Open? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is no restriction for Development under the OpenSource licenses to be done in secret. It's distribution/sales that requires source code, not development.

      I suspect that the ODF doesn't want MS to break whatever APIs they are using for their plugin in Office 2007. Office 2007 is still _beta_ code. We've seen significant changes in the beta in the last few months, and theres nothing to stop these changes from occuring in the near future.

      I have no fears whatsoever that ODF will release the plugin under an open-source license. Furthermore, if you feel that you could do the actual development work, the format is avaliable for all to see; there's nothing sketchy going on here.

      Novell didn't release the XGL code until it was near-finished, because they a) wanted to WOW the world, b) didn't want to argue about their architectural decisions, and c) wanted to get it done by the SuSE PRO desktop release cycle for 10 (which hasn't occurred yet). There are other projects that operate under similar levels of secrecy; and there's _nothing_ wrong with that.

      You're free to develop Open Source code in secret. You're free to use Open Source code in secret (think Google). The only time you need to share the source, is when you distribute the binary. That's the beauty of the GPL. Want to use a heavily modified linux for your cruise missile guidance code?

      Fine. The only person you have to distribute it to is your customers, and they don't have to distribute it to anyone they don't want to. The essence of GPL style "freedom" is that when you get a piece of software, you get the guts of it, too; and you can redistribute any and all of it. GPL style "freedom" doesn't mean that the world as a whole gets your development time, or all the crap you strip out before you release your GPL code into the wild. It doesn't mean that a customer can demand all your alpha/beta versions before release, either. It just means that when you get a software "product", you get all the aspects of it, including distribution rights and source code.

      That's essentially why the GPL is compatible with capitalism.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    3. Re:Open? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's because people enter through the windows.

      And more often, through the backdoor ;-)

    4. Re:Open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You're free to develop Open Source code in secret. You're free to use Open Source code in secret (think Google). The only time you need to share the source, is when you distribute the binary. That's the beauty of the GPL. Want to use a heavily modified linux for your cruise missile guidance code?

      Fine. The only person you have to distribute it to is your customers, and they don't have to distribute it to anyone they don't want to.


      So if they do, and the missile is sent somewhere without at least a written offer of the source code, arn't they in violation of the liscense?

    5. Re:Open? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      You're free to develop Open Source code in secret. You're free to use Open Source code in secret (think Google). The only time you need to share the source, is when you distribute the binary.

      Indeed, if you're writing it from scratch you can even distribute testing builds as binary-only, and only release the source after it's been developed to the point where it's stable (or whenever).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Open? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, if you're writing it from scratch you can even distribute testing builds as binary-only, and only release the source after it's been developed to the point where it's stable (or whenever).

      If you're writing it from scratch and only releasing binaries it's not (yet) Open Source then, is it?

      And then we have the likes of Sveasoft who like to distribute GPL'ed software under the guise of 'not really quite happy with it yet' for money without source compliance.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Behind closed doors... by SpecTheIntro · · Score: 5, Funny
    Like everything else in the ODF saga, many of the responses are as much political as technical, with some delivering off-topic messages, one (from the ODF Foundation, strangely) refusing to disclose much at all, and several contradicting each other on the technical challenge of working with Office absent further code disclosures by Microsoft.

    Conversation between ODF advocates before they submitted their responses:

    "Ok, let's see here... cryptic response?"
    "Check."
    "Stick something in there about penguins?"
    "Check."
    "Refuse to reveal any actual information?"
    "Yep."
    "Awesome. Finish it up with something about Bill Gates eating babies, and send it out."
    "You got it."

    1. Re:Behind closed doors... by houghi · · Score: 3, Funny

      That is how posting here is done as well.

      Bill Gates eats baby penguins.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Behind closed doors... by antdude · · Score: 1

      No, it's Steve Ballmer! He a big, fat monster who likes to throw chairs and say, "developers, developers, developers, ..." :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Behind closed doors... by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      "Nonsensical statement involving plankton?"
      "Check."

    4. Re:Behind closed doors... by SpecTheIntro · · Score: 1

      "Words of praise for fish food."
      "Acknowledgement and acceptance of terms." ;)

  5. Microsoft as a machine. by OnlineAlias · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It amazes me how Microsoft can be so ridiculously incompetent at some things, like ensuring Vista gets out on time, while managing to be perfect quality asshats around the world when it comes to bundling, IP, patents and competition. They did just enough here to appear cooperative. Same as they did with DOJ, same as they are doing with the EU.

    For some reason, when it comes to being big giant anticompetitive liars, their mission is always perfectly executed. It is quite amazing, really.

    1. Re:Microsoft as a machine. by EatHam · · Score: 1

      Good lawyers, bad project managers.

    2. Re:Microsoft as a machine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You didn't voice it, but seems like time to point out Mark's Corollary:

      "Malice and stupidity are NOT mutually exclusive."

    3. Re:Microsoft as a machine. by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They did just enough here to appear cooperative.

      The FP says MA wanted info "that could help ease the transition from a Microsoft Office based environment" (bolding mine).

      What motivation did Microsoft have to cooperate at all? "I would like you to give me information on the best time and place to kick you in the balls".


      Same as they did with DOJ, same as they are doing with the EU.

      Again... "We have decided to go on a witch hunt, and you look like a witch... Please provide evidence that would allow us to burn you and confiscate your property, so we don't have to settle for just drowning you". I don't really see the motivation on MS's part there...

    4. Re:Microsoft as a machine. by nasch · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What motivation did Microsoft have to cooperate at all?
      None, and nobody expected them to. What's being pointed out is that they're pretending to cooperate, rather than openly saying "Frack you, Massachusettes!" Which is also exactly what I would expect from them.
    5. Re:Microsoft as a machine. by Chysn · · Score: 1

      > I don't really see the motivation on MS's part there...

              When reading their response (the parts about "NA", "NA", "NA" and "NA" come to mind), I was wondering why they weren't being MORE cooperative.

              The Commonwealth has apparently already decided that they need to work with ODF to some extent, and they've apparently spent a ton of money on Microsoft products. Microsoft should be saying, "Thanks for continuing to use our products. Here's EXACTLY how to make the conversion."

              In other words, Microsoft should be motivated to make a decent response by... by money.

      --
      --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
      -- See?
    6. Re:Microsoft as a machine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What motivation did Microsoft have to cooperate at all? "I would like you to give me information on the best time and place to kick you in the balls".
      Microsoft: "Where do you want to go today?"
      Massachussetts: The best place to kick you in the balls.
    7. Re:Microsoft as a machine. by raddan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think that's it at all. I love OOo, but MSWord is, hands down, a better product (I work at a book publisher-- OOo is missing some important features). The problem is that you're tied in. Tie-in is Microsoft's M.O.

      Had Microsoft simply said that Office 2007 would fully support ODF, I'm willing to bet there would be a very good chance that Massachusetts would choose Office 2007 for the supported desktop configuration. Having working in IT for years (and two years in MA state IT), I can tell you that the familiar is the path of least resistance-- IT folks in MA are familiar with MS Office. But Microsoft doesn't really care about Massachusetts-- they want the world to get the idea that you can't convert an MSWord doc into an ODF one. The evidence from Sun about there being platform-specific features in the document format leads me to believe that Microsoft is doing everything in their power to tie the format to the platform.

    8. Re:Microsoft as a machine. by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1
      I don't think that's it at all. I love OOo, but MSWord is, hands down, a better product (I work at a book publisher-- OOo is missing some important features).

      That is not a great argument for supporting your claim that Word is a better product. It would be an acceptable argument if you were claiming that Word is a better product if you are a book publisher and the features relevant to book publishing are indispensable to you.

      See, most people do not work at book publishers.

      (And, by the way, for those that do work at a book publisher, there are far, far better products that Word!)

    9. Re:Microsoft as a machine. by raddan · · Score: 1

      Are you being pedantic or just an asshole?

    10. Re:Microsoft as a machine. by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      I am just pointing out that the argument you use to justify your claim that "Word is, hands down, a better product [than OOo]" is really not good enough. I am just pointing that comparaisons as to what is better than what have to be done relative to a "better to do something specific" or "better for some particular use".

      For the uses most people I know use Word for, WordPad would be a better product. For the uses I could possibly use Word for, LaTeX+vim is a better product. You get the idea.

  6. Mod parent...something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    (-1, MustBeNewHere)

  7. Microsoft fails to provide adequate awnser? by fullphaser · · Score: 1

    and simply refers to how great their software is instead? wow theirs a real shocker for sure, mabye massechusets should have looked in the Microsoft knowledge base.

    --
    Did someone say cake?
    1. Re:Microsoft fails to provide adequate awnser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should use Microsoft spell check.

  8. Let me go out on a limb ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will be interesting to see which, if any, of these offerings the Mass. ITD decides to utilize

    Having lived in MA most of my life, let me describe the selection process that will be used. First, which of the companies has significant ownership by MA pols or relatives or friends of MA pols? Since MA is a one-party state there is non-existent oversight on these matters. If that does not determine a clear winner, we move on to the next most important criteria ... which of the submitters is most willing to be shaken down -- you know, concessions paid for considerations given. Campaign contributions, promises of jobs to relatives, donations to "favorite charities" etc. The next most important attribute to consider is the perceived evils of the submitters. Clearly Microsoft will be dismissed outright on general principals. Consideration must be given to the affirmative action record of the submitters. What is the ratio of the CEO's salary to the workers' salaries? What is their record as regards unions. Which political party do they support? Finally, only after all of these important questions have been answered will consideration be given to technical merit, cost, likelihood of success and proven track records. With any luck it won't have to come down to those nasty tiebreakers, because those are much harder to determine. If it did however, they would then hire some well-connected, very expensive consultants (i.e. friends/relatives of the ruling class) to sort through the technical issues.

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:Let me go out on a limb ... by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1
      With any luck it won't have to come down to those nasty tiebreakers, because those are much harder to determine. If it did however, they would then hire some well-connected, very expensive consultants (i.e. friends/relatives of the ruling class) to sort through the technical issues.
      No, I'm pretty sure the consultants will be hired regardless.
  9. A VB Macro Converter by srobert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think an example of what they had in mind when they made the RFI would be a VB Macro converter.
    I have some spreadsheets written by a coworker to automate some procedures. They have Visual Basic Macro's for some of the processes.
    I'd like to be able to open these with OpenOffice and have them function in the same way as with Excel. But I don't want to devote the time to learning how to rewrite the macros.
    SRR

    1. Re:A VB Macro Converter by bberens · · Score: 1

      I think with the .NET platform becoming more and more multi-platform it won't be long until problems like this are solved. That VB Macro can be compiled into byte code and executed/interpreted appropriately. Of course, it's completely likely that I don't understand the scripting technologies inherent in spreadsheet macros and the previous text is all hot air from my nether regions. *shrug* who knows?

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    2. Re:A VB Macro Converter by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was under the impression that VB.NET and VB Script (which is what gets embedded in Office documents) are about as different as Java and Javascript.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:A VB Macro Converter by WATYF · · Score: 3, Informative

      Acutally, what gets embedded in Office apps is VBA (Visual Basic for Applications).

      It's not the same as VBScript... actually, it's much closer to VB6 (and since it allows you to add references to COM objects, VBA can do many of the things that VB6 can do).

      But yes... either way, VBA (and VB6 and VBScript) is much different than VB.NET and is not completely convertable (from old VB to .NET)... although a good bit of VB6 can be converted using existing tools, you'd still have to know the language in order to complete the conversion. Not to mention the fact that Office apps can't run .NET apps internally.

      And then there's the fact that VBA is kinda being "replaced" with VSTO... ...so basically... there is no easy path to converting internal Office programming to an ODF platform. :o)

      WATYF

    4. Re:A VB Macro Converter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "'d like to be able to open these with OpenOffice and have them function in the same way as with Excel. But I don't want to devote the time to learning how to rewrite the macros."

      Ah, the wonderful world of vendor lock-in. Thank you master. May I have another.

  10. just reverse engineer converters by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    I think we should abandon trying to get interoperability from Microsoft and simply do what we did in the old days: reverse engineer conversion tools as much as possible! (In terms of converting their "open" format to a real open format.)

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:just reverse engineer converters by dave562 · · Score: 1
      You're very right. Trying to interoperate with Microsoft products will be a constant headache, and constant heartache. I still have flashbacks to 1996-1997 and working with Novell servers and Microsoft NT 4.0 clients. Every time a new service pack was released, the Novell client redirector would stop working. Then a few months later, Novell would figure out how to hack around whatever DLLs Microsoft patched and they'd release a new client. By the time SP5 came out, I made $50 by betting a co-worker who thought that SP5 wouldn't break the client, even though SP3 and SP4 both did.

      Microsoft in the past did a great job of putting out conversion tools. When it was time to move away from Novell, there were all sorts of tools available to export uses out of NDS and into AD. The same with Exchange. You can pull email data out of pretty much any email program on the planet and import it into Exchange. The OSS community needs to get together and figure how to do two things. First, get user data / security permissions out of AD and into a competiting directory (which shouldn't be too hard given that AD is LDAP based). Second, come up with the Exchange killer and then develop conversion tools to grab the data from Exchange and import it into the new application. Obviously the Exchange killer needs the full functionality of Exchange.

      If those two resources are already out there, please take a second to send me a message and point me to some information about them. Thanks!

    2. Re:just reverse engineer converters by daverabbitz · · Score: 1

      I thought kerberos+OpenLDAP already killed AD.

      Well maybe not in market share, but certainly in performance and functionality.

      As for Exchange, I can't think of anything that is OSS. I hear Groupwise and Lotus Notes are good, but as I haven't used either, I can't guarantee that they are any good. Mind you I've never used Exchange, but I've used MS Outlook (Outlaw?), and that was utter rubbish, so who knows.

      --
      What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
  11. Is It Too Much To Ask... ? by susano_otter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it too much to ask that an article with the headline "A Set of RFI Responses for Sherlock Holmes" actually be about RFIs written as if by Sherlock Holmes, or a set of responses written as if by prospective clients of Sherlock Holmes?

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    1. Re:Is It Too Much To Ask... ? by Intron · · Score: 1

      Just pretend that Microsoft is the hunchbacked dwarf who smokes Turkish cigarettes and ODF Foundation is the conjoined twin albinos who wear patent leather boots.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    2. Re:Is It Too Much To Ask... ? by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess even a half-assed parody of the Sherlock Holmes idiom would do...

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    3. Re:Is It Too Much To Ask... ? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Is it too much to ask that an article with the headline "A Set of RFI Responses for Sherlock Holmes" actually be about RFIs written as if by Sherlock Holmes, or a set of responses written as if by prospective clients of Sherlock Holmes?
      Yes.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  12. Cruise Missle Source, Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your cruise missle is targetted at me, couldn't that be construed as "distributing" the binary. In that case, wouldn't you have to provide me with the source code as well? Sure, I'll be dead, but I'm sure my estate would like detailed information about the algorithms responsible for my untimely demise.

    1. Re:Cruise Missle Source, Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm pretty sure it would not be construed as such. Remember that firing software across international borders as a missile payload was considered a loophole in ITAR that technically allowed strong cryptography to be legally exported by those means (at least as far as ITAR was concerned. I'm sure there are other laws against lobbing missiles over international boundaries somewhere). I think we can use that opinion to back the idea that software binaries delivered via missile do not require the inclusion of source code for the recipient.

  13. It's even simpler than that... by jpellino · · Score: 2, Funny

    If it takes more than 20 minutes, engineers in MA say "screw it - put in a rotary!"
    Then they throw down their pencils and head for Dunkin Donuts.
    Oh wait - I may be thinking of another roadmap...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  14. Some ODF info was on groklaw in May by jdmonin · · Score: 3, Informative
    Groklaw ran a story in early May about the ODF plugin - it was ready with screenshots back then, but wasn't available for download. Almost seems like there's more info there than in the RFI !
    "The OpenDocument Foundation has notified the Massachusetts ITD that we have completed testing on an ODF Plugin for all versions of MS Office dating back to MS Office 97. The ODF Plugin installs on the file menu as a natural and transparent part of the open, save, and save as sequences. As far as end users and other application add-ons are concerned, ODF plugin renders ODF documents as if it were native to MS Office.

    The testing has been extensive and thorough. As far as we can tell there isn't a problem, even with Accessibility add ons, which as you know is a major concern for Massachusetts."

  15. How 'bout Off Topic? by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For an RFI pertaining to ODF they sure spend a lot of verbiage on

    • 1. How great the Office binary formats are, and how much everyone loves them
    • 2. How great the Office XML format is, and how much ECMA loves it. (Which I find odd, since if #1 is true where's the demand for the XML format?
    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  16. I'm not a witch by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
    We have decided to go on a witch hunt, and you look like a witch... Please provide evidence that would allow us to burn you and confiscate your property, so we don't have to settle for just drowning you".

    She turned me into a newt!

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  17. Y'ahrr, matey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Bill Gates eats baby penguins.

    Of course he does! Bill Gates is a pirate!

    Disclaimer: I have already submitted this as a story.

  18. Cruise Missle Source, delivered. by Medievalist · · Score: 1
    If your cruise missle is targetted at me, couldn't that be construed as "distributing" the binary. In that case, wouldn't you have to provide me with the source code as well?
    That's why we provide an URL and passcode painted on the nosecone of every missile, and include a printed copy of the GPL inside every warhead.

    All part of the job, m'am.
  19. Sherlock Holmes Responds and Doug too by Quirk · · Score: 2, Funny
    "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" This phrase has entered Western popular culture as a catchphrase. It also turned up in the Dirk Gently stories by Douglas Adams where the detective uses the opposite phrase, "because we know very much about what is improbable, but very little about what is possible".

    Apparently the RIF responses are nothing to do about much.

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen