MS Anti-ODF Lobbyist Named As MA Tech Advisor

Andy Updegrove writes "For the last year and a half, Massachusetts has been a battleground between Microsoft, on the one hand, and IBM, Sun and open standards advocates on the other over the state's plans to implement ODF. That effort has sparked similar initiatives around the world that threaten to erode Microsoft's multi-billion dollar profits on Office software. Now, we have a new governor set to take office, and observers are waiting to see if he will continue to support ODF like his predecessor, or back off in favor of Microsoft Office. Last week, Governor-Elect Deval Patrick named a new transition advisory group to make recommendations on the state's IT structure, and one of the eight members he appointed was none other than the Microsoft lobbyist that has been leading the charge to not only defeat ODF in the Bay State, but to gut the power of the State's CIO and Information Technology Division as well. Not a good sign of independence from special interests for an administration that has yet to even take office."

Comments

Both Sides are Special Interests

[ThinkFr33ly]

Both sides of the Microsoft vs ODF battle are special interests.

Just because you agree with one side more than the other doesn't make it any less "special".

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at Slashdot it does. Unfortunately, it generally means special in the short bus sense.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

No. One side is a special interest and the other side is in everyones interest. That's why MA are standardising on ODF to begin with.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that if the special interests backing ODF win, then there is a benefit to the citizens of Massachusetts. If Microsoft wins, the state is sponsoring a monopoly.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[CheeseTroll]

Right. And I hear that Richard Stallman is setting up his own K Street lobbying firm to enhance his corporate profits by promoting open standards.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[MeNeXT]

I love people who define their own meaning in common terms. The term "Special Interests" is used when someone has a personal gain. The use of standards compliant solutions, be they in IT or any other field, are a benefit to the society as a whole. I sure as hell would not like to go to a Doctors office and be told to take 2 aspirins and expect it to be something else...

A standard is not owned by anyone. DOC files are not standard and are subject to change at the whim of one and only one company. As we keep on playing with words, one day we will no longer understand each other.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Shawn is an Asshole]

By using ODF, everyone wins. Word users can use it. OpenOffice users can use it. Abiword users can use it (though, even with the most recent version I've had problems with it's import/export). Other applications should be implementing it. No lock in is there. With a Microsoft format, if you want to view it correctly you have to use a Microsoft program on a Microsoft approved OS.

The new Office OpenXML format should improve things though, but OpenOffice will still be locked out. Novell is supposed to implement support, though.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes the other side (the MS side) more of a special interest group is that the interests that they represent are more singular, more unique, more specialized. Namely, making money for Microsoft.

The interests on the ODF side include a variety of people and motivations. One could say there are many general reasons, not one specialized reason (or interest, as it were) for wanting ODF adoption.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[onecheapgeek]

American Heritage Dictionary
special interest
n.
        A person, group, or organization attempting to influence legislators in favor of one particular interest or issue.

Looks like pro-ODF members would also be special interests. Nowhere does the dictionary say there must be personal gain.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[rbanffy]

Sure.

On one side there is the special interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who would rather not have to purchase a specific brand of computer program in order to interact with the local government.

On other side are the special interests of a convicted monopoly abuser, who is willing to spend a huge amount of money for not allowing really open formats being mandated as it would undermine the very monopoly it loves to abuse.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Special Interest = specifically benefits Microsoft

General Interest = benefits everyone in the country besides Microsoft, while Microsoft loses its special, privileged position

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Both sides of the Microsoft vs ODF battle are special interests.

No. One side is a vendor neutral policy created by the state and aimed at improving the technology used by the state. The other is one company lobbying the government to get rid of the vendor neutral policy and standardize only their company as a supplier. Appointing an employee of one of the companies bidding as your tech advisor is not exactly indicative of impartial decision making.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[MeNeXT]

Like I said;


The term special interest

The slogan special interest is used for all of these variants, but never to describe political allies. Use of that term, especially in the United States, implies that the "special" interest is not the "public" interest. Many scholars dislike the term special interest, since it carries this loaded, negative connotation. Among other things, it presumes that we know exactly what the general interest (or public interest) is. Some use vested interests or particularistic groups, but in academic literature, these have been replaced by "interest group".


While this comes from Wikipedia it is also how it's defined in a few other paper prints. "Special Interest" denotes not in the "Public Interest". A standard is in the public interest. A proprietary format is special interest, in this case Microsoft.

If we continue playing we can make the words say what we want and no longer understand each other. If you look closely at your definition it implies "not in the public interest". In a sense you make my point.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[burnin1965]

Both sides of the Microsoft vs ODF battle are special interests.

Actually no, one side is a special interest. Microsoft is paying lobbyists to sway government policy so that Microsoft will profit. Microsoft is the special and the profit is the interest. The Microsoft side of the arguement serves only Microsoft's interest in profits. Microsoft can sell software that supports ODF so the only reason to not support ODF is to again ensure their own interest, profit in a monopoly.

ODF is a standard developed by an industry consortium (OASIS) to provide documented methods of accessing data by anyone whether it be a corporation who want to develop and sell an application to read or generate documents based on the standard or if someone is trying to extract data from a document that was generated by software from a company that is long gone or no longer supports the software.

ODF was a selected format for government documents because it makes sense for public documents to not be forever tied to a proprietary format that locks the public out of the documents they own and paid for unless they pay an additional tax to a private corporation.

So the ODF side is definitely an interest but its not special, its broad, its the public.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[onecheapgeek]

You can not say that your side of an issue is the PUBLIC interest and the other side is a SPECIAL interest. It's basic common sense. LOBBYISTS FROM EITHER SIDE ARE SPECIAL INTERESTS. Let's pin down a concrete example.

The NRA wants everyone to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. Some of us feel less safe knowing that there are people out there carrying guns in public. The NRA is a special interest. Those that oppose concealed weapons and lobby in that manner are a special interest. Why is that?

Because there is no ONE answer to what is public interest.

And if you can't understand that, you're too far gone.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Ugot2BkidNme]

Even taking into account your Personal gain slant on Special Interest groups.

All Parties that are against Microsoft Proprietary Office formats stand to gain a foothold in a huge market by using open standards. If you believe otherwise your an idiot. IBM sells software not just Hardware you think for one second Lotus Notes wouldn't stand to gain market share if they use open standards. I believe Sun has Star Office that would also likely gain in popularity.

Before any of you go into the but you can get the software for free argument. You have to consider the fact that IE is Free as is Firefox yet they make money by users using their software advertising and bundling does earn you cash. So this model could work with Office suits as well. Not only that but interoperability between other programs is also a huge key to Offices success. If you can get a user using one of your products you can get them using others. Besides Governments always purchase support contracts.

Don't get me wrong I am all for open standards but do not think for one second that IBM or Sun in the reverse position would not be doing the same thing Microsoft is doing.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[JacksBrokenCode]

Truly the bastion of objectivity here. A short, non-agressive comment be modded "troll" just because it doesn't agree with popular thinking.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[john82]

I love people who define their own meaning in common terms... A standard is not owned by anyone... As we keep on playing with words, one day we will no longer understand each other.

Uh, yeah. Pot meet kettle. Ignoring the other uses of the word standard for now (since we're not discussing flag stands or other such things), there are in fact two kinds of standard: de jure and de facto.

De jure standards are established by recognized national or international standards organizations such as the IEEE or ISO. These organizations provide a juried precise definition and reference for the standard. In that sense, 802.3 is a standard.

De facto standards are established by the market. They don't have to be open or based de jure standards (although you can have a standard that is both de jure and de facto). Win XP or MS Word document files are a standard because the market has declared them to be so (a majority of users recognize them as a standard).

So what you really meant to say is that de jure standards are not owned by anyone. De facto standards certainly can be.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Locutus]

Right, one side promoting a publicly open and patent free specification called ODF and the other fighting against it each can be considered 'special' interests. But it sure sounds like being on one side or the other is VERY different. I mean after all, Micrsoft Office could support ODF if Micrsoft wanted it to since ODF is an OPEN and publicly available specification. This is really about Microsoft losing the ability to lock its customers to the Microsoft products and not about the states ability to access digital documents 200 years from now.

So you are correct in that there are 'special' interests involved but for the government to hire an advocate from a particular special interest is wrong. Not to mention he is from the company(special interest) who is more against the proposal(ODF) than about promoting their product . And this, IMO, is BAD BAD BAD for the people of the state.

It just seems really strange for the governor to be doing this given the publicity it's had in the last few years. Obviously this Microsoft guys bias is purely financial, unless he's broken all ties to Microsoft, their stock, and personnel.

LoB

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[KingMotley]

Although I agree with your post in general, and laugh whenever I see people abuse the word standard to mean standard within the realm of non-proprietary things (programs/formats/OSes), I have correct one minor thing you've said.

<quote>there are in fact two kinds of standard</quote>

Actually, there are many things that would classify as a standard. In itself, ODF does not meet any of the criteria. A "standard" by definition means "an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind", or what you call a de facto standard. You can limit the scope of where you look to be able to achieve your second definition by using modifiers like "Open" etc, but it is only a standard within that scope. Calling something a de jure (or in/by law) standard would classify as limiting scope, but without that scope limitation it's not standard, nor is it a second definition of standard. It's standard within the scope you've limited it to being within.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[molarmass192]

Appointing an employee of one of the companies bidding as your tech advisor is not exactly indicative of impartial decision making.

I thought the same thing ... at first ... but then, if you think about it, this guy was PAID to take that stance. Now he's in a position where he can be paid to take a different stance. I seriously doubt that this guy has any personal preference either way. If he can be bought one way, I'm sure he can be bought the other way. The question is, is he still employed by the same lobbyist firm?

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The question is, is he still employed by the same lobbyist firm?

It is my understanding that he works for Microsoft directly and is still employed by them as a regional director of PR. I read something about a comment where he would be acting as a private individual not an MS employee for that issue. It seems a clear conflict of interest.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[KingMotley]

No.

As a resident of the United States (not that particular state), I only care about one thing (and I believe this is exactly what the average/common person's feelings are).

The state does exactly what it was set up to do.
They do so completely (I can dream).
They do so quickly (Still dreaming).
They don't overstep their authority (I don't like the government really, nor do I want them controlling my every move/thought).
They do so efficiently (I want to pay as little as possible for what they do).

Nothing in that list includes or precludes using the latest/best technology.
Nothing in that list includes or precludes ODF.
Nothing in that list includes or precludes using open source.
Nothing in that list includes or precludes relegating software writing to a 3rd party.
Nothing in that list includes or precludes partnering with a single vendor.

If using MS Word and Windows allows them to do thier jobs quicker and/or do them more efficiently then so be it. But if you want to switch away from it, you'd better be able to PROVE it's all going to be worth it, and frankly I haven't seen that, or believe it.

Anything other than that IS a special interests.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[rhendershot]

You're missing the entire point.

>>Win XP or MS Word document files are a standard

No, they're not. Microsoft Office is ubiquitous and the file format it uses is carried with it. The format of its files is entirely irrelevant since anywhere along the time-line of various Office releases the file itself could have been modified by Microsoft, even unto discarding backwards compatibility. Meanwhile, until only recently, no other source for modification of one of those files was available.

bouilloire noire, indeed...

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[MeNeXT]

Those that oppose are in the "Public Interest". They oppose the fact that the public, including gun owners, is at risk of personal injury or death by people who own guns. If you can remove the risk inherent to the public from gun ownership then they will go away. Invent a gun that does not kill or injure people.

On the other hand if the US government would legislate that all citizens would be given a gun and all the ammunition they could possibly use, the NRA would not go away. (OVER SIMPLIFICATION) They are not about the right to own guns. They are about the right to profit from the ownership of guns, which is not in the public interest. The NRA would demand that they and / or their members supply the guns.

Under your definition the term should not exist because every opinion is a "special interest". So why bother?

I am of the opinion that a gun is a tool which in the right circumstances is very useful. People who wish to own guns should have that right, but I have a hard time with the cowards who use a gun on other people. Especially when the other individual is unarmed. It is in the public interest to reduce the damage that people with guns cause. The limitation of guns is to the public interest. The ownership of guns is my personal special interest and gain. I do not own a gun. I have no use for such a tool but if I did I would acquire one.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[theshowmecanuck]

Your argument is somewhat spurious and misses the point that the interest on the other side from Microsoft is not the other companies, but the general public.

Keeping a proprietary Microsoft format means at a minimum, requiring a Microsoft operating system to view the files. This assumes the O/S comes with a free (otherwise cha-ching, more money) 'doc' viewer and does not also require the person to have to pay for an internet connection to download the viewer. And unless their viewer is NOT like most, if not all of Microsoft's software, it won't run on say Apple, or Linux, or #insert your non-MS O/S here#, etc. Ergo you are locked into to purchasing from MS.

An open format allows implementation by anyone who makes a document viewer/editor, reducing or eliminating the cost to the general public due to market forces. You are not locked into MS and people have the option of using cheaper or free software (as in beer) to view public documents that should be free to view by the public.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If using MS Word and Windows allows them to do thier jobs quicker and/or do them more efficiently then so be it. But if you want to switch away from it, you'd better be able to PROVE it's all going to be worth it, and frankly I haven't seen that, or believe it.

Government officials evaluated their needs and then made a policy based upon what they felt was best for the state. That was ODF. That is not a special interest. A special interest is when some group or company tries to convince the state to do something. That is not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, but it is suspect especially when the stated goal of that interest is to make money. Thus MS is a special interest. The ODF format and its external supporters are not.

As for doing things better, allowing people to access government documents without paying a fee is beneficial. Ensuring those documents will be readable in the future is beneficial. Standardizing on a format that allows competitive bids from any and all parties is beneficial. There are all clear benefits of ODF. Standards simply make sense, especially for public applications. If MS wants to be a supplier they should conform to the specifications of the contract as the state stipulated, not try to bribe public officials into changing the contract so that they are the only possible bidder. That is called corruption, whether it is Microsoft or the mob doing it.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[patiodragon]

I predict a reasoned, fair, and balanced discussion on this issue here, so I can't wait to get to the rest of the thread get educated!

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[rucs_hack]

get your tenses right 'were standardising'.

This does not sound like they are going to carry on with ODF. Ok, perhaps they won't cancell it, but you can bet 'new facts' will emerge that cast doubt, huge discounts will appear, and suddenly ODF won't be as interesting as it once was.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[rucs_hack]

they are a de facto standard, just not an open or official standard (although in fact many organisations define it as a standard format for information interchange). Just bandying definitions about does nothing, 99.9999999999% of offices use doc and excel, time to wake up and accept the truth, however you define it, MS doc format, current and later versions *are* the ones most people will use, making them effectivelly standard in the eyes of most people sorry and all.

ODF is an open standard, which is entirely different, it wants to be standard *and* widely used.

Personally I dislike the doc format and adore ODF, I use it extensivelly, along with latex document formatting language, which rocks to a greater extent. However I accept that it will be a very long time before I can dump my copy of office that I keep for compatability with virtually every document I receive.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[blueskies]

99.9999999999% of offices use doc and excel

So, you are saying that if i find 2 offices that don't use doc and excel out of the 1,000 Billion here on earth, i have proved you wrong?

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[rucs_hack]

actually a frillion of the works population use it, possibly more. Anything else you observe is probably just hallucination.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

"your an idiot"

you kill me

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[rthille]

I didn't own a gun before 9/11.
I didn't own a gun after 9/11.

I bought my gun after the Patriot Act was passed. I figured that given the legislation the government was passing, I needed to do more to _really_ be patriotic. That is, be willing (and ready) to stand up to a tyranical government.

If the secret torture prisions, NSA wire tapping, etc. haven't convinced you that a gun is a tool you should own, then by the time you really need it, you won't be able to get one.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[ourcraft]

Is this a joke? I'm sorry does Stallman have corporate profits thats he's promoting, is there a K Street (almost all Republicans) lobbyist that works for him? or what?

If a guy is going door to door selling 'medicines' that are addictive and destructive and you start a group to stop him - you are not two competing special interests.

Is the above poster even aware of what is being said.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[flakier]

*Bzzt* s/are/were/ thanks for playing...

Like seemingly 99.99999% of all OSS zealots you probably are outraged at my statment. Why not visit http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_curren t_work/TC45-2006-50_final_draft.htm and see for yourself exactly how open it is. Notice how you can download the complete file format specs *without* accepting any kind of licensing agreement.

Yes, OpenXML formats are patented. Yes, ODF is patented too. Yes, both are protected under respective covenants not to sue. I'll leave you to google those details but arguments that try to explain why a format patented by one large and litigious company is worse than another standard patented by a different large and litigious company will be received only with amusement

Some day I think more FUD will come from open source supporters than emanates from Redmond!

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Ugot2BkidNme]

Oh and the general public is paying for this special interest group that is fighting?
Nope sorry, their competitors are paying for it. Regardless of where I stand on the issue this is Microsoft vs its Office Competitors this is not a fight over an Open Document format this is a fight for business.
MS Offices newest Format is Open(Open XML) so that pretty much blows that train of thought out of the water. ODF and Open XML are different yes but they are both open. Which one is better you decide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenDoc ument_and_Microsoft_XML_formats/. So what is really going on here? Market share plain and simple this has nothing to do with what is best for users. This argument is a bunch of 'BS' it is similar to the BlueRay/HD debate sides have been chosen and now they are lobbying to get their choice made.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[theshowmecanuck]

The person who started this was the CIO for the state of MASS not open office. It wasn't the MS competitors fighting. In fact I haven't really seen any fighting (except for MS trying to keep their market dominance). The state of MASS have made it a business requirement to use ODF to avoid 'lock in'. Any vendor can choose to meet the requirement or not. You really are starting to sound like a shill for MS. Do you complain so much when you hear about software projects abstracting their data persistence layers to avoid locking their applications to one RDBMS forever (note that I think most of the time this is usually a pointless exercise as most places don't change RDBMSs once installed, but I understand why they do it and it is up to them)? Why do you complain when someone wants something similar for their business applications? And you can argue till you're blue in the face (and I suspect you will) that open XML is better than ODF... but the point is moot. MASS asked for ODF. They are the customer.

Which gets back to the original point of the article, it is highly suspicious when a paid MS employee is appointed to a board that is supposed to work in the best interests of the people of a state... since he is being paid to look out for the interests of a private company. It doesn't matter which company (even though this time it is MS... it could be Corel next time), he works for... there is a conflict of interest and he shouldn't be there. In this case he is trying to keep the state locked in to a proprietary product which others have previously said they do not want. Granted that elections can change the way a government manages the state, I tend to agree that paid lobbyists should not sit on government panels.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[DrSkwid]

> I have a hard time with the cowards who use a gun on other people. Especially when the other individual is unarmed.

So..... if you are about to stab me and I shoot you, I am a coward?

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

>Just because you agree with one side more than the other doesn't make it any less "special".

of course there are a SPECIAL side :
ODF is supported by many more enterprise than just ONE microsoft.

ODF is also _totally_ identical on mac , linux, windows, others thanks to openoffice and others softwares.

ODF is _NOT_ controlled by only ONE entity (neither ibm, neither sun, neither microsoft , just a group)

so, it's A LOT FINER than just "microsoft office format".

oh, and I'm totally for special interests for everyone. you just have to think what is better for consumers interests, the whole industry interest and the whole document format compatibility NEED, and yes, ODF is the special side.

and Microsoft could simply implement ODF as the normal standard office format and we'll all be happy in a free and open market buying the better product (it could be Word !).

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[CheeseTroll]

Uh, yes - it was a joke. Take a deep breath, and let it out slowly.

Next up on the polticial agenda...

[__aaclcg7560]

Ballmer will be nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. If those foreigners thought Bolten was scary, they haven't seen the chair hit the fan yet.

Re:Next up on the polticial agenda...

[Anonymous Coward]

I stomp my shoes on the table in support of that one
- Nikita

Re:Next up on the polticial agenda...

[Clazzy]

Don't worry, I think the chairs are bolted down there.

Re:Next up on the polticial agenda...

[SoundGuyNoise]

Great...a sweaty Ballmer running around the U.N.:
"Ambassadors! Ambassdors! Ambassadors! Ambassadors!"

Re:Next up on the polticial agenda...

[maxume]

As long as it is Iran's fan that gets smashed by the chair, sounds like sound diplomatic policy to me.

Re:Next up on the polticial agenda...

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidentally... the original definition of fascism was the merging of business and government.

Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[RedHat Rocky]

Given the rest of the board is reasonable, it's a little early to be shouting "The Sky is Falling".

A reasonable strategy would be to throw the two sides into a kettle and see who wins out. This may be an attempt to shorten the communication lines and ultimately be a good thing.

Knee-jerk, get thee behind me!

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[gowen]

In the Blogosphere, its never too early to shout "The Sky Is Falling!"

http://www.google.com/search?q=blogspot+"the+sky+i s+falling".

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[Moofie]

"Given the rest of the board is reasonable"

BAHAHAHA!

*wipes tear from eye*

*deep breath*

BAAAAAHHAHAHA!

Oh, that's a good one.

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[syphax]

Let's see what we have here, viewed from an open standards/FOSS perspective, from someone with no prior knowledge of anyone in the group:

Technology Working Group:

Chair, Charles SteelFisher, New Media Director, Deval Patrick Committee
Creative director at ALIPES CME. Original Flash site that takes a few minutes to figure out what the hell is going on. I like it and hate it all at once. Wife(?) is director of Strategy at Cogent Research. Verdict: Not promising, but who knows.

Chair, Richard Rowe, CEO, Rowe Communications
Not a lot of info there!
More info in the bio here. Looks like an interesting guy. "He is the author of numerous articles and frequent speaker on the impact of digitization and the internet upon society with a particular focus on access to and preservation of academic, scientific, technical and medical knowledge." That could go either way, but sounds good.

Brian Burke, Microsoft
For what it's worth, this is a broad technology working group (not just on, say, standards), so I don't think it's insane to have MS at the table. But there are software companies with deeper MA roots...

John Cullinane, Principal, The Cullinane Group
Was a trailblazer in the proprietary software industry (a href='http://www.softwarehistory.org/history/culli nane.html'>Cullinane Corp), which is kinda sorta threatened by FOSS. That said, who knows where his head is at today.

Louis Gutierrez, former State CIO and Director of ITD
Former as in about a month ago. He's our man!

Keith Parent, CEO, Court Square
Let's see, found here that they have "Extensive experience with Wintel, Unix, Citrix and Linux platforms" and "Successful migration projects include; VMS to NT, NT to Unix, NT to Linux." Sounds reasonably OK to me, though a little dated!

David Lewis, Private Consultant
I presume this is him. On the board at the Mass Tech Dev Corp, and has done a lot of state IT work, so he's certainly relevant. Can't find anything about him re: ODF.

Larry Weber, Chairman, W2 Group
This talk suggests that Larry "gets it", but I haven't listened to it yet. IT Conversations is awesome, by the way. find the Clayton Christensen talk on open source. Here it is.

All told, as someone sympathetic to FOSS, who thinks FOSS is good for most businesses, I find this group to be well qualified, and apparently with a diverse set of viewpoints on standards and such. Diversity is good. I'll be watching this group as closely as I can.

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[Locutus]

I don't think many would have a problem with someone on this board being pro-Microsoft but being FROM Microsoft and being anti-ODF, this guy does not belong on the board. IMO. He may have an alternate view but we all know it'll be skewed for financial reasons. If he's totally broken ties with Microsoft, and is free to think independently, then he could have something interesting to add. Othewise, he's just going to slow down the process and feed back inside information back to Microsoft so that they can change marketing 'investment' allocations in the state to fight it. IMO.

LoB

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[syphax]

The group in question is a working group charged with "helping Deval and Tim form a comprehensive agenda for the administration."

More info here:

"BOSTON - Wednesday November 22, 2006 - Governor-elect Deval Patrick and Lieutenant Governor-elect Tim Murray announced today the creation of 15 Transition Committee issues working groups that will help shape the new administration's policy agenda as it prepares to take office on Jan. 4, 2007.

Continuing in their grassroots outreach, Patrick and Murray also announced that the working groups would conduct a series of Community Meetings across the Commonwealth over the next several weeks to seek public input for their agenda.

"During the campaign, Tim Murray and I made it very clear that we will be seeking good ideas from Democrats, Republicans, Independents and anyone else, and we will listen to those ideas and pick the best ones to help move our Commonwealth forward. These Community meetings are the first step in the process," said Patrick.

The meetings will be convened by the co-chairs of the working groups and will include the members of those groups and will be open to the public. The findings from each working group will be filed as a report and delivered to the Governor- and Lt. Governor-elect by December 15th."

So there's not too much an MS plant can really do. That said, I would've appointed someone from our good friends from Novell, which is at least headquartered here in MA. They are at the intersection of Open vs Closed right now (for better or worse). If I can attend the Technology meeting I'll try to bitch about this.

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[RAMMS EIN]

``But there are software companies with deeper MA roots...''

You mean, you'd rather have Symbolics on the board?

For those who don't know: Symbolics was a spin-off of MIT that made Lisp machines. They had a fairly aggressive policy on intellectual property, which basically drained brains and knowledge away from MIT and their competitor LMI, another MIT spin-off that made Lisp machines. This is what motivated Richard Stallman to start GNU (after furiously working at LMI to compete with Symbolics).

Eventually, LMI went under, and Symbolics is only officially still alive. The Lisp machine IP has been a big mess for years, most of it basically lost, because no-one is in a position to remove the intellectual property restrictions. However, recently some source code for one of the old Lisp machines has been released by MIT, bringing back some life.

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[syphax]

So that's what killed Lisp mindshare (?).

No, I wasn't thinking of that one per se. Gee, I had forgotten all about the FSF (Boston based) in this context.

Though, for that matter, I would not want to see RMS in the working group- his people skills could use a little, uh, refinement.

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[Locutus]

Thanks and in light of this, it would seem that the MSFT employee may have been appointed to this committee to appease Microsoft. Though it looks like this appointment may have little influence outside of setting discussion topics and language of such, they still have more of a voice than a voice in the crowd.

I wonder, has he been appointed specifically because of his previous involvement, or did Microsoft ask for this appointment?

And remember, these committees will not be meeting in public when they define their public meeting topics, language, etc. Don't under estimate what a single mole can do to effect change. Especially when his/her motives are premeditated.

LoB

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[RAMMS EIN]

``So that's what killed Lisp mindshare (?).''

Well, I wasn't there, so I can only give my uninformed opinion, but I think it was one of many factors. Lisp had also become very much wed to AI, and when the AI winter set in, Lisp froze with it. Also, Lisp machines were hideously expensive, so they were killed in the same micro revolution that killed all the other Real computers.

Interestingly, Lisp still has a hard core of followers (some of which are the dreaded Smug Lisp Weenies), and is still being used in several places (for example, it was the fourth largest programming language in Debian woody, mostly thanks to Emacs Lisp, I think). Many ideas from Lisp have since become mainstream (but not, alas, macros), and the loud clamoring by the Smug Lisp Weenies that Lisp Had It First (TM) has sparked some new interest in Lisp.

``No, I wasn't thinking of that one per se. Gee, I had forgotten all about the FSF (Boston based) in this context.

Though, for that matter, I would not want to see RMS in the working group- his people skills could use a little, uh, refinement.''

Quite. If only he were open source. ;-) Free software! I meant free software!!

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, don't have an account on Slashdot...but I know Charles SteelFisher personally (I was a volunteer on Patrick's campaign) and I'm pretty sure you can count him "on our side" in regards to ODF, or open source in general at least.

I posted a link here and to other articles from my own blog as well. Keep watching, it's important.
Lynne

Will It really help all that much?

[CastrTroy]

I don't know if having the world settle on one single file format will help much. I mean, for the web, we have HTML+CSS, but it seems like Microsoft has some "bugs" in their implementation, and since IE is the most popular browser, we're all forced to make webpages that adhere to the MS way of doing things. I imagine the same thing might happen, if ODF was mandated as the standard. MS would make a bug-ridden ODF reader/writer for MSWord, which would still be what most people would use, because that's what they're familiar with, and we'd be stuck in the same boat as we are with HTML. If you didn't use MS Word, then you would end up having a document that didn't look quite the way it's supposed to.

Re:Will It really help all that much?

[brunascle]

well, we could start taking a guerilla approach, and produce strictly-standards-compliant content, regards of how it functions in MS products.

for example, use XHTML rather than HTML, and have your website use the application/xhtml+xml content type. when your customer complains that your website is broken, explain to them that the bug is with their browser.

yeah, it probably wont work, but it's certainly worth a shot. and it will bring more mainstream attention to the issue.

Re:Will It really help all that much?

[Directrix1]

They already have that buggy implementation.

Re:Will It really help all that much?

[nine-times]

Yeah, and why have laws at all, when people are just going to break them? Why take showers when I'm just going to get dirty again?

I agree that there's no need for everyone to use the same file format, but it'll be good if we can all use open standards. Microsoft is coming more in line with HTML and CSS as time goes on, partially because people have recognized that their implementation is the "broken" one. It's not perfect yet, and Microsoft hasn't always been cooperative, but don't surrender before the battle is lost.

Re:Will It really help all that much?

[GotenXiao]

Funny. I thought it was still a matter of personal choice in whether you caved and broke your websites so they "worked" in IE. I've given up that approach; anything that doesn't work in IE yet conforms and validates to the W3C standards means that it's a Microsoft problem. Which means any complaints can be forwarded on to Microsoft.

Re:Will It really help all that much?

[CastrTroy]

Unfortunately, some of use have websites directed at customers who won't go for the "Blame MS" approach. Some people just want it to look right. They don't want to switch browsers, and they don't want to have to do anything to resolve the problem. If the website doesn't look right on their browser, then it is the fault of the person who designed said website. This may not be completely right, since it is MS's fault, but that's not the way most people think.

Re:Will It really help all that much?

[radtea]

MS would make a bug-ridden ODF reader/writer for MSWord, which would still be what most people would use, because that's what they're familiar with, and we'd be stuck in the same boat as we are with HTML.

The difference is huge: money.

People use IE because it's "free" and pre-installed, not because it's good.

People use Word because it's "the standard", but they (or their IT department) have to pay serious coin to use it. So if ODF becomes the HTML of word processing, MS will have two options: support it, and lose their lock on the office suite market; or don't support it, and lose their lock on the office suite market.

MS has always understood that the file format is the drug to which their users are addicted, and control of the file format is control of the market. That's why Gates' 1995 Internet memo was so focussed on the lack of MS document formats available on the Web.

In the case of ODF, MS is up against the wall, because if you are an IT department who is being asked to a) shell out a zillion dollars for Office 07 for Vista or whatever it's called, or b) face a one-time upgrade to OOo or something equivalent, the bottom line cost is starting to look not totally insane.

Re:Will It really help all that much?

[RAMMS EIN]

While you make a good point, I think the more important issue is the world of difference that is between:

having important documents stored in a proprietary format that only one vendor implements half-properly, changes at the whim of that vendor (breaking existing documents), is tied to one application, tied to one platform, and may be completely undocumented at some point down the line

and

having important documents stored in an open format that anyone can freely implement, won't change at the whim of a single vendor, is properly documented, and can have multiple implementations competing on price, quality, platform support, features, security, etc. etc.

Honestly, if you take a step back, isn't it completely insane that we're storing our lives' important information in formats that only Microsoft knows (if even they do) how to read, and we have to pay Microsoft for software allowing us to access the information we created and entered into the system?

Re:Will It really help all that much?

[MeNeXT]

Code HTML to standards adjust for IE if need be. Pages have a longer lifespan as well as future compatibility with Wii, PS3, and other web appliances. While Microsoft may have more desktops their percent of IE users will continue to diminish in the future.

Re:Will It really help all that much?

[Bert64]

That's why the standard needs to be mandated,
Then whoever is mandating the standard can state that ms's implementation doesn't comply with the standard and is therefore not allowed to be used until they fix it.

From my perspective...

[zappepcs]

its hard to imagine what those people were thinking when they said (in various ways) that the MS - Novell arrangement is a good thing, or will be good for Linux. Obviously, the political machinations of MS are still working overtime to defeat anything, group, or person that will stand in the way of MS domination of computing.

Can anyone explain how this makes MS look good?

Re:From my perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

Micro$oft isn't about looking good. They're all about making money.

If this had been a republican elect

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it would have been posted all over the body of the slashdot post.

Not Automatically bad

[ObiWanStevobi]

If he can provide a reasobale argument as to why ODF should not be implemented, He should be an advisor. If I were in charge I would want both sides fully represented along with third party experts (which were also appointed). But alas, given the state of US governance, he's likely just there to funnel money to the right people in order to get his way.

Re:Not Automatically bad

[backdoc]

I see your point. But, I'm wondering what convincing argument he could use other than an honest answer of, "It would be bad for Microsoft's business".

Re:Not Automatically bad

[Rob T Firefly]

What constitutes a "reasonable arguement" whenm all you have to do to sway politicians to your side is the right combination of campaign contributions and technobabble?

If I presented your average mayor with some stereo manuals, flowcharts of how bees make honey, and some maps of galactic background radiation, while telling him in my best Ben Stein voice that it'd be best for his constituants if he rerouted engine plasma through the bussard ramscoops to generate a static warp shell which will refill the blinker light fluid and tighten the muffler belt, while pointing at a flowchart of how bees make honey, I could reduce him to enough of a gibbering mass of clueless politician protoplasm that he'll sign anything I put in front of him tied to a sufficiently large campaign check. And his VCR would still be blinking "12:00" afterward.

Re:Not Automatically bad

[ObiWanStevobi]

Well, it would depend on what other proprietary software they use. For example, they may have systems that plug into MS Office proprietary libraries to output documents/reports. In that case, they would have to modify/replace their other software which may make switching a greater short term cost. Not much of an argument IMO, but valid. Unfortunately, many commecially used products use MS Office libraries to create documents and offer no options for creating ODF. Also, one could reasonably argue that since MS has such a great market share, and they don't support ODF, that switching would make documents less accessible to the public that for the most part, doesn't know anything about Open Office or anything other than MS. Once again, I wouldn't consider proprietary dominance a good reason, but it is valid.

Pessimism

[Mateo_LeFou]

This seems kinda like (warning: analogy) a filmmaker in the 90s wanting to get distribution and saying "I have to adhere to Blockbuster's way of doing things..." It's true for a time, but because that way of doing things is inefficient, it will get competed out of existence by a model that works better.

I think e.g. when China and/or India standardize on a Redmond-free set of office applications, they're going to be feeding amazing innovations into the FOSS pool.

Re:Pessimism

[cptgrudge]

when China and/or India standardize on a Redmond-free set of office applications, they're going to be feeding amazing innovations into the FOSS pool.

Just be sure that we have a good base of translators for documentation and web site homes to get involved. I imagine that most peoples' Hindi and Standard Mandarin is pretty rusty. There could be a fantastic open source tool that you'd use now, but you'll never find it because Google won't find the site relevant in a search in your native language.

Re:Pessimism

[Mateo_LeFou]

"I imagine that most peoples' Hindi and Standard Mandarin is pretty rusty"

Define 'most'...

http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html ...seems to me that "most people's English is pretty rusty" would be *twice as correct as your statement about Mandarin, and about the same as Hindi.

that wacky Governor....

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily, picking one office suite over another is not particularly harmful.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait till you see all the kooky things Deval Patrick will do.

Soon he'll mandate a copy of an office suite for every MA citizen...and he'll pass the "Office Suite Empowerment Taxation Act" to make it happen.

Is This Really a Surprise?

[eno2001]

If a large and wealthy corporation wanted to create it's own private military to wage a real war in the name of keeping their profits up, they would do it. And to get to that point, they'd place people in government to change the laws to make it legal for them to wage war. It's all about power chumpboys. Always has been. Always will be. That desire for power will continually impede social progress through technology. Welcome to the dark ages.

Re:Is This Really a Surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a large and wealthy corporation wanted to create it's own private military to wage a real war in the name of keeping their profits up, they would do it. And to get to that point, they'd place people in government to change the laws to make it legal for them to wage war. It's all about power chumpboys. Always has been. Always will be. That desire for power will continually impede social progress through technology. Welcome to the dark ages.

welcom to jerusalem, 2006 years ago.

this was jesus' fundamental message - humans will *never* be able to govern themselves in a fair manner. never, ever.

if all you guys want to prove the bible wrong, that is the one way to do it...

nobody has and i'm willing willing to bet nobody ever will. we'll destroy all humanity before we can learn to be reasonable with other people, let alone actually care about them.

It'll work fine

[Mateo_LeFou]

..as per my above post, this idea that "everyone" uses (and will continue to use) Microsoft's standards-flouting technology is a little Americentric.

Here's hoping that WGA and other attempts to stop pirating of Windows succeeds! The result would be about a billion migrations to FOSS.

As opposed to the independence of an...

[Assmasher]

...ODF advocate? Seriously, do you really think you can find an unbiased IT aware technologist? Especially considering that this was posted on Slashdot? LOL. Either a technology savvy/aware person would be pro MS or pro-ODF, I'd be shocked to find one that wasn't aware of both of them. If you did, I'd suggest he's not up to the job in general. ;)

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[Trelane]

Either a technology savvy/aware person would be pro MS or pro-ODF

That may well be, but if you're going to argue that having an opinion vs work to actively promote is on the same continent, you're being rather foolish.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

['nother poster]

So, this must be a "with us or against us" situation and if you advocate "the right tool for the job" rather than "my tool for the job" then you're "not up to the job in general"? Bullshit. ODF is a good fit for document availability/readability across platforms and software packages. Microsoft is a good fit for a software vendor who can give a large organization like the state government good support. All it requires is for MS to make standards compliant ODF a save/open option. Ta freaking da. It's not rocket science.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Seriously, do you really think you can find an unbiased IT aware technologist? Especially considering that this was posted on Slashdot? LOL. Either a technology savvy/aware person would be pro MS or pro-ODF, I'd be shocked to find one that wasn't aware of both of them. If you did, I'd suggest he's not up to the job in general. ;)"

You are not using the word "unbiased" correctly. To be unbiased means that your conclusions are based only upon the relevant facts of the situation. There are strong arguments for both sides, and reasonable people can disagree on the conclusions from those relevant facts.

However, a paid lobbyist (either for MS or the ODF side) comes to a conclusion based only on who is paying him, not the relevant facts. Thus, they are clearly not unbiased.

In general, lobbyists should make presentations at panels and talk to the panel members individually, attempting to influence their decision, that's the role of a lobbyist. A lobbyist should not BE a panel member. Let me simply put it this way -- you lobby people from the lobby (or the restaurant, or the office, whatever). If you're sitting at the decision-maker's table, you're no longer a lobbyist paid to influence decisions, you're a person who is paid to decide a particular way, and that's called "corruption" any way you slice it.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[Assmasher]

No offense but you're being a bit naive yourself, the guy is an EX-employee, who is *supposed* to have spoken on Microsoft's behalf (not to be confused with lobbying as a 3rd party) as part of his job while employeed by Microsoft. You seem to assume that ex-employees from Microsoft show some sort of retro-loyalty. He was a PR guy for Microsoft, who is now part of the MA government (his link to the MA government is from his pre-M$ days), and he's seen as disloyal.

Did any of you bother to check and see whether any of the other members were pro-ODF at all? Or had worked for companies or organizations that are pro-ODF? Doubtful. This is the typical slashdot reaction. The mere mention of Microsoft instantly instills FUD.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[Assmasher]

What does that have to do with claiming that because the guy is an ex-M$ employee he's not trustworthy or reliable?

As for the decision to use ODF or not, people like yourself seem to not understand how the free-market works. Microsoft is a PUBLIC COMPANY. Public companies have one primary task, to enrich their shareholders. That's why pensioners, mutual funds, school systems, city governments, et al., invest in them. Arguing that Microsoft should do something that endangers their company bedrock is "not rocket science" is extremely naive.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[professionalfurryele]

I think you are confusing the issue. You appear to believe that there are two sides to every story. In this case, there is one side to the story. This is like inviting creationists to a debate about evolution. The right decision is already widely known, the question is how to implement it. The fact this technological dinosaur has been invited along to the party is disturbing indeed. He has nothing useful to contribute.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[burnin1965]

Either a technology savvy/aware person would be pro MS or pro-ODF

And a key difference between the pro-MS and pro-ODF is that the pro-ODF may also be pro-MS while the pro-MS is definitely anti-ODF. ;)

There is nothing stopping Microsoft from supporting ODF and the ODF standard is not a ploy to push Microsoft out of the market. You could be pro-ODF and still recommend Microsoft Office as the application of choice, as long as it meets the ODF requirement.

The same can't be said for the pro-MS bias because the MS option locks everyone else out.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[Assmasher]

No, I would suggest that you are reacting like a traditional slashdot reader and instantly ASSuming everything based upon an article by an author who, in the article if you've read it, admits that he doesn't actually know if this guy lobbied against the ODF. The guy is a, now, ex-employee of Micrsoft where he was in PR. He isn't an evangelist, he isn't a technologist with a personal interest in defeating the ODF, he's a guy who was involved with helping MA in the Clinton days and has now gone there. This article was just another anti-M$ spiel. Seriously, with his previous employer being Microsoft, don't you think his every move regarding ODF would be scrutinized? (Obviously from the posts here.) Any ODF proponents on that group? Don't know do you? You wouldn't care if there were in any case.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

['nother poster]

Ok. You go on believeing that. If a large customer comes along and says they have a requirement for a contract and it can make your company a lot of money you do it. Supporting ODF would not endanger the "company bedrock". Not supporting things potential customers want, will. Even if the state backs off from ODF, other large groups and institutions will start requiring it. Not making an effort to compete for those contracts and losing the income may just piss off some Microsoft stock holders, myself included. Microsoft isn't selling the .doc format they are selling software and support services. They already support other formats that are not propiatary, and ODF will just be another.

p.s. I work for a public company and have invested in quite a few over the years. I can assure you that I understand how the free-market works.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[Assmasher]

I see what you're trying to say, but the logic you used doesn't work ;).

I presume you mean that being pro-ODF doesn't make you anti-MS. It certainly does in my experience, although you're right in that it shouldn't.

Microsoft, iirc, is actually planning on standardizing an open XML based format, just not ODF.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[Assmasher]

Of course it would endanger the primary source of income for Microsoft. I can't believe you actually believe that there is zero risk to Microsoft's office division by making it possible for Linux/Windows hybrid business environments work better together, LOL. While I'd like that personally, if I was a Microsoft shareholder, I sure as hell would not.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[burnin1965]

I presume you mean that being pro-ODF doesn't make you anti-MS. It certainly does in my experience, although you're right in that it shouldn't.

Hey, its not my fault if the same rational logic that leads someone to be pro-ODF results in a realization that doing business with Microsoft only fuels future illegal business tactics so its best just to stay away.

Re:As opposed to the independence of an...

[Trelane]

the guy is an EX-employee, who is *supposed* to have spoken on Microsoft's behalf

No, according to The Friendly Article,

Brian Burke, the Microsoft Regional Director for Public Affairs,

t is my understanding that it was Burke who led the lobbying effort on Beacon Hill against ODF, and also urged legislators to introduce the amendment intended to take away much of the ITD's planning power generally, and as regards standards specifically, and hand it to a task force made up of political appointees.

Furthermore

Galvin also received a show of support from Microsoft in the form of a $200 December 2005 donation from Brian Burke, Microsoft's Northeast regional government affairs director

Last fall, both Pacheco and Galvin voiced concerns about the ODF initiative, criticizing the process that led to the ODF mandate.

Additionally,

an indication from Microsoft's Brian Burke during the last semi-public meeting on the matter (Sept 16) that he had been discussing the matter with the state's senators on Beacon Hill (Boston's equivalent of Capitol Hill).

And also,

a Massachusetts organized meeting on June 9, 2005 that was attended by Sun, IBM, Adobe, and many others. Representing Microsoft at the meeting were McKee, state government affairs manager Brian Burke and account technology specialist Leslie Tan

So I think it's pretty well established that:

1. He isn't merely a lobbyist, he's a chief lobbyist
2. In all likelihood, he's represented Microsoft's interests (i.e. pushed anti-ODF) for the duration of this discussion

and, therefore, he's more than "supposed" to have spoken on Microsoft's behalf--he is/was a chief in pushing Microsoft's viewpoint in Massachusetts.

Can you provide evidence that the advisory post is a full-time job and/or that Burke has left Microsoft, let alone being seen as "disloyal"? Maybe my google-fu isn't up to your ability, but I just can't find evidence to support your allegations.

Did any of you bother to check and see whether any of the other members were pro-ODF at all?

In what way was my statement limited to Microsoft?! It is my opinion that the rulemakers and regulartors shouldn't be directly involved with the groups they're regulating, be they from Microsoft, IBM, or Linus.

Since you brought it up, the relevant ones (i.e. the "Technology" Committee) are all listed prominently in The Friendly Article, along with their affiliations. Given, I've not done extensive background on them, but neither do they seem to be primary movers in pushing ODF. Can you provide evidence to the contrary? If so, I'll be against them too!

The mere mention of Microsoft instantly instills FUD.

And the Microsoft fanboys immediately post counter FUD to any aspersions cast upon the Great Microsoft! Sheesh. Give me a break and go get informed.

That's not the point

[l2718]

Both sides of the Microsoft vs ODF battle are special interests.

Indeed, but you have to understand the difference between a lobbyist advocating a solution (he was paid to do so regardless of the merits) and a civil servant advocating a solution (he was paid to dispassionately figure out what the best solution is). Appointing a lobbyist for a policy-making committee is silly not because we may disagree with his former employer, but because lobbying and making policy decisions require completely orthogonal skills. For example, I would expect a former lobbyist called upon to make decisions to give undue credence to other lobbists, and to care about political agenda more than technical issues.

Re:That's not the point

[ThinkFr33ly]

Indeed, but you have to understand the difference between a lobbyist advocating a solution (he was paid to do so regardless of the merits) and a civil servant advocating a solution (he was paid to dispassionately figure out what the best solution is).

Not sure what about my post would suggest that I don't understand there is a difference. My post was merely to criticize the original story poster for ignore the fact that the ODF-side of things are also a special interest. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the "civil servant" is making the choice based on what the best solution is. They are not immune to outside influences, nor are they free from bias. In addition, many companies would *love* for Microsoft to lose MA as a customer because it would make it easier for them to sell their products and services.

Appointing a lobbyist for a policy-making committee is silly not because we may disagree with his former employer, but because lobbying and making policy decisions require completely orthogonal skills.

I'm not sure they're completely orthogonal. A lobbyist must have a strong understanding of the landscape for which they lobby. It's hard to convince people that your product or cause is the correct one if you know nothing of its competitors.

In general, I agree that appointing a lobbyist is a bad idea. I wasn't really arguing for or against that in my original post. I was simply saying that the people arguing for ODF to win were not some kind of benevolent entity with only the interests of the people in mind.

Re:That's not the point

[Tran]

"I was simply saying that the people arguing for ODF to win were not some kind of benevolent entity with only the interests of the people in mind." Hmm do you have some kind of proof of that? Who and what organization would stand to gain from ODF? The only organization I see that would gain would be "We, the people".

Au Contrair

[Billosaur]

Not a good sign of independence from special interests for an administration that has yet to even take office.

Then again, getting opinions from all sides of the issue and making decisions based on all the available information is a sign of independence, or at least forethought. Can one IE partisan on a commission of eight really do that much damage?

By a Democrat, no less!

[DoofusOfDeath]

It's interesting that this appointment was made by a Democrat. After 6 years of the Bush/Republicans catastrophe, it's tempting to thing that the Democrats are going to side with the little guy, unlike the business-whoring Republicans. This appointment should remind us that BOTH parties are, effectively, pro-(insert rich lobbyist name here).

Re:By a Democrat, no less!

[jmyers]

And if it were a republican the summary would have read "Republican Governor-Elect..." and there would be a bunch of posts about how the republicans are evil and demos are never up to dirty tricks, blah blah blah.

Slashdot politics articles and posts always point out very well what is wrong with American politics. The same group of people can find and point out the facts on any tech issue in a heartbeat, but anything political instantly goes into a bash fest of the opposing view, facts be damn.

Re:By a Democrat, no less!

[syphax]

Democrats aren't often on the Free side of things. Think Hollywood- it has many liberals who think their livelihoods depend on DRM.

That said, I have a lot of hope for the Deval administration. My wife and I actively supported his candidacy from early on; he's one of those rare leaders who is actually inpsiring. That said, I am a little worried about his ability to follow through as an effective administrator. We will see.

Re:By a Democrat, no less!

[multisync]

it's tempting to thing that the Democrats are going to side with the little guy

I'm not sure why you would think that. The DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (The Mickey Mouse Protection Act) were both signed in to law by president Clinton. Not exactly "little guy"-friendly legislation.

Re:By a Democrat, no less!

[Anonymous Coward]

Massachusetts is now 99% democrat, with the democrat governor elect replacing the lone non-democrat voice in power. It also has one of the most corrupt & lazy state governments imaginable. While Romney wasn't the best governor ever, his hands were pretty much tied with an almost entirely democrat legislature that 1) mostly runs unopposed, 2) the people of Mass vote (D) all the way regardless of the candidate (Coakley (D) 70% vs Frisoli (R) 30% for AG), 3) engages in unbelievable patronism and cronyism!

As for the big dig, aside from the corruption, it took the collapse of a tunnel roof resulting in the death of a woman before the legislature would give Romney the power to remove the head of the Masspike authority which runs the big dig. Oh, don't forget that the Masspike Authority, being a 'QUANGO' as the Brits say, doesn't answer to anyone. It also employs a large number of relatives & friends of the legislature as toll takers at insane salaries (e.g. $90K+ for a toll taker).

What a mess! But the people of Mass get what they deserve!

Re:By a Democrat, no less!

[wytcld]

The DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (The Mickey Mouse Protection Act) were both signed in to law by president Clinton. Not exactly "little guy"-friendly legislation.

Right. Senator Leahy, who was behind Mickey Mouse (Michael Eisner, having grown up in Vermont, has been a regular Leahy contributor for years), is also the senator who is the most concerned about the loss of habeas corpus and the civil liberties infringements in the "Patriot" Act. So while he's centrally concerned with the liberties of the little guy, in the ways they are traditionally most threatened, he's blind to liberty concerns in the "intellectual property" arena. After all, Disney created Mickey Mouse. It's not immediately obvious why Disney shouldn't continue to own Mickey Mouse, or why my or your individual freedom is significantly compromised if we can't start selling our own Mickey Mouse comic books (outside of parody) and the like. It's not nearly as obvious as the right to have the government reveal its case against you after locking you up.

I've been trying to educate Leahy on IP. He may be just too old to get it - he sees it in terms of counterfeit snowboards and the like. But damn does the man ever get the core issues of civil liberties! And we'll be a lot better off now that he's running the Judiciary Committee, precisely for that. There's a reason why Cheney called him "Asshole" on the Senate floor.

Re:By a Democrat, no less!

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's a reason why Cheney called him "Asshole" on the Senate floor."

--- because he is one, brainfart. He is also, as your missive hints, intellectually and morally lacking. As usual, Democrats have fooled a good share of people into feeling good about their positions on......um.....nothing. Now comes the price we Americans will pay for shallow thinking. I am lumping republicans in the "to blame" category because they acted more like DEMOCRAT LITE than actual republicans. If you can't do the right thing consistently and stick to ethical principles, then get out of office.

Independent opinion vs. paid shill

[mrchaotica]

I think you're confused: biased doesn't mean "I like [foo] technology better;" biased means "[foo]corp paid me to like [foo] technology better." There's a key difference there. Can you spot it?

Re:Independent opinion vs. paid shill

[Assmasher]

Are you intentionally avoiding my point? The poing, again, is that there ARE NO INDEPENDENT OPINIONS either here or in that group of people listed by MA to head the TAG. Think anyone on this website has an independent opinion? Not likely, the majority of people here are anti-Microsoft and you know it. Think anyone on that list is any more independent than anyone else? Hell, the former Microsoft guy knows that he'll be scrutinized very closely by the ODF zealots and probably end up being lambasted by anti-ODF zealots.

Re:Independent opinion vs. paid shill

[Assmasher]

LOL, *point (not poing), sorry 'bout that.

Re:Independent opinion vs. paid shill

[metamatic]

What exactly do you think an "independent opinion" is? It sounds to me like you define it to be a thing that cannot exist, in which case your "point" is totally vacuous.

Re:Independent opinion vs. paid shill

[mrchaotica]

Think anyone on this website has an independent opinion? Not likely, the majority of people here are anti-Microsoft and you know it.

But are they being paid by Microsoft's competitors? If not, then the opinion counts as independent. That's my point!

Re:Independent opinion vs. paid shill

[Assmasher]

Not at all, you're confusing the independent opinion of a regular individual with the concept of an indepedent opinion being held by a member of that technology group. You're also making tons of suppositions regarding the ex-employee of Microsoft who, by the admission of the article's author, isn't even known to be a lobbyist against the ODF, the author suspects that he was. BTW, the guy's position at Microsoft was in PR, ergo, he says whatever he is told to say in order to receive his paycheck. Do you think a lot of ex-Microsoft employees are loyal to their company? We've recently seen several articles on Slashdot suggesting the alternative.

Re:Independent opinion vs. paid shill

[Assmasher]

It's not independent, it's an aggregate feeling of superiority engendered in the slashdot community as a whole where it is expected that you're anti-Microsoft or you're not here. Merely being here suggests a likely proclivity towards bashing Microsoft (it used to be worse here.) I come off as some kind of Microsoft apologist, when 80% of my career is *nix based and Java, because I believe in being objective. Do you think that article was objective?

Re:Independent opinion vs. paid shill

[metamatic]

So answer the question: how do you define an "independent opinion"?

wait and wait

[mugnyte]

  The best strategy here is not to deliver a crippled ODF, or one with optional "licensing tags" built in, or even a "binary format option" that is defined by an existing member (MS).

  No, the strategy is simply not to deliver. Stall. The longer ODF is not standardized by this group, the more things can slip out of focus among product deliveries. Not a new strategy, and I don't expect to hear much about this for some time.

Wrong decision-making procedure

[l2718]

If he can provide a reasobale argument as to why ODF should not be implemented, He should be an advisor. If I were in charge I would want both sides fully represented ...

I think this kind of thinking exemplifies a fundamental problem with the way decisions are made in the US. Certainly all sides should be heard -- but they should not be represented in the actual decision-making. Public employees who make decisions should report to only one boss -- the people -- and should know the technical business and how to evaluate information. They should receive input from any and all sources -- but they should not owe allegiance to any outside interests.

Re:Wrong decision-making procedure

[ObiWanStevobi]

He is an advisor, he has no real authority in the final descision...Or at least he should not (that isn't the way things always go). Perhaps I should have been a bit more accurate by saying both sides should be fully represented in the debate.

For example, many politicans have had opposite party members as advisors. Which I think is commendable. Even if they choose to never implement that advisors POV, at least they give it consideration when trying to make a descision that is best for the people that elected them.

Re:Wrong decision-making procedure

[Hijacked Public]

I also imagine a world where rainbow colored ponies with bows in their manes give free rides to little children. A dutiful civil servant peers from his ever clean office window and smiles at the passing ponies before returning to his task of making the world an even better place than anyone could ever have imagined by trying to outdo his office-neighbor as measured by the purity of his altruism.

There is a lesson here for those who can see it

[MikeRT]

Government is not a well-oiled machine. It's a vast expanse of bureaucracy, backroom deals, corruption, coercion and many other things. So stop treating it like one and doing that feel good song and dance about "we the people are the government" as an excuse for letting it dictate standards, regulate all over the place, etc. This is the way that government works in practice. The more you invite it into your life, the more of this sort of villainy you will invite in general.

It's even worse

[l2718]

Digging deeper, it seems the shill is still an MS employee. Can you really trust someone who says he "will be participating as a private citizen rather than a Microsoft employee" in a committee that affects a significant Microsoft business interest?

Re:It's even worse

[erroneus]

This practice should be illegal. Only in particular circumstances are officials require to recuse themselves in situations where conflicts of interest are present. The most commonly observed instance would be in the case of a judge trying a case involving a party where he has an interest or a prejudicial opinion and might otherwise be prevented from rendering an unbiased ruling.

This practice needs to be performed at all levels of government except where it's not practical. We shouldn't have the dairy association making USRDA recommendations to the FDA when it comes to milk consumption. We shouldn't have a Microsoft employee (and likely stock holder) in a position to make recommendations or otherwise influence decision making about whether or not to make ANY decisions where a choice to include or exclude Microsoft products or services for the public is concerned. It's simply inappropriate.

If anyone here is living in that state, I recommend pushing for a recusal policy where such a person would be required to recuse himself from any policy making decisions where his employer's interests are involved.

Re:It's even worse

[dzelenka]

I think you exactly 180 degrees wrong. If the State is to make an informed decision then it needs to hear the Microsoft argument for sticking with the Office formats. Call him the Devil's Advocate if you wish, but hearing both sides is necessary to reach an informed decision.

If the State decides to stick with ODF and the committee has no Microsoft representation then Microsoft could claim that both sides were not heard. With this MS employee on the committee they can never say that their side of the story was not heard.

Re:It's even worse

[erroneus]

Would it have been okay for the judge hearing a Microsoft antitrust case to have also been a major shareholder or Microsoft attorney?

To have decision makers HEAR from all parties interested is just common sense. But to have a decision maker that is employed by one of the parties under consideration? Come on.

Re:It's even worse

[Keeper]

Your arguement might have merit if he was the sole member of the committee. A committee is the judicial equivelent of a jury.

Re:It's even worse

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If the State is to make an informed decision then it needs to hear the Microsoft argument for sticking with the Office formats.

True... but completely beside the point. Microsoft salespeople and engineers will definitely be presenting information, just like every other vendor looking to sell things to the state. That is completely different from one of their employees being on the state payroll to help make decision about whether or not buy things from their employer. It's like hiring an executive from Colt firearms to sit on the board deciding what the army's next assault rifle will be. It is a blatant conflict of interest. No one on MS's payroll should be part of the decision making body.

Re:It's even worse

[Intron]

So who are they supposed to put on the committee? Only Linux zealots? Only people who have never used computers? Choosing ONE out of EIGHT people who have in-depth knowledge of the world's most popular office suite, even if they are partisan, seems fairly responsible to me. Patrick didn't make him chairman. Presumably there is debate, voting and minority opinions expressed. Does anyone have any kind of backup for the claim "Patrick loves MicroSoft"?

Re:It's even worse

[erroneus]

Uh.... excellent point you just made for me. In actual jury situations, people are disqualified for exactly that reason. Ex-convicts aren't allowed in juries for obvious reasons. Employees or relatives of employees of a company on trial aren't allowed to be on such a jury.

Re:It's even worse

[caseydk]

Whew. I'm glad this is a shill Republican governor bending over to Big Business after the poor Democrat Mitt Romney tried to work for the people by promoting the discussion and consideration of ODF and fighting for the little guy. What are we going to do to stop this travesty?

Oh wait, I got the parties reversed... my bad.

An even more reasonable strategy

[Mateo_LeFou]

Get impartial engineers and technicians to analyze -- *scientifically (gasp!) -- the pros and cons of the various formats.

Oh wait ... that's pretty much what was done, and nearly everyone who didn't have a buck to make off of MS Office supported open standards.

Re:An even more reasonable strategy

[Pollardito]

i seem to recall that there were some "equal-access for the handicapped" advocates that didn't have a buck to make off of MS Office that had concerns

Re:An even more reasonable strategy

[larkost]

You are misusing the word "scientifically". I am fairly sure that you really wanted the word "rationally" or possibly "impartially", not that you wanted them to use the scientific method to conduct experiments on the formats.

Re:An even more reasonable strategy

[Mateo_LeFou]

You're limiting the word too much. The "method" we all learned about in middle school is not the sum total of science.

I use it to indicate the presence of what Feigl would call "scientific meaningfulness"... scientific statements are those that can be confirmed intersubjectively, or falsified. Discussions are scientific when the statements therein *could be experimentally tested, whether or not they actually are so tested.

Re:An even more reasonable strategy

[Trelane]

i seem to recall that there were some "equal-access for the handicapped" advocates that didn't have a buck to make off of MS Office that had concerns

after Microsoft had a "chat" with them, as I recall.

Furthermore, they are misinformed because OpenOffice has pretty good accessiblity support--just not on Microsoft Windows , due to Windows issues and no fault of its own.

Quoth Peter Korn

Users with disabilities might move to a UNIX/GNOME desktop, and utilize the assistive technologies there to interact with StarOffice or OpenOffice.org (or KOffice). For some disabilities this is unlikely to be an option for a while, but for others - especially users with major physical impairments who use single-switch, head-mouse, or eye-gaze systems - this is already an excellent choice. And for blind and low vision users, Sun is developing the Orca open source, scripting-based screen reader which shows tremendous promise in providing equivalent efficiency and productivity to commercial products in Windows.

[note: since this writing, Orca has been released and in Ubuntu Edgy]

Public service

[remmelt]

If you want opinions and or marketing speak, you don't have to appoint a known partisan member to your committee. All the members are supposed to be independent, right? There aren't any abiword, openoffice, wordperfect, notepad, vi or emacs shilling members on that board now are there? What is that guy doing there?

moral relativism

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, and all points of view have validity...

And now, actually think for a second

[Anonymous Coward]

Stuck in the same boat as HTML/CSS, means what exactly? Does that mean that ANYONE with a choice of literally hundreds of software packages from countless sources and with dozens of different licesing deals can author the HTML/CSS?

Or are you referring that more or less you can read this HTML/CSS on practically any OS out there, with most OS'es offering multiple readers again with a wide variety of licenses? And with OS'es I mean more then just Windows, Linux and Mac OS-X here. Everything from mobile phones to the new Wii has a browser installed ALL capable of reading HTML/CSS.

The days of major websites only working with one of these readers are also mostly gone. Sure you are bound to find one that works best with X from time to time but by and large HTML/CSS works no matter how badly MS has tried to sabotage it.

So either you just don't know nothing about the example you mention OR you are one of those "I want a cure that works now, costs nothing and is perfect, or nothing" people that seem to hover around slashdot.

ODF is not going to be perfect but it is better then doing nothing. Don't curse the darkness, light a candle and curse the hotwax dribbling all over your hand. Unless that is your thing offcourse.

Misleading Headline

[CarnivorousCoder]

"MS Anti-ODF Lobbyist Named as MA Tech Advisor"

I'm sick and tired of misleading headlines on Slashdot! This one makes it seem like there is one tech advisor to MA, and that they're an MS Lobbyist. What we actually find out by reading the rest is that they're only one of eight people on a committee to evaluate MA's IT structure. Listen, I don't like MS any more than the rest of you, but let's at least try to show an interest in getting at the "truth" in technology rather than just furthering our own personal agendas. PLEASE make the headlines less zealous and more realistic! The headline for the original article got it right: "MA Governor-Elect Names MS Anti-ODF Lobbyist to Technology Advisory Group".

Re:Misleading Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Then please make it less US-centric too. My European brains wouldn't know what MA means or even could mean (could refer to a company, a special preposition for this specific tittle, slang, the state...) without reading the article and even there not finding explicitly what MA means.

Re:Misleading Headline

[killjoe]

He doesn't belong on the board. Not only is he an MS lobbyist he is also an MS employee. He is unable to make any rational choices or decisions and will automatically vote for anything MS and anything anti-oss. Why even bother putting somebody on the board when you already know how they are going to vote on every issue.

Re:Misleading Headline

[multisync]

I'm sick and tired of misleading headlines on Slashdot! This one makes it seem like there is one tech advisor to MA

What's misleading? This is the way headlines are written.

Space is tight for headlines, so extraneous words are omitted. What do you expect?

"An Anti-ODF Lobbyist Was Named A Technical Adviser to the State of Massachusetts Today, Joining Seven Other People From Various Backgrounds?"

That would be the story lead. The purpose of a headline is to get you to read the story, not to give you every detail.

Re:Misleading Headline

[phorm]

What do you expect? "An Anti-ODF Lobbyist Was Named A Technical Adviser to the State of Massachusetts Today, Joining Seven Other People From Various Backgrounds?"


Uh, no, from what I read in his comments, he expects something along the lines of the original article:
The headline for the original article got it right: "MA Governor-Elect Names MS Anti-ODF Lobbyist to Technology Advisory Group

Slashdot often pisses upon hyperbole in the media, but they're using it increasingly themselves.

Re:Misleading Headline

[multisync]

Ok, so the original article had a better headline. I still don't see what is inaccurate or misleading about the /. headline.

MS Anti-ODF Lobbyist ...

That's straight out of the headline you said got it right;

Named as MA Tech Advisor

The MA Govenor-Elect named him to a technology advisory group. Would that not make him a "tech advisor?"

Seriously, am I missing something?

Are you two objecting to the fact that it doesn't say he was named as "a" tech advisor? The post I replied to complained that there were other people in the group. My point was, that's the way headlines are written. I've written them. They're big and bold and fill half the page of a tabloid, so you leave out words like "an." Think "Man Bites Dog!" You wouldn't use "Man Bites A Dog" because "A" is redundant and it's less punchy. The shorter version gives just enough information to get the reader to read the first paragraph. And that's the purpose of a headline.

Re:Misleading Headline

[blindseer]

I guess you missed the point. Sometimes you put people on the board because you now exactly how they will vote every time.

Re:Misleading Headline

[killjoe]

No I didn't miss it and no you don't put people who are not objective on your board. You want people who will listen to all points of view and make a decision that is in the best interest of your own company. If you want to hear the point of view of MS you invite them to give you a presentation. Then you invite redhat and then you do own research, then you invite other people. Then you weigh the evidence in a objective manner and make a decision.

WE MUST KEEP FIGHTING...

[Ingolfke]

because if we stop and Microsoft wins then Microsoft wins and if we don't keep up the fighting and rhetoric and this thing actually gets under way... well Microsoft wins too because if we've learned one thing from these big government open source projects it's that they all fail in two or three years anyway.

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer..

[Lensman]

The way this reads to me is that this is only an "Advisory" council. So they may not have the actual power to implement anything, and the MS lobbyist is only one voice. Hopefully reasonable decisions can still be reached.

Do something about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting on Slashdot will NOT make an iota of a difference. That much is just about guranteed.

Contacting Mr. Patrick (no email address available; but you can fax his campaign at (617) 628-3519 ) WILL make a difference.

Speak up. Now! Or STFU and take it daily from Microsoft.

Re:Do something about it

[Brandybuck]

Speak up. Now! Or STFU and take it daily from Microsoft.

That's what everyone said twelve years ago. And what has happened since? Linux and BSD went from nothing to taking huge chunks out of the server and embedded markets, and they make tolerable desktop systems as well. Apple went from a dying crashfest to the skyrocketing Mac OSX. We went from IE/NS to IE, NS, Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, Safari, etc.

accurate headline ..

[rs232]

"This one makes it seem like there is one tech advisor to MA, and that they're an MS Lobbyist. What we actually find out by reading the rest"

The headline is completely and fully accurate. As you pointed out, the rest of the article fills in the details. But even one anti ODF lobbyist on the group is bad.

was Misleading Headline (Score:1)

Re:accurate headline ..

[Anonymous Coward]

is it? It mitigates the "you've only appointed those who are against it" claims from being made.

Disagreed

[Anonymous Coward]

This could, indeed, be the situation in some cases. But the distinction between companies and people that are 'monetarily rewarded' as per definition biased in favour of the monetary view, and those 'not monetarily rewarded' (in this case e.g. university researchers) who as you say "dispassionately figure out what the best solution is" is monumentally misguided.

Why is that? Because there are plenty of NON-MONETARY motivations someone can have to bias a statement, research, experimental piece or whatever. Payment in the pocket is simply one type of motivation (and in some/many cases a strong one) - but it goes against the dispassionate science of human behaviour to discount every other of the vast range of similar motivations out there.

Of _non-monetary motivations_ there can be, off hand;

- The size of your department: From an egoistical point of view, the manpower and effort you have authority to direct - the more controversial and 'important' your research appears, both internally and in the world at large, the bigger this would be;

- Your external authority: How many people look up to you and laud you as someone who is intelligent and has important things to say, and invite you to formal dinners with gourmet food, the requirement for which is usually that you have said something that is too complicated for them to think of on their own but which fits their world view (and don't underestimate the number of dinners and lunches a leading C* scientist can get invited to);

- The people in your department from a caring perspective: do you want to keep them? Do you want to give them tasks they like to do? Egoism isn't everything.

- Beliefs that aren't proven: there are every now and then cases of medical professionals who fake data to support a conclusion. Is that always for egoistical reason? How about they believe it to be true but feel their data has failed to prove it and the importance of public attention trumps principles of research?

- Educational sychophanty/hierarchy: Preserving power structures and repeating what you are told by others;

- Your political bias: Every statement that counters or disproves another statement diminishes the perceived authority of the person who made the original one. By association, you can feel that certain political parties are associated by particular views, and have a political desire to make them look bad;

- Your ideological bias: What sort of human is the 'dispassionate' machine-being you speak of? I've never met any of them. As the point above, if you feel someone is "evil", "a bad person", "egoistical" (and if you like the idea of "sharing" but dislike the idea of "unequal income distribution") why would you not have a desire that their authority and influence and image should be dented? I absolutely have. Don't you have a personal wish to make Bill Gates look bad?

- Your pay: I think climate scientists can get moderately more in either the private or the public sector today than a while ago. The same goes for grants - what sort of equipment can you get? What sort of travel and living standards can you get? How useful can you appear to your employer?

- Your friends: You want your friends to enjoy positive experiences in life. Being criticised is not one of them.

All of the above are motivations not to be dispassionate and objective. And a further one is money. While I agree that a paid fulltime lobbyist is far less dispassionate in absolute terms than an average researcher - a large number of researches all feeling a small to moderate bias of each of the types above can (and would) add up.

Blame the voters

[howardcohen]

If they'd elected that former Clinton Administration official this wouldn't have happened. Oh, wait....

speaking of the short bus ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you noticed how popular the short bus is now?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Yup pie+Short+Bus

Yeah, because your method got us into this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, it is only because the goverment took to long to do anything that MS has managed to gain complete control and is now the one setting the terms and not goverment.

It always amazes me how idiots like you hate it when goverment dictates what they can and cannot do but lap it up when a company does it. You must hate democracy. Now matter how bad the US goverment is, at least they have to pretend to care about votes. MS and other big companies wich have risen to power do not.

So if it is a choice as to who gets to screw me, I prefer it is the guy I can actually vote against in four years. Maybe that will make him use some lube.

"Why do you hate microsoft ?" they ask ...

[unity100]

"Are you a linux junkie ?" they ask ...

YES goddammit !

And it is because of CRAP like these microsoft pulls off.

ODF in Saugus, MA

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to ODF in Saugus, MA? I heard they were using it long ago, are they still?

Suckers

[J05H]

Messychusetts has to many laws. High tax burden, overregulation, hostile business climate. Oh, yeah, and MANDATORY health insurance - you will be fined if you refuse to pay up, even if you're perfectly healthy. No wonder the population shrank 4 out of the past 5 years. I moved to Rhode Island from Boston 3 years ago and have loved almost every minute of it.

Deval Patrick might have some really good stuff going for him, but he's also doing some really dumb things like putting the fox in charge of the IT hen house and being ignorant on one of the region's big industries: commercial fishing. On the ODF fight, I think there will eventually be enough pressure to force even M$ into using truly open formats.

Josh

If that was an example, you missed your point.

[Kadin2048]

They are about the right to profit from the ownership of guns, which is not in the public interest.

What sort of crack are you smoking? That's not even close to right. The original purpose of the NRA was to promote marksmanship and other shooting sports, because at the time of its founding, Americans really sucked hard when it came to hitting anything with a gun, and this meant the military had to spend a lot of extra time training people. It was a public service organization.

Today, depending on which part of the NRA you're talking about (i.e. the NRA Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, has as its mission statement: "to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological and artistic context,") it's all about preserving the right to own and use firearms as a good thing per se. There's no "profit" motive involved in any sense. The NRA is founded on the assumption that citizens should have access to personal weapons, and society is better off when this is the case. Based on that assumption, they are acting in the public interest when they attempt to preserve this right.

The motivation driving most NRA members is no more or less selfish than the motivation driving most pro-gun-control supporters: it's a personal issue to them either way. Most people who support the NRA, do so because they own firearms; most people who support gun control do so because they feel in some way threatened by firearms. Both groups' members are looking out for what they see as their own interests.

There's a reason why "special interest" gets bandied about so much in politics: it's because you can use it against anybody that you don't agree with. I could easily describe the gun-control lobby (for instance, Handgun Control Inc.) as a "special interest," and many people frequently do, in order to disparage it. If you're a Republican, Democratic contributors are special interests; if you're a Democrat, Republican contributors clearly are.

The term is essentially meaningless, because what is in the "public interest" is endlessly debatable. What you think is in the 'public interest' probably isn't what I think is in it, and therefore our perceptions of various groups are going to be skewed accordingly. That's why people who attempt any sort of neutral position don't use it -- they refer to groups on either side of an issue as "interest groups."

IBM is a large employer in Massachusetts

[msisamonopoly]

Let me get my head around this --

Microsoft, that employs very few people in Massachusetts, gets a prime role in shaping the directions of the State's IT.

IBM, that is a large employer in Massachusetts, does not have a role.

Perhaps the Commonwealth of Massachusetts needs to use some of Microsoft's slush funds to establish a watchdog to ensure that no anti-competitive activity is fostered by this new committee.

Re:IBM is a large employer in Massachusetts

[Peter Desnoyers]

Seconded.

As a Massachusetts citizen, ignoring my free software zealot side, I don't give a damn about ODF vs. Microsoft Office. If Redmond were a town in Massachusetts, I'd be all for putting one of their lackeys on the team. (actually, I'd rather they put someone who knows something, rather than someone who is a public affairs manager) Seeing how many Massachusetts companies compete with Microsoft, however, this seems a lot like naming a North Korean to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

What worries me is that the dems ....

[WindBourne]

could be as corrupt as the republicans. I find it funny that my Congressman (Tancredo) accused Miami of being a 3'rd world, when it would appear that our politicians are as corrupt as 3rd world (and that includes several from my state such as Tancredo and Musgrave). These new dems appear to be fighting any changes to the system that prevents such corruption. And now, it appears to include state govs.

MS Office Support on ODF

[Petrushka]

Just out of interest, in the last month or two Microsoft has actually put a note about OpenDocument support into their Office support pages. Notice how they insist on identifying it solely with a specific product (OpenOffice.org, whose name they get wrong). Their comments about why ODF is crap and MSXML is sweetness and light are also pretty ... partial, which isn't really surprising I suppose. More intriguing to me is how they basically say the whole debate is grandstanding by Sun (and not, say, something to do with public interest).

Why is Microsoft offering a new standard, rather than simply supporting the file format for the Open Office product (sometimes called ODF)?

The OpenDocument format would not meet requirements for backward compatibility, for forward compatibility, or for performance, that millions of Microsoft customers tell us that they require.

Sun submitted the OpenOffice formats to a small committee in the OASIS organization. The record shows that there were almost no material changes to the OpenOffice specification from the time it was submitted to the time it was approved by the working group at OASIS. Sun timed the release of the OpenDocument standard in conjunction with the OpenOffice 2.0 release. The OASIS committee did not focus on the requirements, constraints, and experiences of Microsoft customers.

The Microsoft OpenXML formats have had a number of unique design requirements, including the following:

• Backward compatibility with billions of documents produced over decades.
• Intrinsic support for integrating customer-defined XML data. This enables new levels of innovation as documents generate and transport information in unique XML styles not defined by Microsoft or the document standard, but defined by the business processes of an organization.
• High performance. The Microsoft OpenXML formats put a high priority on the speed of opening, closing, and working with documents, to roughly reflect or improve upon the performance of the past binary formats, rather than degrade the performance due to parsing XML.
• Robust Testing. The OpenXML formats for Microsoft Word and Excel have been part of Office 2003 and have undergone extensive real-world testing and usage, by customers and developers.

In conclusion, the formats are significantly different, with different design points and strengths.

What is the *point* of writing a document?

[Anonymous Coward]

To *communicate*.

But if the other person doesn't have a program that reads that document, you cannot communicate. Your document has failed.

That failure would be because of using a propriatory and changeable document format that the other people don't know how to read. This is not a problem if you use a standard document format that doesn't change based on monetary reasons. Like HTML or ODF. NOT like .DOC.

Which is why...

[jav1231]

Shit like this is why I cringe when Microsoft talks about competition and innovation. Two things they are quite unwilling to do.